Society and Morals. Part VIII. The Outlook of the Proletariat (Continued). (1918)

From the June 1918 issue of the Socialist Standard

Link to Part VIII.

Re-Birth of Unrest

The revival of trade union militancy which has taken place in recent years has its causes in those developments of capitalism we have previously outlined. The intense competition in the world markets which has supplanted the old-time “monopoly of Britain” made the employing class of all countries increasingly reluctant to concede even the least advances in wages. On the contrary, it stimulated the more general adoption of speeding-up methods and the wider use of the most perfect machinery. By depreciating the need for skill and increasing unemployment these factors led to a sharper competition for employment and tended to depress wages. The growth of trusts and of employers’ federations has enabled the capitalists to offer a more effective resistance to the unions, while on the other hand a progressive increase in the coat of living has proved a spur to working class unrest and organised activity, in spite of which real wages have continuously fallen.

In the last thirty years or so the strike policy has come again into favour, first among the newer and so-called unskilled unious, but later generally. Especially has this been so in the years immediately proceeding the outbreak of the war, during which period a continually growing unrest manifested itself among the workers in every part of the world. And it is probable also, that after the war militarism and capitalist “efficiency” will prove a further stimulant to working-class revolt, although, of course, the master class will make strenuous efforts to avoid industrial strife and suppress revolutionary propaganda.

To a certain extent a somewhat new outlook has been realised. The obvious dislike of the old-type officials and leaders to a militant policy and their love for the practice of “conferring” with the employers ; their compromising attitude and frequently proven treachery, have also led to much unfavourable criticism and to a decided weakening of their prestige. As a result many strikes have taken place in opposition to the desires of a compromising executive.

Moreover, the strong co-operation manifested among the masters in their determined efforts to resist and to break strikes, and particularly also the growing frequency with which they used their class weapon—the armed forces—to brutally coerce strikers into submission, brought about a decided tendency toward closer solidarity among the workers themselves. This is evidenced in the consolidation of various unions in the same field of production, in the spread of “sympathetic” strikes, and in the voluntary raising of funds by organised workers in support of disputes in which they themselves were not directly concerned.

Furthermore, the gradual decline of the industrial value of personal skill on the part of the employees, together with the need for “fighting” efficiency, has compelled the older “aristocratic” craft unions to recognise that their old-time method of conserving the strength of the unions by insisting upon special qualifications, including the prior serving of long apprenticeships, is both obsolete and futile. They have been forced more and more to adopt the method of the later “unskilled” unions who aim at including all those of a particular trade or industry within the organisation Consequently, “non-unionism” has become almost as great a crime in the eyes of the unionist as “blacklegging”—the worst delinquency in his moral code.

The same causes which fermented this revival in industrial strife also stimulated among the workers a livelier interest in politics which led to the formation of the Labour Party. The trade unions supported the project, and their leaders saw the possibility of political influence and office. The capitalist parties were cute enough to meet this new interest in political affairs by formulating delusive schemes of social reform to pacify and mislead the workers.

Moreover, having found the Labour Party leaders willing to play the same game, the bourgeoisie, especially the petty capitalist element, have given it no little amount of support. The Labour Party, dominated as it is by the reactionary leaders of trades unionism and men of the same stamp, to all of whom the notion of a class struggle is obnoxious, has consistently upheld capitalist principles, and is in reality only a bourgeois party with a “labour” label. Having achieved nothing of value for the workers it has become the butt of adverse criticism from the same elements as have shown independence and militancy on the industrial field.

                                                                       * * *

Thus far none of the movements mentioned above show any indication of being promoted by a full consciousness of proletarian interests. They register but the first stages of such a conception. The general mass of those who built up the strength both of the Chartist and of the trade union movement, saw and felt only their immediate sufferings and disabilities. The deep social causes from which these arose were mostly quite unrecognised. Consequently, no definite principles in opposition to capitalism were adopted by these movements, and no general code of proletarian ethics grew out of or with them.

Much the same applies to-day. The majority of the workers still accept the main dogmas of bourgeois orthodoxy. No doubt the trade unionist regards black-legging and non-unionism as bad and criminal whereas to the capitalist they are good and justifiable. Likewise extreme exploitation or “sweating” is abhorrent to the workers. Yet with regard to the existence of the wages system and of a profit-reaping class, the need for “national solidarity” in defence of “national interests,” and the like, the working-class mind is a faithful reflection of that bourgeois outlook which we considered in a previous section. Even where the workers do show a divergence of opinion upon Free Trade or Protection, Pacifism or Imperialism, these are manifestly but the effect of similar differences among the employing class and its retainers. That these contentions are correct is abundantly proven by the attitude the workers of every belligerent nation adopted upon the outbreak of the European War.

Nevertheless there does exist a school of thought and action which accurately reflects proletarian needs and interests, and therefore presents a true working-class system of morality, and this is the Socialist movement. Originating in, but toward the climax and close of the first period of working-class revolt, Socialism persisted and grew up, as it had to, independently of the several reformist and palliating movements, receiving a fresh impetus with the coming of the second period of activity now growing surely year by year among the workers of the world.

Our next and final consideration, therefore, will be Socialism in its relation to morality.

R. W. Housley

                                                                  (To be Continued.)

Scapegoats for the Labour leaders (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

For five years the Labour voters were very loyal to the government of their choice. Through a series of “crises” they patiently worked and waited for the better times they were told would soon be here. Then just as they were preparing to reap the reward they expected when they had delivered the stipulated production and “closed the dollar gap” they received an icy shock that changed their political outlook more than anything that had gone before. This was the Prime Minister’s curt announcement that a new round of austerity is on the way to provide for re-armament, the Korean war and the other wars that it is feared may follow. The new blow has brought to a head the cumulative effect of past disappointments, showing itself in a wave of wage demands and “unofficial ” strikes in disregard of the appeals of Ministers and Trade Union officials.

Workers are asking themselves whether the Labour Party is any better at keeping its pledges than were the Conservatives. Those who looked on the Labour Party as the enemy of conscription and armaments find themselves heading for a third world war. Those who wanted higher wages and lower prices are asked to be content with wage-restraint, a rising cost of living and demands for more sacrifices. Those workers who thought that nationalisation would solve their problems find that it makes no difference to them. Labourism has been tried and has failed but politicians do not easily reconcile themselves to losing office and power. The leaders are bewildered at the failure of their plans, and frightened as they find themselves caught up in capitalism’s swift descent towards war; but they do not yet despair. Like many a government before them they hope to be able to turn a critical situation to their own advantage. If the workers at home dislike the increase of fares, the rising cost of food, the extension of conscription to two years, the entry into the Korean War, the refusal to grant wage increases, perhaps their resentment can be turned away from its natural targets of capitalism and the Government that administers capitalism, and turned in another direction by a campaign against Russia and Communist agents.

It is all so easy—just as it was when the Tory Government worked it to the full during and after the first world war, and used it again to unseat the Labour Government in 1924.

Of course Russian State capitalism and Russian imperialism are evil things but so is capitalism and capitalist imperialism in Western Europe, Britain and America. And the Western Governments’ real objection to the Russian Government’s actions is only that of rival concerns in the same line of business. As Mr. Sefton Delmer, Daily Express correspondent, said in an interview with the Indian Prime Minister, Nehru;—

“We objected to Communism because the countries where it had established—itself mostly by force of arms or terrorism—had been closed to Western trade. This deprived both them and us of commodities essential to our prosperity and progress." (Daily Express, 19-9-50).

The other side of the picture is given by an article in the journal of the Czeckoslovak Ministry of Foreign Trade. (Quoted by the Manchester Guardian, 16-9-50). The Czeckoslovak Ministry’s article discloses that while they encourage the Russian move to promote strikes of dockers in the countries allied to America, on the ground of alleged sympathy with the dockers, at the same time the Ministry is urging foreign business men to send their cargoes through the strike-free ports of Poland and thus avoid hold-ups and consequent loss of profits. Under the East European capitalist dictatorship the dockers strike at their peril.

The British Labour leaders profess to be very much opposed to governmental regimentation of the workers as practised in these countries. Yet at the same time we have Mr. Deakin, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union demanding the suppression of the Communist Party and the Daily Worker (Manchester Guardian 18-9-50), Mr. Isaacs, Minister of Labour threatening legal action and if necessary legislation against the “promoters of illegal strikes” (Daily Herald 16-9-50). Meanwhile Scotland Yard are studying the activities of “Communist agitators”—“Blue print for the arrest of dangerous communists within a few hours, if empowered by legislation, is ready.” (Evening Standard, 18-9-50).

So, in the blessed name of freedom and democracy, the Labour Government prepare to bring British legislation and suppressive measures more closely into line with those of the dictatorship countries.

The position is so fantastic that we have Mr. Deakin, the servant of union members who pay their contributions to support an organisation for the purpose of making wage claims, denouncing Communists on the ground that “they were out to create and encourage wage claims and to use every possible opportunity to cause dislocation.” (At a Press Conference. Daily Telegraph, 19/9/50).

It is true that those who direct Communist policy are not interested in the welfare of the working class being concerned to exploit discontent in order to help Russia, but the discontent exists and will go on expressing itself no matter what the Communists do and even if they are suppressed.

Past experience should warn the Labour leaders of the likely outcome of the policy they contemplate. From 1917 onwards the charge of being pro-German or “Red Agents” was made against all who were critical of the war and all who took part in strikes, and among the results was that more and more workers gave their support to Ramsay MacDonald and Snowden and to trade unionists like Smillie, Williams and Arthur Cook who were thus enabled to gain popularity at the expense of the old leaders. Eventually the workers discontent exploded in the General Strike of 1926. Since the rise of the new men did not mean progress towards the only solution—the replacement of capitalism by Socialism—it only led to further disillusionment and in that respect also a repetition of the process now will be merely another phase of misdirected work and purposeless suffering by the working class.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain will continue to urge the workers of the need to rid themselves of the delusion that Labour Party or Communist Party administered capitalism can solve their problems; also of the need to retain their trade union weapon, the strike, and above all of the need to recognise that only through a world wide movement to establish Socialism can their emancipation be brought about.

A Socialist Survey. (1911)

From the October 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. F. Townsend Martin, a wealthy member of American society, and a brother of Mr. Bradley Martin, the multi-millionaire, has written a book entitled : “The Passing of the Idle Rich,” in which he says : “I know society, I was born in it and have lived in it all my life both here and in the capitals of Europe.” Further on he tells us that:

“Somewhere there is something wrong. I speak as a rich man. I speak as a representative of the class of which I write and to which, in particular I address myself. We can no longer blind ourselves with idle phrases or drug our consciences with the outworn boast that the working man of America is to-day the highest-paid artizan in the world. We know those lying figures well. Many a time I myself in personal argument, have shown that the American workman receives from one and a half to three times as much as his English cousin at the same trade ; but we know now that it means nothing. . . .

We are learning, too, that what we give our workers is wages we take back from them in the higher cost of necessities, in food, in clothing, in medicine, in insurance—in a hundred devious ways, all with one tendency—to keep the living margin down.”

“O most learned judge,” there is something wrong, and the only curious factor in the above is its source. The determined stand made, for a time, by the workers of different parts of the world, has forced upon the notice of others besides our worthy American, the fact that while the great mass of the working class are prepared to suffer in silence, there is yet a little spirit remaining which may burst into a blaze at some inconvenient moment, to the detriment of that superstructure of society which gives to the “idle rich” so good a living for so little exertion.

                                                                            * * *

Dr. Gore, late Bishop of Birmingham, in a letter to the “clergy and laity” of that city, informs us that “the profound sense of unrest and dissatisfaction among the workers” is genuine.

“We are not justified,” he says, “in tolerating the conditions of life and labour under which the vast mass of our population is living. We have no right to say that these conditions are not remediable. Preventible lack of equipment among the young, and later the insecurity of employment and inadequacy of remuneration, and consequent destitution and semi-starvation among so many of our people, ought to inspire in all Christians a profound and passionate determination to devote themselves to the reform of our industrial system.”

That eminently respectable organ, the “Pall Mall Gazette,” tells us that

“Unrest among large bodies of men is not scientifically explained by ascribing it all to the depravity or agitators, and in the case of the railwaymen, as we have repeatedly affirmed, there are deeper causes in the general economic condition of the country which it is futile to ignore. British working men would not surrender themselves to the irrational and discreditable impulses which have had such free play during the last few weeks, unless there were forces at work to throw them off their balance, and those forces can easily be discerned in the rise of prices and the consequent fall in ‘real’ wages.”

and if the testimony of the “democratic” “Star” can add weight to that of so respectable a witness, it tells us (20.9.11) that we have certain facts to face.

“Just as France and Germany, Austria and Spain have got to face them. All over Europe the people are in revolt against the lowness of wages and the dearness of food. It is foolish to imagine that unrest which is caused by permanent and deep-seated economic causes can be allayed by harsh words and stern discipline.

“The Labor problem is a problem of flesh and blood. It is producing riots in France, in Austria, and in Spain. Everywhere the people are in rebellion against the conditions of their existence.”

The “Morning Leader” (same date) says :

“That labor is grossly ill-organised and under-paid ; that the conditions under which great masses of laborers live are a disgrace to our civilisation ; that industrialism, which has opened to the wealthier classes endless sources of pleasure and luxury never dreamt of by their grandfathers, has robbed the worker’s life for the most part even of the little patches of color and brightness it had in slower, easier days, and even where he gets more money has made him pay for it dearly in the drab monotony of his toil—all these things are very well known. No one questions them.”

* * *

The cause of the unrest so candidly admitted is that the wage of the worker does not rise in correspondence to the increased price of necessaries, and the increased cost of production of the worker, who, toiling under high pressure and producing more and more rapidly, requires a greater amount of food, both physical and mental, to maintain him in the requisite condition for the modern wage slave.

To again quote Mr, Martin :

“I cannot go down through the crowded tenement settlement sections of our great cities without having it borne in upon me that we, as a nation, pay a fearful price in human blood and tears for our industrial triumphs. For the grim fact stands out beyond denial that the men who are the workers of the nation, and the women and the children dependent upon them, are not to day given the opportunities that are their proper birthright in free America ; and that, struggle as they will, save as they may, lift their voices in protest as they dare, they cannot obtain from our industrial hierarchy much more than a living wage.”

* * *

When will the workers recognise that they are but merchandise ? When will they see those stubborn facts with which they are faced ? They can but get a bare sufficiency to enable them to produce wealth for the “idle rich,” who, with all their “good intentions,” are impelled by necessity, in order to maintain their supremacy, to keep down wages and to prevent the toiling masses from raising their standard of comfort. In every branch of industry the same effect is being felt: the necessity on the part of the workers to strike and of the masters to resist their demands. That nationalisation is a cure is easily refuted. Mr. Cheesman, Secretary of the Fawcett Association, seen by a representative of the “Daily News,” said :

“The discontent is very general, and arises primarily from the refusal of the Postmaster General to reopen the question of the improvement of the conditions in regard to wages, especially in view of the increased cost of living and the great length of lime that has elapsed since the wages were last adjusted. The National Committee is forced to take action owing to the general discontent, and not from any desire on their part to take advantage of the present unrest in the labour world.”

These men are working in an industry that has been nationalised, and to add force to the argument that conditions there are at least as bad as in any private concern, Mr. Cheesmsn adds :

“The seriousness of the situation i.e. emphasised by the speeding-up that has taken place during recent years in the various departments. Indeed, the conditions in many cases have become almost unbearable, and the great plague of the postal service, consumption, is being replaced by an even greater evil, nervous breakdown.”

So the postman’s reward—bunions and consumption—is increased by the sporting chance of a padded cell as a rest cure.

The “Daily News” (5.9.11) contains “An Interview with a typical Barman,” who, after describing his daily “life” (which is, according to the scribe, a “dismal, soul-destroying round of duty”) says:

“We want to establish a sixty-hour week and one compulsory day’s holiday in seven. We also demand an increase in the rate of pay, since we receive at present about 1½d. per hour for labour.”

* * *

I can fittingly conclude with the final statement of Mr. Martin in the book above mentioned :

“It cannot be for long. The days of the idle rich in America are as a tale that is told. Idleness is doomed as a vocation. We in America are fast moving toward social revolution. Conflicts between labour and capital are assuming the proportions of civil war. The once powerful middle class, which is the safety of every nation, is to day weak, and is every day declining. Soon, politically it will be a memory, and the battle-field will be cleared for conflict. . . . Instead of being the roof and crown of things, the wealthy class in America to-day has sunk to the level of the parasite. The time has come when the producing classes are about to bring it to judgment.”

Let the workers of Great Britain determine that when that day comes they will not be far behind their American cousins.

Twel.

How to end the rail strike (1994)

From the September 1994 issue of the Socialist Standard

A strike is not an act of nature, like a thunder storm or an earthquake. There were no strikes in the earliest human communities, when goods were held in common and no person worked as an employee of another. Fred Flintstone might have had trouble with his boss, but in the real Stone Age work was not conducted on the basis of exploiter and exploited, and the real Fred Flintstone would have been as baffled by such absurdities as working for wages as he would be by Hollywood cinematography. 

The strike is a result of an antagonism between two interests: employers and employees. The employer needs to pay the lowest wages or salaries possible in order to maximise profits. The employee, having no interest in the act of employment besides the money that can be obtained, seeks the highest wage or salary for the job.

The explanation of this antagonism lies in a brief examination of the nature of wages and salaries. These are, in fact, prices. They are the price paid by the employer for the labour power of the worker. A capitalist will only pay this price on one condition: that he expects the value of the worker's product to be greater than the wage or salary' paid. In short, capitalists only buy labour power if it will produce for them unearned income (surplus value) which is over and above its ow n value. So, contrary to the illusion that the boss gives his workers a wage or salary, the truth is that the workers give the capitalists a free gift (surplus value which is the basis of profit) and the wages/salaries paid are merely the part of what is created by the workers which is not stolen by the employer. To thank a boss for your wage is like sending a thank-you letter to a burglar who steals everything from your home and then leaves you a fiver to buy yourself a second-hand armchair.

Exploitation

Why do workers put up with this exploitative situation of constantly giving more to the employers than we are given back in the form of wages or salaries? The answer is simple: under capitalism we have no choice but to work for those who own the means of wealth production and distribution, i.e factories, farms, mines, railways, airlines, the media etc. The only productive resource workers own is our labour power, our mental and physical energies. Selling these for the best price we can obtain is our means of paying for the necessities, and occasionally luxuries, of life. Given that we cannot live on share interest or profits from employing others (because we lack capital), our only option is to try to sell our one possession of value: our labour power. We are wage slaves.

If the market creates a high demand for labour power workers are in a good bargaining position over wages and salaries. This is often so in a time of economic expansion, when both skilled and unskilled workers are scarce and capitalists, in order to receive their golden eggs, must pay the geese well. Often they will even seek to recruit labour power from overseas, as Enoch Powell did as Minister of Health when he urged West Indians to come to Britain and take low-paid jobs. Right now the market is far from expanding. There is an economic depression, millions are unemployed and the bosses have more supply of labour power available than they demand to make profits.

In the current situation, not only in Britain but across the globe, the capitalists can afford to be very arrogant. They will shed jobs, force workers to accept worse conditions, longer hours, fewer safety regulations and, above all, lower wages and salaries. In a market which offers wage slaves the simple choice between low wages or no wages workers tend to knuckle under.

The best way for workers to defend themselves is to form trades unions. Originally these were seen by the bosses as a threat and those joining them were deported (the Tolpuddle Martyrs) or outlawed in other ways. By uniting workers in a particular place of work or type of occupation unions could say to the employers that either certain demands must be accepted or the workers would withdraw their labour — strike. This is the most powerful defensive weapon which workers have under a system of wage slavery. It will not stop us from being wage slaves, but it can improve our conditions of exploitation.

Class Struggle

In this century two false beliefs associated with trade unionism have emerged. The first is that strikes can somehow overthrow capitalism. This is all nonsense: when workers decide to get rid of capitalism we will not withdraw our labour, but withdraw the capitalists' right to buy it. Striking is not a revolutionary strategy. The second fallacy adopted by some trade unionists, especially those with jobs within the union hierarchy, is to accept that employers and employees have a common interest. British union leaders under Labour governments have been especially willing to accept this illusion, particularly when state-run industries meant that strike action would place their members in conflict with a Labour-run state. These leaders are usually rewarded with well-paid retirements in the House of Lords. But the fact is that workers and capitalists can have no common interest. We are class enemies.

A more recent fallacy is that the class struggle is all a thing of the past. Strikes were once useful, but now workers have been "tamed" and outgrown such disruptive practices. It is quite true that in a recession unions are limited in their capacity to obtain improved wages and conditions, and that after several years of sustained attacks on trade unionism (not just in Britain, but across the world) many unions are demoralised, depleted and legally weakened. But the class struggle has not gone away; the struggle of the RMT against RailTrack is clear proof that strikes can still be used as a powerful weapon to force the bosses to retreat. If the Railtrack employers had accepted the original pay settlement without a strike they would have lost hugely less profits than has since been the case. The more united striking workers are the greater the chance of victory. This is why strikes should always be conducted democratically, for willing strikers will fight longer and harder than workers pushed into a strike by union leaders. Working class unity is also important because the bosses will always seek to bribe scabs to fill in for union workers, so weakening the effects of the strike.

Socialists recognise the important need for workers to be in unions. Not just to be in them, but to participate democratically. The unions must not be hijacked by would be Lords who use them to create a spurious class unity or by muddled leftists who use workers' struggles for their own ends. When there is a strike which is on sound class lines and democratically organised, socialists are always on the side of the strikers and against the employers and their hirelings, the scabs.

End Wage-slavery

We do not leave the class struggle there. Unlike those leftist groups which imagine that fighting the class war is the be all and end all of working class action, socialists maintain that fighting over terms of wage slavery, while necessary, is ultimately futile. The aim to struggle for is to end wage slavery and with it the class struggle.

We have stated that in pre-property society there was common ownership of resources and no employment. Socialists are not calling for a return to those times, but for the creation of those social relationships in the setting of current technological development. In short, we are not opposed to modern production, which is now capable of producing enough for all, but to modern relations of production. The objective, then, is to abolish the minority class ownership of the means of producing and distributing wealth and replace this with common ownership and democratic control on the basis of production solely for use, not for sale or profit.

Do socialists want more strikes? No, we do not. The strike is essentially a feature of the waste caused by capitalism. Who wants trains standing still when there are places for people to go and goods to be moved? In a socialist society, where wage labour will be a thing of the past, there will be no reason to strike, for each of us will work according to our abilities and take from the common store according to our needs.

There will be those who say that this is too much to hope for. But what is the alternative? Years of workers striking and struggling over crumbs from the cake which we have baked. Is it not time to seek more then crumbs or even a bigger slice of the cake and go for the bakery itself?

Steve Coleman

Mr. Dooley on Strikes. (1911)

 From the March 1911 issue of the Socialist Standard

“I see the sthrike has been called off,” said Mr. Hennessy. “Which wan?” asked Mr. Dooley. “I can’t keep track iv thim. Somebody is sthrikin’ all th’ time. Th’ Brotherhood iv Molasses Candy Pullers sthrikes, an’ th’ Amalgamated Union iv Pickle Sorters quits in sympathy. Th’ carpinter that has bin puttin’ up a chicken coop f’r Hogan knocked off wurruk whin he found Hogan was shaviti’ himself without a card fr’m the Barbers’ Union. Hogan fixed it with th’ walkin’ dillygate iv th’ barbers, an’ the carpinter quit wurruk because he found Hogan was wearin’ a pair iv nonunion pants. Hogan wint down town an’ had his pants unionised an’ come home to find th’ carpinter had sthruck because Hogan’s hens were layin’ eggs without th’ union label. Hogan injooced th’ hens to jine th’ union. But wan iv thim laid an egg two days in succission, an’ th’ others sthruck.”

Blogger's Note:

"Mr. Dooley (or Martin J. Dooley) is a fictional Irish immigrant bartender created by American journalist and humorist Finley Peter Dunne . . . " For more information, keep reading . . . 

Labour and Wages. (1914)

From the August 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

Some Weird Statements dealt with.

In the second number of the “Candid, Quarterly Review,” conducted by Mr. Thomas Gibson Bowles, appears an unsigned article with the above title. The writer raises the question of industrial disputes, proclaims the necessity for close and deep investigation, and yet throughout the article never once tackles any essential or goes below the surface.

According to him, “the doubts and difficulties that haunt society to-day are of foreign extraction, and were in danger of destruction when crossing the Channel, but survived.” That there was no necessity for “labour unrest” to cross the Channel is shown in his next paragraph, the customary reference to “England’s immunity from war during the early portion of the nineteenth century, and her consequent growth of manufacture,” conditions which, in themselves, breed the class struggle. “The industrial dispute threatens England’s supremacy ; yet perhaps a greater glory awaits her. Perhaps, amid a Europe weakened by class hatred and torn by labour convulsions, England may again show the world a way of social peace.” The writer forgets that the conditions that breed class hatred on the Continent exist here in the same degree and from the same cause. The capitalist can only wish that a way may be discovered. His time-server, whether he be economist, labour leader, Salvationist, or scientist, can only grope for a capitalist solution as the alchemist groped for the philosopher’s store. But while they flounder their time grown short. They may shirk the contest with the Marxian theory of value, or refer to the Socialist Party as an insignificant minority, but and here we quote from the “Review” : “In economics there is at least this merit about the truth—that, once proclaimed, it is sure in the end to prevail.”

In order to prove to the workers that the “Socialist claim that they are being exploited is false, they must be taught economics.” No longer can this be designated the dismal science, for we are assured : “It is a mistake to suppose that the working-men take no interest in economics. It would be more nearly the truth to say that, at this moment they take little interest in anything else.” If “the truth once proclaimed is sure to prevail,” then capitalism is indeed on its last legs, for economic truth is proclaimed in “Capital,” and it in only an interested working class we wait for.

The capilalist and his journalistic hacks will consequently wish and grope in vain for a way out. It is utterly futile, also, to write of the Socialist movement as “the sedulous propaga­tion of economic falsehood,” because a fallacy can be exploded, while this braggart can only dance round the supposed fallacy, and leave a record of his utter inability to even understand the subject.

“The whole industrial system is arraigned. Capitalism is cheating, exploitation,” says he, is the doctrine taught. “It is their business to prove it, yet this is exactly what they never do.” “They,” are, doubtless, the labour leaders who either cannot or will not expose the system that fosters them, being content to mouth beliefs, and empty appeals for “justice” and “fairness.” “What,” asks the writer, “is the fair share of labour in the product of any industry ? if the present wage, then there is no grievance. Then it must be something more. But how much more ? No answer to these questions is ever attempted,” he complains, “except by the full-blooded Socialist.” Of whom else would he expect an answer ?

Wealth, in the economic sense, has no existence until members of the working class have expended their energy on the different substances common to the earth’s crust. That these substances belong to a small class in society, does not necessarily raise the question, “what is a fair wage ?” but rather, why any class or section of society should own the means of life necessary to all ? The “full-blooded Socialist” knows the answer to this; that is why he is politically organised for the establishment of a system of society where the means of wealth production will be owned and democratically controlled by those who use them.

The “Review,” in common with all the anti-Socialist crowd, is particularly concerned that the workers, under Socialism, shall be treated with fairness—even as they are to-day. So they timorously advance certain “insoluble questions.”

“Is the whole product of a factory only to be shared between the workers in that factory ? or is it to be shared by all the workers in the land ? And is each workman to share equally, irrespective of merit, or unequally ? And if the latter, on what principle and by what authority are the shares to be assessed? ”

A five shilling review is dear at the price if it can serve up nothing better than this in defence of the class it caters for.

Ownership being in the hands of the people, there will the authority be, and the common in­terest of all, asserting itself, will speedily put an end to the anomalies of capitalist authority. “Fair” wages and low wages, soft jobs and speeding up, poverty in the midst of plenly, and all the other abuses that belong to capitalism in its normal state, will end when the working class cease to be mere articles of merchandise, picked and kicked about the labour market.

The “Candid” journalist has also many doubts and misgivings on the terms “The right to live” and “A living wage.” He discusses these from many points of view, his perhaps, most brilliant and original remark being, “for happiness and influence in truth, do not depend on gold.” After this and much more irrelevant matter on rights and duties, he delivers himself of the following : “Wages are neither fair nor unfair ; they are fixed either by personal benevolence or by mercantile bargain.” As he cannot possibly claim benevolence for the employer who pays low wages, it follows that those who receive high wages are the recipients of charity. “Wages are neither fair nor unfair,” is where he should have stopped, for, so far, he had not blundered.

Wage is the name for the price of labour power. Whether the wage be high or low there can be no question of fairness, because the employing class having the power, dictate wages and conditions. They first divorce the workers from the means of life, in order to compel them to sell their energy at the cost of living.

But what is the difference between the cost of living of the working class, as represented by wages, and the total wealth produced by them ? Whether wages represent one-third or one-ninth it is obvious that the employing class only pay wages in order to obtain this surplus over the cost of maintenance of the working class. How then can wages be fair or unfair ?

The wages system is one where the workers are threatened with starvation, either if they will not or cannot sell their only possession—the value-creating energy—for a mess of pottage ; and that too, adulterated.

“Let us probe a little more deeply the allegation that the workman is being cheated.” The reader need not fear getting out of his depth, Needless to say, the writer of the article merely emphasises certain inconsistencies and peculiarities of the capitalist system, without proving anything except its utter absurdity as a system for intelligent people to live under. Like the hysterical suffragette, he runs away from the question he raises, and flogs something else to hide his cowardice. “A universal proportion of wages to profits.” The wages bill in some industries is, he says, higher than the profits. “Moreover, inequalities exist side by side in the same industries in the amount of profit.” These observations are as old as they are shallow—examples of the poverty of argument against Socialism. The depths are not probed, for the total profits of every concern are not considered ; and this would have been the surest way to ascertain whether the working class is robbed.

It is easy to see that in a competitive system differences in methods and management will produce different results. All that is proved is the inability of the capitalist class—with the assistance of politicians, economists, and scientists—to eliminate anarchy among themselves, and establish for themselves proportionate division of the spoil, by means of an even method of exploitation.

Any article on labour questions would, of course, be incomplete without a reference to co-partnership. The “candid” writer is candid, besides being illuminating and instructive. He says:

“Co-partnership has been universally successful in achieving peace . . . and the striking thing is that it has achieved this peace without any great or even any noticeable increase in the wages paid. For it must be remembered that the income which a workman under such a scheme derives from his share in the profits is necessarily a very slight part of the whole wage, and that largely owing to the liability of that share to suffer in yield in bad times, his total effective wage is no greater than that of his fellows outside. But he is content because he has been convinced that he is not being robbed. How can he be when he elects a delegate to the board and has some actual voice in the management ? It is clear, therefore, that the achievement of industrial peace is less a matter of raising wages than of convincing the workman that he is not being robbed. But as the workman (quite properly) will never consent to share in losses, its application is only possible to steadily successful concerns ; it is never-the-less to be heartily welcomed as a temporary expedient of the highest value.”

Quite a long paragraph, by the way, but reduced to simple language, it means that co-partnership workers, besides being robbed of the results of their labour—like other workers—are successfully bluffed as well.

Assuming that he has proved conclusively that the workers are not robbed, because some of them have been persuaded to believe so, the writer of the article next proceeds to show in what an Eldorado the worker really lives, according to his limited knowledge of actual conditions. Our author says :

“It is true that the individual workman without savings must sell his labour without undue delay ; he is not bound to sell it to the first bidder. His strength as a bargainer depends partly on his reputation and skill as a craftsman, but mainly upon that close competition among his possible employers, which will enable him to laugh at one who offers him too low a wage.”

A record of the number of such “laughs” would doubtless be interesting ; but if it is true that occasionally a worker “with savings” can afford to pass by a job, it is equally true that the vast majority cannot, and are compelled to resign themselves to the first situation that is vacant, without bargaining or discussion—which, to the capitalist, is impudence.

Next we have something that is profound and original. The real cause of strikes is the desire of the trade unionist to get back the money he has paid in contributions. “After wages,” he says, “have ruled high enough for long enough, a strike is nearly inevitable ; since only so can the men retouch their money.” What capacity for the detection of motives !

Then the scribe says : “In spite of all the theories of combination, one is always brought down to the individual workman. Is he or is he not to be forced, by the magistrate and the gaol, to work for wages which he himself does not approve ? If so it is slavery.”

This statement is clear and sweeping. It covers nearly the whole of the working class in every capitalist country on the globe. Discontent is universal. The workers in every occupation are slaves because at the bidding of the master class they must work for a mere subsist­ence—a wage they certainly do not “approve” of.

Throughout his long article the writer in the “Candid Review” has only succeeded in proving the incapacity of the capitalist class, with all their professional assistants, to run society on sane lines. Anarchy and poverty for the wealth producers, luxury and power for the idlers, are the nett result of capitalism. The only brilliant achievement of modern society is its marvellous productive and distributive power, developed by centuries of experiment and invention ; and these are due to the working class. It is they who have done everything useful. It is they who use energy and intelligence in the production of all social wealth.

The scribbler in the “Candid Review” says that the workingman should remember that the end of his discontent is not the improvement of wages, but the fall of society, and if at the end of it all society does fall he will be instantly buried in its ruins.

We know different. The intelligence and capacity displayed by the workers on the field of production can be utilised by them for other purposes. When they have added knowledge to their intelligence they will establish a system of society where they will consume what they produce. Production is difficult; to consume is easy. To establish Socialism, it is true, requires an effort, of which, however, an educated working class is easily capable. The fall of (capitalist) society—which cannot take place until the workers are educated—therefore, means the end of their slavery.

F. Foan

Recent books on trade unions (1973)

Book Reviews from the December 1973 issue of the Socialist Standard

Strike at Pilkingtons by Tony Lane and Kenneth Roberts. Fontana. 50p.

Ford Strike by John Matthews. Panther. 40p.

Trade Unions ed. by W. E. J. McCarthy Penguin, 60p 

Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism by Richard Hyman. Pluto Press.

Strikes by Richard Hyman. Fontana. 50p.

The New Militants by Paul Ferris. Penguin. 25p.

The increased trade union militancy of recent years has brought a rash of books on the subject. Of these listed above the one by Paul Ferris is a short and very readable journalistic account of meetings with various union leaders such as Scanlon, Jones and Daly.

The first two books describe two particular strikes, the unofficial seven-week strike at Pilkington glass works in St. Helens in 1970 and the official strike at Fords in 1971. Of the two Lane and Roberts’ is by far the better. Matthews sees only four parties involved: the unions, the rank and file, the employers and the government. In other words, he uncritically accepts the shop stewards’ claims that they represent the ‘rank and file’; indeed that they are the rank and file. In fact, however, though at times they may more faithfully represent the ordinary worker than the official union they too are just as much a minority leadership group. They are no more the rank and file than are the full-time union officials, but are essentially one of two rival groups seeking the leadership and support of the rank and file. This is fully recognised by Lane and Roberts.

The men at Pilkingtons were members of the General and Municipal Workers Union, one of the most bureaucratic and conservative unions. In April 1970 the men went on spontaneous unofficial strike, ostensibly over a wage miscalculation. The union told them to go back to work, but the strikers’ demands soon escalated to a claim, for a £10 wage increase. The union did in fact manage to get them a £3 increase (a sign of how it had failed in its job over the years of course). This wasn’t enough for the strikers, at least for some of them. A Rank and File Strike Committee (RFSC) kept the strike going in face of the opposition of the GMWU.

Lane and Roberts paint a sympathetic picture of the members of this Committee: they weren’t seasoned militants but ordinary workers who suddenly found themselves in the unexpected role of strike leaders. But the two authors don’t let this sympathy cloud their judgement. They recognised that after the union had negotiated the £3 increase a majority of the men, a small majority, but still a majority, wanted to return to work. Why then did the strike continue for another four weeks? Because, argue Lane and Roberts, those who wanted to continue the strike were better organised and led by the RFSC.

The GMWU would have been the natural organiser and leader of those who wanted to return to work, but it had been completely discredited by its role at the beginning of the strike. It was widely held to have let down its members. They, it was felt, had been paying dues to the union as a kind of insurance for just such a situation as happened at the beginning of the strike. “Something went wrong” but, instead of the union supporting its members, it told them to go back to work. The members, understandably felt betrayed; in fact they were betrayed. Hence the RSFC emerged as an alternative organisation which the workers turned to.

In the end the superior resources and skill of the GMWU leaders led to the defeat of the amateurs of the RFSC. The men went back to work for £3 a week extra, though with a pledge of no victimisation. The RSFC then made the mistake of organising a rival Glass and General Workers Union. This provided the GMWU with an excuse to deal with them. With the help of Pilkingtons the Glass Workers union was crushed and most of its members lost their jobs.

The Pilkingtons' strike, as can be seen, raised many issues of trade union tactics—democracy, strike ballots, unofficial committees, breakaway unions—all of which are intelligently discussed by Lane and Roberts. In fact it is an excellent book and essential reading for those who want to understand trade unionism, its uses and limitations.

Trade Unions, edited by W. E. J. McCarthy, is a collection of readings for management students, but it still contains material of interest to Socialists. The picture emerges of trade unions as bureaucratic organisations trying to defend the wages and working conditions of their members. "The aim of the union”, says one author, “is to primarily to benefit the group of workers concerned, rather than the workers as a whole or society as a whole”. Writes another, “Most unions seem to have come into being originally as defensive organisations to preserve a standard already enjoyed”. Both views we ourselves have often made. The unionization of an industry is estimated to have had a once-for-all effect of raising wages by 10 to 15 per cent, but thereafter to have maintained them at the same level. This would fit in with Marx’s view that at best all unions could do was to ensure that their members got paid the value of their labour power and that without unions employers would drive wages down below this level. The 10 to 15 per cent would presumably be the measure of the extent to which this had happened.

Marx’s views on unions, together with those of Lenin, Trotsky and Michels, is the subject of one of Hyman’s books. Apart from the conclusion—Hyman is a member of IS and seems to favour creeping ‘workers management of production’—this is a useful book which discusses the various different and contradictory (employers need unions to discipline and regulate their work force) roles played by the unions. Hyman’s book on strikes, however, is not so good. The obscure sociological jargon and hundreds of references make it difficult reading. Nevertheless, if you wade through it you’ll get a more accurate picture of strikes than you get in the press or on television.

None of these books state the attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain on trade unionism (though they do provide evidence to confirm its correctness): trade unions are essentially only defensive organisations whose actions should be supported insofar as they perform this job of defending working class living standards, but whose other activities in support of capitalism—co-operating with employers or governments or reformist parties—should be opposed along with any manifestations of the narrow sectionalism to which they are inevitably prone.

Adam Buick

Nods to the Blind . . . . (1912)

From the July 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the 15th of the present month that famous scientific scheme of exploitation known as the National Insurance Act will come into operation. Most of its objections having been “overcome,” it only remains to apply the “technical adjustments,” then will the much-to-be-envied working class enjoy the fruits of “one of the greatest Socialistic measures that has ever been placed before the House,” as one Labour faker has it.

As to who will ultimately benefit by this “Socialistic” measure, it needs very little analysing to show. It will be the employing class and not the workers. In fact this is admitted, as one will find on reading the daily papers. Here is an instance. At the annual meeting of Messrs. Wilkins, fruit growers and preservers, Tiptree Heath, Essex, held in April, the announcement was made that the firm had decided to pay the whole of the contributions of the workpeople under the National Insurance Act. It was stated that this action would cost the firm £300 a year, but the directors considered they would be well repaid by the increased efficiency of their employees !

Both the I.L.P. and the Labour Party claim credit for having forced this “Socialistic” piece of legislation. If these parties are anxious to take the credit for having helped to impose a fraudulent Act upon the working class, then, I say, by all means let ’em have it !

* * *

At the time of writing these notes the transport workers’ strike is in a very precarious condition. As one followed the various phases one could not help being struck by the pitiful helplessness of the whole thing. The sudden order to “down tools” ; the hasty joining together of forces ; the procession of 100,000 men to demonstrate the “omnipotent power” of the workers ; the impassioned harangues of the “leaders” ; the negotiation that led to nothing ; the intervention of the Government; the stinging rebuff by the masters ; the final surrender of the strike leaders by offering to provide a monetary guarantee of their good behaviour if only they were permitted to return to work: all these go to show the utter futility of the versatile tactics of Tillett & Co. So long as the workers both inside and outside of the unions are led by the nose from one position to another and back again, so long will it spell disaster for them. Having regard to the increasing strength of the employers’ combinations, it follows that the workers will have to take a clearer and more comprehensive view of their position.

* * *

Sir E. Clarke was compelled to admit during the course of the negotiations that, whereas the men had broken agreements on two points—apparently through a misunderstanding—the masters had deliberately broken agreements on five points, and made a profit out of it !

He might have added that the masters will continue to make agreements, and break them as fast as they are made.

* * *

The hostility of the master class is directed against trade unionism, not because of its present ineffective policy, but because of the ultimate possibility of it becoming politically enlightened through the permeation in its ranks of class-conscious, revolutionary Socialism. The master class are already class conscious—that is, conscious of the interest of their class—and they will resist to the utmost any encroachment upon their privileges. Hence their fierce endeavour to crush all attempts at working-class organisation. Such attitude is exemplified in a speech, made by Dr. Harrison, J.P., at Garstang (5.6.12). In dealing with the Transport Workers strike he is reported to have said :

“I would use the police to the utmost limit and if they were not enough I would employ the armed forces of the Crown to shoot down the peaceful picketers like dogs ” !

There is a brutal frankness about it which should not be lost upon the workers. It is not surprising as it is typical of the class whose representative and mouthpiece he is. All the same it is useful in that it helps to point out what the S.P.G.B. has consistently pointed out for years,—that there can be no compromise or conciliation between the two classes—that it is war to the death.

* * *

Replying to Mr. H. G. Wells apropos of his article on “What Labour Wants” (quoted “Daily News” 5.6.12.), Mr. John Ward, MP remarks: “I am bound to say that I have never in all my experience met with any evidence of jealousy on the part of the working classes in reference to the employment (!) of the wealthy. All the elaborate pictures of envy, hatred, and uncharitableness are practically the outcome of the imagination. In their special way the working people get as much pleasure out of life as the wealthier classes.”

Of course they do ! The pleasure is all theirs, John. And believe me, they haven’t a bit of thought for the rich. Look what ingratitude they show when the rich come along and offer to share their profits with them, or take them into partnership. It really isn’t good enough John, and I’m glad you’ve had the courage to speak your mind. Look at the fun they’ve been having just lately—going on strike, fighting inoffensive bobbies, upsetting the equilibrium of trade, in fact, playing the very devil generally. Of course, it’s all a part of their pleasure “in their special way.” When they are not having fun of this description I suppose they are busy with motor-cars, their yachting trips and their racing stables, which they quite overlook the cares and responsibilities that the unfortunate rich are compelled to undergo. You see, John, the question of what to do with their income is such a serious one, they haven’t time to spare a thought for anyone but themselves. Selfishness, of course. But the time is coming, John, when the rich will be relieved of their “employment” and its consequent anxieties and responsibilities, and given a rest. In fact, I believe the need for them will be abolished altogether. So you can console yourself, John, with the thought that their woes will soon be over. I can assure you they’ll get all that’s coming to them.

* * *

An amusing feature of the recent bye-election in the Holmfirth Division was the similarity of the election addresses of the Liberal and the Labour candidates—both standing for practically the same thing. Amusement gives way to disgust, however, when we reflect that the Labour candidate was ostensibly there in the interest of the working class. But experience of this type of political representation only shows that it is the Liberals that they really represent and whose interests they serve.

Some of the items included in the programs were Home Rule, Free Trade, Welsh Disestablishment, no taxes on foodstuffs, Adult Suffrage and Nationalisation of Mines—none of which can affect the worker’s position, except, perhaps, to make it worse.

Unfortunately it is still possible to capture a large portion of the working-class vote by the dissemination of this labour-faking rubbish. Spread the light !

* * *

Owing to the monopoly by about two companies of the petrol supply of this country the price of petrol has risen 50 per cent. in twelve months, with the result that the small dealers and consumers are in a state of “unrest.” Various schemes have been suggested in order to prevent the big robbers from taking too much plunder. The “Autocar” suggests the question of petrol production “is now a matter of national importance and should therefore be undertaken by the nation.” The “Daily Mail” (11.6.12) says : “Even if it meant going into production, refining, transport, and distribution is not the great body of motorists rich enough to do this for its own profit ?”

The chameleon like “Daily Herald” refers to it editorially as “the latest trend towards Socialism,” but to me it seems only to show that when the interests of one section of the buccaneering class are threatened by another, they are prepared to adopt co-operation, nationalisation, or any other proposition providing only that it pays.

* * *

In the biography of the late King Edward by Sir Sidney See, just issued, there occurs the following passage:

“King Edward cannot be credited with the greatness that comes of Statesmanship and makes for the moulding of history. Neither the Constitutional checks on his power nor his discursive tastes and training left him much opportunity for influencing political affairs. No originating faculty can be assigned to him. For the most part he stood with Constitutional correctness aloof from the political arena at home. On questions involving large principles he held no very definite views. He preferred things to remain as they were. … A man of the world he lacked the intellectual equipment of a thinker, and showed on occasion an unwillingness to exert his mental powers.”

Yet this is the person whom Blatchford—on the occasion of his eulogy of King Edward VII. (“Clarion” 20.5.10)—had in mind when he said the nation needed a man !

* * *

At the recent conference of the Church Socialist League at Bristol a delegate defined Socialism as “the economics of God” ! Shade of Marx ! I always did think their policy was of the “Ignis fatuus” order !

Father Bernard Vaughan laments that under Socialism “there wouldn’t be enough money to go round.” The inference, of course, being that under the present beautiful system there is enough to go round. Well, I daresay there is, but it doesn’t go round. It doesn’t get the chance. The robbers are there first. Hence the priests and other parasites.

* * *

F. E. Smith, K.C., in the June number of the “Oxford and Cambridge Review,” bluntly admits that he has never believed that Tariff Reform would remedy present day evils. Neither have we.

Tom Sala

Behind the “Labour Unrest”. (1912)

From the June 1912 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Cause and the Remedy. 

In England, after 66 years of Free Trade, a century of Trade Unionism and of Social Reform, strikes and lock-outs are the order of the day. Cotton operatives, printers, seamen, railwaymen, carmen, miners, tailors, dockers and transport workers, are all struggling for betterment.

The “labour unrest” is “explained” by various politicians in various ways. Lloyd George tells the “Daily News” man that the cause is the low wage of agricultural labourers ; Bonar Law says it is the want of Tariff walls ; the Anti-Socialist Union hirelings fix the blame on the Socialists.

The first, playing the Cobden game of turning attention on the

SLEEPING PARTNER

—the landowner—in working-class robbery, is effectively answered by Chiozza Money (“The Star,” May 29) when he shows that agricultural workers’ real wages have suffered less than the town workers’ during the rise in prices. Mr. Bonar Law is silenced by the growing labour upheaval in Protectionist countries. Finally, the Anti Socialist Union may be reminded that the majority of those striking are, unfortunately, anti-Socialists.

Is it want of trade, Messrs. T. Reformer and F. Trader ? The Board of Trade returns show an enormous increase ! Is it want of wealth and power to produce, Mr. Malthusian ? Lloyd George told you during the “unrest” debate in the Commons that the wealth produced and the ability to make it was unparalleled in human history. Income Tax. returns have risen rapidly and recent wills prove that it is distribution, not production, at fault.

The two brothers Coats left 3½ millions ; the Duke of Fife a million, and it is reported in the “Telegraph” that Rockefeller’s income one year alone was

£27,000,000.

Mr. H. G. Wells may talk of the need for “high pressure service,” and Balfour babble of seeking “greater command over nature” : the one cause of the ferment around us is the growing pressure of poverty amidst stupendous wealth.

Said Lloyd George at Cardiff, December 2th 1911: “To-day you have greater poverty in the aggregate in the land than you have ever had. You have oppression of the weak by the strong. You have a more severe economic bondage than you probably have ever had ; for grinding labour to-day does not always guarantee sustenance or security. At any rate, that condition of things was foreign to the barbaric regime of the darker ages.” He had a few minutes before reminded us that “this is the richest empire under the sun. If there is poverty, misery and wretchedness it is not because the land is sterile and bare and does not provide enough for all.”

On the other side Mr. Bonar Law told us (Manchester Nov. 16, 1911) that: “During the last ten years there has been a considerable increase in the total wealth of the country, but in that time the condition of the working class has not improved. It has actually deteriorated. From information supplied by the Board of Trade we know that during that period

THE COST OF LIVING

has gone up 10 per cent. and wages remained stationary.”

Then at the National Conference on the Prevention of Destitution (Caxton Hall, May 31st, 1911) the Lord Mayor informed us that a hundred millions were spent on poor law relief and charity, and he asked : “Are we as a community getting the best return for that huge expenditure ? Are we making destitution any less? Are we stopping the perpetual creation of new clestitutition ? In spite of greatly improved Poor Law administration, in spite of momentary good trade, there was on the 1st of January, actually a larger number of people in the workhouses than at any previous period of our history. Moreover, the plague of vagrancy seemed to be actually increasing.”

Mark the words of the mental specialist, Sir J. Crichton Browne, at Tottenham Hospital on November 16, 1911: “We have in many of our industries adopted a policy of “speeding up,” whereby men do their work in less time than formerly, and with fewer intervals of rest allowed them in the workshops and therefore with more exacting and exhausting calls on their nerves, which probably in some measure accounts for the great increase of reputed injuries to workpeople which we have to deplore. We have been

BRINGING UP OUR BABIES

on anything but mother’s milk, and by the employment of women in factories and by giving them an unrestricted sphere of activity, have curtailed that family life in which the young nervous system thrives best.”

The result of this hustle is seen in the 65th Annual Report of the Lunacy Commissioners, which shows the number of inmates of lunatic Asylums to be 133,157, an increase of 2,604 in a year. The meaning of these terrible figures is driven home in the table showing that in 1859 the number of lunatics was only 36,762. Thus while the population increased but 85.8 per cent., the number of lunatics increased in the period 262.2 per cent.! How capitalism crushes the working class becomes plain from the fact that 121,172, or 91 per cent., of the total lunatics in 1911 were

PAUPER LUNATICS.

This was an increase of 2,271 over 1910, nearly all the year’s increase being pauper inmates !

Our teetotal fanatics often think the cause of increased lunacy is drink, but Sir J. Crichton Browne exploded that idea. He said : “Drinking is admittedly on the decrease. Sir Thomas Whittaker pointed out last year that £46,000,000 had been saved in the national drink bill, but it did not bring any diminution in the number of the mentally afflicted.” In the same speech he said that whereas in 1890 the number of suicides was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society. was 2,205, in 1910 there were 3,577, and he blames the stress of modern society.

The worsening of the workers’ lot is shown by the fact that the children of the toilers are driven, into the factories to a greater extent in order to “make both ends meet at home.” The Board of Education in their report quoted by Mr. Chiozza Money in the “Daily News” on May 29th, says that out of a total of 691,000 children aged 14, only 155,682, or 22 per cent., attend day school. As Mr. Money remarks, this system “compels two persons, and sometimes three persons, to work for the wage which

ONE PERSON OUGHT TO EARN.”

Schemes of social reform do not help matters. Says the Chairman of the West Ham Board of Guardians in the Annual Report just issued : “Although a large number of out relief recipients have been transferred to the Old Age Pension list, the number of applicants for out relief has been steadily ascending. One of the principal causes is said to be the disinclination of employers to engage or retain persons of advanced years or suspected of infimity.” As to indoor pauperism, the “Daily Chronicle” (Nov. 11th, 1911) said : “Indoor relief in London has risen enormously. For the year 1886-7 the average number of indoor paupers (excluding casuals) was 54,861, or 13.7 per 1,000 of the population; last year it was 78,114, or 17.3 per thousand.”

Millions never reach the Poor Law portals, but are murdered in the cradle. The National Liberal Federation says, in “A. Nation Insured” : “We have many large towns . . where 200 out of each 1,000 die within 12 months of birth. . . The wholesale sacrifice of infants is followed by the robbery of a great part of the life of those who survive. . . It is not pretended that the National Health Insurance can dispose of

THE DAMNING FACTS.”

Of course it cannot. The only remedy is our remedy—the institution of a new social system, not fiddling with the effects of the present one. The evils which give rise to the “labour unrest” which convulses society is a necessary concomitant of the present social system. They arise inevitably from its competitive institutions, and will continue to arise as long as those competitive conditions remain.

It is futile, therefore, for the master class to look for any cure for the “labour unrest,” or for the workers to seek industrial peace. Under the system the fight must go on, and battle follow battle. Let us prepare, then, to end the strife by ending the system.

Adolph Kohn

En passant. (1914)

From the June 1914 issue of the Socialist Standard

An editorial in the “Daily Sketch” of May 7th runs as follows: “But a more dangerous sort of interference with parental authority will be confirmed by the passing of the Defective and Epileptic Children Bill. Defective children (of the poor people) are to be sent to residential schools, and Mr. Josiah Wedgwood moved an amendment for the purpose of making it clear that such children should not be removed from their homes without the consent of their parents. The amendment was negatived by a decisive vote.”

Leaflet No. 45 of the Anti-Socialist Union bears the following bright gem :

Infant Gatherer [who is the State Nurse existing under an impossible Socialist State]: “I’ve called to take your baby to the State Children’s Home.”

Mother : “But you will let him say ‘good-bye’ to his father ? ”

Infant Gatherer : “Father! There are no fathers now. The State’s his father.”

It has often been pointed out to the intellectuals of the Anti-Socialist Union that the bogey they attack is not Socialism but State capitalism. But it is easy to apologise for not hearing after you have stuffed your ears.

Today, under capitalism—”the best of all possible systems in the best of all possible worlds”—you must not be born without the State knowing; you must not “shuffle off this mortal coil” without the State being informed of the fact; if you are on the panel you cannot be ill without the State being aware of your malady. Under tyrannical Socialism the only added danger could be that the privacy of the bath-room might be invaded.

* * *

To turn from the Anti-Socialist Union to members of an Anti-Socialist Party, the appended statements are enlightening.

Mr. Philip Snowden, in the “Labour Leader” of April 30th: “If we take the Liberal Party at its best to-day and accept its professions at their apparent value, and if we compare its programme with that of a labour party which is not Socialist, then there is no doubt that Mr. Asquith’s statement that the differences are trivial and unimportant represents the actual facts.”

Mr. Jowett, in the “Labour Leader,” April 16th : “On one occasion the Labour Party had declined to introduce an Unemployment motion because the Government had to be kept in office, and often it had been difficult to defend the votes which the Labour members had given.”

Two minds with but a single thought; two mouths that bleat as one.

These extracts may be used as supporting an argument in re Philip sober. P. Snowden, “Labour Leader” 30.4.14.: “The irony of Social Reform within the present economic order is that every reform which improves the health and intelligence of the workers benefits the capitalist still more.”

The same Snowden—the summit of conceit— in the House of Commons (7.5 14), on Mr. L. George’s Budget: “The taxes on the rich provided revenue to be used for social reform purposes and must economically benefit the landlord and the employing class.”

Yet again, the same Philip, in the same speech: “If the Chancellor of the Exchequer was prepared to continue to use taxation not merely as a means of raising revenue but as a potent, if incomplete, method of social reform, he would be prepared to give him support.”

There, what base knave dare deny that one Philip, of Blackburn, is a Socialist. To all anti-Socialists he is a revolutionary of the most rabid type, because they do not understand Socialism.

* * *

This extract is not from an old file of the “Socialist Standard.” Mr. Arnold White writes a weekly article for the “Daily Express” entitled “Looking Round.” Sometimes he squints and sees “wisions,” yet on other occasions he sees things in their true perspective. In the issue of that organ of mal-education for 11 5.14, he says “Mr. Lloyd George’s scheme to provide aid from taxation for the feeding of necessitous school children appeals to warm hearts and soft heads. The plan is as old as Rome. To make the community help manufacturers to pay wages necessarily implied reduction of wages the limit to the fall of wages is automatically determined by the cost of bare maintenance of the labourer and his family. If the average subsistence rate of the lowest form of slum worker is £1 a week, and the average number of children is three, the labourer must be paid a pound a week, since he cannot exist on less. If, on the the other hand, the State steps in and helps to feed the children of unorganised labourers, the cost of subsistence will be less. Being subjected to unrestricted competition, the labourer, if he can live on less than £l a week, will take less.'” A Socialist could improve that very little.

Some people have heard of the London City Mission, a body, presumably of human beings, which held its 79th Annual Meeting on May 8th. During the course of the meeting, the Rev. T. S. Hutchison, M.A., must have felt relieved when he got the following off his chest: “Socialism, of a godless type, was said to be spreading rapidly among the working men, even to some extent among employees where the cooperative system had long existed, and where, but for the agitators, the men would be happy and contented. The result was the growth of discontent and unrest.” Dear readers, please shudder to oblige our dearly beloved vicar. Tell it not in Gath, publish it not in the columns of the “Times,” that we, the feeble band, the few, are the cause of the great totality of wretchedness and discontent at present existent. Sir George Askwith is wrong when he attempts to settle strikes (in the masters’ interest) by haggling over wages and hours of labour. How much could he not learn, would he only sit at the feet of this far seeing disciple of the Prince of Peace ?

* * *

You have a working man earning a quid a week, and he is satisfied. His town house in Stepney and his country seat in Victoria Park provide delightful changes of scenery and atmosphere, guaranteed to revitalise any constitution accidentally undermined by the pure air of the sweat shop. So I could continue to describe the idyllic existence of the working man. To suggest any improvement would be to attempt to paint the lily. But stay, into the picture of contentment, slyly creeps the strife stirring Socialist. Without him all would be well. He can even surmount the protective barriers of co-operation and co-partnership. He seems all-powerful and he is of the godless type. If he believed in a god or worshipped a tram-ticket he might be tolerated. As he is, he is anathema.

Christian, Ragtime “Reynolds” here comes in useful. In its issue for 1.2.14 it said : “We should have thought that no man capable of two consecutive minutes’ thought still held the antiquated notion that strikes are due to the ‘agitator.’ The whole of the British unrest of the past three years has shown that the agitator is powerless where men have not genuine grievances.”

The missioner’s speech prompts me to ask, what was the cause of discontent before the godless Socialism existed? I could continue with questions, but the harrowing of Hutchison is too pitiful to contemplate. Besides, I might trouble him and make him discontented. And, I am a godless Socialist. Grrrh !

* * *

The manufacturer threw a belligerent chest. “arrest ’em,” he said. “If I had my way, I’d arrest every blighted Labour agitator.”

A gaunt figure, with a skull in place of the head, rose exultantly. “Then arrest me,” it cackled, capering. “I am the original stirrer up of those who do hard labour. I am the ancient breeder of discontent, the father of Socialists, the agitator of agitators. Arrest me.”

“But who are you?”

“I am Hunger.”

“Tut! tut!” said the manufacturer pleasantly, “Why should I arrest my best and chiefest Labour agent?”

Poor Hutch!

A. L. Cox.