General Strike (2026)

From the May 2026 issue of the Socialist Standard

Union branches will be passing resolutions and holding events to commemorate the centenary of the General Strike that ran in the United Kingdom from 3 May to 12 May 1926.

As an event, it is a Rorschach test: people see what they want to see in it. For Trotskyists, it was a failure of leadership at a revolutionary moment. For the Labour left, another example of betrayal. For the Labour right, a foolhardy adventure, which proves that sensible electoral politics is the way forward.

The background was declining productivity of British coal: around one and a half million men worked in the mines. Output per man was falling, and it was facing competition on the international markets (particularly from the return of German coal). This was compounded by Chancellor Winston Churchill’s attempts to return to the gold standard (effectively over-valuing the pound, making British exports expensive).

The mine owners reacted by wanting to cut wages to restore their profits. The response of the mine workers was ‘Not a penny off the pay, not a minute on the day’. They sought an assurance of support from the TUC that other unions would back up the mine workers in their dispute, which was agreed.

The Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin intervened: simultaneously buying time by engaging a commission to examine the coal industry and agreeing a temporary coal subsidy, whilst also preparing to meet a widespread strike organisationally. The commission was headed by Herbert Samuels, a former liberal Home Secretary (and recently returned Governor of Palestine). He had, whilst an MP, represented iron mining districts in North Yorkshire.

The report noted that ‘the dominant fact is that, in the last quarter of 1925, if subsidy be excluded, 73 percent of coal was produced at a loss’. It recommended that the state take ownership of the coal in the ground, with compensation for active mines; that mines be amalgamated; that coal mining work more closely with other industries; that research in coal technologies be intensified; that more integration of distribution be carried out; and while the mining day remain at 7.5 hours, working time should be cut from 6 days to 5.

This was a substantial pay cut. Baldwin was happy to accept these proposals, but the miners’ union, obviously, rejected it (along with rejecting compensation for the nationalised mine owners). Without agreement, the government ended the subsidy, and on 30th April the mine owners locked the men out.

The dispute was placed in the hands of the General Council of the TUC, which, according to Miners’ Union General Secretary A.J. Cook’s account, took the dispute out of the hands of miners. As a TUC account of events has it:

‘The only principal unions initially called out in support of the miners were those of the railwaymen, the transport workers, the builders, the iron and steel workers – and the printers, engineers and shipyard workers were called out after the first week.’

As they note, the unions preferred to refer to it as a national strike, rather than a general strike. The strike was enthusiastically supported (better than had been expected by any party).

The government swung into action, and began to call for volunteers to help keep the railways and other services running. They tried to take the high ground. They represented the print workers’ refusal to print the Daily Mail (because its editorials attacked the strikers) as an attack on free speech. They laboured their democratic mandate as the constitutional government. Although police and troops were called out to protect scabs and break picket lines, Baldwin refused Churchill’s call to use armed force against strikers.

The nascent BBC found itself in the firing line: Baldwin was able to broadcast to the nation, but Ramsay MacDonald and the strike leaders were not permitted a voice. Lord Reith did, however, rebuff Churchill’s call for the nominally independent company to be put entirely at the service of the government.

The time won by the subsidy for organisation was put to good use.

As Baldwin said in Parliament:

‘I do not think all the leaders when they assented to ordering a general strike fully realised that they were threatening the basis of ordered government, and going nearer to proclaiming civil war than we have been for centuries past. They laboured—that is, many of them—with the utmost zeal for peace up to the very end. Perhaps they thought that there was nothing more at stake than bringing a certain amount of spectacular pressure to bear, which might suffice to persuade the Government to capitulate without serious damage to the liberties of the nation. But they have created a machine which they cannot control.’

MacDonald’s contribution was ‘With the discussion of general strikes and Bolshevism and all that kind of thing, I have nothing to do at all. I respect the Constitution’, plus a call for ‘co-ordination’ in the industry, which was, after all, the entirety of what he aspired to and called ‘socialism’.

The leaders of the TUC had not intended to overthrow the government, but to win an industrial dispute. The unions and strikers did not represent the whole of the working class (for example, there were as many domestic servants as there were miners). Faced with a resolute government, the TUC backed down and asked for no reprisals (which the government would not commit to). Cook believed that had the TUC held out a few more days, the government would have backed down – and the miners continued their action.

Although a defeat, which led to laws banning sympathy and general strikes, the action was not a disaster. The unions had brought the government to the negotiating table; they had shown the strength of union organisation and feeling. They also survived with their organisation intact. In the end, the reality of coal mining productivity prevailed and world markets asserted themselves. The working class demonstrated resolve and solidarity, but could not overcome the organised power of the state without a clear plan and resolve to that end.

Pik Smeet

The Trade Union Congress. (1908)

 

From the October 1908 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Trade Union Congress opened at Nottingham with a notable address from the chairman. Let the Daily News speak :—

”Mr. Shackleton’s address was largely occupied with the great social problems of the country at large—the drink question, the education question, the care of old age, and even dangers in foreign policy. On all of these joints he took a strong and definitely Liberal position.”

And that’s all that requires to be said for it. Mr. Shackleton made it quite clear that he had not a glimmer of an idea of the working-class position in relation to any of the questions touched upon. Either that, or he was concerned to obscure his knowledge. Mr. Shackleton, we are constantly informed, is the “strong man” of the Labour movement. He is. His strength lies in the definitely Liberal, and therefore pro-capitalist, and therefore anti-working-class, position he may be relied upon to occupy.

For example :

Mr. Shackleton thought the fact that Trade Unions’ returns shewed 8.2 per cent. of skilled workers unemployed in July of this year as compared with 3.7 last year, was one—calling “for the serious consideration of the Government” ! He affirmed that “the great political and social measure of the Session was undoubtedly the Licensing Bill” ; that the great question which is on everybody’s lips is what will the House of Lords do “when the Bill came before it” ; and that “Labour was prepared to fight the Lords on the Drink evil.”

But—

“The outstanding feature of a notable speech was the appeal to the Government to convene in London an international conference on labour.

He cited the precedent set by the German Emperor eighteen years ago. Since then the spread of the international character of the labour movement had been the most striking feature in the Trade Union world, and the time had come for another conference.”—Daily News.

Verily a strong man. A man head and shoulders above all the hosts of Israel. He would refer the unemployed problem to a government of capitalists who depend upon the maintenance of the unemployed problem. His most important Bill of the Session is the Licensing Bill which doesn’t matter a brass farthing to the working class. And the scintillating darling of his genius for statesmanship is an 18 years old proposal of that earnest and far-sighted labour leader, the German Emperor of that day, for an international conference on labour, to “include representatives of the European and United States (capitalist) Governments” who are opposed by the nature of their interests to the interests of the working class !

Evidently the fraternal delegates from America were impressed. “When Mr. Shackleton was in America,” said Mr. Creamer, “he described Mr. Gompers as a, ‘grand old man.’ I cannot do better than describe Mr. Shackleton as a ‘grand young man.'” Mr. Creamer doubtless meant that Mr. Shackleton was following in Mr. Gompers’ footsteps. Those who know Mr. Gompers as the chief labour lieutenant of the capitalist class in America, and know the work of Mr. Shackleton in England, will doubtless agree that Mr. Creamer “could do no better” in the way of accurate description. Mr. Gompers is at present actively engaged in assisting Mr. Bryan, capitalist candidate for the Presidency.

The same Mr. J. J. Creamer in the course of his address said: “In the Southern States the movement against child labour was growing and he hoped ultimately that all children and married women would be excluded from the mills.” He continued: “I want to congratulate this Congress . . . particularly on its president” (Mr. Shackleton). It is not recorded that Mr. Shackleton, the champion of child labour in mills, blushed noticeably. This is a real test of greatness !

With such a brilliant lead from such a brilliant leader the Congress settled down to its work, and notwithstanding the difficulties of the position, managed to follow the line marked out for it, with wonderful restraint, if not lamb-like docility. There was a full week of dull and stodgy talking, only lightened here and there by the contributions of such advanced thinkers as Mr. Harvey, M.P. Speaking on the motion that the Congress do all in its power to restrict Sunday labour, in the future, to the narrowest possible limits, this worthy person said : “Working men are not wholly free from blame. They are too much inclined to ask for Sunday excursions. I believe that the strength of our family and national life lies in the keeping of the Divine commandments.”

These selfish, luxury-loving working men, spending their substance in riotous living, and rushing about the four corners of the globe on a Sunday, instead of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy ! But who is this cheerful Harvey and who let him out of the museum of Mediaevialities ?

Once or twice proceedings threatened to grow stormy, as when somebody wanted a public enquiry into the methods of the Salvation Army’s “elevator” work, but as the Salvation Army is the one institution we cannot do without (according to Mr. MacDonald); the organisation upon which the “Labour” Party in the House relies for its information on working-class affairs, “the tumult and the shouting” died down into an agreement to leave the matter in the hands of the Parliamentary Committee.

Against this one organisation that the “Labour” Party cannot do without, shameless and unblushing sweating, undercutting and black-legging, have been alleged and proven to the satisfaction of most men outside the Salvation Army’s own ranks. (In the ranks, probably, lying to the glory of God, is pardonable and permissible). The Parliamentary Committee will “deal” with this ; but the supply of blacklegs through other agencies, to fill the places of Continental workers on strike, is a matter reflecting upon the international credit of an imperial race—and so forth.

With these occasional breaks in the monotony everything went through “swimmingly,” and everybody appears to have been satisfied. Sheaves of resolutions were disposed of in a “business-like” way by talking on them for an hour or so and finally referring them to the Government who won’t do anything, or to the Parliamentary Committee who can’t. This, of course, is of no great consequence, as nine-tenths of the resolutions didn’t matter, and those that did the delegates seemed quite incapable of handling.

Such, incapacity is quite understandable when it is remembered that the delegates are, unfortunately, representatives of constituencies of ignorance. While that ignorance persists, we shall have the mortification of witnessing our own class annually wasting its money and its strength in Congress meetings, that do nothing quite as well as they demonstrate to the world of capitalism that the day when the profit-monger shall fear for his hoard is not yet.

For ourselves, there is nothing we can do except that which we have consistently done from our inception until now,—point out the futility of anything less than Socialism and urge the necessity for working-class organisation in industry as in politics, for the establishment of Socialism. That is the message our men have to carry to they who sit in darkness inside and outside Trade Unions—anywhere in fact where the workers do most congregate. In order to do it we must expose fraud or foolery, even though it is expressed through the workers’ most revered leaders.

That is a thankless task for which we shall probably continue to reap for some time more kicks than ha’pence. But as there is no other party in the country to do it, and as it must be done, we are not deterred by present contumely or indifference. Sooner or later the policy of the Socialist Party of Great Britain must win. We are in the Party that cannot lose ; working for the cause that cannot fail. If the workers or their leaders don’t like the truth we cannot help it. Children don’t like medicine, but when their case gets parlous they have to take it. The truth about the present Trade Union Congress is that it is a ghastly farce, a waste of time and money, and only of advantage to the delegates who, through it, get an annual junket at the workers’ expense.

Alegra.

The Taming of the T.U.C.(1948)

From the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

What has happened to the trade unions, to their national platform the T.U.C., and to their political shadow the Labour Party? Where now is the trade union army that fought the general strike in 1926? In what dump have they parked their rusty weapon, the strike? Where are the Reds of yesteryear, and who are these men and women with their generous sprinkling of O.B.E.s, Knighthoods and Peerages who at Margate earned from the discerning observer of the Manchester Guardian (10/9/48) the tribute that “once again the T.U.C. has shown the moderate good sense that often seems to surprise its own leaders as much as the critics”?

How are we to account for the incontestable and remarkable fact that the workers—to whom the T.U.C. is supposed to give guidance and inspiration—got from it little but gloom, austerity, wage-freezing, and appeals to work harder; while the capitalist press and financial circles are congratulating themselves that it was a very successful congress from their point of view!

Easy answers are provided from different quarters but they are not the right answers as we shall see on examination.

New Tunes for Old

At one time it was taken for granted that Congress was a place where the Unions recorded their dissatisfaction with the effects of capitalism, made their protests about the home and foreign policies of the Government, discussed wage demands and strikes to enforce them, tried to smooth out inter-union disputes, passed well-intentioned, pious, resolutions in favour of peace and internationalism, and paid lip-service to what they assumed to be the Socialist objective of the Labour Party. Much of it was muddled and trivial but at least there was the sense of working class solidarity and of a forward-looking movement. But now the members are perplexed to find that all the old demands, good, bad and indifferent alike, are being dropped, modified or even reversed; and that all of this is being done out of deference to the Labour Government of which they expected so much and that they worked so long to raise to power. Now, strikes are looked on with disfavour and “unofficial” strikers condemned with a harshness that used to be directed only against the employers’ Wage claims have given place to a modified “wage-freezing.” The use of the Emergency Powers Act and of troops in strikes is no longer condemned since it is a Labour Government that is responsible. Non-contributory social insurance schemes were once demanded, now the workers are told that it is better for them to contribute. For years it was a cardinal principle of trade union and Labour Party programmes that there should be no taxation on the food arid other articles the workers buy, but only direct taxation like income tax arid surtax and death duties; now the opposite principle is preached and practised. Conscription, in peace time was always condemned, now it is accepted without protest. The list of abandoned claims could be greatly extended but it will suffice to look more closely at one of them.

Re-enter the Profit Motive

At one time it was argued that higher wages could come out of profit, and the leaders urged the rank and file to work for the abolition of the profit motive and look instead towards the principle of service to the whole community. This year the whole theory was thrown overboard. Sir Stafford Cripps, erstwhile denouncer of profit, addressed the delegates on the need for greater production and for the voluntary abstention from claims for higher wages. He backed up his case with the seemingly unanswerable argument that “even if corporation profits were reduced by a quarter – a very drastic cut – it would mean an average addition to wages and salaries of not more than 4d. in the pound.” (Manchester Guardian, 8/9/48.) Sir George Chester, speaking for the T.U.C. General Council in opposition to a resolution demanding statutory control of profits and dividends, dotted the i’s and crossed the t’s of Cripps’ statement by informing the perplexed delegates that you can’t do without profit —” Profit in the form of marginal surpluses was essential to the conduct of industry whether it be nationalised or in private hands, it is inescapable until we can alter the whole structure of industry and replace profit by some other incentive.” (Daily Herald, 10/9/48.) No wonder that the Financial Times, organ of the investors, drew substantial comfort from the ‘week’s proceedings. “Margate,” wrote the Financial Times Labour Correspondent (11/9/48) “has cleared the air. In future it is going to he much more difficult for attacks on profits or the profit motive – either particular or general – to be sustained. The hitherto despised ‘capitalist’ incentive has at last been officially recognised as – at least for the time being – socially necessary.”

Explanations that do not Explain

One plausible but fallacious explanation of the change in the trade unions is the Communist one, that the leaders have been corrupted or have sold out to American capitalism and that what is wanted is new leaders, Communist ones. Neither at present nor in the past have Communist leaders produced any better results than the others. Where they differ is only in the fact that their guiding principle is unscrupulous or misguided subservience to the policies of the Russian State Capitalist regime. True the Communists have sometimes been associated with sound action by the trade union rank and file, but only by accident and because at the moment it happened to serve some aim of Russian foreign policy, never by consistent loyalty to the interests of the working class.

A somewhat similar explanation is that the trade union and labour leaders have been sobered and undermined by office and responsibility and have, in consequence, imbibed new ideas in place of the old. Some who say this think the change is good because the new ideas are better, others think them worse; but the explanation is only a half-truth. Men who have both the will and the power to put their beliefs into practice do not become “sobered ” and “undermined” by the responsibilities of office. Capitalist office does not soften the capitalist convictions of a Winston Churchill. With the Labour leaders the position is different. They are the victims of their own wrong theories and self-deception. They thought that, without any mandate to abolish capitalism, they could tame the capitalist tiger ; instead of which they are finding, as Socialists always said they would, that it is the tiger that determines the route, the pace and the policy.

The official version offered by the Labour Party and expressed by their Secretary, Mr. Morgan Phillips, in a Labour Press Service article, “Three Years that Changed Britain,” is that July 1945, when the Labour Party took office, marked the beginning of “a peaceful revolution “which made the people of Britain” for the first time in history . . . masters in their own land.” July 6th, 1945, was, he claims, the “great day” that the Socialist pioneers worked and waited for. If what he claims were true it would indeed be understandable that the tactics suitable in a struggle by the working class against the capitalist class would now become pointless and obsolete; obviously there could no longer be strikes of the workers against the capitalists if capitalism were abolished and the classes themselves had vanished. But, of course, it is only a shadow of the truth, as was shown at the T.U.C. by the speeches of Cripps and Chester referred to earlier in this article, and by other events happening before our eyes.

Is it a new Social Order?

The Capitalist Ministers who say that the old order has already passed away tell us that the reason we are prevented from reaping immediately the fruits of the “Socialist” triumph, is that Tory rule and the late war have left their aftermath of disorder and destruction that has yet to be cleared away. This is so reasonable an explanation that its inadequacy is not at first sight obvious, but the truth is that the minds and hands of the Labour Ministers are every day becoming less full with the heritage of the past war and more full with the problems and preparations for the new grouping of capitalism and the new wars that face us. The plans for Western Union and Marshall Aid are plans for a capitalist world in which capitalist Europe will try to save itself by union from being crushed between the American and Russian contestants for world dominance. It is not for the past war but for the coming war that, under Labour Government, the armed forces are greater than they were in 1938 and that for the first time in history we have peacetime conscription. During the week the T.U.C. met, the Government were considering extending compulsory military service from 12 to 18 months, and decided to delay demobilisation. The same week that saw War Minister Shinwell, author of When the Men Come Home, address Congress on the coming General Election, saw him also at Southampton seeing the Guards off to the fighting in Malaya; the troopships are once again outward bound. When Sir Stafford Cripps told Congress that production must be increased by greater output from each worker because it is not possible to increase the number of workers in production, it is capitalism, not Socialism, that demands that the hundreds of thousands of workers under arms and on munitions work shall be maintained and indeed increased. The Labour Government promised that it would bring about friendlier foreign relationships, particularly with Russia, and thus safeguard peace. The fact that the international situation goes from bad to worse is not because the Labour Government are incompetent or evilly disposed but because capitalism is in control.

Those who have eyes to see will realise that it is not the Labour Government and the T.U.C. that have changed capitalism, but capitalism under Labour rule that bids fair to change the trade union movement from an organ of working class struggle into little better than an instrument to aid the Government in the smooth running of capitalism and the campaign to get the workers to work harder and forego wage claims.

Facts for Trade Unionists

The great need in the trade union movement is for straight thinking and plain speaking. Sir Stafford Cripps and Sir George Chester are right when they say that you cannot have capitalism without profit; it is their conclusion that is wrong. Having told the workers that you cannot have the one without the other they say in effect that it is necessary now to put up with both. That is the fundamental error of the Labour Party’s theories, obvious to Socialists from the start but only now being shown up in practice in a way that all can see. The Socialist Party has always held that the working class cannot achieve power for Socialism, and cannot have Socialism in operation, until a majority have gained the understanding and will for Socialism. Without clearly seeing what they were doing the Labour Party worked on the quite different doctrine that a Labour Government lacking a mandate to establish Socialism could take capitalism in hand and administer it in accordance with Socialist principles. It cannot be done, and if seriously attempted, only chaos would be the result. As well put a pacifist in charge of the conduct of a war, or a conscientious teetotaller to build up a profitable brewery. Either the Labour Ministers had to keep their muddled good intentions and produce chaos, or they had to discard them and try to make a success of capitalism on the only principles possible, capitalist principles.

Trade unionists who are Labour Party supporters now find themselves face to face with a difficult decision. If they remain loyal to the Labour Government that is carrying on capitalism they weaken their struggle against capitalist exploitation on the industrial field and undermine their own unity, if they continue the struggle for which trade unions were formed they come into conflict with the Labour Government. It is a cruel dilemma but it has to be faced. The long years of muddled thinking have to be paid for and there is no easy way out. Backing the Government in running capitalism means stultifying the trade union movement and spreading apathy and despair; with the certainty that at the end of the road, even if the present production crisis is eased for a time, there will be new crises and new and larger wars. The alternative is the seemingly slow but in fact the only way, the way indicated by the Socialist Party at its formation, that of working for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. There are no short cuts and there is no other way.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: Break-up of the Trade Union International? (1948)

Editorial from the October 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the incidents of the Trades Union Congress at Margate was an angry speech by Mr. Arthur Deakin denouncing the Russians for their efforts to dominate the World Federation of Trade Unions and to use it simply as a platform for Russian Government policies. It is taken to mean that the perpetual wrangling that has paralysed the W.F.T.U. since it was formed in 1945 may end in the withdrawal of the British T.U.C. along with the American C.I.O. and other non-Communist unions. This would only give organisational effect to a deep cleavage that already exists and give us two Internationals, one ostensibly representing the workers in Russia and her satellites and the other the workers in Western Europe, America and the British Dominions. “Ostensibly representing the workers” has to be used for the sake of accuracy because the W.F.T.U. and many of its affiliated bodies have moved far from the old idea of an international organisation controlled by trade unions and directly representing their vague aspirations towards international working class solidarity.

The old International Federation of Trade Unions, in the forty or more years of its chequered history, did some good work within the limits set by the political backwardness and nationalistic outlook of the affiliated unions. Disrupted by the first world war, weakened by the enforced withdrawal of Italian and German unions when those countries came under dictatorship, and for long the object of Communist enmity and attempted destruction, it nevertheless survived until in 1945 the much more ambitious plans were evolved to form a World Federation of Trade Unions to include the Russians and others not in the I.F.T.U. With all its faults and limitations the old I.F.T.U. was an organisation that consistently accepted the principle that a trade union is a voluntary independent organisation of workers, controlled by themselves, and existing for the purpose of waging the struggle of the wage-earners against the employers. Now the workers movement has moved backwards and trade unions have increasingly become organisations closely bound up with and giving expression to governmental policies. The extreme case is, of course, that of the so-called unions in Russia and Russian-controlled countries, where the idea of a trade union expressing views independent of those imposed by the Government is unthinkable ; but even where the Unions can legally be independent bodies, as in this country, it becomes more and more difficult to distinguish between the policies of union executives and those of governments.

While that condition continues a trade union International is almost superfluous, a mere duplication of governments. It was, therefore, almost inevitable that, just as the Labour Parties of Western Europe have no connection with the international Communist organisation, so the trade unions of the world would be divided according to the division of world governments.

The dissensions in the World Federation of Trade Unions have partly been concerned with Marshall Aid and partly with the question of the degree of autonomy that the International Trade Departments (i.e. the occupational internationals such as the Miners’ International, Transport Workers’ International, etc.) should retain inside the world organisation of national bodies like the Trades Union Congress, but this was only the form not the substance of the conflict. The real issue has always been whether non-Communist unions could usefully associate with government-controlled Communist bodies in Russia and elsewhere. It now seems probable that the attempt will be abandoned and the groups form rival trade union federations.

It is another reminder that internationalism is not something that can be created out of optimistically drafted paper constitutions in advance of the workers’ understanding.

By the Way. (1916)

The By The Way Column from the October 1916 issue of the Socialist Standard

During the past month several conferences have been held in various parts of the country, and the reports appearing in the Press of their deliberations, though brief, are somewhat interesting reading. For instance, I gather that at the closing meeting of the British Association at Newcastle the subject for consideration was that of industrial fatigue. On this occasion one, Dr. Hunter, declared that the question of fatigue had been very much exaggerated, and he went on to say that :

“In yards where they worked four and a half days a week of 37 hours there could not be any over-fatigue in the ordinary sense, but it was found that if men combined hard work with drinking whisky then over-fatigue might and did come in.

Men who did not take drink worked longer hours in his works and did not suffer in health or complain of over-fatigue.”

Presumably Dr. Hunter would have us believe that the men engaged in the shipbuilding yards only work 37 hours per week, and that the main cause of the trouble in whisky drinking. How many more times is the drink gag to be trotted out as the first and last reason of the failure of capitalist production? One has only to recall the shortage of munitions in the early days of the war to recollect that then there was the same outcry of drinking and shirking. The concluding remarks of the speaker are exceedingly interesting. He continues:

“If men took a more intelligent interest in their work and worked harder they would feel very much less fatigue. The effort to work slowly was really very fatiguing.”—”Daily Chronicle,” Sept. 11, 1916.

Of course, all those wage slaves who have had the good fortune to write daily time sheets and the privilege of punching the clock when they start and finish a job will be able to appreciate to the fullest extent the reference to “a more intelligent interest in their work.” Delightfully funny, isn’t it ?

* * *

A reference to the foregoing conference in another paper states that “Dr. Oliver said that industrial fatigue did exist and played a very important part in the number of accidents that took place.” There you are, you pay your money and take your choice. This quotation is from the “Daily Mail,” same date.

* * *

The Chief Officer of the Board of Education has recently issued his annual report and has emphasised the value of open-air training for children. This is not in the least surprising when one takes into consideration the hovels that vast numbers of the working class have to inhabit from sheer compulsion. What with the dark and gloomy basements to the barrack-like “model dwellings” where the sun’s rays hardly ever penetrate, is it to be wondered at that our children require open-air treatment and social welfare centres !

That the subject is a serious one, and particularly so in view of the wastage of war, may be gathered from the fact the Chief Officer states:

“Not less than a million children of school age are so physically or mentally defective or diseased as to be unable to derive reasonable benefit from the education which the State provides.”

This in itself is a sufficient condemnation of capitalist society. Miss Margaret McMillan, commenting on the above, says: “That is a very low estimate. I should have said that the number of such children was two millions—rather more than less.” Think of it you who toil and slave and who consciously or unconsciously support modern capitalism, what your apathy means to your children and your class. You labour that others may have ease, you build houses but live in dens where your masters would not put their dogs. Such are the legacies resulting from the private ownership in the means of life.

The lady above referred to cites a fact from her own experience in Deptford as to the condition prevailing therein the following words :

“We once examined 147 children who were sent to our clinic to see if they were suffering from something other than the complaints for which they had come to be treated. And we found that 71 of them had weak backs and that 42 of these cases were so serious as to place the future lives of the children in jeopardy. Yet not one of these children had been sent to us as suffering from this complaint at all.”

We ask you to study these things for yourselves, to get at the why and the wherefore of them, to recognise the continual slaughter of the innocents, and when you understand the cause of these abominations to join with us that an end may be put to a system of society which means poverty, misery and want for the vast majority, and assist in ushering in a new society wherein these horrors may be eliminated. Isn’t this worth fighting for? (Quotations from “Daily News,” Sept. 16th, 1916.)

* * *

Reference to the above is also made in “Reynolds’s” (17.9.16) and may perhaps add further to the point. The writer asks: What are we going to do about it ? The importance of the question to our masters is not overlooked as may be judged by this reference.

“Time after time “Reynolds’s” has pointed out the menace to the future of the nation which the neglect of children and child-bearing mothers means. Perhaps now, when the flower of our young men is dying on the battlefield, we may find widespread recognition of the importance of making the best of our children. . . . But the greatest blame most be borne by the democracy, which has not insisted long ago on the sweeping away of many causes which make such a report as Sir George Newman’s possible. Some of the evils are not preventible, but many of them are, and it is only ignorance and apathy which have allowed us to remain quiet while so little has been done.”

Many of the “evils” are “preventible,” then, if so, why not prevent them ? Only the Socialist holds the remedy. Capitalist politicians and reformers have tinkered about with them, long enough, and in the words of Lloyd George stand condemned, for has he not stated that as soon as they heal one social sore another one breaks out. Thirty-bob at birth, sickness and unemployment benefit, and old age pensions at 70 fail to touch the spot. Arise, then, ye workers !

* * *

Still they come ! Another object lesson in the way patriotism is rewarded is to be found in a newspaper report to hand of a man who was in the 13th Essex Regiment and has been discharged “as being no longer physically fit for war service.” The report states that the man threw up a good job early in 1915 to enlist. He was not a conscript, and he sacrificed between £2 and £3 a week. Passed as medically fit for active service he eventually began training and at last took up the work of a cook. He said:

“We used to get our clothes soaking wet through at the field ovens, but there we had to stick, no matter what sort of weather it was. I have been at it … many times in rain, snow, and blizzards. At Northampton in January it was awful.”

The result was that his health broke down and ultimately he was discharged. The allowance his wife had been receiving was also stopped and he himself on the 10th of August received the following intimation:

“I am directed to acquaint you that the Commissioners of this Hospital [Chelsea], having fully considered your case, have decided that you have no claim to a pension.”—”Star,” August 25th, 1916.)

As this decision stands it serves to show the cold and callous indifference of those who in times past have framed the necessary regulations governing the grant of pensions. May it prove to be a means of opening the eyes of those who are used as cannon fodder to realise their true position in society.

* * *

The Trades Union Congress recently met at Birmingham, and an idea of the revolutionary nature of this body may be gauged from the fact that they were received by the Lord Mayor of Birmingham, Mr. Neville Chamberlain. In his opening speech he “emphasised the need for effort all round, and made an eloquent plea for the preservation of that national unity which the war has brought us. He admitted the claim of working men to take a greater share in the organisation of industry than they have hitherto enjoyed, and did not attempt to gloss over the fact that the conditions in many trades in the past had been bad, and that every man who did his best deserved to obtain decent conditions of life and work and the opportunity of bringing up his children under cheerful and healthy conditions.” How nice and kind our masters are when it suits them for the purpose of swanking the workers. Tell them part of the truth, how in many trades in the past conditions had been bad (as if they were not now), but for heaven’s sake don’t let them realise how they are fleeced.

* * *

In the same article the writer tells us that “the secret of industrial peace lies not in attempts by labour to squeeze capital or by capital to squeeze labour, but in the working together of employer and employed against the competition of outside forces.” Here again we have the old bogey trotted out, the robbed and the robbers are to work amicably together in order to fight against “the competition of outside forces.” That there will be “competition” for jobs here is religiously omitted from the article in question, and the writer says that the fear of a flooded labour market with the disbanding of our great armies is very largely “illusory.” How simple all are !

The Scout

The T.U.C., What it is and What it Should be (1956)

From the October 1956 issue of the Socialist Standard

It is not difficult for anyone who reflects dispassionately on the world situation to see broadly what the human race needs to solve its problems; an end to war and war preparations, an increase of the production of useful articles and services, and means to secure that these things are made available to all. Put in so general a form, these aims would be endorsed with more or less sincerity by members of all political parties all over the world; but there the cleavage begins. Non-Socialists, if they believe the ends practicable at all, think they can be won by modifications of the existing social order and by building up United Nations. Socialists hold that class and international conflict can only be ended by replacing Capitalism by Socialism and that until this is done neither the problem of achieving a large-scale increase of production of useful articles, nor the problem of distribution to all, can be solved; while Capitalism endures there will always be wars, and the workers will go on producing wealth not for themselves but for the Capitalist owners of the means of production and distribution, with accompanying waste of labour and materials on armaments and other Capitalist anti-social activities and with inevitable poverty for the many and riches for the few.

Where does the T.U.C. stand in this? It represents a large proportion of organised workers in Britain, is committed in theory to internationalism through its affiliation to the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions and vaguely approves of a new social order declared to be the aim of the Labour Party here and of similar parties in other lands.

How does it shape up to its responsibilities? Regrettably it does so very ill, as the recent Brighton conference shows; this despite the much overrated shift of attitude from half acceptance of some degree of “wage restraint” to a more or less definite repudiation. On every issue it dealt with effects not causes and this was as true of the “militants” as of those they condemned.

Certainly the organised workers should use what strength they have to press for higher wages but how far does this carry them? They have been doing this ever since there were trade unions and in so doing they tacitly accept Capitalism and the wages system. The limit of trade union pressure on the industrial field is set by the state of trade. When trade declines or when the sales of Capitalist industries in one country are hit by competition from other countries, the ability of the trade unions to do more than fight rearguard actions disappears. How can motor workers fight for higher wages against employers who have less need for labour?

No delegate even thinks it worth mentioning that, as Marx pointed out, the only way out of this is that trade unions should recognise the need to aim at the abolition of the wages system. This means aiming for Socialism but among all those who pay lip-service to Socialism no-one ever reminds T.U.C. conferences of it.

Conference gave its approval to “automation” while seeking safeguards for displaced workers and consultation between employers and trade unions, but nobody thought fit to raise the one vital issue that the new automation plants, like the old ones, are the private property of the Capitalist class, used for their profit not for the good of the community as a whole. The extent of the demand that the delegates considered they were entitled to make was. in the words of the Communist, Mr. Haxell, of the E.T.U., being ready to fight “and win some of the increase of productivity for the workers."—(Manchester Guardian, Sept. 5.)

Some delegates urged support for automation on the ground that if British industry did not adopt it, while industries in foreign countries did, British products would be priced out of world markets. Here was a chance, which the Conference did not take, of recalling that the international trade union movement ought to have as one of its functions united action to prevent employers playing off the workers in one country against those in others, to the detriment of the whole working class.

The resolution demanding the 40 hour week was an exhibition of unreality. True the trade unions ought to struggle for shorter hours but they have most of them long ceased to do so in any real sense. Before the war 47 hours were the typical working week in British industry. Now it is nominally 44 hours; but in fact, through widespread overtime working, average actual hours are longer than before the war. The only people who have actually reduced hours are the employers in those industries where falling sales have resulted in a compulsory shorter week with shorter pay.

The resolution against “wage restraint” showed muddled thinking and demagogic speeches at their worst. Socialists would have stated the Socialist case for the ending of Capitalism and with it the ending of the wages system. What conference did was to tie up wage restraint with an attack on the Tory Government because it had not played its part in controlling Capitalism—as if the workers were any better off when the Labour Government was in power trying vainly to improve Capitalism by “controlling it.” Mr. Campbell, of the N.U.R., in what goes for a “fighting speech,” slated the Tory Government for saying that “balance of payments” difficulties made wage restraint necessary and he received the applause of delegates by declaring that Tory policy had meant “to many working class households,” “difficulties with their balance of payments ."—(Daily Telegraph, September 6.). This is the veriest claptrap, for working class households have been faced with difficulties of making ends meet ever since there was a working class and just as much under Labour Government as now. Indeed the evidence shows that under the Labour Government the position happened to be rather worse. Official figures show that between 1947 and 1951 wage rates rose 22 per cent, while the cost of living outstripped wage rates with a rise of 29 per cent. Since the Tories came in, helped by more resolute trade union pressure, that position has been reversed and now wage rates at 64 per cent, above 1947 are ahead of the cost of living at 56 per cent. This was recently pointed out by a Labour M.P. Mr. Crossman. Writing in the Daily Mirror (November 15, 1955), he admitted that but for the workers' acceptance of the Labour Government’s “wage restraint” wages under the Labour Government could have been higher than they were. The workers failed, he wrote, to extort “the highest possible price for labour in a free market.”

And in spite of his bold words on rejecting wage restraint Mr. Campbell went on to say that if the present government were to restore the controls used by the Labour Government “ trade unionists might not be compelled .to press for wage increases to meet the price increases forced upon us.” He is prepared, in other words, to go back to the defeatest trade union policy operated under the Labour Government.

Br. Cousins, who carried conference with him on the resolution, demanded that the Tory Government should go in for disarmament and thus save £750 million as an alternative to wage restraint.—(Manchester Guardian, September 6.). He also spoke for a Labour Government. It brought applause from delegates who seemingly forgot that it was the Labour Government who launched the £1,500 million a year rearmament programme and inaugurated the “wage restraint” policy.

But having thus attacked armament costs and having also resolved to press for a reduction in the length of military service below the two years fixed by the Labour Government Conference went on to pass a resolution on the Suez dispute which, while anti-war in tone nevertheless committed Congress to support the use of force if it was approved by the United Nations. But war is no less war because carried out under United Nation auspices as the delegates should well know from the Korean conflict into which the Labour Government entered in 1950. Supporters of this resolution mistakenly argue that workers' jobs are involved and therefore trade unions must act including giving support to war, if United Nations gives approval. Which brings us back to the total failure of the T.U.C. to envisage the urgent necessity of getting rid of the social system that causes wars.

After being in existence for three-quarters of a century the T.U.C. is still going nowhere and offering no guidance to the workers about their vital interest.

Edgar Hardcastle

The Passing Show: The Eternal Triangle (1952)

The Passing Show Column from the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Eternal Triangle

The attitude of the United States over the Anglo-Persian oil dispute is instructive in view of the protestations of everlasting friendship and alliance which regularly emanate from leading politicians and businessmen in both Britain and America. The British capitalist case is simple. Persia, says the British Government, has stolen the plant and machinery and oil belonging to the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, and has gone back on the Concession of 1933, by which Persia gave permission to the Company to work its oil. If you believe in the sanctity of private property, this case is unassailable.

Pandering to the Natives

But in spite of the natural attraction of such an attitude to a great capitalist power like America, and in spite of the “ties of blood” which are supposed to connect the two “Anglo-Saxon Powers,” Britain and America are far from being in agreement about the problem. If blood is thicker than water, then oil is thicker than blood. For America wants to secure for itself the valuable Persian supply of oil, and at all costs it wants to prevent it falling into Russian hands; and in order to attain these objectives, it is prepared to disregard the feelings of British capitalists, and even the prized theory of the inviolability of private property. However, America does not want to be too open about its aims. After all, Britain has an important place in American plans for the next war as an unsinkable aircraft-carrier, and so far the natives have been remarkably friendly. There are 30,000 American airmen in Britain, plus anti-aircraft forces and army engineers—easily the largest foreign force ever stationed in Britain in peacetime. Yet Britain has been most deferential in her treatment of these foreign armed troops. For example, members of the American armed forces accused of any crime in Britain are prosecuted in American courts; a concession which Britain herself has not been able to obtain for her own troops in Japan, as the case of the sailors at Kobe emphasised. 

In these circumstances, the Americans do not want to be too blatant in their coercion of the British over Persian oil.

#    #    #    #

Iron Hand

But although for these reasons the Americans are wearing the velvet glove, the iron hand is still there beneath. Her oilmen have been beating a path to the door of Dr. Mossadeq, the sworn enemy of the British. Mr. Alton Jones, director of the U.S. Cities Service Oil Corporation, has been touring Abadan and other oil centres, from which the British were expelled, accompanied by representatives of the National Iranian Oil Company and the Persian Government, which expelled them. On September 4th he was said to have “submitted a report to the Prime Minister discussing the possibility of a resumption of oil flow from Persia.” Four days later the American oil buyers Mr. Richard Nelson and Mr. Gerald Waldron, who earlier this year signed a contract agreeing to buy three million tons of Persian oil every year for five years, arrived in Teheran; it was reported that they handed over £70,000 as a first instalment. And it seems unlikely that American businessmen would part with that much money unless they were pretty sure that the American Government would support them against British capitalism which is at present maintaining a virtual embargo on the export of oil from Persia.

#    #    #    #

Truman first, Churchill second

In order to put a better appearance on things, America joined with Britain at the end of August to submit new proposals to Persia. The Note was signed by Harry S. Truman and Winston S. Churchill in that order, and this is symbolic of the order in which the interests of British and American capitalism are consulted in the proposals. Seldom has British capitalism lost so much prestige in the course of a single short statement. For in the Note;

1. Britain accepts the fact of nationalisation, that is of the “theft” by Persia of British capitalist property.
2. It is suggested that the question of compensation be submitted to the International Court of Justice, which has already, in July, refused the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company’s appeal that it should decide the question of the ownership of the oil, saying that the matter lay outside its jurisdiction.
3. It is agreed that the International Court shall also take into consideration the Persian claims in respect of the revenue it has lost as a result of its action in nationalising its oil.
4. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company offers to buy the oil which was produced under its management, by its technicians, and is now stored in what were formerly its own tanks in Abadan.
5. The British Government promises (if Persia accepts these terms) to relax restrictions on exports to Persia and on Persia’s use of sterling; and the American Government promises an immediate gift of ten million dollars to Persia.

But Dr. Mossadeq, evidently believing that if America could force Britain to make such sweeping concessions, he will be able to get anything he asks for, has replied making even more demands.

#    #    #    #

Jackals

What can be said of the undignified role played by the British Conservative Government in this affair ? The Tories came to power after an election in which all of them, but particularly their leader Mr. Churchill, made grandiloquent and bombastic speeches promising to lift British capitalism again to a position of power and leadership in world affairs; and in the event, the realities of power have forced Mr. Churchill to play the jackal to the Americans just as much as Mr. Attlee ever did. There is now no apter phrase to describe the leader of the British Tories than that which he himself once used to jibe at Mussolini—“this sawdust Caesar.”

#    #    #    #

Cause and effect

So many people have been trying their hands recently at suggesting new reasons for war that it seems to have become almost a new kind of parlour game. The main suggestions are fairly well known. Wars break out, it is said, because the other side have always been aggressive. Others say the last peace treaty was too strong, or was not strong enough. Or perhaps you prefer the view which sees the Russians, or the Americans, as inspired by the Devil, and thinks of Moscow, or Washington, as merely branch offices of Hell. There are even those who think we have a lot of wars nowadays because it was forecast in the Bible (this being the view so far as the writer understands it, of the Jehovah's Witnesses). Again, there are the sporting reasons—wars break out because Hitler, or Stalin, never learnt to play cricket in his youth, or because the rival statesmen have never shot grouse together in Scotland (see last month’s Socialist Standard for an elucidation of this interesting new theory).

#    #    #    #

He said Hello, but it sounded aggressive

One of the most remarkable of recent suggestions was made to a hall-full of sober scientists at the Belfast meeting of the British Association. The Dally Herald (5-9-52) reported it like this;

“Dr. P. L. Richardson, a Scottish research worker, has spent twelve years studying the relationship between language and war. And, he said, he found there was ‘something bellicose' associated with the Spanish language, and that those who spoke Chinese were likely to be more pacific."

We must certainly give the learned doctor credit for disinterestedness. That is to say. he has made no attempt to square his conclusions with known facts before presenting them to the public. His examples were unfortunate. Spain, for all its bellicose language, is one of the few European countries which managed to keep out of both World Wars. As for the "more pacific" China, it has scarcely known a year's peace since the Revolution of 1911. The internal quarrel between the Communists and the Kuomintang was only patched up in order that both factions could fight the Japanese. Hardly had they been defeated than the Chinese were at each other's throats again. And no sooner had the Communists thrown Chiang Kai-Shek off the mainland than they were in Korea fighting the Americans.

It surely doesn't need twelve years' research in order to perceive that wars are fought because the rulers of one state want something the rulers of another state already have, and want it so much that they are prepared to make war about it. The question of whether the rulers speak Sanscrit or Patagonian has no effect on this issue.

#    #    #    #

Quiz

Who made these remarks ?

1. "The people are faced with the choice of consuming less or producing more. 'We' have to sell 'our' goods abroad at competitive prices. If 'we’ price ourselves out of world markets ‘we’ will be creating unemployment."

Was it (A) a wealthy businessman speaking to the council of the Federation of British Industries ? or (B) a "working-class leader" speaking to the Trades Union Congress ?

2. “Wage-demands designed merely to cause unrest in trade unionists' minds, and often 'unrelated to reality' but intended only to buttress extreme political views, could be regarded only as a betrayal of union members. Without an increase in productivity, substantial wage-increases were bound to raise costs. The country's economic difficulties will not be lessened if trade unions pursue a policy which inevitably increases production costs and ‘compels' exporters to ask higher prices for their goods."

Was this (A) a Tory M.P. speaking to an audience of shareholders? or (B) another "working-class leader" speaking at the Trades Union Congress ?

3. "We will be betraying British lads at the front if we do not support rearmament."

Was this (A) General Sir Cuthbert Blimp speaking in 1901 ? or (B) a criminal lunatic on the run from Broadmoor ? or (C) yet another “working-class leader" at the T.U.C.?

#    #    #    #

Answers

You were right every time—or you would have been if you had known anything about the present day leaders of the trade unions. For the record, the proud speechmakers were:

1. Mr. Lincoln Evans, member of the General Council of the T.U.C.

2. Mr. Arthur Deakin, president of the T.U.C.

3. Mr. J. F. McDermott, delegate to the T.U.C. from the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers.

#    #    #    # 

Humanity and Reason

On August 17th the following news item was reported from Hamburg by Reuters:

“Dr. Hermann Ehlers, President of the West German Lower House, speaking yesterday during the unveiling ceremony to Hamburg's 50,000 men, women and children who were killed during air raids in the 1939-45 war, said that nobody in Germany and few people in Britain had raised their voices against total warfare.

Therefore we must think of the one man who publicly protested against this kind of warfare—the Lord Bishop of Chichester, he said. 

Today our special respect is due to the lone caller for humanity and reason."

This will be news to members of the Socialist Party. Socialist speakers and writers protested many times during the war both against the war itself and against the inhumanity with which it was being conducted. It seems hard now to see the credit going to a member of the Bench of Bishops, who, as a body, were among the most bloodthirsty supporters of the war. Socialists agreed that the Germans suffered under the Nazi regime but we never saw the argument that we should help to kill them off in their thousands just to prove our sympathy for them. Socialists refused to help in the murder of the German and Japanese workers, and, for that refusal, some of them spent the war years being hunted by the police. Still, we may take this opportunity of telling Dr. Ehlers that we shall be publicly protesting against total war in any third world war too. We shall be calling for humanity and reason, that is to say, for Socialism, at every opportunity we have. And we shall be opposing the slaughter of the Russians, or of any other "enemy” our rulers may select for us.

#    #    #    #

Everything in its place

Mr. Harold Wilson again underlines the difference in the attitude of the Labour and Socialist Parties to war in his latest pamphlet, "The arms programme," he says, “will have to fall into its proper place in our national priorities." So the arms programme has a proper place in our national priorities, Mr. Wilson ? Like the would-be conscientious objector, who to the question "Are you against all wars ?" replied, "Oh no—just this one," the Bevanites are not against all armaments—they just want a few less. One thousand atom bombs, say, instead of one thousand one hundred.

The proper place of the arms programme, Mr. Wilson, is in the policy of capitalist political parties, and that is where it is found. It has no place whatever in Socialist policy.

#    #    #    #

Leave it to the Boss

One man out of step at the T.U.C. was Mr. Walter Stevens, of the Electrical Trades Union, who amidst the calls for moderation and restraint in wage-claims, remarked "We shall all find when we make our wage-claims that the employers themselves will inject a sufficient modicum of restraint and we shall not have to bother."

Mr. Stevens, however, might also pass this on to the workers in Russia who suffer the same injections from his friends there.

Alwyn Edgar

Who are the "Crackpots?" (1952)

From the October 1952 issue of the Socialist Standard

In its editorial, The People (7/9/52) greatly deplores the half million trade unionists who opposed the resolution on wage restraint at the Margate Conference of the T.U.C.

Referring to these workers as “crackpots,” “firebrands,” “flat earthers,” etc., who are “living in the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” “Man o’ the People” tells us that “the workers do not want more money. They want more goods. More pieces of paper in their wage packets on Fridays cannot buy them more goods because they are not available.”

Here The People did not finish the sentence, which it should have concluded with—. . . . to the workers. But being supporters of the capitalist system The People could not be expected to see what must be obvious to every worker who takes his leisurely stroll in Kensington High Street or Oxford Street, etc.

Not available? The shops are crammed with every conceivable kind of food, clothing, furniture, etc.

“If we want more goods we’ve got to make them, or, if the goods we want come from abroad, we’ve got to sell more goods to the foreigner to buy them,” continues The People.

But that is exactly what the workers are doing, constantly making goods, but, with a difference, which seems to have escaped “Man o’ the People,” the workers are producing these goods for the capitalists, for sale and profit on the market.

The capitalist class, having property rights in all the wealth produced by the workers, and having to return only a part thereof for their upkeep, not only wants these things, but can pay for them, and has them.

The workers, on the other hand, lacking what the economists call “effective demand” cannot pay for these goods, and, therefore, do not get them.

They get slums, poor food, shoddy clothing, simply because they cannot buy back what they have produced.

The People, in common with other apologists of the capitalist class is constantly urging us to produce more and more and telling us that one day—it does not say when—we will all be better off.

A recent example of the work-harder campaign is the increasing unemployment amongst the textile workers in Lancashire.

“Under-production” or “over-production,” there has always been a shortage of the necessities of life for the majority of people, and whether the worker “thinks every employer is a wicked Capitalist engaged in a horrible conspiracy to down the working man” (in the words of The People) or whether he thinks they are all kind-hearted gentlemen, this is a fact which stares him in the face every time he looks in a shop window and wonders, “Can I afford it? ”

Whilst the majority of workers do not understand or desire Socialism, they will go on supporting Capitalism, and in doing so will continue to face the conflicts of that system of society. The struggle has not lessened with the “passing of the age of the Tolpuddle Martyrs,” rather has it increased.

The People ends with the hope that “the unions themselves will now set about clearing out these wreckers of the new social order that men died and slaved to build for us.”

We must confess as workers that we are unaware of any new social order having come into existence. Not having any reason to “study the stars” under The People's astrologer “Lyndoe,” it may have escaped our notice.

No, we still have Capitalism with us though we can grant this to The People, that “men did die and slave to build it,” thousands of them! Not only men. but women and children also, slaved 10, 12, 14, 16 hours per day and died of disease and poverty, often at an early age, and though in our present era the slavery may be masked a little, by a “five-day week,” “music while you work,” “National Health Schemes” and all the other “benefits” modern Capitalism has bestowed upon us, the slavery is still there.

Our forbears who struggled with eternal hope would indeed turn in their graves could they see how their successors have deserted the class struggle for the wining and dining, and kowtowing of our present “leaders.”

As trade unionists, we do not (as The People suggests) believe that “ their outlook and their reason are about as out-of-date as the flat earthers.” We regard the struggle for higher wages as a continuous necessity whilst Capitalism lasts, and incidentally, point out that the choice of “flat earthers” is an unwise one. as it was shown then that the ruling class was opposed to the ideas of the “crackpots” of that day.

When the new “social order,” Socialism, is established, access to the goods produced will not be determined by how much we will have in our wage packets, because there will be no wage packets.

The terrific waste of man-power at present directed to the needs of Capitalism, would be ended to ensure an abundance of all the things we need plus the so-called luxuries that people may desire.

A hundred and one different occupations necessary under Capitalism would not be required if goods were produced for use instead of profit.

When such a sane system of society is established only a few “crackpots” would wish to retain the present organised chaos known as Capitalism. They indeed would be the flat earthers!

G. H.

The Trade Unions (1966)

From the October 1966 issue of the Socialist Standard

When the Webbs’ wrote their History of Trade Unionism in 1894 they defined a Trade Union as “. . . a continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining and improving their conditions of employment”.

A modern historian could be excused for amending that definition to read, “A continuous association of wage-earners for the purpose of seeking plausible arguments why they should refrain from making wage demands”.

We have been browsing through Trade Union Congress reports of the past 20 years to try to find a year when there was no debate on wage restraint. We had no success.

During the years immediately following the last World War we find the TUC urging support for the Attlee government’s policy of a 10 per cent increase in productivity with austerity in wage demands. A few years later, with the 10 per cent allegedly achieved, there come demands for greater increases in productivity coupled with wage restraint to reduce export prices and undersell competitors in foreign markets.

At the 1951 TUC the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Hugh Gaitskell, told the delegates that, although world prices were stable, they must avoid making substantial wage demands during 1952.

Yearly, after that, the same tune is played with a slight change in the lyrics. For “wage restraint” we read “pay pause”, “deferment of wage claims” or “restricting wage demands”. These are argued as necessary because of the dollar gap, the adverse trade balance, the Suez Crisis or whatever threat was prominent during a particular year.

When the Labour Party is out of office the tune at the TUC is in a different key. The bulldozing bass of Arthur Deakin, the Transport and General Workers’ Union’s arch priest of wage restraint, gives place to the applauded baritone of Mr. Campbell of the National Union of Railwaymen and Frank Cousins of the Transport Workers. In 1956 these two took the limelight by opposing wage restraint under a Tory government and advocating a return to policies of the previous Labour government.

So, year after year, we find one government or another demanding that wages be held in check in the interest of national economy and the trade unions agreeing with the need for the economy but differing with the measures to be taken.

No previous government has gone to the limits of the present Labour government in attempting to force a wage freeze on the workers. Pleas for restraint are now giving place to legal measures to pare wages down. During recent weeks many Unions have announced their intention to support the government’s policy and the 1966 TUC has endorsed that policy, “reluctantly”.

The opposition, with a few exceptions, did not condemn the sacrifice of workers’ wages at the altar of capitalist crisis. The objection was to the government’s proposal to legislate to enforce a wage standstill because the law could be used by a future Tory government. How quaint! Prison punishment must be more pleasant under a Labour regime. Perhaps the cells will be padded.

The need to stabilise the £ was accepted. A lovely phrase that, “stabilising the £”. We wonder how many workers know what it means. Mr. Carron does. He knows it means that there is a need to show foreign financiers that the interest on their loans to this country is safe, that the wage slaves are frugal, docile and hard working and if they should get a bit rebellious, Mr. Wilson’s government is going to govern.

Trade Unions do not oppose capitalism and at their TUC forum they have never done more than debate the weight and size of the shackles that bind the working class. To them there is no alternative to capitalism with its production for profit and competition for world markets. They see no class struggle, only a struggle between nations. They create a picture of a good old trade ship “Great Britain” worked by an amicable crew of workers and employers with the Labour Party at the helm, steering towards the horizon of prosperity. There may be injustices in the share-out of the ship’s rations but, when the waters are troubled or the winds adverse, the whole ship’s complement must pull together to keep it on its course. It’s a pretty picture, a lovely illusion, a mirage.

This is not a new trade union outlook. They have, at times, been rebellious but, fundamentally, their thinking has not changed since their birth. In its early days delegates submitted and read papers to the Trade Union Congress. A few illustrations taken at random will demonstrate the continuity of ideas and policies.

The secretary of the Bookbinder’s Society in 1860 wrote:

. . . that the true state of employer and employed is amity, and that they are the truest friends.

A paper to the 1887 TUC:

It is the boast of most Trade Union secretaries that they have prevented more strikes than they have originated.

J. Kane, secretary of the Amalgamated Ironworkers in 1869:

I am determined to give no encouragement to men who refuse to obey and to abide by the written laws of our association . . . encourage me to labour on in the cause of justice and truth.

Through the years TUC debates have centred around class collaboration, suppression of strikes and the disciplining of unruly members.

There is a story of an old trade union leader who used to poke his head round the employer’s office door and ask, “Owt?” When he received the reply, “Nowt”, he would turn to his members and say, “Out”.

The story is, of course, an exaggeration but it is indicative of an attitude in days before trade unions gained their much sought after recognition. Recognition once achieved the old style leader was doomed, ridiculed and elbowed out by men more skilled in the rhetoric of negotiation.

The new men sat round the negotiating table with the employers and argued, often skilfully, not on the basis of class interest but of “justice” and “fair play”. They made agreements on behalf of their members and, when signed, the agreements were deemed to be binding on the employers and the trade union members alike. If conditions changed and agreements became unsatisfactory causing workers to rebel, the union officials had the job of bringing the rebels to heel.

When labour power was plentiful and when all industry was in the hands of private enterprise the employers could restrain wage demands without recourse to government help. But with the state extending its control over industry and labour power finding a sellers’ market, governments find themselves forced to take a more interfering hand.

Within capitalism much of the argument advanced by trade unionists is sound. Some years ago a newspaper columnist illustrated this with a tale of a benevolent employer who paid his workers a high wage for short hours. When he went out into the market to sell his goods he found himself outpriced by his competitors. He returned to his workers and told them that either he must reduce production costs, including their wages, or he would go out of business. To keep their jobs they accepted lower wages and longer hours.

What this story omits to tell is that in every country of the world the same state exists. Workers everywhere are urged or forced to moderate their wage demands in the interest of their own nation’s economy and to keep their jobs.

That is why Socialists say that there is no solution to the workers’ problems within capitalism. While there is capital and labour they will be perpetually antagonistic. While wealth is produced for a competitive market the capitalists will strive to keep the workers’ portion at a minimum. While profit is the stimulant to production the workers will be a subject class. While there is a wages system wages will be under continuous pressure. While workers continue to elect governments to run capitalism they will be urged, cajoled, commanded and compelled to moderate their wage demands.

While trade union policy is hidebound by capitalist notions the unions will 'be feeble instruments—“for the purpose of maintaining and improving their conditions of employment”.

W. Waters

Letter: Taking the Oath (1979)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1979 issue of the Socialist Standard

Taking the Oath

From what I understand, after reading the August issue of the Socialist Standard, the SPGB views Capitalism with implacable hostility, and that no compromise with such a dreadful system is possible. It appears that abolition of Capitalism and the implementation of Socialism is the sole object of the SPGB. Further you mean to achieve this desirable state of affairs democratically by means of the Ballot Box.

A condition for an elected MP to take his seat in the House is the swearing of the Oath of Allegiance to the Sovereign and his or her heirs. The dilemma of the first elected Socialist MP will be whether to refuse to take the Oath, in which case he will not be allowed to represent his Constituency, or to swallow his principles and swear allegiance to the popular face of Capitalism.

Why do you advocate membership of Trade Unions, albeit on a voluntary basis? I refer to the August issue of the Standard page 143 last paragraph. Surely it must be clear to everyone that Trade Unions are as much a part of Capitalism as the Board of ICI.

Firstly the TUC is not interested in doing away with the present system as the elevation of several Union leaders, over the years, to the Peerage is proof enough. After several years of covering the ruling class with buckets of manure they rush to don the robes and insignia of a clique they profess to despise.

Secondly most strikes and industrial disputes arise over pay claims. Now if, as you say, we are wage slaves then why ask the workers to support an organisation that merely thickens the chains? Your position on this issue seems to be that if the worker cannot have the whole loaf then a thicker slice will do. This is reform pure and simple towards which you are bitterly opposed. Your reasoning escapes me.

Lastly the closed shop gives the Unions the same power as the factory owner, namely depriving the worker of his livelihood. If the worker doesn’t like the deals cooked up between the boss and the Union reps then the threat of dismissal from the Union is more than enough to bring the disgruntled into line. I have seen this threat applied several times and it is most effective. If the bosses and the Trade Unions ever see the logic of their respective positions and combine then it will be a sad day for the working class. Both sides have the same aim—the efficient running of the Capitalist system. To think otherwise is merely to bring 1984 to reality. It is well on the way.

P Steed

(Tyne and Wear)

Reply:

You correctly state that we are uncompromising in our opposition to attempts to reform capitalism, and that we view socialism as an immediate objective. Our case on trade unionism is not inconsistent with this.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain and the trade unions have a common origin in the class struggle. The former is the organised expression on the political field of the conscious recognition of the that struggle by workers. So long as capitalism remains it is necessary that workers combine democratically to offer the utmost resistance to worsening pay and conditions. Such action can achieve benefits or preserve living standards from being depressed, but it must be pointed out that this pressure on workers is inevitable. Industrial action in support of a wage claim is not an example of reformism but part of the class struggle, which exists independently of the will of particular groups in society.

It is true that the TUC is steeped in capitalist ideology and that the effectiveness of trade union action has been blunted by support for the Labour Party. It does not follow from this, however, that workers should cease to combine in unions against the employing class and accept wage cuts. (This is not a new phenomenon, incidentally — at the time of the General Strike we praised the solidarity of the workers and condemned the conniving treachery of TUC leaders.) The class struggle involves all workers, whether they are conscious of it or not; our task is to point out that they are only half participating and must organise politically for their emancipation.

The Socialist Party attitude to the closed shop was stated in the Socialist Standard you refer to: “whatever may seem to be the advantages of compulsory trade union membership imposed by the union or the employer, the interests of the working class are best served by seeking to expand union membership on a voluntary basis only”. The existence of the closed shop does not weaken our support for the principle of trade unionism.

If we are to refuse to take Oaths, then there is no chance for controlling parliament. Socialists are not simply waging war against detailed grievances in the system. They are fighting against the system as a whole. As political action is necessary to establish socialism we cannot stop at taking Oaths imposed upon us by the ruling class. The taking of Oaths has never prevented them being ignored when interests dictated it; if it did, the ruling class could keep on imposing conditions which they think socialists will refuse.

Editors.