Political Parties and the General Strike (1976)

From the May 1976 issue of the Socialist Standard

A great deal can be learned from the experience of the working class in the General Strike. Not only does this expose the futile policies of left-wing groups, but it goes a long way towards explaining the generally submissive attitude of the trade unions during the current crisis.

Right from the beginning, the General Strike had little chance of success, due to the economic condition of capitalism at that time. The boom after the First World War turned out to be brief. By the summer of 1920 world markets were contracting with a heavy rise in unemployment: in June 1920 2 million were unemployed in Britain. The traditional industries such as coal were suffering in particular. The position became worse for the coal industry because of competition from the USA, Germany and Poland. A. J. P. Taylor in English History 1914-45 describes the economic conditions which led to the General Strike and to its ultimate failure:

Over-production of primary products dominated the inter-war years, and the impoverishment of these producers brought something near ruin to the old British industries. Exports of coal ran down to almost nothing. British prices tumbled faster than they had risen, and employment tumbled.

During the War the government had taken control of the mines, but the industry was handed back to control by the coal owners in March 1921. Economists opposed government subsidies to the coal industry since the current economic policy necessitated the fixing of the pound to the Gold Standard as a means of arresting its declining value vis-a-vis the American dollar.

In this situation the economists were arguing, as they still do, about the need to increase exports. To do this, prices had to be lowered to compete with rival coal-producing powers. At the same time, profitability must be maintained by lowering wages.

Resistance to reductions in wages had already been tried by the miners, in conjunction with the railwaymen and the transport workers, in the “Triple Alliance" of 1921. The collapse of this industrial action, which became known as “Black Friday”, portended the disaster of the General Strike. Baldwin’s 1925 policy of granting a subsidy to the coal industry, together with his establishment of the Samuel Commission, were measures by which the Government could play for time. By May 1926 the subsidy was due to run out and the mine-owners were continuing their demands for a reduction in wages and longer working hours. The secretary of the Miners’ Federation, Arthur Cook, more militant than his predecessor Frank Hodges, was determined that the miners should stand out against wage reductions. He was supported by the Federation’s President, Herbert Smith. The overwhelming majority of miners backed the strike.

United we stand

Nevertheless, by April 1926 the Government was prepared to make a stand against strike action as it had been in 1921. All the same, Stanley Baldwin and the Conservatives manifestly wished to avert a General Strike which they regarded as an intensification of the class struggle. Baldwin’s policies meant that he had to walk a tightrope between the TUC, and the mine-owners (together with the reactionary elements in the Conservative Party). Although the Conservative government introduced the temporary subsidy in 1925, Baldwin said: “‘All workers in this country have got to face a reduction of wages to help put industry on its feet.”

This was the predictable statement of an administrator of capitalism. It was part of Baldwin’s political strategy not to appear to be the ally of the mine-owners. Instead, he posed as the defender of what was termed as “the British Constitution” against what were considered to be the sectional interests, in the form of the TUC and the miners.

In the Conservative cabinet Lord Birkenhead also represented himself as a pseudo-conciliatory figure. Meanwhile, Churchill, Austen Chamberlain, Joyson-Hicks and Neville Chamberlain were all opposed intransigently to both the TUC and the miners. Steel-Maitland, the Minister of Labour, was himself a mine owner. Members of the Cabinet such as Churchill favoured parades of troops, tanks and armoured cars in the streets against the strikers. Churchill had vigorously opposed subsidies and belligerently claimed that the strikers were Communists under the influence of what he termed as "Red subversion".

The Liberal Party had shown that it was equally determined to protect the interests of Capitalism. Asquith and the Liberal Shadow Cabinet condemned the strike in a straightforward fashion while Lloyd George was trying to gain some political advantage from the affair by declaring that, although the strike was a mistake, the Conservative government was also culpable to some degree.

A similar position of opposition to the strike was adopted by the Labour Party. MacDonald, Snowden, Thomas, Clynes and Henderson in common with the Conservative, Baldwin, all believed in the sanctity of the "British Constitution”, so a rift developed between the TUC and the Parliamentary Labour Party. The "Left”, in the form of Maxton, Lansbury, Wheatley and Cook were under the familiar misconception that capitalism was on the verge of collapse and believed that the General Strike could be turned into some type of revolution.

At that time, the Russian Revolution was still fresh in many people’s memories. The "Communist” Party believed that a workers’ revolution was about to spread across the industrialized countries. However, its support amongst the working class was quite insignificant: its membership amounted to less than five thousand. Two years before the General Strike the CP was making statements such as members of the armed forces should be helping the workers to smash capitalism. The theory of Capitalism being on the verge of collapse was held by the CP and, though it was prepared to use parliamentary methods as a propaganda platform, it also advocated violence and insurrection. It had been barred from affiliation with the Labour Party and so concentrated its efforts on attempting to win support in the trade unions, believing that the formation of factory committees would lead to them being "indispensable weapons in the struggle to force the capitalists to relinquish their grip on industry”. Such an attitude towards the General Strike and towards the idea of revolution was not only adventurist but, what is more important, blatantly anti-democratic.

Tactics

When the General Strike broke out on May 3rd the striking miners were joined by the railwaymen and workers in transport, printing, heavy industry, building and the gas and electricity industries.

The government monopolized the means of propaganda. It was able to put forward its own case in the British Gazette, its own newspaper, the editor of which was the reactionary Churchill. He denounced the British workingmen as "the enemy” and in the columns of the newspaper he demanded that they surrender. The BBC, although theoretically independent and not yet a public corporation, was very much in the government’s pocket and suppressed news which might bring embarrassment upon the government. The TUC published the British Worker which was ineffective since it was forbidden to give out ordinary news or propaganda.

Many myths have been told about the General Strike. Various syndicalist groups and the CP have claimed that the General Strike produced a "revolutionary situation”. Such an interpretation of the events is completely mistaken. There was no opportunity for revolution and certainly no possibility for a Socialist revolution. The strike was one of sympathy and had no revolutionary undertones. The reverse was the case. The General Council of the TUC strove to bring a conclusion to the miners’ strike. It had no desire for a confrontation with the government or the mine-owners. However, the Miners’ Federation was determined to make a stand against the proposed wage reductions and longer hours. Arthur Cook and Herbert Smith were opposed to the Samuel Commission. The mine-owners were equally intransigent, while Baldwin’s cabinet was steering clear of negotiations until concessions had been made by the miners.

The TUC General Council’s decision to call the General Strike was, from the point of view of the “respectable” trade union leaders, a shrewd tactical manoeuvre. By calling a strike of these dimensions the General Council could apply greater pressure on the Government to participate in negotiations to resolve the miners’ dispute. When the attempts broke down, the TUC General Council called off the strike and therefore isolated the miners, who continued their strike in conditions of semi-starvation until November 1926.

The Wrong Road

The idea of revolution had no support amongst the members of the TUC General Council, who were eager to solve the dispute and reconcile the two sides of the coal industry. Large sections of the British working class were undoubtedly sympathetic towards the miners. However, they were not revolutionary and were certainly not class-conscious. The vast majority of the miners themselves were not revolutionary. In spite of all the absurd statements made by the Left and by the Right, the General Strike was not political but was purely economic. A. J. P. Taylor correctly sums up the non-revolutionary attitude of the workers: "They were loyal to their unions and to their leaders, as they had been loyal during the war to their country and to their generals”.

Another historian, David Thomson, in England in the Twentieth Century remarks about the events of 1926: "The Sorelian myth of the ‘General Strike’, of ‘direct action’ on a scale great enough to coerce governments and paralyse nations, was not one accepted by the mass of British opinion, nor even by the organized workers themselves”. “What died in 1926, though nobody noticed, was the myth of syndicalist revolution as the road to better times”.

The failure of the General Strike is underlined by the fact that when the miners were driven to return to work in November 1926, they were compelled to accept the coal-owners’ demands: wage reductions, longer working hours and district agreements. Under the subsequent Trades Disputes Act of 1927 sympathetic strikes such as the General Strike were made illegal and, of course the Government had the support of the armed forces to back this up as well as the tacit agreement or apathy of the majority of the population.

The attitude of the Socialist Party of Great Britain towards general strikes and towards strikes overall is that they can only be used as a means of limited economic struggle. As long as capitalism exists, the strike will be a useful weapon for the working class: most effectively when trade booms occur, industry is expanding and there is a greater demand for workers. Under conditions of depression such as prevailed in 1926 and exist today in 1976, the strike will lose most of its effectiveness. The results of the General Strike and of many of the strikes occurring now, prove this.

If the workers are to abolish the conditions which they experience and which make strikes both necessary and inevitable, they must turn their attention to political action for the democratic act of establishing Socialism.

V. Lutra

"What We Want and Why." (1922)

Book Review from the December 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

The above is the title of an attempt on the part of six leading lights of the Trade Union world to hide their lack of any common definite object, save that of misleading the workers from the road to emancipation. We are obliged to tell the publishers [Collins] frankly that they have issued a rather expensive 7s. 6d. article. None of the contributors are particularly clear as to what they want, while as to why they want it, they are vaguer still.

The ambitions of Mr. J. H. Thomas would, apparently, be satisfied with an efficient railway service, to be secured, presumably, by “nationalisation.” He is very keen on convincing his readers that he is not out for “aggression.” “Peace and economy” are his watchwords. The interests of the railway servants take second place with him, even if they can be said to have a place at all. He shows the waste going on under such relics of the competitive system as exist, but fails to show how the elimination of that waste would assist the employee ; and keeps dark the fact that economy under capitalism simply means getting the same amount of work done with fewer men. The concentration of the railways in the hands of a capitalist State is only a means to the accomplishment of that end. For this reason it is somewhat difficult to follow Mr. Thomas when he asserts that, “with State ownership we could see a possibility of improving the general condition of the worker” (p. 17). As he himself points out (p. 24), where State ownership exists, as in several countries on the Continent, the chief beneficiaries are the business firms who obtain concessions.

Mr. Thomas attaches very great importance to the machinery of conciliation between the workers and the bosses, yet on page 26 we are told that “no machinery can have the slightest value unless it is operated with good-will on the part of both interests.” Why should good-will obtain between parties whose interests are diametrically opposed to one another? To that question Mr. Thomas provides no answer.

He shows that the workers by strict observance of the companies’ rules could practically “stop the service” (p. 28), but “I should personally never favour such action.” He leaves it to his colleague Bromley to point out that the companies are not so squeamish. They have no hesitation in using their rules to send a man to prison if it suits their purpose (p. 176). It is the old story. The workers are advised to be peaceful and to leave their case to their leaders what time the bosses do as they like. And this is the gentleman who poses, and is accepted by the workers, as their champion !

Robert Williams, of the Transport Workers’ Federation, would have us believe that he is a Socialist, yet does not condescend in the space afforded by fifty pages to give us a clear definition of Socialism, nor any hint as to how it is to be brought about. He appears to be much more concerned to excuse and justify the treacherous activity of the leaders of the Triple Alliance, on the ground of trade depression and increasing unemployment. Although the workers were organised in much greater numbers than ever before, and he admits that the need for militancy was just as great as it ever had been, he pretends that the rout has been nothing more than an inevitable retreat carried out in an orderly manner. He fails to show that the real cause of the trouble has been the lack of understanding and mental solidarity on the part of the workers themselves; for which he, Robert Williams, and his colleagues are, in view of their opportunities, largely responsible by default. Williams advances some timid criticism of the Labour Party’s association with the Coalition during the war, and attributes their defeat at the General Election (1918) to this cause. The logical process by which he arrives at this conclusion is somewhat obscure. In any case, the Labour Party’s policy from the date of its inception has never been guided by any intelligible principle, so that Mr. Williams has only himself to blame if he has been disappointed in it. If he really wanted Socialism he would abandon the Labour Party to its inevitable fate, dishonour and disruption !

Tom Mann, in “The Case for the Engineers,” provides a little variety, inasmuch as he makes some pretence at analysing the existing order and offering an alternative ; yet here, again, the alternative is not defined with any degree of clarity. “Economic change” is mentioned, but its precise character is not stated; while as to the means whereby it is to be accomplished, we are referred vaguely to “industrial action.”

“The Politicians,” by whom, presumably, Mann means the Labour Party, are superficially criticised. Their faith in Parliament and constitutional methods is attacked, but their political treachery and duplicity are not mentioned. Mann appears to be utterly oblivious of the fact that Parliament controls the armed forces of the nation and is not likely to stand meekly by while the “men in the workshop” do as they like. The political machine is the only means whereby the workers can give public and effective expression to any common aim and purpose which they may develop as a class. For that reason the Socialist advocates its use. To leave it in the hands of the masters is sheer criminal stupidity !

Coming back to the engineers, Mann endeavours to illustrate the power of industrial action by instancing the hopelessness of asking for a rise in wages from Parliament. He fails to see that the same workers who are asking for a rise have sent their enemies to the seat of government. Are people in such a mental condition ready to emancipate themselves by any action, industrial or otherwise? Further, how can struggles on the industrial field over wages, hours, etc., lead to freedom from wage-slavery? Mann appears to hold that the industrial organisations will gradually assume control of the worshops and pay all wages, etc. Are the masters, therefore, going to surrender their profits. And, if not, what advantage will the worker obtain by drawing the price of slavery through his branch secretary?

Real control centres in the possession of the means of production, and the fight for that possession must take the form of political action. Capitalist property will exist just so long as the capitalist class are left in control of forces which protect that property.

Mr. Noah Ablett illustrates from details of his own experiences the destructive conditions under which the miners toil. When, however, he deals with remedies he becomes extremely confused. He condemns private ownership on account of the antagonism of interests which it involves, and yet advocates a programme of reforms which will become meaningless as soon as private ownership is dispensed with. One is thus driven to the conclusion that by the elimination of private ownership he simply means “nationalisation,” which, for reasons already stated, can offer no gain to the workers. In order to make this clearer, let us proceed to Mr. Bromley’s article.

Mr. Bromley covers much the same ground as J. H. Thomas, but gives a more definite description of what “nationalisation” amounts to. On pages 186-7 we read, “two unions very carefully drafted a Bill for the complete nationalisation of the railways. . . . It proposes the purchase of railways stocks and shares through the medium of Government Stock . . . charged on the State railway undertaking and the Consolidated Fund, which shall bear such a rate of interest as would enable it at the time of issue to be realised at par.” Thus “nationalisation” simply transforms the capitalists . . . concerned from shareholders in a private concern into Government Stock holders still living on the workers by means of the rate of interest !

Mrs. P. Snowden deals with the competition existing between the sexes in the working class. Her “ultimate ideal” is the “payment for work, irrespective of sex, of such a wage as no man or woman would be afraid or ashamed to accept” (p. 214). Albeit, she has previously pointed out that the existing “industrial system does not scruple to play off women against men in attempts to lessen the costs of production by reducing the wages bill” (p. 212). She wants the capitalist system minus one of its principal and essential features, the subsistence level of wages. Curiously enough, on page 261, discussing the necessity of finding work for an ever-increasing number of women, she says that “This can only be done satisfactorily when the social system of the present has given place to a new order, in which all the instruments of labour are in the hands of the community as a whole.” The force and significance of this admission do not appear to strike her, however, as she proceeds on the next page to propose all sorts of ameliorations in the worker’s lot without the slightest hint as to how they are to be accomplished. Further, she advocates the technical education of women and girls, apparently blind to the fact that hundreds of technically trained men are at the present moment searching in vain for a purchaser of their labour power. She fails to point out that the women, no less than the men, of the working class need to realise that they are slaves. This is the essential preliminary to any improvement.

So long as the capitalist class control the means of life, every economy and every improvement in the education, health, and technical ability of the workers, male and female, only results in their becoming more productive slaves. The fruits of their increased productivity go to the masters and not to themselves. This is the central fact ignored or obscured by these so-called leaders of labour.

Whether the workers follow the Labour Party “to nationalisation” plus reforms, or the Industrialist leaders to “workshop control” plus reforms, they are doomed to disappointment. The only road to emancipation is the conversion of the means of life into the property of the whole people. To this end we call upon the workers to organise consciously, and politically for the capture of the machinery of government.

Socialism, undiluted and unadulterated, is what the Socialist Party wants. As to why we want it, only look around you. Millions of willing producers are compelled to be idle while they need food, clothing, housing, etc., and the means exist ready to hand whereby they can produce them ! Generations of workers have put their faith in legislative reforms and strikes, but we are as far away as ever from economic security. 

The Social Revolution offers the only way out. Muster, then, under our banner, with a view to its speedy accomplishment.

Eric Boden

Correspondence. (1922)

Letter to the Editors from the November 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

Dear Editor,

The relative merits of the Socialist Labour Party and Socialist Party of Great Britain have been discussed for weeks by a few Marxian students without coming to any satisfactory conclusion as to which party propounds the correct principles that deserve working class support.

Under these circumstances it was thought wise to present some of the views expressed by the supporters of the S.L.P., so that your party may oblige with an answer in an early issue of your Standard. They say that your party is very inconsistent, as proven by the back numbers of the Socialist Standard and Manifesto. On page 17 of the latter, to top of page 18, we find as follows :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class, with the object of ending the capitalist system and establishing the Socialist Commonwealth.”

The inconsistency is obvious, they say, when one sees in that statement that your party recognises the necessity of an economic organisation, based upon class; and at the same time in actual practice only believe in a political organisation.

The proof of this is seen when one reads clause 6 of your party’s “Declaration of Principles.”

The irony of the situation, say they, lies in the fact that your party should see the necessity of the economic organisation, and then publish matter in your Socialist Standard to absolutely ridicule the said type of organisation. For instance, in the February, 1919, Standard, under the title, “Where we Stand,” on the bottom of page 54, is a brief statement as follows : “How long it does take some people to discover the absurdity of their sophistries ! We pointed out the idiocy of organisation by industries years ago.” Then, again, is that statement in agreement with the brief statement at the end of article called “What the Workers Do Understand,” in January,1921, Standard, which read as follows :— “Educated in these things, and organised on the industrial and political fields, they will seize political power and wield it, and its forces, for the paramount purpose—the establishment of the Socialist Commonwealth.” Why mention “organised industrially,” if it is an idiotic act?

These super-intellects say that you are all “at sea” on another point of importance. You state in your Manifesto, page 18, as follows : “Emancipation, not palliation, must be the watchword of the workers, as it will be when they become Socialists.” Lower down on the same page is as follows : “Its tactics must be aggressive as well as defensive, and its aim revolutionary.”

Do the two statements clash ? Are not the tactics of aggression on the side of palliation? Have not the workers through their industrial unions been aggressive, which aggression has only palliated their conditions? Apart from that, it is highly questionable whether (even if the Trade Unions did adopt the Socialist attitude, as you state) they could, and successfully, adopt an aggressive and defensive attitude.

Your party seems to think that it is a “wise tactic to be always ready to defend working class interests, irrespective whether conditions are suitable or not, as is shown in the article “The Betrayal of the Miners” (in the Standard, May, 1921, page 138, halfway down second column), which reads as follows : “Had the rank and file of the Triple Alliance understood even their ordinary Trade Union interests, they would have stood together and fought to the fullest extent of their power against this attempt to worsen their conditions.” Obviously, your party thought that had the Triple Alliance acted and taken that defensive attitude against the interests of the employers, all would have been well. This means a sectional strike (which your party ridicules). We may ask : what hope of success was there had it taken place, under the conditions then existing? This would have been putting the so-called economic power of Triple Alliance against the political power of the masters. Obviously, had it turned out to be a fight between the two powers, the former power would have been beaten by the latter power, by the ordering, if necessary, of the police and soldiers to act against the workers. Again, such a strike would prevent the normal distribution of the food supply, which is necessary for the workers; and under such circumstances the shortage of food would be sufficient to force the workers back to the workshop. These very same factors of a political nature would also work against the workers’ organisations, should they adopt a palliative or an aggressive attitude.

So, in conclusion, the persons interested in this controversy would be highly pleased if you would endeavour to give your reply to the same in the November Standard.

I remain, yours for Socialism,

Edward Littler.

Answer to E. Littler.

For convenience of reference, we have numbered the paragraphs in above letter that call for specific answers.

No. 1.—The Declaration of Principles lays down the minimum essential factors of the Socialist position. For instance, that Declaration says nothing about carrying on the propaganda for Socialism—yet the S.P.G.B. does it.

Conceivably, Socialism could be established by the political organisation alone, but the economic organisation alone would be quite powerless to establish it. In actual fact, as the conditions allow, both organisations will be used by Socialists for the attainment of their object, though the seizure of power, the greatest by far of the factors at our disposal, will be carried through by the political organisation. Thus no inconsistency in the position of the S.P.G.B. is shown in our correspondent’s statement.

No. 2.—On this point the questioners are so blind that they cannot see that their query is already answered in the quotation they themselves give from our Manifesto, which says :—

  “The workers’ organisation, political and economic, must be upon the basis of their class.”

The organisations we have ridiculed have never been based upon the class position of the workers, but have been those supported by the S.L.P., which consisted in the mass of supporters of capitalism, and which the S.L.P. claimed could “take and hold” the means of production against the armed forces under the control of the masters.

As we have pointed out on various occasions, economic development has travelled beyond the limits of “industry” in numerous directions, and, therefore, the workers’ organisations must cover a wider area than the “industry” even to “keep pace.” The quotation from the Socialist Standard of January, 1921, is of no help to the S.L.P., as the word “industrial” is used here to denote the whole economic field. This is clearly shown by the context.

No. 3.—No ! The two statements do not clash, as even a superficial reading would show. To emancipate itself, the working class must become revolutionary, because it must carry through a revolution before emancipation can take place.

The workers have been no more “aggressive” in the so-called “industrial” unions than in the ordinary “craft” unions, though the failure of such “aggression” would be a blow at the S.L.P., which supports these unions—not at us

No. 4.—While we are always ready to defend working class interests, the phrase “whether conditions are suitable or not” needs explaining. The reference to the article on “The Miners’ Betrayal” is beside the point. The miners were being attacked, and the railwaymen and transport workers were being threatened with an attack. In such conditions, the business of the men concerned, obviously, was to fight together—as the article says—to the extent of their powers. There was no question here of pitting the economic organisation of the Triple Alliance against the armed forces. This ghastly policy, propounded and defended by the Industrial Unionists and the S.L.P., is one we have denounced on scores of occasions. Under some conditions even a sectional strike is better than no struggle at all, and the members of the Triple Alliance would have prevented some of the conditions being imposed upon them that they now suffer under, had they struck on “Black Friday.” How far the interference with the normal food supply would affect the struggle is mere guesswork. Partly it would have depended on the length of the strike. Every strike of any size causes inconvenience and sometimes suffering. But to follow the above argument to its logical conclusion means that the workers must accept anything the masters choose to impose, even though it may mean greater suffering than would be entailed by a strike !

On the economic field the workers’ powers are limited, and in the ultimate, can always be beaten by the possessors of political power. But, as Marx has pointed out, these everyday struggles, with all their limitations, are a product of the system, and cannot be avoided unless the workers are ready to sink below “cooliedom.”

A little further information on the position of the S.L.P. may perhaps be interesting.

In the Socialist, 15/4/1920, they state in the editorial, with reference to the actions of certain prominent members who had broken away from the organisation :—

  “The whole trouble is that a self-condemned Unity Committee, who had more or less “bossed” the Party for the last four years, found themselves up against the rank and file of the S.L.P. in their efforts to compromise Revolutionary Socialism.”

That is a peculiar admission for a self-styled Working Class Party ! If the party is so constituted that one group could boss it for four years, what is to prevent other groups successively bossing it ad infinitum?

Further on in the same editorial they write :—

  “Send in your resolutions to your Executive. Indicate your wishes, strengthen your Executive’s hands in the good work it has carried on since it took up office in September, 1919, when it placed the control of the Party and its Press in the hands of the rank and file.”

According to the above, the control of the party and its Press was not in the hands of the rank and file until September, 1919. A startling admission this, after an existence of 15 years !

After the revolutionary action of placing the party in the hands of the rank and file, an article appeared in the Socialist on the miners’ strike. The following are some extracts from it :—

“THE MINERS SHOULD NOT STRIKE.

My advice to the miners is, don’t strike. Why should you? ”Take and hold” should be your slogan. You have a splendid opportunity at this juncture Work the mines for yourselves. MINERS, SEIZE THE MINES. Is it possible—It is.”

Then follows instructions to the miners to issue a statement saying that on and from a certain date the mines will be worked by the Miners’ Federation of Great Britain. Coal to be reduced by 14s. 2d. per ton, and miners’ wages increased 2s. per day. So easy ! How simple these people are ! And what would the masters be doing while this little transaction was taking place? The same as they do in a strike : bring the armed force to bear on the situation. But the S.L.P. have provided for this :—

“The Army will support you. Call for the support of the Army.

Let your call be “All Power to the Workers.” If you do this you will win hands down.”

Simple, isn’t it? What wonderful childish nonsense ! Anyhow, the subsequent action of the Army and Volunteer Force, when a railway strike was expected, should have knocked that idiocy out of their heads.

It would be interesting to find out what the S.L.P. mean when they state in their Platform :—

  “Whilst the working-class are compelled to organise to capture the means of production, distribution, and exchange to be worked in the interests of society as a whole.”

Money is the means of exchange. They then are working for a system under which money will exist. An elementary knowledge of money would tell them that it can only exist where buying and selling exists. In other words, where private property exists. According to their platform, then, they are not out for Socialism.

In spite of all the noise they make about industrial action, they themselves are not clear as to what their own position is. Since the inception of the S.L.P. the columns of the Socialist have been largely occupied with the disagreements of members as to the position on industrial unionism. From last January onwards a discussion raged, under the title of “The Problem of Policy.” Finally, at their Easter Conference, they decided to support the “Workers’ International Industrial Union.” In an editorial on the Conference (Socialist, 27/5/22) they say :—

  “It has cast a glance at the past and has viewed with disdain its many errors now, and we hope for all times it will never compromise truth to make a friend, and never withhold a blow at error lest it should make an enemy.”

Apparently they keep finding themselves out—yet they “keep on doing it !” Where knowledge is lacking, foolish deeds will flourish.

The S.L.P. have decided to support the W.I.I.U., but in the Socialist (8/12/21) the political policy of that organisation was. stated as follows :—

  “By electing a Political Committee whose duty it will be to safeguard and further the interests of the W.I.I.U. in the political field, and who will take instructions from the Branch and report activities at each Branch Meeting.”

This surely signifies that another political organisation will exist alongside of the S.L.P. If so, where does the S.L.P. stand? Which of the two bodies is supposed to be correct?—both evidently can’t be.

In a Manifesto on the Russian Famine (Socialist, 22/9/22), they recommend the starving workers of this country to send “Food, clothing, boots, medicines and locomotives to Russia.” Would it be any harm to suggest that “Charity begins at home”? The best way to help the starving Russian workers is to push on the advent of Socialism as rapidly as possible, and not to contribute a few pence to be used by the Co-operative Society, as the S.L.P. suggest. Ironically enough, they were calling upon the workers to contribute to save the S.L.P. Press shortly afterwards !

The following tit-bit is an illustration of S.L.P. Logic :—

  “And economic organisation is a necessary requisite to enforce the aims or wishes as expressed by the political organisation at the ballot box. . . . Organise, therefore, on the political field to capture political power and sweep aside the ”robber burg” of Capitalism.”— Socialist, 8/6/22.

If the “robber-burg” of capitalism has been swept aside, where does the “enforcing” come in? Note the phrase, “aims or wishes.” Perhaps the aims differ from the wishes !

Editorial Committee.

Editorial: The Engineers Lock Out. (1922)

Editorial from the April 1922 issue of the Socialist Standard

For nearly two years there has been a rapid and persistent worsening of the conditions of life of the working class. In every industry there have been large reductions of wages, often accompanied by the extension of working hours. So enormous has this fall become that Dr. Macnamara stated (Daily News, 17/2/1922) that wages had fallen in 1921 by £6,000,000 per week. That is over £300,000,000 per year ! Geddes looks small beer alongside this, for while his Committee were trying to reduce Government expenditure by £100,000,000, the employers succeeded in "saving" more than three times that amount from wages.

Naturally the employers are feeling jubilant. The only serious attempt to stop this landslide in wages and conditions was the threat of the Triple Alliance last April in connection with the Miners' lock-out. The foul treachery of J. H. Thomas, Robert Williams, Frank Hodges, and the rest of the official crowd, who study so strenuously the interests of the masters when any dispute occurs, saved the situation for the employers, and prepared the way for further drastic reductions in wages on every hand.

Finding the workers in retreat on all fronts, the masters have now decided to try a "big offensive" in certain selected industries, with the deliberate intention of continuing this "offensive" in every industry till the standard of the workers as a whole has been forced far below the 1914 level.

For this purpose they have chosen to attack the Engineers directly, and allied industry of shipbuilders indirectly. The point of attack on the Engineers is on the matter of overtime that had been the subject of agreement in September, 1920. To talk of the need for "overtime" when millions are vainly seeking work is not Gilbertian, it is drivelling idiocy. Even the employers seem to recognise this, for they are stating that the issue is : —

  "We are going; to know where we are. We are going to manage the shops, or the shops are not going to be run. We are going to make it an absolute condition of employment for all hands" (Employers' statement, Daily News, March 20th, 1922.)

In the House of Commons Mr. A. Henderson quoted from a document the following instruction :—

  "Men will have to resume work on conditions that we will lay down" (Daily News, March 21st, 1922).

The employers trot out these statements pompously and endeavour to convey the impression that it is a brand-new discovery they have made. In their bone-headed ignorance they have no idea that their argument is as old as the institution of private property in the means of life. In the antique civilisations and, centuries after, in the cotton fields of South America, the slave-owners claimed the right to do "as they liked with their own"—in these cases the chattel slaves. The Feudal barons bewailed the few manorial and guild restrictions as interfering with their liberty to do "as they liked" with the serf. And the early capitalists, Christian and Atheist alike, fiercely denounced any interference with the "liberty of the subject" when they dragged children of three years of age and upwards into the hell of mill and mine.

The employers certainly have logic on their side so far. All the wailing about the "cruelty" of the employers, in choosing a time suitable to themselves to enforce such conditions, is waste of breath and ink. Grant the right of private ownership of the means of life or of persons, then one cannot deny the "right" of the owner to "do as he likes with his own." But let us carry the argument a step further.

Upon examination it will be found that the employers only rely upon this "right" so long as the workers accept it meekly. If, under the stress of want, the workers were to attempt to use the means of production for their own benefit, the masters would drop talking of "right" and would openly use the might they control. They would at once call in the forces, of the State, and machine guns, aerial bombs, tanks and troops—à la the Rand—would be launched against the unarmed workers. Like so many other things to-day, "right" will be used by the employers as far as it suits their interests. When it fails to do this, then, like "humanity," "brotherly feeling," "mutuality of interests," and numerous other catchwords and phrases, it will be kicked aside with contempt.

Yet with all the present and past facts around them in overwhelming quantities to prove the truth of this point, the fakirs like Brownlie, Thomas, Clynes & Co. chatter about conciliation and the "duty" of the Government to intervene. Neither they, nor Sir Allan Smith, need turn a hair on this point. If the capitalists fancy their property is in any danger, then the Government will intervene with the speed of greased lightning.

Is the situation then entirely hopeless ? To answer this question it is necessary to grasp clearly what the situation is. Despite the empty-headed rant of the Communist Party and of J. C. Gould and Sir Allan Smith, there is no disposition on the part of the mass of the workers to-day to "control production." The most demanded by the workers is that they shall have some say as to the details of the conditions under which they are to work. The situation then is one of conditions of employment. Once this is understood it becomes a matter of discussion as to what hope exists. On the one hand there are some firms outside the Masters' Federation. Sir Allan Smith and J. C. Gould may be taken as extremists of the latter organisation, but if the workers make a real attempt to put a brake upon the landslide that is taking place in the worsening of their conditions, there may be sufficient members of the Federation who would rather call a halt than face a real fight.

For one thing stands out clearly : Even if the masters win all along the line, if unlimited overtime is allowed and wages are reduced further, these things of themselves would not bring a single order into the shops. In reference to the Shipbuilders' case, the Daily News, 9/2/1922, says :—

  "It is not contended that the proposed reduction in wages will restore that part of the demand which has disappeared, because of the abnormal rate of world building since the Armistice, the operation of the reparation clauses requiring the handing-over of German ships, and the general slump in world trade."

How can the situation be tested ? There is only one way. The organised workers must take united action to hold up industry. It is not a sectional question. The whole of the workers are involved, and if they remain divided, they will be attacked, and beaten, in detail by the employers. If the workers are prepared to stop the wheels of industry for the purpose of putting a check on this attack they must grasp the facts before them.

First, the stoppage must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely. If it does not effect its purpose in a short, sharp action, then it will have failed and the men must accept the inevitable for the present.

Second, it must be carried out peaceably. Any attempt at riot or destruction must be sternly repressed, as it would at once give the signal for the use of the armed forces against defenceless men. All nonsense about "taking possession of works, etc.," must be repudiated or ignored, as that way leads to disaster.

Third, the decisions to come out and to go back must be in the hands of the rank and file. No power should be given to leaders—revolutionary or otherwise—to decide these points.

Such action would cause practically no increase in the misery that already exists, and it would be a real test of the situation. And the hope of success within the limits laid down is at least such as to make the effort worthwhile.

But should this effort be successful, even then the workers would still have to realise that they are only fighting effects, while the cause of their troubles remains unaltered. That cause lies in the private ownership of the means of life—the land, mills, mines, factories, railways, canals, etc.—and the resulting enslavement of the non-owners, the property-less workers. This enslavement is maintained owing to the masters' control of political power whereby they can use the armed forces to protect their property. But this political power is placed in the masters' hands by the workers when at each election—whether general or bye-election—they vote the supporters of capitalism into Parliament. It does not matter in the least whether that supporter be Sir Allan Smith or J. H. Thomas, Lord Devonport or Ben Tillett, the result is the same.

Not until the workers understand the above facts and organise to gain control of political power for the purpose of establishing the common ownership of the means of life, will the days of strikes and lock-outs be over.

The Masters' Victory. (1919)

Editorial from the October 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once more the Government, through its control of the trade unions officials, and the ignorance of the rank and file, has scored a victory over a section of the working class in the settlement of the railway strike on Sunday, 5th October. In 1914 the railwaymen were agitating for a raising of their whole standard of life, but the outbreak of war compelled them to postpone their scheme. After the Armistice the agitation began again and included a demand that the war bonuses should be incorporated in the regular wage and an additional sum added thereto.

Last March the officials of the railway unions accepted the Government offer of an "equalisation" or ''standardisation" wage with a basis of an average of 100 per cent. on pre-war wages. This was so little to the liking of the men that the officials had great difficulty in keeping them at work, and in South Wales the men came out on strike. That cunning agent of the master class—Mr. J. H. Thomas—was sent down post haste to drive the men back to work, by his influence and his threats, and he succeeded in his mission.

Negotiations on the details of this scheme went on until August, when a settlement was reached in the case of Engine-drivers, Firemen, and Cleaners. Mr. Bonar Law had promised that the "equalisation should be upwards," and the railwaymen's officials claimed that the wages of the highest-paid worker in each grade should be taken for the purpose of calculating the "standard" wage of the whole grade. This was done in the case of the Engine-drivers and Firemen, but all the other grades were reckoned in such a way that every one of them suffered reductions on their present total wage varying from 4s. to 14s. These are the figures given on the Government poster issued on Friday, 3rd October,

Suddenly, while negotiations are still going on, the Government issue the above scheme as a "definitive" or final set of proposals. The constitution of the National Union of Railwaymen gives the Executive Committee full power to call—or close—a national strike without consulting the members. Using this power the Executive called the men out on the 26th September.

There are some curious and even sinister features about this business. If the matter was worth the expense and suffering that a strike entails why was not the strike called when the scheme was first formulated? It is no worse now than then. Again, when it was known that the Government had issued a "final" set of proposals, many people condemned it for its "overbearing" and "autocratic" action. But in the official report of Friday's interview it was stated that Mr. Thomas had asked for final proposals to be sent sent ! Why ? Mr. Thomas has not told us, nor is it likely that he will. After allowing the Government six months in which to prepare for such an event the N.U.R. officials take drastic action ! Although affiliated to the Miners and Transport Workers in the Triple Alliance Mr. Thomas deprecates any "sympathetic" action being taken by these bodies. Then the Transport Workers officials call a conference at which not only the officials of the affiliated unions attend, like the notorious strike breaker, Mr. J. Sexton, the r-r revolutionary R. Williams, who fought against the 'bus conductresses receiving the 5s. war bonus granted to the men, Mr. H. Gosling, the faithful friend of the Government, but also such agents of the employers as Mr. Brownlie of the A.S.E., and Mr. J. O'Grady of the Furniture Trades.

A gathering of this character made assurance doubly sure that the interests of the master class would be strenuously protected, and the settlement reached was merely the expression of their success.

As the master class do not wish to show their own game too clearly a little window dressing had to be done to save the faces of these officials before the men. So while the government scheme so loudly advertised as the cause of the strike is accepted as a whole, its application is deferred till September 1920, and the "standard" wage fixed for the lowest paid section, is raised 2s. per week.

And the men gathered at the Albert Hall on the Sunday evening cheered this as a "great victory." So it was—for the Government. And it will not be the last of their victories. While the working class are willing to put faith and power in "leaders" they will continue to be mislead and sold out at critical moments. Giving these men power to settle fights with the masters means giving them something they can sell to these masters whenever the latter wish to bargain.

Not until the workers acquire faith in themselves will they escape from this danger. Once they reach that stage in their mental development and understanding the days of "moderate," "wise," and "statesmanlike" leaders will be gone, and the workers will organise to take control of the means of life by retaining in their own hands the power to decide the issues before them. Then, instead of trying to find out how long they can live on shortened rations, while the masters roll in luxury, they will march to capture the power of control—the political machinery—and end the struggle over wages by abolishing the wages system and establishing Socialism.

By Strike or By Ballot? – A Critical Examination (1919)

From the April 1919 issue of the Socialist Standard

While at the moment of writing final decisions have not been reached in the disputes in the Mining, Railway, and Transport industry, important facts have been revealed from which the working class can draw lessons.

The capitalist Press and the trade union leaders concerned have agreed that a strike of the workers engaged in these industries would be “a disaster,” “an extremely serious matter,” etc. These “labour leaders” have openly done all they could to prevent the men striking, not on the ground that the masters could win if they decided to fight in earnest, but on the shadowy pretext of “injury to the community” or “danger to the industry.” When the master class took millions of wage-workers from production and sent them to slaughter their fellow-workers, these leaders were silent as to the “injury to the community” inflicted.

To help the leaders swindle the rank and file a Commission of Inquiry into the coal industry was formed. As so often happens in these inquiries, no awkward facts about the coal owners leaked out. When introducing the Bill to set up this Commission Mr. Lloyd George made the entirely unsupported assertion that if the miner’s demands were granted the price of coal would rise by 8s. to 10s. per ton. Now this is one of the hoary, but very useful, lies that the master class and its agents—the journalists, economists, labour leaders and politicians—employ to mislead the workers. In this case Lloyd George at once started to contradict himself, as he drew a dark picture of the power of American competition in “our” European market.

But the American miner receives higher wages, reckoned in money terms, than the English miner. Yet American coal, according to Lloyd George, is cheaper!

Lloyd George’s ignorance of the most elementary facts of economics will doubtless shield him from the necessity of attempting to explain the dilemma he has landed himself in.

One superficial answer, “Then why do the masters always resist a rise of wages if they are automatically made good by a rise in prices?” completely confounds the journalist and politician of the master class. For a full working out of the whole question the reader is referred to Marx’s splendid pamphlet, ”Value, Price and Profit.” Here we will only take one or two points from that work.

How are prices determined in any ordinary market? Immediately by the relations of Supply and Demand, ultimately by the cost of Production. Now a moment’s thought will show that a rise in miner’s wages will make no difference in the demand for coal. But without an increase in demand there will be a great difficulty in raising prices. Thus it is evident the coal owners, in the first place, must pay the increased wages from their profits.

“But,” it may be asked, “does not a rise in wages mean an increase in the cost of production ?” Not necessarily. Cost of production is based upon the time taken, on the average, to produce a given quantity of any commodity. When the masters find themselves unable to raise prices after a rise in wages, they try to reduce the time taken to produce the particular commodity by (1) speeding up the workers, (2) cutting out little laxities, as lunch time, etc. If unable to apply these methods they try to improve their organisation, speed up transport, introduce new machinery, and so on. Sometimes these methods are so successful that the commodities are produced at a lower cost than before the rise in wages. In fact, generally speaking, the higher waged worker is the cheaper producer, as is shown by America in so many instances.

In general the masters charge the highest prices the market will bear, no matter how low the wages they pay, and pay the lowest wages the workers will accept, no matter how high prices may be.

One of the first facts brought out at the Coal Commission was that the profits of the coal owners had risen three-fold despite the increase in wages. Taking the figures, profits had risen (after paying £9,000,000 a year in royalties) from £13,000,000 (1s. 1d. per ton) in 1913, to £39,000,000 (3s. 6½ d. per ton) in 1918. The fact that the Government took part of this increased profit in the shape of taxes does not affect the point. What the capitalists do with their profits makes no difference to the workers who have been robbed to produce them.

The Powell Duffryn Steam Coal Co., with a capital of £657,202, had disclosed profits (after deducting depreciation, income tax, excess profits duty and coal mines excess payments) of about £5,261,000 in fifteen years ending 1918. The Ocean Coal & Wilson’s Ltd., capital £3,390,000, paid in eight years over £3,500,000 in cash dividends and distributed £1,000,000 in bonus shares after making the deductions given above.

Manvers (Yorks.) paid 195 per cent. in ten years ending 1918, on the actual capital and paid off £285,500 worth of debentures. The Sheepbridge Coal and Iron Co., in ten years to 1918, paid 144 per cent. upon their capital. In 1918 a 33½ per cent. scrip bonus was paid. The Fife Coal Co. paid over 300 per cent. on actual capital in ten years to 1918. In 1909 one bonus ordinary and one bonus 5 per cent. preference share were given for every four shares held. In 1918 there was a reserve of £500,000 and a carry forward of £126,456. This company owns a large percentage of the miners’ houses in Fife, of which 80 per cent. have only two rooms.

All the above statements were given in the “Daily Telegraph” of March 18th, 1919.

The Consett Iron and Steel Co. paid 242½ per cent. in the six years 1913-1918, and in 1914 distributed £250,000 in bonus shares. The Navigation Coal Co. has paid its capital back four times over.

These figures do not disclose the whole case. In nearly every published balance sheet the miners’ wages and the directors’ fees are lumped together in one item. More or less ornamental figure-heads, often carrying a title, draw large sums yearly for doing nothing more intellectual than attending a meeting now and again and voting as the chairman directs.

More important still is the fact that under the item “Depreciation” the capital used up each year is repaid. This means that if 10 per cent. is set aside each year for depreciation, at the end of ten years the whole of the original capital has been replaced in addition to the dividends that have been paid year by year.

These few facts show how absurd was the laboured attempt on the part of the masters to claim that to grant the miners’ demands would “ruin the trade,” if not the country.

It was when the Reports of the Commission were given to the Government that the great lesson for the workers emerged. In announcing that the Government had accepted and would act upon the Report of the Chairman’s section of the Commission and referring to the possibility of a strike, Mr. Bonar Law said

  “If such a strike comes the Government—and no Government could do otherwise—will use all the resources of the State without the smallest hesitation.“

If such a strike came the mine-owners, if they decided to fight it out, could win by simply pitting their immense resources of wealth, an indication of which is given by the figures above, against the few pounds the miners could gather together. On the economic field the masters are in a far stronger position than the workers and can beat them any time they decide to fight to a finish. Yet in this, as in so many other cases, they threaten to use the overwhelming power of the State for their purpose because it is so much more speedy and decisive.

But how comes it that they can use the State for this purpose? Because on 14th December, 1918, the miners, in conjunction with the large majority of the other workers, placed the State in the hands of the masters when they voted the latter into possession of political power.

While the workers accept the poisonous nonsense that “capital should have a fair profit,” while they swallow the lies and humbug of the labour leaders like Thomas, Brace, Williams, and so on, that the interests of the master class are the interests of the “community,” or ”society,” they will be easily led to vote their masters into possession of the power to rule society.

When the working class rids itself of this stupidity, and realises its weakness in the economic field against the power of the employers, then it will turn to the facts of its situation for a solution and find that the way to salvation lies through organisation for control of the political power. Not until that is assured can the workers own the means of life and operate them for their own benefit. When that lesson is learnt the day of Socialism will be dawning.

Jack Fitzgerald

'Revolutionary Christianity.' (1921)

From the August 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

The "Crusader" is a journal published by a number of people having in common a belief in the power of the ethics of Christ to overcome all the difficulties and to combat all the evils which trouble mankind. In the main they appear to have arrived at their present standpoint as a result of the recent war. During it they took up a pacifist attitude, and none could deny the courage and sincerity with which this was maintained. Further, they have shown a genuine desire to face new problems with the same independence, and to apply to them their universal remedy. As a case in point their condemnation of war for its disregard for human life, which in their opinion is sacred, has compelled a broadening of outlook to include industrial strife; for they soon realised that peace-time pursuits are just as disregardful of the lives and individuality of the workers as is war.

Arising out of this an endeavour was made to get shareholders in railways, mines, and industry generally, voluntarily to give up part or the whole of their incomes in order to ensure the payment of an adequate wage to the workers. Of their sympathy for the latter there can be no question, but this invitation to shareholders is typical of their general utterly futile well-meaningness. Practical help may be an advance on passive sympathy, but neither is of permanent use unless accompanied by knowledge, and the one obvious fact about our "New Crusaders" is that they simply do not understand the problem for which they think they have found the solution.

That there is a conflict in society few people now trouble to deny, although some of our opponents would explain it as the outcome of the workers' ignorance and consequent failure to recognise that Capital and Labour are Siamese twins. The "Crusader" group does also realise that this conflict is sufficiently real to make Christian ethics impossible of application under present conditions, and describe themselves therefore as revolutionary; but although they look hopefully on signs of movement among the workers, they do not correctly interpret what they see. Viewing society through ethical spectacles, they fail entirely to understand its structure, the lines of its development, and the nature and magnitude of the forces at work within it.

Dimly perceiving that the future is with the workers, they nevertheless will not recognise that the class division in society is fundamental, and look to sympathetic interest of all people of goodwill to rid the human race of the material and moral evils of the present system. Necessarily somewhat detached from the workers, they sympathise with but do not trust them; they cannot rid themselves of the idea that Labour needs benevolent shepherding into the green pastures of the new world. They preach fearlessness and confidence in the innate goodness and loyalty of mankind, but nevertheless allow W. J. Chamberlain to insult his trade unionist readers with the remark that, although himself aware before the event of the impending Triple Alliance collapse, and knowing "that the position of the workers' army looks pretty nigh hopeless, . . I hadn't the courage to say so," and again, "had I written all that was in my mind last week ... I should probably have been denounced as a reactionary." After which he has the amusing impudence to condemn R. Williams and J. H. Thomas for not leading their "hopeless army" to the slaughter. Mr. Chamberlain, who thinks the workers unable to endure the truth, really ought to think twice before calling Bob Williams a "hot air merchant."

Confident in the power of love and believing that right is might, they nevertheless place considerable trust in trade union organisation and have a healthy regard for mere numbers.

Whenever the employers or the Government, sure of their dominating position, take the offensive against the workers, the "Crusader" always sees in the protest into which the latter are provoked, the early coming of the Social Revolution. They invariably accept the indignation of the rank and file and the wild utterances of their leaders as tokens of strength instead of what they often are merely the signs of a realisation of helplessness. When each strike or lock-out ends in compromise or failure for the workers, and the Revolution fails to materialise, they are again unable to recognise it for what it really is, the overcoming of a less force by a greater. It is ascribed to the treachery, cowardice, or incompetence of this or that leader, the apathy and lack of spirituality of the workers, the wickedness of Lloyd George to anything, in fact, but the harsh reality. The duplicity of Mr. Lloyd George on the one hand and the brilliance of Mr. F. Hodges on the other would matter but little to class-conscious workers, and are likely to prove equally dangerous while political knowledge is lacking.

The "Crusader" does not supply that knowledge.

At the commencement of the last coal struggle, when it was obvious to most people that, for the miners, conditions were exceptionally unfavourable for an industrial dispute, the "Crusader," true to its belief, advocated the tactics of humiliation and despair of appealing to the humanity of the employers instead of offering what resistance was possible

"Pity may be evoked where threats would have provoked only counter-threats. Labour, if it were wise, would realise that 'the broken sword' is the most powerful of all weapons." (4th March. 1921.)

Aware of the immense power of the Press and seeing this power invariably used against the workers, they counsel introspection and contemplation of the soul as the road to independence of the written word, instead of teaching the real lesson that this if just one more weapon controlled by the capitalist class and used by them to further their class interests.

What the "Crusader" lacks is the recognition of the first importance of the fact that one class—the capitalists—lives by robbing another class—the workers. That robbery is cloaked under legal forms, softened by protective measures—the Factory and Compensation Acts, etc., —obscured by the activities of well-meaning reformers, and cleverly and persistently denied by the Churches and other institutions which supply apologetics for the dominant class, but the robbery exists and will become ever more intensive. Where such material is provided there must be conflict. Its appearance may change, and under special circumstances, such as the war, it may seem to have been obliterated, but it cannot remain hidden.

In that conflict force rules.

This is the kernel of the whole matter, let our "Crusaders" disprove it if they can. During the war they preached negotiation and conciliation. In peace they have so far recognised realities as to condone the use of the strike; the power of the folded arms. They were wrong in their attitude to war, and in so far as they approve of strikes only on the false assumption that they are merely the abstention from labour, and therefore passive and morally justifiable, they are wrong now. A strike does inflict additional hardship and suffering on people not directly interested, and on that ground alone should logically be condemned by the "Crusader."

War between nations is occasioned by the struggle for markets and for the possession of regions rich in mineral wealth, and while the present competitive system remains is inevitable. It cannot be attributed to human weakness, and cannot, therefore, be removed by appeals, however eloquent, to the "better nature" of the peoples of the world.

Our attitude to war, the Socialist attitude, is one of uncompromising opposition, because we contend that the workers have a common interest against the world capitalist class, and have nothing to gain by partaking of the quarrels of the latter, which are only possible with the continuance of exploitation.

The labour leaders who served their masters by opposing any cessation of the war until the "enemy" had been "crushed," and who serve them now by preaching industrial peace, were right in one thing. Quarrels are not settled by negotiation. While the forces at the disposal of the contending parties are more or less equally matched, and while the cause of the quarrel remains, it cannot be disposed of by the round table conference. It is true that eventually enemies have to meet to arrange peace terms, but only when one or the other is prepared to yield, or when the object of each has become unattainable.

The same is applicable to industrial disputes, the class struggle.

The class which now hold the reins of government will not willingly let them go, nor will they, except under compulsion, put in the workers' hands the weapons they may use for their emancipation.

Fortunately, however, the capitalists are compelled by other forces beyond their control to grant such education as enables the workers to learn, and having learned, to act. The development of the system itself provides the force in question.

The need of the hour for us is to put before the workers the knowledge which will enable them to recognise the class nature of society and its government as the true explanation of social chaos.

There is nothing in this beyond the comprehension of the average worker, and an appreciation of it will lead surely to organisation for the capture of political control which must precede any social transformation. However much the "Crusader" may desire this end, in so far as their propaganda makes more difficult the perception of the facts of present social organisation in all their simplicity, it can only be regarded as a hindrance to the early coming of "the day."

Edgar Hardcastle

General Strike — sixty years on (1986)

From the May 1986 issue of the Socialist Standard

The so-called General Strike took place 60 years ago in the nine days 4-12 May 1926, in support of the coal miners but when it failed the miners stayed out for seven months before being forced back on the coal owners’ terms. This naturally invites comparison with the unsuccessful coal strike which lasted about a year in 1984-5. On this occasion, although the NUM called for supporting action by the TUC and other unions, and did receive some financial and other support, there was no general strike action such as there had been in 1926.

In spite of other similarities, including the formation of a rival miners' union based in the Nottingham coalfield both in 1926 and 1984, great changes had taken place in the industrial background between those dates. In 1926 coal was for all practical purposes the only source of energy. There were over a million miners, almost the highest total ever reached. In 1984 there were 241,000 and since the strike this figure has fallen to 140,000.

If ever there was a time when a strike by miners could be expected to have a decisive effect it was in 1926, especially as the miners belonged to the Triple Alliance, along with dockers and railwaymen who between them wholly dominated transport. By 1984 a large and increasing share of the energy industry was held by oil, gas and nuclear power. The recent big fall in world oil prices further undermined the competitive power of the coal industry and may still further reduce its share as a source of energy. During the 1984 coal strike prices were continuing to rise, in line with the inflation policy imposed by all governments. Labour and Tory, since 1945. It was very different in 1926.

With the suspension of the gold standard in 1914 prices rose fast until 1920. The government then decided to operate a deflation policy, through reduction of the paper currency in circulation. Prices fell drastically until 1922 and more slowly until 1925, when the gold standard was restored. A version of the events leading up to the miners' strike in 1926 put out in Labour Party circles was that the wage reductions called for by the coal owners in 1926 were caused by the re-introduction of the gold standard in 1925. That was a wildly inaccurate representation of what actually happened.

When prices began to fall in 1920, including the market prices of coal and other products of industry, employers pressed successfully for the reduction of wages. The wages of coal miners fell exceptionally heavily, the decrease having mainly taken place before the 1926 strike. Between 1921 and 1925 the average weekly earnings of coal miners had already fallen by 40 per cent. The further fall in 1926 was 5 per cent, though with some increase of hours as well. The Labour Party version disregards the fact that the gold standard stabilises prices; it does not reduce them.

The 1984 strike was mainly against the closing down of unprofitable pits, while the strike in 1926 was about wages and hours of work. The 1926 strike was against the private coal owners; nationalisation did not come until 1947. In both events the government threw all its weight against the strikers, the National Coal Board being just as ruthless as the private coal owners had been. The miners' union spent 40 years campaigning to create the nationalised coal industry and then another 40 years fighting against the capitalist monster they had helped to form — a demonstration of the utter uselessness of nationalisation — state capitalism — as a remedy for workers' problems. Both in 1926 and 1984 a prominent question was government subsidies to the coal industry. In both instances the withdrawal of subsidies helped to provoke the strike. The 1926 strike was followed by a tightening of the law against the unions, in the 1927 Trade Disputes Act. In 1984 the law had already been tightened by the Thatcher government. In both 1926 and 1984 the strikes had long been prepared for by the government, special organisations having been set up for that purpose. In 1984 huge stocks of coal had been built up at pit heads and power stations.

One aspect of the 1926 strike recalled an event that took place seven years earlier, when the Triple Alliance of Miners. Dockers and Railwaymen organised a kind of "general strike" against British military involvement in Russia. What was at issue was the ability of the government to intervene decisively. The year 1919 was marked by widespread strikes, including unsuccessful strikes by some of the police, by a number of mutinies in the army and riots and attacks on the police. It was against that background that the government faced the Triple Alliance in 1919.

An account of what happened was published in The Times (16 November 1979). The Prime Minister. Lloyd George, called the Triple Alliance leaders to meet him and told them "the army was disaffected and could not be relied upon":

  "If you carry out your threat and strike then you will defeat us. But if you do so. have you weighed the consequences? The strike will be in defiance of the Government of the country and by its very success will precipitate a constitutional crisis of the first importance. For if a force arises in the state which is stronger than the state itself, then it must be ready to take on the functions of the state, or withdraw and accept the authority of the state. Gentlemen, have you considered, and if you have, are you ready?".

According to the account in The Times the miners' leader, Robert Smillie, said "We were beaten and we knew we were". The strike did not take place. It is evident that the issue raised by Lloyd George in 1919 overshadowed the TUC General Council in 1926. They went into the general strike reluctantly and seized the first excuse to call it off. Long before 1926 the government had overcome its problems with the police and the army. It confronted the general strike and the coal strike confident of its ability to defeat them and resolved to do so no matter what the cost.

The term "general strike" is somewhat misleading. The number of workers on strike was only 1,580,000. apart from over a million miners. This was not because the TUC was unable to get other workers to strike but because those on strike (mainly transport workers, building workers, printers and engineers) were chosen to make maximum impact, without causing unnecessary and useless hardship to other workers.

The Socialist Party of Great Britain, through the columns of the Socialist Standard, had much to say about the strikes and the general strike, based on an understanding of the realities of capitalism and recognition of the fact that a politically confident government. with effective control of the machinery of government, including the armed forces, can defeat any strike if it is prepared to use its power to the limit. For example, the Socialist Standard in April 1919 stated that, given the backing of the state power, "on the economic field the Masters are in a far stronger position than the workers and can beat them any time they decide to fight to the finish". In the issue for April 1922, an editorial urged the unions to take united action. It pointed out that the employers were taking on one section of the workers after another:

  How can the situation be tested7 There is only one way. The organised workers must take united action to hold up industry. It is not a sectional question. The whole of the workers are involved, and if they remain divided, they will be attacked and beaten, in detail by the employers . . . First the stoppage must not be allowed to drag on indefinitely. If it does not achieve its purpose in a short, sharp, action, then it will have failed and the men must accept the inevitable for the present.
  Second, it must be carried out peaceably. Any attempt at riot or destruction must be sternly repressed, as it would at once give the signal for the use of the armed forces against defenceless men . . .
  Third, the decisions to come out and to go back must be in the hands of the rank and file. No power should be given to leaders — revolutionary or otherwise — to decide these points.
  Such action would cause practically no increase in the misery that already exists and it would be a real test of the situation.

There were then, and still are. other voices — organisations urging the workers to take violent action, or to rely on indefinite strikes, as if the workers can hope to starve the employers and government into submission.

Of course, the article went on to remind the workers that strikes only deal with the effects of capitalism without looking to the causes and emphasised the need to take political action for the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of socialism.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The Betrayal of the Miners. (1921)

Editorial from the May 1921 issue of the Socialist Standard

Often during the last two years we have been informed by those who, without knowledge or thought, have swallowed and repeated phrases from Russia, that the workers here were seething with revolutionary fervour, and only needed "strong " leadership to bring about their emancipation.

The contradictions involved in such a statement quite escaped these would-be firebrands, for it is evident, even to the elementary student of social evolution, that a movement that depends upon "leaders" shows by that very fact it is not yet ripe for revolution. "Leaders" can only exist where there is a "following"—that is a body or group who will accept without thought, and with but little question, the orders of their "leaders." When the working class are ready for their emancipation the days of "leaders" will be over, as it is only by growing out of such childish ideas that the working class will reach the necessary understanding to carry through a revolution.

Incidents showing the truth of this contention as to the lack of clearness on the part of the workers are continually occurring, and sometimes on such a scale that all except the purblind swallowers of phrases can see the facts. Such an illustration has just taken place in connection with the coal miners.

Not since the days of 1907, when the officials of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants (since transformed into National Union of Railwaymen) signed the. agreement that bound down the Railway Servants for seven years (see Socialist Standard, Dec. 1907) has such a gigantic swindle been perpetrated upon bodies of organised workers as that carried through by the officials of the N.U.R. and the Transport Workers on Friday, 15th April.

It must be admitted that the capitalist Press has been successful in confusing the minds of large numbers of the working class over the question of the coal miners' dispute. Yet the main points are fairly simple and easily understood.

As is well known, the mines were under Government control during the war, and that control was originally intended to continue till next August. Early this year the Government informed the mine-owners that the control would be withdrawn on the 31st March. At this time the Miners and mine-owners were holding a series of conferences to work out a new basis for wages. Both sides strongly protested against decontrol, urging, among other things, that they should be allowed time to work out their new wages scheme. The Government, under pressure from other "Big Business," refused to withdraw, and stated to the owners that the pool from which the profits had been paid was empty. Despite this the Government offered to guarantee to pay nine-tenths of the average rate of profits for March, even though prices fell, if the owners would drop their opposition to de-control.

The owners accepted this bribe, or subsidy, from the national funds, as subsidies are only harmful or "uneconomic" when given to the workers, and then announced that as soon as control ceased all the agreements made between the Miners and the Government would be scrapped and wages placed upon an economic basis. They kept their word, and as soon as the De-Control Bill was passed notices were issued terminating all existing agreements, to every section of the Colliery Workers, INCLUDING THE PUMP AND ENGINE MEN.

This notice was to expire on the 31st March, and in the meantime the masters issued a new scale of wages, involving huge reductions in several areas, reaching in some cases as much as £1 15s. per week. From the owners' point of view everything looked favourable. Thanks to "Making Germany Pay" the French coal market was flooded with German coal and English coal was driven out. In practically every industry there were large numbers of unemployed that would seriously reduce the financial assistance they could give the Miners, while the latter's own funds had been almost exhausted—except for the amounts necessary to pay the officials—by the strike of last year.

Despite all these advantages the owners were disagreeably surprised to find the Miners were solid in refusing to accept the new terms. So the men were locked out. Then the capitalist Press was set to work to shriek at the wicked pump and engine men, who, being locked out, had the audacity to stay away from work !

Immediately the "leaders" of the Miners' Federation made two big blunders. The first one was to admit that a reduction of wages was necessary—a statement which was entirely false —and the second was to lay down as a "principle" a National Pooling Scheme.

The first point hardly needs discussing. The workers may be forced to accept reductions of wages under certain conditions, but in no case is such a reduction necessary. Clearly the first call upon any branch of production should be the maintenance of those doing the work. Wages fluctuate around the cost of subsistence, and as there is not a single division of industry where the wages are equal in purchasing power to pre war level, the claim of the masters for a reduction of wages is just a brazen attempt to lower the already poor standard of subsistence. For Trade Unions officials to chatter about a reduction of wages being necessary is to show either a colossal ignorance of the workers' position as wage slaves or a readiness to betray their members in the masters' interests.

The second point was a conceited attempt on the part of the Miners' officials to show their ability to assist the owners out of their difficulties. Obviously it is no part of the business of Trade Unions officials to instruct employers how to manage their business. They are not paid large salaries by the workers for that purpose, and the Miners' officials were acting falsely to the people who pay them by such actions. It is for the mine-owners to settle their own method of payment, whether by pool or person. The putting forward of the "Pool" scheme has been of great value to the mine-owners and the Government in diverting the attention of both Miners and other workers from the real point at issue—the lowering of the standard of existence.

When in 1914 the Miners joined up with the Railwaymen and the Transport Workers in a loose federation called the Triple Alliance, for the purpose of defence against just such action as that now being taken by the mine owners, it was hailed by all the "Direct Actionists" and "economic power" phrasers as the greatest step forward the workers had ever taken. Although each of the constituent bodies forming the Alliance have, at different times, been engaged in hard fights with the masters, some excuse has always been forthcoming to explain why the Alliance should not use its power to assist such body. Now it was going to show this power.

After several meetings it was decided on 8th April that unless negotiations were re-opened between the Miners and the mine-owners the Railway and Transport workers would be called out at midnight of the 12th April. Having reached this decision Messrs. Thomas, Cramp, Abraham, Bevin, Gosling, Sexton, and R. Williams were formed into a deputation to carry on negotiations between the Government and the Miners' Executive.

Late on Saturday night, April 9th, the latter agreed to issue a notice calling upon their members not to interfere with volunteers working the pumps and engines, and upon this condition a meeting between the Miners and owners was fixed for the Monday morning. On this arrangement the strike dated for Tuesday night was called off.

The meeting was a failure. No agreement was reached and the Miners, faced with essentially the same situation as before, left the Conference. Then the Executives of the Triple Alliance called another strike for Friday, 15th April, at 10 p.m.

This was to be "the thing." No more dallying, nor more shuffling or wasting of time, but a strong and determined blow against aggression.

The blow came all right, but to the utter amazement and confusion of the rank and file it was a blow by the Executives of the N.U.R. and the Transport workers against the Miners. They had decided to CANCEL THE STRIKE.

Seldom has such treachery been exposed in the industrial field. It was a complete betrayal of the Miners by their own associates—so much so that officials of the N.U.R. and the Transport workers dared not meet their own rank and file and abandoned scores of meetings that had been called for Friday night by skulking out of the way.

From every side arose demands for "explanations," and when those "explanations" that were published are examined the sinister aspect of the situation shows clearly through the veil of confusion with which the officials try to cover up the truth.

All through the negotiations the Miners—quite wrongly, as we have shown above—had held rigidly to the "principle" of a National Pool being accepted before discussing details. The Triple Alliance officials were, of course, not only well aware of this, but had supported the Miner's claim for this "principle."

On Thursday night (14th April) Mr. F. Hodges, Secretary of the Miners' Federation, announced to a more or less private meeting of members of Parliament, in the House of Commons, that the Miners would be prepared to discuss details of wages reduction and defer the question of the National Pool. Lloyd George at once made arrangements for a meeting of Miners and mine-owners on the Friday morning. But on Friday morning the Miners' Executive repudiated Mr. Hodges' offer, and declined to go to the meeting. When the officials of the N.U.R. and the Transport Workers were informed of this decision they passed the resolution cancelling the strike.

The defence put forward by these officials for this decision—that the Miners should have accepted the offer to meet the owners—is simply idiotic as an argument. As stated above, they knew and approved of the Miners' attitude on the "pool" all through the dispute, and their puerile excuse but exposes the more clearly the sinister character of their action.

It would be an insult to the intelligence of any normal person, and still more so to that of Mr. Hodges, to suggest, as does the "Daily Herald" (16th April), that Hodges "made a tactical mistake." This cool and cunning Labour "leader" knows the views of the Miners and the case he has been handling far too well for such an hypothesis to bear a moment's examination. The "Labour Leader" and the official organ of the several times united Communist Party join in putting the bulk of the blame upon J. H. Thomas, but this condemnation proceeds from a desire to make him a scapegoat for the actions of members of the I.L.P. like Sexton and of the Communist Party like R. Williams, who are not one whit less guilty than Thomas.

The only explanation that fits the facts of the case we have given above is that the whole business has been arranged among the wire-pulling clique of Labour leaders who had the matter in hand, and it is merely misleading the workers to pretend that any one of the clique is more guilty in any material sense than the others. Nor can the Executive of the Miners' Federation escape from their share in the foul business. When they met on Friday morning to consider Hodges' offer of the previous night they decided by a majority of two ("Observer," 17.4.1921.) to repudiate that offer. But this majority contains the pets of the Communist Party, the "extremists" like G. Barker. Had they the slightest grasp of essentials they would have at once called for Mr. Hodges' dismissal. Not only did the "extremists" fail to take such action, but they voted for the resolution asking Hodges to retain office ! (See Mr. Hodges' letter in the "Observer," 17.4.1921.) The whole evidence supports, the contention that the meeting in the House of Commons had been carefully arranged to allow the Triple Alliance to crawl out of the situation the strike threat had created.

The whole incident, with its huge fraud and slimy crawling on the part of the officials of the unions concerned, throws a flood of light on the present mental condition of the organised workers. It shows the fallacy of the Anarchist and Industrial Unionist argument that political action is no good because it corrupts the representatives of the workers. They will be puzzled to find an equal in politics to this act of corruption —one among thousands—on the industrial field. It shows once again the stupidity of allowing "leaders" to decide agreements and actions.

Above all it shows how few of the working class here have even a glimmering of an understanding of their slave position when they allow themselves to be used as pawns in the intrigues and corrupt practices of their officials.

All along the line the employers are making a powerful and systematic attempt to lower the standard of existence of the working class. Engineers, shipbuilders, transport workers, miners, house builders, seamen, are all being attacked, and in each case the officials are urging the workers to accept the masters' terms, though to save their faces—and their jobs—they usually introduce some small modification as a point to argue about. Had the rank and file of the Triple Alliance understood even their ordinary Trade Union interests they would have stood together and fought to the fullest extent of their power against this attempt to worsen their conditions. A short time ago the Building Trades Federation urged joint action on the part of all organised workers against the plot of the employers, but the mandarins of the Triple Alliance evaded the question by referring it to the Cremation Company known as the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Unions Congress.

This ignorance extends to some who pretend that they understand Socialism because they can shout loudly. Thus in the "Communist" of 2nd April appears the following :

  Only by taking the offensive, only by a well-calculated, well-organised and capably developed campaign for the nationalisation of the mines with real and complete workers' control can the miners ever score any real victory over their exploiters.

Even the beginner in the study of Socialism is aware that Nationalisation is merely capitalist control through the agency of the Government instead of an individual or group. To expect the capitalists to allow the workers "real and complete" control under nationalisation is idiotic. The sapient guides are therefore urging the Miners to organise a campaign for —more centralised capitalist control !

These people also howl against the present Trade Union "leaders." Not because the existence of "leaders" proves how unripe the workers are for Socialism, but merely because they are "bad" leaders. Thus in their issue of 9th April one reads:

  Out of the hands of the reformists must power be taken and into the hands o£ those who see straight and clearly must power go.

Into the hands of those who "see straight" like R. Williams, we suppose.

To follow "leaders," no matter who they are, or whether on the industrial field or the political, is to give those "leaders" something to sell—their influence over the members. Evidently there is competition for these leaderships and the crime appears to be that Bevin, Thomas, Clynes, Hodges, and so on, hold these jobs instead of those who "see straight," like the Communists. Such teaching is just as misleading as that of the present office holders.

The working class are slaves because all the means of production and distribution— land, mines, minerals, railways, canals, factories, motors, engines, machinery, docks, warehouses and the like—are owned by a small section in society—the capitalist or master class. The workers cannot operate these means of production and distribution without the masters' permission, in other words the workers only live by permission of the masters. This is the first great fact the workers have to learn. The second is how do the masters retain their control ?

The present struggle once more repeated the thousand times told tale. Leaving their "economic power" to look after itself, the capitalists had the Army reserves called up, Naval ratings sent to work the pumps, a white guard formed called a "Defence Force," and set the new D.O.R.A. into operation.

"Oh!" we shall be told, "but that was the work of the Government." Exactly, and who are the Government ? Perhaps the answer may not come quite so readily. A little thought will show that the Government is merely the Executive Committee of Parliament, and it can be pulled up, reprimanded, or changed whenever the majority decide to do any of these things. That majority to day consists of capitalists and capitalists' agents. Thus the Government is in reality the Executive Committee of the capitalist class—which explains a large number of things if one thinks over it. An inquisitive person may ask : "Who sends that majority to Parliament ?" and if he happened to be a person ignorant of the workings of capitalism, he would be staggered to receive the reply—"The workers—miners, transport workers, railwaymen engineers, builders, labourers, clerks, in short, all those who do the useful work of society."

There stands the bald fact. It is the workers themselves, in their ignorance, who place the power into the hands of the master class whereby the latter enslave the former. While the workers continue to vote the masters into control of the political machinery their slavery will continue and their conditions grow worse.

Out of this situation the road stands clear. Not by wild grimaces or hysterical shrieks, not by rushing unarmed against machine guns and high explosive shells, not by stupidly imagining they can "lock-out" the master class by economic organisation, but by first studying their position in society to-day, and when they have discovered how they are enslaved, organising seize control of political power, through the franchise they possess. When they have attained possession of the political power, and not till then, they will be able to take over the means of life and end strikes, lock-outs, and the treachery of officials by establishing Socialism as the form of society fitting the development of the means of production.