Editorial: Big or Little Unions? (1937)

Editorial from the July 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. J. Brown, the Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, has thrown a bombshell into the Trade Union world by telling the busmen that if they decide that they cannot rectify their unsatisfactory position in the huge Transport and General Workers' Union, as disclosed by the recent strike, he will help them form a Union of their own, under their own control (News Chronicle, June 19th, 1937). When Big Unionism was all the rage after the War it was widely believed that you only had to merge a lot of small Unions into one big one to solve all problems and remove all difficulties. It has not turned out quite like that. For one thing the huge organisations have become very slow moving and cumbersome—this, maybe, is unavoidable— and they have not by any means got rid of the sectionalism of the different groups. Consequently much of their energy is absorbed in the constant effort to prevent some sections from being too belligerent, and thus draining away funds in strikes, and preventing the same or other elements from breaking away as a result of craft disputes with other sections of the membership. The moral —pointed out by Socialists at the time—is that you cannot get rid of the reactionary ideas of small bodies of workers simply by lumping them together in a large body, though it is fairly obvious that it is better to try to settle disputes between groups of workers inside a large Union than allow the employers to exploit the rivalries of a number of small, hostile Unions.

On the whole, and Mr. Brown rightly declares his preference for this solution of the problem, it is better to set about the task of democratising the organisation of the large Unions so that they can act quickly and can avoid laying themselves open to the charge that they neglect the interests of sections of the membership. The larger part of the problem is, however, the education of the whole membership, so that they realise their common interests as members of the working class, and so that they cease to think as busmen, dockers, clerks, and so on, but as men and women with the united aim of resisting the pressure of the capitalist class, and of working for the abolition of the capitalist system.

This much can be said for Mr. Brown, though we do not like his politics, that in his own Union of many Civil Service grades he has never been accused of lack of aggression in his attitude to their employer, the Treasury and Government, or of neglecting the interests of sections of his own membership. On the other hand, he has been charged by other bodies of Civil Servants with showing little regard for the interests of grades outside the ranks of his own Association. To which he could, no doubt, reply that that is inevitable so long as the mass of workers are lacking in a sense of their common interest as members of the working class and, consequently, go on thinking wholly or mainly about what they hope they can get by concentrating on a narrower interest.

One thing is quite certain. Mere breakaway Unions solve nothing. If the formation of big Unions did not do much to alter the outlook of the members, merely splitting them up again will do less. The need both in the big and the little Unions is for more class-consciousness and more appreciation of the necessity of the members themselves keeping full control over policy.

Blogger's Notes: 

See the following article from the same issue of the Socialist Standard, 'The ’Bus Strike—and After', for more background on the 'bus workers and their union, the TGWU.

Beneath this editorial was the following notice.

Trade Union Branches 

The Socialist Party of Great Britain is prepared to consider applications from Trade Union and other organisations for a representative to state the case for Socialism. Travelling expenses only are required.

Civil Servants and Bonus Cuts. (1931)

From the May 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

During and after the recent Great War, Civil Servants found that the wages and salaries paid to them as employees of the State were not, owing to the general rise in prices, sufficient to maintain them and their families in the same comfort they had been accustomed to. After much agitation and negotiations with the authorities, an agreement was entered into in 1920, by which an addition was made to the prewar scales of pay according to the increased cost of living then existing. The bonus was to be increased or reduced as the cost of living should further rise or fall.

At the present time the cost of living is computed to be 52 per cent. over that of 1914.

Under the agreement the full bonus is only given on rates of par not greater than 35s. per week. Rates in excess of that sum carry a bonus which is reduced proportionately as pay advances above 35s., so that, in these cases, the actual addition to pre-war rates varies from 46 per cent. to 16 per cent. on the higher scales of pay.

Civil Servants in receipt of basic pay exceeding 35s. weekly, and consequently diminishing bonus, therefore claim, not unreasonably, that their standard of living has been considerably lowered.

Considerable notice has been given in the daily press to the question and to the efforts of Civil Servants and of W. J. Brown, Labour M.P. for West Wolverhampton, to bring pressure to bear on the Government to suspend the operation of the agreement in reducing pay at the present time, but without success. A saving of three million pounds per annum, in the wages of Civil Servants is indicated.

Civil Servants have been pleased by the quite unusual notice of the press given to their demands, which had not hitherto been so prominently brought before the public. It is probable that this is not so much due to sympathy with the efforts put forth, as to the impression desired to be made on other sections of the workers whose pay is at present the object of attack by the master class, such as school teachers, bank employees, and others.

The facts of the situation should be closely considered by Civil Servants. On the whole, as is also the case with school teachers and similar employees, they are reluctant to identify themselves with the working class, regarding; themselves as superior and holding themselves aloof as forming part of a middle class. The fiction of a middle class is encouraged by the capitalist class in order that this aloofness may keep them politically separate from the working class. The very fact that the current discontent in their ranks is based upon the inadequate remuneration given to them in return for the work performed, is plain proof that they are dependent upon their earnings for their maintenance. This condition of society is essentially one that puts its seal upon the working class who, having no means of living of their own, must sell their labour power to an employer in order to obtain the means of living, the employer in this instance being the State.

The remuneration they receive is based upon the necessary cost of their maintenance as Civil Servants and the rearing of a family in like circumstances. Under the present capitalist system of society there is always a tendency to depress their standard of living to a minimum. This it is from which they are now suffering. As in outside working class ranks they have been compelled to form their unions in order to maintain and forward their interests, as opposed to the attempts of their employer, the State, to lower their status and standard of living.

What is here pointed out should help Civil Servants to realise their position in Society, and also that, in order to reap the full benefit of their labour, they should unite with ail other sections of the working-class to overthrow the capitalism system and to establish the Socialist Commonwealth.

F. J. H.

Editorial: Conscription—1916 Over Again (1939)

Editorial from the June 1939 issue of the Socialist Standard

After repeated pledges not to introduce conscription in peace-time, Mr. Chamberlain has introduced it in peace-time—with the bland excuse that “no one can pretend that this is peace-time in the sense in which the term could be fairly used.” The Labour Party can fairly claim that the man who treats pledges so lightly can hardly throw stones at Hitler, but on every other ground the Labour opposition to conscription is of the flimsiest kind. The Government is treating it accordingly. Particularly during the past six months the Labour Party has done its utmost to persuade the voters and badger the Government into a system of alliances to “stop the aggressors.” Now the Government suddenly falls into line, but says that its actual and potential allies want this country to adopt conscription in order to show that it means business—the nature of the business being the capacity to wage war on a large scale. The Government also points to the fact that France, Russia, Poland and the rest of the countries—except U.S.A.—already have conscription, and M. Blum, leader of the French Socialist Party (the equivalent of the British Labour Party), throws in his influence on the same side and tells his British colleagues not to be illogical. In these circumstances the Government would be foolish to treat seriously the Labour Party’s wordy opposition to conscription—those who have swallowed the camel of war do not for long strain at the gnat of compulsion. If Mr. Chamberlain had any doubts about the matter he could remove them by observing how the Labour Party behaved in 1916, when war-time conscription was being introduced. In theory they were opposed to conscription, but they were also represented in the Government and were in favour of the War. What then could they say when the Government came to them and said that the voluntary system had failed? Some of them did say, indeed, that the Government had broken its word and was tricking them, but they were answered by Mr. Arthur Henderson, one of the Labour Party representatives in the Government. Speaking at the Labour Party Annual Conference at Bristol, in January, 1916, Mr. Henderson supported conscription, on the ground that—

“Notwithstanding the magnificent success of the voluntary system, even now we had not all the men we needed to meet the enemy in the various theatres of war that we were confronted with.” (Report, page 120.)

In spite of Mr. Henderson’s support for conscription, it was obvious that a majority of delegates were still against it. A resolution was before the Conference which declared opposition to the Military Service Bill and went on to commit the Party to “agitate for its repeal” if it became law. This would have been very awkward for the Labour Party and its members, who were part of the Coalition Government, but Mr. Will Thorne and others proposed dividing the resolution. This was done and everyone was satisfied, because Conference then proceeded to adopt the harmless attitude of opposing conscription and also of opposing the resolution which would have committed them to agitating for its repeal. This can safely be taken as a forecast of what will happen now if the Government continues to put in practice the Labour policy of preparing for war, and if the international situation continues to be tense.

As far as the Trade Union Executives are concerned, that is indeed what happened at the special conference held on May 19th, 1939. They rejected by 3,817,000 votes to 232,000 an amendment which would have meant withdrawing from co-operation with the Government on National Service, and passed by 3,933,000 votes to 550,000 a long resolution which opened by protesting “most strongly against the Government’s action in introducing compulsory military service, in violation of the definite pledges given by the Prime Minister, and of the solemn assurances offered to the T.U.C. General Council when co-operation was sought by the responsible Ministers in the organisation of Voluntary National Service.” (Report in Daily Herald, May 20th.)

They also rejected by 4,172,000 to 425,000 a resolution in favour of a “general strike as a last effort to oppose military and industrial conscription.”

The Labour Party’s votes in Parliament in 1916 were equally illuminating for the light they throw on that Party’s attitude. There were three votes on the Military Service Bill, on January 6th, 12th and 18th, 1916. At the first vote, fourteen Labour M.P.s were absent out of the total of thirty-six. Of those present, thirteen voted “against” conscription and nine “for.” At the Second Reading, nine were absent, eleven voted “against” and sixteen “for.” And at the Third Reading, no fewer than twenty were absent, six voted “against” and eleven “for.” (The number of M.P.s had in the meantime increased to thirty-seven.)

As in 1916, so in 1939

The Labour Party is, in 1939, again making a great show of opposing conscription, because, in its view, the voluntary system “is providing, and can continue to provide, the nation with all the manpower required for effective national defence and for the fulfilment of its obligations for mutual assistance in the collective system of resistance to aggression.” (Statement issued by the National Council of Labour Daily Herald, April 26th.)

Many trade union executives and conferences have endorsed the Labour Party view, but one Union, the Civil Service Clerical Association, a little more far-seeing than the rest, has anticipated the likely future trend of misguided working-class opinion. Instead of playing for immediate popularity by opposing conscription, the General Secretary of the C.S.C.A., Mr. W. J. Brown, and his Executive Committee, moved an emergency resolution at their annual conference supporting conscription “on conditions,” one of which was the “immediate conscription of wealth.” The movers are thus in the safe position of still being able to say that they never supported conscription unconditionally in the form in which it will actually exist. At the same time they save themselves from the ridiculous position of the Labour Party. The C.S.C.A. delegates carried the vote for conscription by 414 votes to six.

The man who was largely responsible for persuading the delegates was Mr. W. J. Brown, former pet of the Communists and the I.L.P., ever a nimble sprinter after the merry-go-round of capitalist reforms and expedients. The day before yesterday he was MacDonald’s friend, then Mosley’s (at the birth of the New Party). Then he was very, very “left-wing” and the enemy of Bevin. Now he is “for conscription” and Bevin is against it. But the present position will, doubtless, be no more stable than the others, and any serious crisis for British capitalism will find them in the same camp again.

The Socialist Position

As against both of the above policies, policies circumscribed by the callous requirements of predatory capitalism, the Socialist Party stands for Socialism, well aware that neither the Browns nor the Bevins, the Chamberlains nor the Stalins, have any practical solution to offer for the evil plight in which the world’s workers find themselves.

The Socialist is opposed to conscription because he is opposed to the capitalist war for which the armed forces, whether volunteer, professional or conscript, are wanted. Though the war would be described on the one side as a war “for democracy” and on the other side as a war “against encirclement,” the driving force behind both sides would be the capitalist lust for markets, raw materials and strategic positions. When Hitler for the German capitalists says that Germany must expand or explode, find markets or perish, he meets his opposite in Mr. Hudson, British Secretary for Overseas Trade, who said in Warsaw on March 21st that “we are not going to give up any markets to anyone. . . Great Britain is strong enough to fight for markets abroad. Britain is now definitely going to take a greater interest in Eastern Europe.” (News Chronicle, March 22nd, 1939.)

Fighting that at present takes the form of words, trade agreements, loans, guarantees against aggression, etc., may, as in 1914, turn into an armed conflict, and that armed conflict will be yet another war produced by capitalist rivalries.

The Socialist Party knows that such wars solve nothing for the workers, and leave capitalism to produce still more wars in endless horror.

The Socialist Party declares its opposition not only to conscription but to capitalist war and to capitalism itself. The Socialist Party can repeat now what was written in its official organ in February, 1916, about the conscription then being introduced : —

“… We are bitterly opposed to conscription. But what are conscription, war, unemployment, poverty, overwork and starvation wages but the direct results of capitalist class rule? What hope of any permanent amelioration so long as the workers are the underdogs? What hope, indeed, of even a paltry concession in this matter so long as the exploiters are masters of the State and feel their controlling position unmenaced? We, therefore, urge the workers to join the real campaign against conscription; for conscription, on the part of the governing class, is only one item in the war upon the workers.”

Reported in Hansard (1949)

From the May 1949 issue of the Socialist Standard

Are the Tories going Syndicalist?

From the Debate on a Conservative Clause to the Coal Industry Bill. (Hansard, 28/3/1949).

Mr. J. G. Foster (Conservative, Northwich). “I should like now to allude to the point of view taken up by the Hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. McKay). He says that the House of Commons need not be bothered because there is the miners union and the Government owns the mines, and that therefore everything is quite happy as between the miners’ union and the Government. I do not think the hon. Member has quite appreciated the fact that although things may be all right between the miners’ union and the Government—and of course the top union officials have jobs in the Government and represent the unions in Parliament—things are not all right between the members of the union in the nationalised industry and their union officials in the Government. Things are not all right, as one can see, because there are unofficial strikes and it takes months for disputes and grievances to come up even to the men’s own union officials.

“It is no answer for an hon. Member to get up in this House and say ‘It is all right, the union has said nothing.’ Of course the union have not said anything. They work hand in glove with the Government and disregard the interests of the men. That is the trouble, and we get the same trouble in civil aviation and in the transport industry. That is why some breakaway unions are popular and why there are unofficial strikes; it is because the men are dissatisfied with their own union officials. There is great disquiet among many trade unionists who remember the glorious record of trade unionism that is being thrown away because top union officials prefer to work in harmony with the the Government instead of putting the interests of their men first . . .”

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Gaitskell): “I am anxious to confine my remarks as far as possible to the Bill and to the new Clause, but I cannot let tho comments of the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster) pass without making some reply to what seemed to me to be a disgraceful attack on the leaders of the trade union movement. He appeared to be criticising them for the moderating influence which they exercise upon their members, so as to help the country through its present economic difficulties. I am astonished that a prominent member of the Conservative Party should now be descending to a syndicalist policy. 1 should hope that if any Member on the Front Bench opposite is to speak he will repudiate the hon. Member for Northwich, because he made a most scandalous suggestion.”

#    #    #    #

Mr. Shinwell among the Brass-hats.

“ . . . I have had experience of working with the so-called brass hats for the past eighteen months and I had some experience of working with them in 1929. I have also had the experience of working with other people, and I would rather work with the brass hats at the War Office than with some of the brass faces in other spheres of life.”

(Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

And another one-time “ Revolutionary.”

"Is the Prime Minister aware that forty years ago the Oath of Allegiance was even exacted from junior civil servants, the lower ranges of civil servants; and can he say why it has fallen into disuse since then? Does he not think it would be a good plan to re-impose it?”

(Mr. W. J. Brown, Hansard, 29/3/1949) 

#    #    #    #

We Wonder.

"Private enterprise has been aided more by this Government than by any Tory Government, and the result of the General Election will show that the people like it”

(Mr. A. Robens, Parliamentary Secretary to the Min. of Fuel and Power. Hansard, 29/3/1949.)

#    #    #    #

Troubles of a Labour Leader.

Captain Hewitson (Labour M.P. for Hull, Central) in the Debate on the Budget proposals. (Hansard, 7/4/1949).

"I have in my hand a list of industries numbering 151; in 122 of these 95s. or less is the average weekly basic wage. During last year trade union leaders, in spite of all the things that have been said against them about lost leadership, not being able to control their members, and so on, have been able to persuade their followers to increase production. At the same time they have prevented inuation by holding back demands for increased wages. We have accomplished that during the last year. We have reached the stage today when we cannot hold that safety valve any longer."

"I want to strike a note of warning . . . Can I go to my membership, who have a wage of 95s. or less, and justify to them and convince them that that wage is adequate to keep body and soul within them and their homes, and to give them decent shelter? We cannot do it any longer. If the Chancellor or the Government in the Budget which was issued yesterday had given concessions in Purchase Tax, and concessions that would have made life for the ordinary working class home easier, we trade union leaders could have held that safety valve for months and months ahead and so helped the country to get through its economic crisis . . .”

"There was a cartoon in the Evening Standard on the subject of the 'Old white horse, Old Faithful, the old T.U.C.' Let me say this to the Government. Their pace is determined by that old white horse. The last straw can break that old white horse's back, but, so far as we are concerned, we are not going to allow the old white horse’s back to be broken. If it comes to a last final resort, we shall fight. We say to this Government, or to any other, 'You can’t afford to fight against us who represent the organised workers in the country . . .”

Stan Hampson

Correspondence: Ought We to Back the “Left-Wing” Labour Leaders? (1931)

From the November 1931 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Case of Mr. W. J. Brown, Ex-M.P.

A correspondent (“Robbo”) asks an interesting question. He writes : —

“If an opportunity occurs to support a man like W. J. Brown, who though not an S.P.G.B.’er, has done much to expose the hypocrisy of Labour Party leaders, would it not be advisable to do so?”

On the face of it the question probably implies rather more than our correspondent intended, for it suggests that we should support all who expose the Labour Party leaders, which would mean supporting Liberals and Tories. We are therefore no doubt safe in assuming that our correspondent selects Mr. W. J. Brown because he considers the latter’s criticisms to be essentially different from those of Liberal and Conservative opponents of the Labour Party. In other words, we are asked to believe that Mr. W. J. Brown speaks from a Socialist standpoint. Let us examine this.

It is true that Mr. W. J. Brown has often spoken harshly of some of the Labour Leaders, and has urged what he has called a Socialist policy. But obviously that alone is not enough, for there is hardly a single Labour M.P. who has not done the same. Let us probe more deeply. Does Mr. Brown expose the: Labour Leaders and their policy consistently, or only on rare and obscure occasions when it suits him? Does he show up the uselessness of the Labour Party programme? And does he do this from the standpoint of Socialism?

What is his political history? In 1923 and 1924 he fought West Wolverhampton as Labour Party candidate. But there was no criticism then of those who now draw his fire. On the contrary, in 1924 he had Mr. MacDonald on his platform during the election, soliciting votes for him. It was after the general strike that Mr. Brown launched out on his career of “left-wing” criticism of his leaders. In 1928 at the Labour Party Conference he vigorously assailed the programme “Labour and the Nation,” which was under discussion. Much of what he said was true and might have come from a Socialist. Listen to this : —

“I would say this, that if the whole of this document were carried into effect—and that will not be done by one government or many governments—the result would he, not Socialism, but a State-subsidised Capitalism, which is an entirely different thing.

My advice to the Conference would be … above all to make this clear—that we are in earnest about Socialism, not as a thing for subsequent generations, not as a thing for perorations for our speakers, not as a thing for the dim and distant future, but for this generation to achieve.” (Conference Report, p. 207.)

Mr. Brown’s speech showed, that he had a fairly clear grasp of the nature of the Labour Party programme, and was fully aware what the game was the Labour Leaders were playing. He saw, and said, that they were using the discontent of the workers as a means of getting into office, without any intention whatever of doing other than try to patch up the capitalist system. But to what use did he put his knowledge, his undoubted charm of manner, and his gifts of oratory? The subsequent general election, in 1929, shows only too clearly. Instead of using the election to denounce the Labour Leaders and their capitalist programme, he played exactly the same game as they did. Instead of showing that he was “in earnest about Socialism” by fighting on a Socialist programme, he fought on the very programme he had denounced. His election address boldly displayed the announcement that he was the “Labour Candidate,” committed, therefore, to “Labour and the Nation” and “state-subsidised capitalism.” It was full of all the usual capitalist reforms.

Did he expose the Labour Party Leaders? Not at all. A passage of considerable length was devoted to the wonderful things Mr. MacDonald was supposed to have done for disarmament, describing him as the “Peace Leader of the World.” Did he advocate Socialism in his address? Not by a single word. The only reference to anything other than reforms is the smug phrase, “The Labour Party stands for a new and more Christian and Social Order,” intended obviously to catch the religious vote. The dominant note of the whole address is the emphasised assertion, “Labour is the only alternative to another 5 years of Conservative misrule.”

During the subsequent Labour Government Mr. Brown, as General Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, came into conflict with the Labour Ministers owing to the repeated reductions in Civil Service pay. So he resigned from the Parliamentary Labour Party, but not from the Wolverhampton Labour Party, or from the I.L.P. But was it in order to support Socialism against the Labour Leaders? Again No. It was to join Mosley’s Party, whose Manifesto he helped to draft, and to which he added his signature. (Published early this year under the title “A National Policy.”) This document expressly excludes from consideration the very question about which Socialists are concerned; “Questions of the ultimate goal of society arc excluded by the very urgency of the problem which confronts us ” (page 6). It was not an appeal to Socialists to work for Socialism, but an appeal to “employers and workers” to “meet the emergency by a common effort.” Underlying it throughout was the policy of workers and employers uniting to attack one section of the exploiting class, the bankers. That policy of uniting with the capitalists would on any ground be dangerous for the workers, but Mr. Brown goes further and preaches the deadly doctrine that workers and employers have interests in common. This, if accepted, would destroy the basis of all working-class organisation.

Having had second thoughts about the expediency of joining the Mosley Party, we next find Mr. Brown, in August of this year, associating with prominent Liberals, Tories, and Fascists to issue a document, “The World Crisis and Unemployment,” on behalf of the “Financial Freedom Committee.” It contains nothing whatever about Socialism, but preaches salvation by means of currency juggling.

“The world’s industrial plight can be relieved within a few weeks if the Governments of all nations agree to destroy the Money Monopoly. . . The Government should nationalise the Bank of England and and put an end to the circulation of the present independent promissory notes and substitute for them Treasurv notes which are backed by the whole wealth of the nation.”

So speak the quacks. And with them Mr. Brown. Can Mr. Brown deny that his associates are frankly determined that what they are pleased to miscall “the national wealth” shall never on any account cease to be what it is now, i.e., private property? In other words, that they are open enemies of Socialism?

On August 22nd, in a speech at Wolverhampton, reported in the “Times” (24th August), Mr. Brown was attacking the Labour Government and still demanding a united front of employers and workers against “the parasites who prey upon both” ; a false but plausible device for misleading the workers.

So far we have not seen Mr. Brown’s 1931 election address, but he repeatedly stated that he intended to fight as an “independent” candidate, as indeed he did, “on the same programme as I fought at the last election.”

The Socialist Party stands for Socialism. Nothing but confusion would result from supporting Mr. Brown or any other of the ambitious politicians who delude the workers into the belief that the social problem can be solved without Socialism.

Besides, if we ought to support Mr. Brown because he exposes the Labour Party Leaders, we should also have to support them for exposing Mr, Brown.

P. S.

Mr. Brown goes to town (1946)

From the August 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. W. J. Brown, M.P., in an Evening Standard article (15/3/46), "What Price Utopia?”, says Darwinism reduces man to a non-moral unrestrained biological process (unproven, of course) and has served to justify the barbarities of capitalist anarchy and the Marxian "Class Struggle.” Also Marxism is merely its application to the political field. Such trivialities are a commonplace of anti-Marxist propaganda, but Mr. Brown is as useful as anyone else to provide the means for restating some Marxist essentials.

His unsupported contention that Darwinism is unproven implies that its partner in crime, Marxism, is likewise. “David” Brown thus kills two ”Goliaths” with one stone. True Darwinism has been implemented by further research, but Darwin’s evolutionary principle of organic life—with overwhelming evidence—remains to-day the touchstone of biological science. Further, it would be a strange theory of evolution in which the theory itself failed to evolve.

Mr. Brown’s non-moral allegation exhibits abysmal ignorance as to the scope and function of the scientific method, which is a discipline of general and impersonal facts, and no more relevant to the scientist’s personal bias than pipe-fitting is applicable to a plumber’s politics. Scientific investigation is ethically neutral and no more impugned than the activity of bricklaying, regardless as to whether that activity assists in building a church or a brothel. Ethical consideration of those institutions, like other things, is a matter of social evaluation. Science as a social result is subject to social motivation, which depends on the nature of the society. In this profit-motive society, science serves to increase wealth productivity and is a social instrument for increased working-class exploitation.

In like manner is the birth and growth of scientific ideas integrated into the prevailing social structure. A closed feudal economy, with fixed hierarchical status, and where men prayed to be kept in their station of life, would have made an evolutionary conception of life impossible, even unthinkable. An early capitalism needed science, and "the reign of scientific law.” Moreover, in its quest for markets it opened up the world, and vast unknown tracts of land with unknown animals and plants, which hitherto would have made it impossible to generalise about life, could now be explored. The practical triumphs of capitalism also brought into being a leisured section who could devote time to intellectual and scientific pursuits. Thus Darwin was handed on a well documented and detailed classification of Natural History. Geological science also expanded in this expanding world and gave Darwin those vast time periods needed for the presentation of his cosmic drama. And because mid-Victorian capitalism was still expanding, what more natural that the capitalist class should, with mid-Victorian complacency, view it as the best of all possible worlds and see in Darwin’s scientific theory their own social projection as "the fittest to survive.” But the first expanding bloom has withered, and in the sombre deepening of modern capitalism’s insoluble contradictions and conflicts the theme of scientific apologetics is replaced by mysticism and miracles; virile confidence gives way to doubt and even despair, unconscious credos, perhaps, of a doomed social order.

Is there a parallel, then, between Darwinism and Marxism? The answer, is only in so far as they both reveal the same ordered pattern of evolutionary development. Purely biological considerations, however, do not hold good in social relationships. Society is not a biological organism, but a social organisation into which men consciously enter into relationships for a given end. The development of society is not a result of man’s biological adaptation of his own organs to a natural environment, but the development of productive tools—for he is the only tool-producing animal- in a "social environment.” The enormous material advance which this tool-producing ability has made possible gives to social development its unique character. The laws that explain this unique development constitute Marxism.

Marx did not invent the class struggle, he traced it to its objective source and found it was not located in the consciousness of men but in the relationship in which they stood to each other in the division of wealth. If, for instance, you have at different periods slave labour, then the feudal windmill, and later the modern power plant, then not only will you have different methods of wealth production, but a correspondingly different division of classes of owners and non-owners in the distribution of wealth as between master and slave, feudal overlord and serf, capitalist and wage dependent. The different methods of production create then their own type of economic structure, and economic struggle over the participation of the fruits of labour. This will not only profoundly affect men’s lives, but through their lives, the social institutions and ideas of the period. Productive activity and social institutions, however, do not exist apart from or prior to each other, for all these activities are found in any period as an interrelated and interacting living whole, each exercising a mutual influence on the other. Thus politics influences religion, education, law and economic struggles, and is in turn influenced by each. But the economic factor or the way men live in order to reproduce their kind constitutes the central structural factor of social life. and forms the preponderating influence in social development. The functioning of the methods of wealth production and the changes that arise in them provide the key to the driving force of social development.

The significance of changes in the instruments of wealth production is seen especially in modern societies, and in the course of development a stage is reached where the forces of production come into conflict with the relations of production, which means that the method of distributing income arising from class ownership and control does not permit the fullest expansion of the productive agencies, or as Marx says: "From forms of development of the forces of production the relations of production turn into their fetters.” The class, then, that suffers from the existing operation of wealth production must seek to strike off these fetters and secure the widest possible expansion of these productive forces in their own class interests. To-day the wealth-producing but non-owning class, the working class, merely receive, the value of their labour power, or the average sufficiency of things necessary to sustain and restore their working capacities. All over and above what they produce goes to the owners of the wealth-producing agencies, the capitalist class, in the form of surplus value. The struggle of the workers to maintain or improve existing “standards” and the desire of the capitalists for greater profits produce the mutual antagonism of class interests in the participation of the social product. The capitalist class will then seek to improve the productive efficiency of the workers as an incentive for greater profit. But on the basis of income distribution, inherent in capitalist society, certain results ensue. Working class consumption of available wealth is limited by their wages, which is a fraction of this total available wealth. The consumption of surpluses in the hands of the capitalist class and its retainers is restricted by physical limitations. This tends to lead to heavier investments of the residue of these surpluses, in industries making productive goods, rather than consumption goods. This, however, ultimately leads to greater productive efficiency and consequently to a greater quantity of commodities being thrown on the market. A point is finally reached where effective demand ceases or, to put it another way, no purchasers can be found. Overproduction then results. It must not be thought that this is under-consumption of what the worker needs, for that is merely determined by the value of the commodity he sells—his labour power. Moreover, workers' wages always tend to be higher in the boom which precedes the slump. It is his under-consumption in relation to what he produces.

To produce for use, however, would undermine the very foundations of capitalist society. To turn out wealth to the fullest extent of existing plant capacity would normally invite, comparatively speaking, a “standstill” over night. For that reason its monopolistic class character compels it at one period to restrict and destroy the wealth so lavishly produced at another. For the working class it must ever remain the system of organised scarcity.

But the working class, to secure the greatest expansion of productive forces, must become a self- conscious independent political force, having as its aim the replacement of the existing system by one based on its own economic interests. For that reason it must seek through existing agencies the control of the State, which, because of its own control of the armed forces, provides the ultimate physical sanction for all social authority. This is our own historical justification as a political party. The struggle between the working class and the capitalist class is, however, the last historic form of fundamental social antagonism. With the abolition of private property in the means of production, it is no longer a question of who shall enjoy the fruits of ownership, but the vesting of ownership in the hands of a community of free producers for satisfying the needs of society as a whole. The State itself, as an instrument of class domination, likewise disappears and is replaced by “the administration of things.”

The class struggle is not then an eternally imposed necessity of “Nature red in tooth and claw." Even within capitalism working class resistance seeks to limit the system's rapacious and degrading effects. In its final outcome the class struggle establishes universal co-operation, thus constituting the greatest progressive human force in history.

Mr. Brown's diagnosis of our troubles as a Cosmic sadness, and deep frustration, haunting and troubling man's soul, and his remedy a return to the faith of the past, with its conception of the Fatherhood of God, brotherhood of man, and duty towards our neighbours, might further suggest that there is no place for morality in the Marxist critique. That is a denial of Marx's own dictum, “ that men make history.” What Marxism denies is the relevance of an abstract classless morality in a class-divided society. Class conflicts generate moral conflicts. The shining swords of moral truths often reveal the camouflaged weapons of class interests. A system productive of class conflicts, racial hatreds, fierce national rivalries, and even though still war-exhausted can yet contemplate the final "atomic” catastrophe, "where only the stars will be neutral,” turns such alleged categorical imperatives as the brotherhood of man, love thine enemy, etc., into ghostly and grisly caricatures. There is a morality, of course, as old as man's social instincts, but each class struggling towards political maturity gives its own significance to moral concepts in accordance with its class aims. Each class then fashions its moral code. Against the "ruling” morality largely divorced from social practice, and tending to become an ethical game whose rules are politely admitted in theory, but ignored in practice, an increasingly politically conscious majority will oppose with a higher moral code, based on higher social objectives. The moral idea becomes then an indispensable feature of working-class emancipation. With the growth of class knowledge grows the moral indignation to finish with this sorry scheme of things—forever. Morality by itself cannot, however, in a class society, provide a common ethical denomination to which some general social goal is referable. Reduced to a social abstraction, it merely seeks a change of heart, but class needs are alone capable of changing a social system and realising in practice what the moral ideal merely contemplates. Because Socialism has an economic basis its ideals, nevertheless, lose none of their greatness, or impoverish in any way the rich field of human experience. It is in the struggle for what is attainable that men are motivated by that deep sense of urgency arising from deep social needs, and it is this which gives to their actions its intrinsic human character. Likewise, the brotherhood of man and duty towards our neighbour will, when based on democratic co-operative economic equality, cease to be a vain ethical plea and become integrated into the social practice—"From each according to his capacity, to each according to his needs.”

Mr. Brown’s own remedy is grotesque. He proposes to retain the man-eating tiger, capitalism, and convert it into a playful pet as well, while in the moral atmosphere of the jungle he would expound the ethics of the Bible class. Like many others, Mr. Brown sees no economic problem, only a religious and psychological malaise. He thus appears to have become a neurotic victim of his own views. Having no solution for the future, he seeks salvation in the past . . . for him everywhere the horizon looms dark and menacing . . . it is the Socialist who sees on the skyline the classless commonwealth.

Ted Wilmott

The Busmen's Problem: New Unions or old (1938)

From the August 1938 issue of the Socialist Standard

Readers of the Socialist Standard will remember the bus strike of May, 1937.

The Busmen's Rank and File Movement, an unofficial “ginger up" organisation, operating within the Transport and General Workers' Union, had secured a majority on the Central Bus Committee, the negotiating committee of the London Bus section of the Union. When the General Executive Council of the T. & G.W.U. granted powers to the Bus section to strike for a 7½ hour day, this committee was the one upon which fell the responsibility for the conduct of the strike. After four weeks the G.E.C. withdrew the powers previously granted and sent the Busmen back to work. An agreement was negotiated on the basis of proposals which the men had rejected only a few days before the end of the strike.

Following the strike an enquiry was held by the union into the activities of certain of the more prominent members of the section with the consequence that a number of the leading Rank and File Movement members were suspended from office and others expelled from the union. These suspensions and expulsions were subsequently endorsed by the 1937 Biennial Conference of the T. & G.W.U.

Mr. W. J. Brown, Secretary of the Civil Service Clerical Association, offered his services to the London Busmen if they desired to form a breakaway union. His offer was rejected by the Rank and File Movement leaders.

Responsibility for the conduct or misconduct of the strike is in doubt. Lacking further evidence there are no grounds for accepting the conflicting statements made by either side. Many Busmen were disgruntled at the treatment they had received, and when, on February 18th of this year, the National Passenger Workers' Union was formed, it was from this disgruntled element that this organisation recruited its membership. The promoters of the N.P.W.U. are, in the main, ex-members of the now disbanded Rank and File Movement. Mr. W. J. Brown is the Hon. President.

In a pamphlet entitled, “A Real Union for Passenger Workers," the promoters of the new organisation state their case. Briefly it is ". . . that the Transport and General Workers' Union has not only not been an asset, but a positive obstacle in achieving a remedy . . ." for the grievances of the Busmen, and that ". . . there is no hope of ever making the Transport and General Workers' Union an effective instrument to this end " (page 13). The existing Central Bus Committee of the T. & G.W.U. replied with a pamphlet, “The T. & G.W.U. IS THE REAL UNION for Passenger Workers," in which it is claimed that “this union IS an effective instrument to this end.” Further literature appeared, but nothing else of much interest was contributed to the argument.

It is not the business of The Socialist Party to take up the cudgels on behalf of either the new Transport Union or the old one, but there are certainly factors relating to this position which require examination in order that the workers may learn from the experience.

For a breakaway union of this kind to be successful, from the Busmens' point of view, the first necessity is that the bulk of the Busmen should pass into it. At no time have there been grounds for expecting to be able to gather all the Busmen into a new organisation. If those responsible for the breakaway considered otherwise they deluded themselves. Alternatively, they must have conceived that the Busmen split into two camps could be no worse off than they were under the leadership of the T. & G.W.U. In fact that is their claim in the pamphlet mentioned. But is this so? If it is, then no harm has been done.

That the London Busmen have grievances which have not been remedied is undoubtedly true, but it is equally true that they have been able to maintain their wages and working conditions at a level which would certainly have been lower were it not for their resistance. This has been made possible by the readiness of the Busmen for united action. Negotiations have often faced them up with the need for united action and their readiness for this has frequently resulted in success. The result of negotiations by a union always reflects the preparedness and the ability of the members to act in unity. If the Busmen have not been involved in a larger number of strikes it is because of this ability to act unitedly that a single organisation has been able to afford them. Negotiations on behalf of a body of men split up into two camps will reflect the weakness that this position gives rise to, since the ability to act unitedly is destroyed. So, with two organisations in existence, antagonistic to each other, the conditions of the Busmen are menaced. Numerous times in the past the London Busmen have been engaged in disputes which have not received the official sanction of the T. & G.W.U., but the Busmen were at no time disunited among themselves. That is why their unofficial strikes have so often been the means of gaining them some slight improvement in their working conditions. Now they are disunited amongst themselves.

If the new organisation can capture the membership then, of course, the split will be healed. But will such a new organisation be able to offer more than the old, or will it embody the same weaknesses? If it can offer more then it is reasonable to expect that in time it will attract all the transport workers to its ranks.

The form which the new organisation would take, assuming, of course, that it secured recognition, would be determined by the circumstances in which it had to work. It would be bound by certain limits, which, if it attempted to go beyond them, would only serve to wreck it. These circumstances under which it would be bound to function are dictated by the needs of the industry. In this instance, by the needs of capitalism organised as a public service.

Recognition must be sought, but will only be conceded if the organisation is capable of disciplining its members and binding them to agreements. Where the membership is taught to expect so much from its leaders, as in the case of the T. & G.W.U., the leader must be in a position to pledge his membership and sign agreements in their name. With any such organisation based on the principle of leadership this must apply. The membership will look for agreements as the result of successful negotiations, with the consequence that the leadership will tend to degenerate into the function of special pleading. It is a matter of time, with developments along these lines, when the new union would become indistinguishable from the old. Leadership is the weakness of the older organisation, it can well become the weakness of the new.

The supporters of the National Passenger Workers* Union claim that permanent officialdom will not be tolerated in that organisation. All officials are to be elected. The constitution of the N.P.W.U. is modelled along similar lines to that of the old London and Provincial Union of Licensed Vehicle Workers. That union was absorbed by the United Vehicle Workers, which eventually amalgamated to form the Passenger Section of the Transport & General Workers' Union. This development was, to an extent, in line with developments in the passenger carrying industry. Attempts to build a new union along the lines of the old Licensed Vehicle Workers' Union should be critically examined to be sure that such a step, instead of being a step forward in working class organisation, is not really a step backward.

The elective principle of securing officials prevailed in the old L. & P.W. of L.V.W., but was not found to be so very beneficial. Negotiators require to have great experience to be able to explore all that an agreement implies. The gaining of such experience is rendered difficult where the elective principle applies. There is the further point that elected officials have to pay much attention to attempts to usurp their positions by other job seekers. Intrigue, scandal and carping criticism are the weapons so often used by would-be officers that the time of an elected officer is all too frequently devoted to combating such schemes as his opponents embark upon in an endeavour to bring him into disrepute with the membership. It is not always the experienced man who gets elected under such conditions, but the most popular man, the man who is often the most unprincipled and unscrupulous.

A full-time official of a union is an employee. A capitalist, when he requires an employee, goes to the labour market and selects the man who is best suited to serve his purpose. He employs the man and dispenses with him when he no longer suits. The trade unions have found this to be the most satisfactory method of staffing their offices. The elected official on the union administration staffs has practically disappeared. On the executive side the elective principle is necessary in order that the organisation shall retain its democratic basis. The Executive Council must always remain an elected body and, as such, it can only reflect the degree of understanding and the amount of activity of the members.

When officials have to go to the membership for re-election they quite often find it to their advantage to keep their members ignorant of many affairs and they find an apathetic membership a great help towards re-election. Active minorities within a union’s ranks are always regarded with disfavour by the official element. Even where active minorities exist, apathetic majorities will often be the means of keeping incompetent and unsatisfactory officials in their jobs. The Vigilance Committees of the old Vehicle Workers' Union found this to be true, as also did the Minority Movement and, later, the Rank and File Movement. Should it be necessary to repeat the lesson ?

One function of trade unions is to endeavour to obtain some security of employment to its members. The members must expect to have to guarantee some security of employment to their officers. An apathetic membership allows officials to entrench themselves in their jobs by surrounding themselves with cliques and by adapting a union’s constitution to suit their purpose. The London Busmen, and, for that matter, the workers as a whole, still appear to want to be led. Thus can more be expected from a new union than can be obtained from an old one? Just a change of leadership with the right to be able to change it again when desired is rather poor satisfaction.

The pamphlet issued by the National Passenger Workers’ Union contains a criticism of the officials of the Transport and General Workers’ Union. It claims that they have done nothing for the Busmen. That means that in maintaining their wages and conditions at the present level, despite attacks by their employers, the Busmen have no one to thank but themselves. It means that the men have by their own effort, and without official aid, been able to defend their position. That being so, there must be scope for the Busmen to express themselves in the Transport and General Workers’ Union. If there is not, then the credit must go to the officials.

We fear that too much is being made of the domestic grievances of the Bus Section of the Transport Union and not enough attention paid to its functional results. The interests of the Busmen are likely to be sacrificed in the struggle over domestic affairs.

Advocates of the breakaway union continually make reference to “progressive unionism.” The impression they convey is that trade unionism can lead to some condition of society wherein the workers’ lot will be a satisfactory one. Trade Unions can be considered progressive in only two senses, in their ability to adapt themselves to the changing conditions of capitalism, i.e., to the growth of Transport Boards, etc., or by their ability to improve the conditions of life of their members. In either direction the T. & G.W.U. can make good claims despite its many faults and weaknesses. As regards a union being progressive in any other sense, those who consider this possible are living in a vacuum. They are Utopians.

Men do not join a union merely because they desire to be members. They join because a union offers them the means of improving their working conditions by collective bargaining. Trade unions exist in conditions where the worker sells his labour power to the capitalist. They serve to regulate the conditions of sale. So long as the worker has to sell his labour power to live, so long will his status be one of an exploited wage slave. No trade union organisation can alter that. The poverty, insecurity and other attendant evils which beset the working class will remain as the source of the grievances which trade unions cannot eliminate, no matter how “progressive” they may consider themselves.

Emancipation for the worker lies in the abolition of the relationship of buyer and seller of labour power. This achieved, then trade unions as a means of regulating this relationship will become redundant.

Arguments are being advanced in favour of a breakup of the existing trade unions in this country. The criticism of the promoters of the N.P.W.U. against the T. & G.W.U. to the effect that the Busmen are at the mercy of the various other trade and industries who constitute the majority of the membership of the older organisation, is partly justified even though exaggerated. With the workers still subjecting their class interests to sectional, trade interests, and with various trades represented in one union, conflict of opinion is sure to arise. The fault lies more in the lack of class consciousness by the workers than in the nature of the union organisation.

The old, old lesson must be repeated. Active minorities cannot push or drag the workers against their will. Impatience to achieve something worth while is admirable, but when it causes men to act prematurely it is often disastrous. Many sincere and hard-working fellows become the dupes of unscrupulous and self-seeking schemers because they are too impatient to spend the time getting down to the task of convincing their fellow workers of the need for a certain line of action.

When the workers give up their sectional outlook and realise that they have a common class interest, then they will establish a new social system in the place of Capitalism, but this will be achieved by political organisation. Until then we suggest that all workers, if faced with a similar position to that of the London Busmen, should look before they leap. They may be acting without due regard to all the circumstances which surround them; just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.

W. E. W. & F. W. J.

Blogger's Note:

With regards to the authors of this article, 'W. E. W.' was Bill Waters, a longstanding and very active member of the SPGB, who also happened to be a militant rank and file trade unionist in the bus workers' union over many decades. My (educated) guess is that 'F. W. J.' was the initials of Frederick William Johnson who, before joining the SPGB in 1931, was a member of the Communist Party. Johnson retained his membership of the SPGB from 1931 until February 1962, when he had to resign his membership because he emigrated to Australia. Waters also joined the SPGB in 1931 and retained his membership of the Party until his death in 1970. (There's a pitifully short obituary for Waters in the March 1970 issue of the Socialist Standard.)

Why did this particular rank and file union dispute receive so much coverage in the pages in the Socialist Standard? Arguably, it was because there were SPGB members involved in both sides of this union dispute. Though it's not mentioned in the article itself, one of the prominent leaders of the breakaway union was an SPGBer, Frank Snelling. Snelling, a former member of the Socialist Labour Party, was from South London - he originally joined the Tooting Branch of the SPGB in 1929 - and was an on/off member of the SPGB up until he was lapsed from membership in 1952. 

Adam Buick goes into greater detail about this dispute - and the debate amongst party members involved in this dispute - in his review of Ken Fuller's book, Radical Aristocrats: London Busworkers from the 1880s to the 1980s,  which appeared in the April 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Editorial: Russia: A Dangerous Delusion (1929)

Editorial from the December 1929 issue of the Socialist Standard

When in 1921 the Bolsheviks introduced their ”New Economic Policy,” they stated plainly what they were doing and why they had no alternative. Their early hopes of the immediate establishment of socialism in the advanced capitalist countries had been shown to be illusory, and it was necessary for Russia to develop on capitalist lines. The Bolsheviks consciously adopted the policy described by the late Leonid Krassin as “nationalisation,” or ”state capitalism.” (See report of lecture by Krassin reproduced in “Labour Monthly,” January 16th, 1922.)

They saw that Russian industry could be developed on no other basis than a capitalist basis, and in respect of a large area of industry and transport they preferred state capitalism to private capitalism.

The Socialist Party does not support nationalisation or state capitalism in this country, because that policy is contrary to working-class interests, and is not in this country a step towards Socialism. Russian conditions are different. Russia was, and is, very backward industrially, and the problems there are not those which face the workers in the more advanced countries. We have therefore no criticism to offer of the general policy of hastening capitalist development in Russia. No other policy is practicable. What criticisms we offer relate to methods of applying that policy and to the policy of suppression.

We do, however, strongly protest against the attempts to misrepresent Russia as being run on socialist lines. It is untrue, and such misrepresentation makes more difficult the work of preaching Socialism. Russia presents, and will continue to present, in spite of any good intentions of its rulers, the conflicts and evils normal to the capitalist system. Nothing but harm to the Socialist movement can come from propaganda which misrepresents the very real achievements of the Bolsheviks by calling them the building up of Socialism. Socialism—the common ownership of the means of production and distribution—is not to be found in Russia any more than in Great Britain or the U.S.A.

Sometimes this misleading propaganda is the work of persons who have never troubled to understand what capitalism is. Calling themselves Communists, they merely apply to Russia the confusing propaganda used by the Labour Party in this country. They support State capitalism and call it Socialism because they know no better and really believe that the change from private capitalism to State control of capitalist industry represents a fundamental change. Others who associate themselves with this confusion do know better and are guilty of deliberate falsehood.

We find Scott Nearing, a prominent American Communist, writing in the “New Masses” (October), about Russia, and saying : “Profiteering has been largely eliminated. Exploitation has been wiped out.”

It will be noticed that Scott Nearing uses the loose and undefined term “profiteering” instead of “profit making,” and implies that the “profiteering” which has not yet been eliminated is not “exploitation.” We say that such misleading statements from Scott Nearing can only result from a deliberate intention to deceive.

The “Trade Union Bulletin” (August-September, 1929) issued by the U.S.S.R. Central Council of Trade Unions, Labour Palace, Solianka 12, Moscow, describes the plans for large State farms under the title “Socialistic Reconstruction of Rural Economy.” In fact this is simply an application of State capitalism to Russian agriculture.

The “Sunday Worker” on September 15th made the deliberately false statement that “All the products of (Russian) industry go to the workers and peasants,” and asked, “What do they want parasites for?”

When it was pointed out to the editor that the State industries are largely financed by means of loans and that the receivers of interest are “parasites,” the editor replied with the evasive and untrue statements, which follow :—

“The loans which are being raised to finance the Five-Year Plan are largely subscribed by Russian workers and peasants. These, using their own money to build their own Socialist state, can hardly be parasites—unless they are to be regarded as parasites upon themselves. There are also non-working-class investors, who would be glad to live on the interest from these loans, and become parasites. But the laws of the Soviet Union prevent that. These people cannot acquire land or any of the means of production which would enable them to exploit workers. They are not allowed to be parasites.” (Sunday Worker, Sept. 22nd.)

Such arguments from a so-called Socialist paper are pitiful. To suggest that Russians calling themselves ”workers and peasants” cannot be “parasites on themselves,” is equivalent to saying that there cannot be parasites in England because persons calling themselves “English” cannot be parasites on themselves. The simple truth is that a minority of persons in England have large investments and draw incomes from them; the majority do not possess such investments. So also in Russia, a wealthy minority having relatively large incomes from various sources, from salaries, from legal and illegal trading, from farming, and from investments, are able to accumulate capital for further use in legitimate and illegitimate business, or for investment in State loans. They draw property incomes from these investments and are “parasites.”

To say that those who receive incomes from investment in Russia cannot “become parasites” (they are that already) because they are prevented from acquiring land or other means of production, is like saying that those English capitalists who invest in Government loans and live on the proceeds without buying land or other means of production are not “parasites,” but that their fellow investors who derive similar property incomes from investment in farming or other productive concerns, are “parasites.”

Inequality of incomes and of property in Russia is great and growing, although less than in this country. According to figures from official Russian sources given in his book, “Three Months in Russia,” by W. J. Brown, M.P., the pay in the Russian Civil Service rises, according to grade, from less than £5 a month up to £45 a month (see pages 113 & 114). Mr. Brown, it may be remarked, is more than sympathetic to the Bolsheviks, and is in fact highly gratified because the inequality of pay in Russia is less than elsewhere.

A correspondent of the “Manchester Guardian” (Oct. 21st) states that the pay of engineering experts is as high as £1,750, £2,500 and even £3,500 a year. The average wage of manual workers, on the other hand, is 73 roubles a month, or less than £90 a year. (See “Ministry of Labour Gazette,” October, for figures from Russian official sources.)

According to the Soviet Union Year Book, 1929, out of a population of 140 millions, the number of persons with deposits in the Savings Banks on October 1st, 1928, was only 3,825,900, the average deposit being 82 roubles (see page 449). (A rouble is worth about 2s.)

The loans being issued at high rates of interest in connection with the Five Year Economic Plan are comparable in amount and in kind with the annual investments of capital in the rest of the capitalist countries.

The Russian State Debt stands now at about 2,100 million roubles (about £210 million). Interest ranges up to as much as 12 per cent. on some of the issues. It is planned to increase the debt under the Five Year Economic Plan by borrowing another 6,000 million roubles (£600 million) in five years (see Bank for Russian Trade Review, June, 1929). Other fields of capital investment are the co-operatives and the concession companies. The profits on the concessions are extraordinarily high.

The existence of a class of large investors is clearly shown by the relative amounts of State lottery loans and non-lottery loans. On page 406 of the “Soviet Union Year Book,” it is stated that “Soviet State loans that are intended to be placed among small investors are lottery loans, since these are more attractive to the small subscribers.”

On pages 408 and 409 are details of the various loans. It will be seen that the total of non-lottery issues is more than four times as great as the lottery loans— i.e., the small investors’ loans.

From these particulars it will be seen that Russia is making encouraging progress along the road of capitalist industry. It is impossible for Russia yet to progress on any other basis than capitalism.

But Communists who pretend that it is socialism are deliberately or unknowingly propagating a falsehood and hindering the work for socialism.

The Labour machine in Conference. (1928)

From the November 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

The 1928 Labour Party Conference met in Birmingham during the first week of October. The chief work before the delegates was the consideration of the “Programme of Legislation and Administrative Action for a Labour Government,” which had been drafted by the National Executive on the instruction of the 1927 Conference. The draft programme has already been dealt with in these columns. It contains a large number of social, administrative and industrial reforms, the application of which will, in the view of the Labour Party, solve the pressing problems of modern society. It is impossible in a few sentences to summarise the large number of proposals, but it may be said that they continue and extend the policy of past and present Liberal and Tory Governments, in providing legislative safeguards against excessive hours of work, dangerous and unhealthy factory conditions, and propose better provision for those who are prevented from securing employment through illness, old age, trade depression, and so forth. A reduction in the inequalities of income is promised by means of taxes and death duties, and peace is to be secured through the League of Nations. The industry of this country is to be placed in a condition of prosperity primarily through a reorganisation on the lines of State ownership : It is this latter point which is regarded by Labour supporters as marking off the Labour Programme from all others. By it the Labour Party stands or falls.

NOT A SOCIALIST PROGRAMME.

As this programme of reforms embodies the opinions of the bulk of the members of the Labour Party, its acceptance was to be expected, and as the great bulk of the workers, in and out of the Trade Unions, are not in favour of Socialism, it follows as a matter of course that the programme acceptable to them contains no reference to Socialism. The essential features of Capitalism are : one, the ownership of the means of wealth production by a propertied class which lives by owning; two, the sale of their labour-power by the property-less majority for salaries or wages; and three, the production of goods for sale.

The Labour Party does not propose now or hereafter, constitutionally or unconstitutionally, gradually or suddenly, to abolish these essential features of the Capitalist economic system. Under “Nationalisation,” mineowners, railway owners, bank shareholders and others who now live on property incomes, will still live on property incomes. Their respective industries will be subject to State control, and the State will guarantee to them their privilege of living on the interest from State bonds at the expense of the wealth producers. The working-class will be what the postal workers are already, the wage-slaves of the Capitalist State. And so far from abolishing production for sale, the Labour Party believes that their policy will enable this country to sell more cheaply in face of foreign competition.

We reject that programme and the assumptions underlying it. We say that only with the advent of Socialism will the poverty and insecurity of the workers and their unemployment be brought to an end.

The risk of war will be removed only with the removal of the commercial rivalries of Capitalism. The Labour Programme will fail, not because of the personal merits or demerits of its leaders, but because it is wholly a programme of reforms of Capitalism.

“NATIONALISATION” NOT SOCIALISM.

A number of “left-wing” delegates criticised the programme as being “Liberal.” Mr. Clynes, speaking for the Executive took up the challenge. He said (“Daily Herald,” 4th October) :—

“Mr. Wheatley had said that any Liberal would accept most of the programme. Would the Liberals accept such proposals as the public ownership of mines, transport, power, and land? ”

The answer is, yes, they would.

The Liberal “Yellow Book” (p. 229), proposes the nationalisation of agricultural land, and the public ownership of electricity production (p. 82). The Liberals stand for the retention of the public ownership of the Post Office, the telegraphs and telephones. Capitalist governments in different parts of the world have nationalised mines (Germany), railways (France), and shipping (U.S.A. and Australia). The Labour Party’s scheme of public ownership is simply State Capitalism, and as such does not differentiate them from the Liberals. The Liberal “Manchester Guardian,” in an editorial, defined the position of the Liberal Party and the slight difference between its position and that of the Labour Party. For the Liberals “the case for nationalisation must be discussed on its merits as applied to any particular industry,” whereas for the Labour Party “it is stated as a general principle applicable to all industries.” (October 9th, 1928.)

To this we would add that the Socialist Party does not advocate nationalisation at all.

THE LABOUR “LEFT WING.”

But although there were several delegates who declared the Labour Party Programme to be simply a collection of Liberal reforms, none of the critics is prepared to advocate Socialism in opposition to the Liberalism of the Labour Party. All of them come to heel when faced with the threat of disciplinary action. Thus W. J. Brown, of the Civil Service Clerical Association, said (“Daily Herald,” October 4th):—

“If the whole of the programme were put into effect …. it would not be Socialism, but a system of State-subsidised Capitalism.”

But Mr. Brown is a Labour Candidate and will fight the next election as he has fought past elections, on the Labour Party programme.

Mr. Wheatley, whose criticism is referred to above, said a few days later :—

“Neither Mr. Maxton, nor he himself, nor any of their friends had the slightest intention of leaving the Labour Party or of splitting the Labour Party” (“Manchester Guardian,” Oct. 16).

It is a Liberal Party, but Mr. Wheatley and Mr. Maxton are going to remain in it !

The I.L.P. suggested a number of additional Capitalist reforms (family allowances, banks nationalisation, etc.) and failed to get them carried. Having failed in open conference, it adopts the face-saving plea that they may be wangled into the actual election programme. The I.L.P. itself did not suggest that the Labour Party substitute a Socialist programme for its own and is not contemplating leaving the Labour Party. It allows a prominent member of the I.L.P. (H. N. Brailsford) to advocate a Liberal-Labour coalition on the ground that “we of the I.L.P. have failed in our efforts to induce the Labour Party to adopt our programme.” (“New Leader,” October 12th).

There would, after all, appear to be no reason why Messrs. Wheatley, Maxton, Cook & Co. should strain at a Liberal coalition after swallowing the Labour Party’s Liberal programme.

And the reason for the failure of these “Left Wing” Labour M.P.s to act on their words is simple enough. It is candidly stated by Mr. Alfred Salter, Labour M.P. and member of the I.L.P., in a letter to the “New Leader” (October 12th). He says :—

“There is not a single constituency in the country where there is a majority of convinced Socialist electors. We have plenty of districts, such as Bermondsey, where there is an overwhelming Labour majority, but it is a sheer delusion to think that the greater number of these people understand what we mean by Socialism. They neither understand it nor want it.”

Here we have the rock on which all the reformist parties from Labour to Communist are wrecked. It is this plain brutal fact which nullifies all the fine words of the left wingers and makes all their protests impotent. All of these professed “Socialist” M.P.s (including Dr. Salter) are in the House of Commons under false pretences. None of them—Maxton, Brown, Saklatvala, Wheatley, or any other M.P,— has been elected by Socialists’ votes on a Socialist programme. None of them could be so elected now, because there is no constituency in which the majority of voters are Socialist. They can criticise the Labour programme, but they dare not defy the Labour Party machine in the constituencies. Hence the long list of reforms which is the stock-in-trade of the candidates of the I.L.P., the Communist Party, etc.

The Socialist Party alone has seen that there must be Socialists before there can be Socialism, and acts on it.

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: The Future of Political Parties (1942)

Editorial from the June 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard

The late Lord Fisher, discussing a proposal to place the fleets of allied nations under one supreme commander, disposed of the matter with the remark, “the great objection to an allied fleet is that you cannot hang the allied Admiral.” The same kind of difficulty applies to political parties joined together in a coalition government. It starts off by pleasing all the members of all the parties concerned but ends by pleasing nobody. The leaders have to accept and defend a compromise programme and policy, and have to try to justify it to their own followers. They cannot take the usual course of blaming the leaders of the other parties. If the rank and file of the various parties develop strong views of their own their leaders cannot fall into line, for to do so would jeopardise the coalition. We can see this working out strongly at the present time. The entry of the Labour Party into the Churchill Government was overwhelmingly approved by a Labour Party conference but now—as is shown by bye-election results—local Labour Parties and the electors of all the parties in the government are kicking against the discipline imposed by the headquarters organisations.

The result of this strained feeling inside the large political parties is that independent candidates are getting elected in spite of the joint efforts of the party machines and there is much talk of new groups being formed such as the “People’s Movement,” formed by Mr. W. J. Brown, M.P., Mr. Edgar Granville, M.P., and Captain Cunningham Reid, M.P., with the aim of attaining “total efficiency in total war.” What is exercising the minds of party leaders is whether these events presage the decline of the old parties and the formation of new ones. The B.B.C. “Brains Trust” was recently asked if they agree that the party of the future will be formed out of a group from the Labour Party joining with the Communist Party? One member of the “Trust” gave the view that there would be no essential change, merely a shake-up of the old parties. Another thought that active spirits in the Conservative and Labour Parties would rally round the Liberal Party. Mr. Hannen Swaffer, a Labour Party supporter, has expressed himself as follows : —

“Conservatism, as we knew it in pre-war days, is dead except in the minds of the diehards who would still strangle us with the Old School Tie and who control the Party machine.

As for the masses of Labour people, while they remain loyal to their trade unions, without which they would be helpless, many of them feel that the Labour men in the Government are in the pockets of their Tory bosses.

As we are ruled by ‘joint Cabinet responsibility,’ we do not know what ameliorative schemes have been insisted upon by Attlee, Greenwood and Bevin in the past.

Nor do we know how much dragooning of the workers they have stopped. But, anyway it is obvious that the majority of the electorate are no longer going to be controlled by either Party machine.

Their new hero, whether they are justified in idolising him or not, is Stafford Cripps. And yet he belongs to neither party, and has no supporters except his own constituents in Bristol.

Were the Labour leaders well advised, they would make every possible endeavour to get Cripps to rejoin their ranks. He stands out as a national leader. The Tory machine may not like it. The Labour machine may not like it. But it is true.”—(“People,” May 3rd, 1942.)

It would be rash to be precise about the future of the political parties that bear the old names, though it seems most likely that after a period of depression the Conservative, Labour, Liberal and Co-operative Parties will regain much of their old position when they regain freedom of action in Parliament and the constituencies— even though the present leaders may give place to new ones. What is more important is not, however, the emergence of new names, but whether any new leaders or new parties will be essentially different. While capitalism remains there will be the same interests seeking to use political parties for the furtherance of their policies in Parliament. There are, for example, the interests represented in the Conservative M.P.s’ Committee known as the 1922 Committee. They were recently responsible for urging on the Food Minister the policy of making the multiple stores and the co-operative societies pay higher prices for their bacon, biscuits, butter, etc. In this they represent the interests of the smaller traders, who complained that the big stores bought direct from manufacturers or importers and thea sold at the same retail prices as the small traders who had to buy from wholesalers, at prices well above the manufacturers’ or importers’ prices. (Daily Express, May 16th, 1942.) The same Conservative Committee successfully opposed the proposed coupon fuel rationing scheme, this time in the interests of the fuel companies. The Manchester Guardian (14th May) says: —

“There were two strains of Conservative critics, and they met on the 1922 Committee. . . . One of these strains reflected very clearly the private interests concerned with fuel, the coalowners and the gas and electricity undertakings”

Similarly the trade unions use the Labour Party to look after day to day political questions affecting them as organised bodies, and the co-operative societies use the Co-operative Party. These are the forces that matter in capitalist politics, not the vague talk of new worlds after the war, or condemnation of the excessive rigidity of the old party machines, or the need for new blood and less old school tie. The latter are secondary matters, and there is little doubt that the politicians will find means of bringing themselves into line with discontented sections of the electorate who want capitalism to be reformed in slightly different ways or under different slogans.

In short, until the working class understand that their interest lies in achieving Socialism and not in reforming capitalism, capitalist politics in spite of such surface restlessness and re-grouping will go on in the same way as before.