The T.U.C. 1950 (1950)

From the October 1950 issue of the Socialist Standard

 

The 82nd Trade Union Congress met this year in September at Brighton; 917 delegates from 186 Trade Unions represented just over 7,883,000 in combined membership, i.e. 53,000 less than in 1949.

For some years past, especially since the election of the Labour Party to run British Capitalism, the main debates at Congress have been centred on Government Policy with the 33 elected members of the General Council of the T.U.C. and the majority of the Union delegates defending and excusing the Government. In order to add weight to the defence, prominent Labour Party members are invited to address the delegates and, as in 1949, the Prime Minister, Mr. Attlee, again called upon the delegates to support the Labour government. The cultivation of the T.U.C. by the Labour Party is, of course, no mere polite gesture for, of the over 5,700,000 members of the Labour Party more than 4,900,000 are provided by trade union affiliation.

The Chairman, Mr. Deakin, Sir William Lawther and Mr. Attlee all went out of their way to warn delegates that, owing to the attitude of Russia, progress and recovery were in danger. Mr. Attlee warned of the new sacrifices the Labour Party expected from the unions consequent on large-scale re-armament programmes, called for a continued support for “wage restraint” and finally urged trade unionists to encourage the young to join the Regular and Auxiliary Armed Forces. Adding the fatuous suggestion that such regulars should be allowed to retain their Trade Union membership.

The following day the statement by the General Council supporting the Government’s policy on Korea was endorsed.

Having supported the Labour Government’s intentions regarding War, the delegates then proceeded to two items more directly concerned with Trade Union activity, i.e. “Wage Restraint” and the implementation by the Government of its policy of “Equal Pay for Equal Work,” rejecting the former and supporting the latter and thus overturning their previous policies on these matters.

Equilibrium was somewhat restored by the defeat of a resolution urging the Government to discontinue the “Conditions of Employment Arbitration Order No. 1305.” This order not only makes almost all strikes illegal, but prevents the payment from Union Funds of “strike-pay” to strikers and also leaves strikers open to claims for damages by the employers. (Eleven miners at St. Helens, Lancs., were recently arrested for failing to pay £10 each for damages awarded to the National Coal Board because the men took part in an "unofficial” strike. They were only released after the money for the fines had been found by their Branch of the National Union of Mineworkers. Manchester Guardian, 18-9-50).

Useless Nationalisation

Congress dealt with the question of Nationalisation. The General Council presented its Report on “The Public Control of Industry” which admitted that Nationalisation of coal and transport had, as yet, increased the cost of coal, but pleaded that it was early days yet to see the full effect. It ended by stating that public ownership need not "always take the form of the nationalisation of whole industries and there is important scope for selective or competitive public enterprise and for the encouragement of Co-operation.” In other words, the administration of capitalism is showing these reformers that, despite their early claims that Nationalisation would resolve all of our difficulties, it simply does not work. Mr. Lincoln Evans (General Secretary of the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation) who presented this report on behalf of the General Council, confessed "that experience of public ownership in the first five years had revealed problems that were not anticipated ” and that "anyone naive enough to believe that change of ownership in itself was an answer was finding out that that was not so.” (Daily Telegraph 6-9-50). Of course, it is Mr. Evans himself who is appearing to be naive in believing that nationalisation is the ending of capitalist ownership. Evidently he was warning the supporters of Nationalisation that the problem was more prickly than he and his friends anticipated. We can assure Mr. Evans that no socialist would be naive enough to swallow the Nationalisation myth.

Lord Citrine, addressed the Congress in his personal capacity. (He was the Secretary of the T.U.C. before the present secretary. Sir Vincent Tewson). He gave his opinions based on his personal experiences as a member of the National Coal Board and as the present Chairman of the British Electricity Authority. He too was very cautious about Nationalisation and referred to the " ‘gigantic' problems facing the Nationalised Industries, the time that would be needed to overcome them, and the importance of full co-operation on both sides to ensure success." In referring to the change over to government direction of the Coal and Electricity Industries, "he several times returned to the theme of the responsibility of trade unionists for the form of nationalisation legislation and therefore their responsibility for taking a full share in making it work.” (Manchester Guardian, 8-9-50).

When it is all boiled down these people are only trying to show that the present needs of capitalism are tending towards more central government direction and. as this occurs, they require the working-class through the unions to assist in the successful running of industry, i.e. to send up production figures; further, that such adjustments in the administration are of advantage to members of the working-class.

Our suggestion is that those who are interested m the views of Mr. Evans and Lord Citrine should take a close look at the activities of those Trade Unions whose members already work in Nationalised Industries, i.e. the Civil Service, which has seven Unions affiliated to the T.U.C. Their history is one of a continued struggle for improved wages and conditions carried on with every Government in power since the existence of those unions. Joint consultative machinery is of very long standing, yet these Unions are constantly in opposition to Government representatives over questions of pay and conditions. If we are to believe what the advocates of Nationalisation say, such activities should have never arisen, and the Trade Unions in the Civil Service would merely be assistants in the task of increasing output and improving efficiency.

On the last day of Congress, Mr. Jack Tanner (President of the Amalgamated Engineering Union) introduced the General Council’s Report on "Productivity” and “laid the responsibility for increased efficiency on every member of the trade union movement.” (Manchester Guardian, 9-9-50). Mr. Tanner has been harping on this theme for several years on behalf of the General Council. The assertions connected with it are that foreign trade will consequently improve and that goods will be obtainable at a cheaper price and thus benefit the working class. Mr. Tanner seems to have forgotten the lessons of the last twenty- five years.

In April, 1948, The T.U.C. issued a leaflet entitled, "Ten Questions about that Extra Ten Per Cent.” and urged the workers to fall into line with the appeal of Mr. Attlee that, “An all-out effort will increase our total production by the ten per cent, we need to turn the tide.” In November, 1948, a Special Conference of Trade Union Executives was called in London to discuss the General Council’s Report on "Productivity.” The Report, which was accepted, called for increased production, closer consultation between the unions and the employers, the re-examining of "restrictive practices” and support for Training within Industry. At the end of 1948 still another leaflet was issued by the Government’s Central Office of Information entitled, "Productivity Pays . . . And How ” it was circulated among the Trade Union members. It purported to show how productivity could be increased during 1949 and was signed by the President of the F.B.I., Will Lawther (now Sir William Lawther), the then President of the T.U.C. and by the President of the British Employer’s Confederation. These gentlemen said, "We warmly endorse this move to make widely known the efforts now being made in industry to improve Productivity, and the profound importance to management, workers and the whole community of a steady and rapid increase in our rate of output.” (Perhaps it was sheer shyness on the part of the shareholders that reference to them was omitted from this endorsement?).

It is possible now to see what has been the result of the campaign for increased production. In 1948 Mr. Attlee wanted just an extra 10 per cent. Since then according to official figures industrial production has increased by 18 per cent. (“Monthly Digest of Statistics,” August 1950). Is Mr. Attlee satisfied and can the workers now begin to take their reward in higher wages or lower prices? By no means! In line with the normal progress of capitalism still more increases of production are demanded, partly to reduce export prices to undersell rivals abroad but particularly to provide for larger armed forces and war preparations.

Wage increases since 1948 have been insufficient even to keep pace with the rise of the cost of living, the official wage index having risen by only 5 points while the cost of living index has risen by 7 points, from 106 to 113. Wage restraint is still the order of the day.

In the meantime profits have kept up quite comfortably during the past two years and the future looks more rosy still. “It would seem from the latest quarterly figures that industrial profits are again rising ” (“Economist ” 5 August 1950).

The results of the T.U.C. show clearly that the working class is still wedded to the idea that they have a stake in capitalism. They have still to learn that the quicker they cease to bother their heads about the way to run capitalism the more quickly will they begin to appreciate the advantages of Socialism; of a system where there will be no classes; without struggles of trade rivalry and without the threat of war; a society in which men and women will be free and in peace, to use their abilities for the benefit of a classless community.

PEDCA.

The Trades Union Congress (1936)

From the October 1936 issue of the Socialist Standard

The sixty-eighth annual Trades Union Congress was held at Plymouth in September, under the presidency of Mr. A. A. H. Findlay, General Secretary of the United Pattern-Makers' Union.

It is an indication of the trend of trade unionism in this country that, in recent years, the time of Congress has been taken up, to an increasingly larger extent, in debate and discussion on political affairs and international questions. This year’s conference was similarly occupied. The dominant issues were Spain, national defence, dictatorship, and the Communist demand for a united front.

The Spanish Civil War

The President, in his opening speech, referred to the present struggle in Spain, and said: —

“Our hearts,” he continued, “ go out in honour and respect to our comrades in Spain, who are making their magnificent fight in defence of constitutional government.”— (Manchester Guardian, August 9th, 1936.)

A telegram, approved by Congress, and sent to the Spanish Premier, read: —

This congress, representing the organised workers of Great Britain, profoundly moved by the heroic struggle of the Spanish people for the maintenance of freedom and democracy . . . In the confident assurance that they embody the unconquerable will of the Spanish nation to defeat the forces of Fascism and tyranny, we pledge afresh our utmost support to the Spanish people.

Such is the sentiment. But when it came to a showdown, to a question of translating sentimental platitudes into practical assistance, Congress showed its helplessness and complete inability to give any

material help to the Spanish workers. What the Spanish Government needs is arms, in the shape of battleships, aeroplanes and guns, with which to fight the rebel military forces. Congress could not provide these. However, to be consistent with its resolution of “utmost support," it might have adopted a policy of supporting the demand that the British Government supply arms to the Government in Spain. It did not do so, but carried, by 595 votes to 7, a resolution supporting the Government’s policy of neutrality, that is, of withholding the supply of arms. An amendment favouring a policy of intervention was defeated on a card vote by 3,029,000 votes to 51,000. Intervention here meant supplying the Spanish Government with arms.

In the discussion that followed, Sir Walter Citrine said that the great need of the Spanish Government was to be supplied as rapidly as possible with war material to which it was entitled under international law. That it was felt that action should be taken to restrain Italy and Germany from supplying munitions to the Spanish military rebels. This could only be effected by placing a naval blockade round the coast of Spain. He continued : “ . . . I could not say ‘yes' to that.” (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.) Nevertheless, Sir Walter did say “yes" to the stupid telegram which pledged “utmost support" to the Spanish people, and which could only be dangerously misleading to the Spanish workers and Government. He also stated that the policy of neutrality was initiated by the Popular Front Government of France, and that the French Government had had a long-standing agreement with the Spanish Government to supply munitions, yet on July 25th (which was only one week after the civil war broke out) it decided it could no longer do so. He expressed the view that the overriding motive was clearly that the French Government was convinced that if it went on supplying Spain in the emergency with the munitions that the Spanish Government needed, there would in all probability be an outbreak of war in Europe.

Certain aspects of the question had apparently escaped Sir Walter Citrine’s notice. Were Congress or the “neutral” powers able to exert sufficient pressure to compel the Fascist powers to observe neutrality, then that pressure could have been exerted to have prevented them from supplying arms to the rebels in the first place. There was, in fact, no essential difference in the policy of neutrality embodied in the resolution which he supported and the policy of intervention in the amendment which he opposed. There would be as much “danger to the peace of Europe" if the policy of neutrality had to be made effective as there would be in the policy of intervention. The neutral powers, Great Britain and France, are not willing to risk war whilst there is “no direct threat to their interests. The enormous cost of war and the possibility of loss in markets and colonies induce an attitude of caution in international affairs and an anxiety to avoid doing anything that would provoke war. Which is quite unlike the swashbuckling sentiment of the British Governments when Empire building was in its heyday. Germany and Italy have less to lose and can afford to take advantage of the weakness, temporary or otherwise, of the other great powers, and with less fear of retaliation. Nobody believes that if Germany and Italy accepted the neutrality agreement that they would keep it. It is doubtful whether Sir Walter Citrine does.

A Recruiting Speech

In the debate Mr. Bevin scored as a jingo. “We are satisfied,” he said, “ that we are not going to meet the Fascist menace by mere resolutions. . . . We are not going to meet it by pure Pacifism . . . the whole of the democratic powers had to say to Hitler and Mussolini * Don’t take us too cheaply.’ ”

And during the discussion on foreign affairs he said: —

“We have been on the retreat as democratic powers.

“We have weakened our prestige. There has been an assumption that we would never defend ourselves.

“ That is not true. 

“ Fascism is not going to saddle itself on the whole earth, either by intrigue or the methods employed in Spain.”—(Daily Herald, 11.9.36.)

The Government has probably noted that speech for use in future recruiting literature.

The Communists and Spain

Other interesting facts which came out were: That the British Communist Party had not raised its voice to demand that Russia should send munitions to Spain. That the fact that the Russian Government had accepted the neutrality agreement and had operated it had never been mentioned by the French Communist Party. That the Russian trade unions had ceased collections for the Spanish workers on the instructions of the Russian Government. That the international fund for relief amounted to £45,000, of which £13,381 came from Britain. This represents a fraction of a penny per head of the trade union membership of Great Britain. (Daily Herald, September 11th, 1936.)

Future Labour Government. Mr. Bevin’s Boast

Resolutions favouring the abolition of the means test, the forty-hour week, the raising of the school-leaving age to sixteen, the abolition of the six-day waiting period for unemployed workers applying for insurance benefit, were approved. Congress knew that the passing of these, resolutions anticipated the policy of a possible future Labour Government. In fact, speaking to the resolution in favour of a forty-hour week, Mr. Bevin said: —

“The resolution did imply that if after the next election they secured the return of a Labour Government they would expect that Government to introduce the 40-hour week.”—(Daily Herald, 10.9.36.) 

And later: —

“ Never again must a Labour Minister be sent into office without all his plans prepared.”

The latter statement is in the nature of an ultimatum or a threat. As Mr. Bevin gave it as his opinion that the Labour Party lacks the virility of the trade unions, perhaps he considered the threat necessary. The statement certainly gives ammunition to the opponents of the Labour Party, who maintain that it was the Trade Union "caucus” who insisted upon the Labour Party not entering the National Government in 1931, against that party’s own wishes.

It is to be hoped that workers will remember Mr. Bevin’s words when the next Labour Government is elected—particularly if he is in the Cabinet. The last Labour Government found its pledges embarrassing, and said so, and asked the workers not to press their claims. The bill to raise the school-leaving age, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, particularly showed that lack of “virility” to which Mr. Bevin referred. It was wrecked because of the dissensions between the rival religious factions within the Parliamentary Labour Party. The waiting period for the unemployed worker and the means test were then in operation and were justified by Labour Government spokesmen. Mr. Lansbury stated that he was not in favour of an unemployed man having assistance unless some kind of means test were applied.

Trade Union Soul-Saving

However, the fear of losing its members, votes, and trade union financial backing, might induce an effort in a future Labour Government to attempt to carry out its pledges. In the opinion of Sir Walter Citrine, the trade union movement “saved the soul of the.Labour movement in 1931,” when the Labour Government fell. However, having said it, it is to be hoped that Sir Walter will be as successful in keeping it unsullied in the future. Incidentally, his statement is a tacit admission that members of the Labour Government were in favour of entering the National Government in 1931, and only refrained from doing so because of pressure from the trade unions.

Trade Union and Co-Operative Societies

Discussion, on the General Council’s report dealing with employment of trade union labour by co-operative societies and firms working on cooperative society contracts was interesting. Some of the discussion, as reported by the Manchester Guardian (September 11th, 1936), is as follows: —

Mr. A. G. Tomkins, of the Furnishing Trades’ Association, said it was not correct to say that with the exception of a few small societies the goods sold were made under fair conditions; it would be more correct to say that the larger the co-operative society the bigger difficulty they nad in preventing “ rat ” furniture from being sold.

Mr. W. Birch, of the Distributive and Allied Workers, Hyde, urged the General Council to take an active part in negotiations for conciliation machinery between the C.W.S. and the unions having members employed by it. It would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned. 

“ Rat ” furniture is furniture made under sweated conditions of labour. In this case in workshops which contract for the co-operative societies. The Daily Herald reported Mr. Tomkins as having spoken on the General Council’s report, but completely omitted the statements reproduced from the Manchester Guardian's report above. The Herald also omitted from its report of Mr. Birch’s speech the statement that “it would be a great achievement if they could establish a fifty-shilling minimum for the men concerned.”

Communists and the United Front

When Congress discussed the General Council’s report opposing a united front with the Communists, Sir Walter Citrine made a scathing speech. He said that one of the most amusing spectacles which contemporary political history would reveal was the attempt made by the Communist movement to ingratiate itself with the Trades Union Congress and Labour Party.

“After years of derision of the principles of the Labour movement, after using gallons of ink in denunciation of Labour’s leaders, after abuse of its unions as pillars of capitalism and reformist organisations, after denouncing its puny attempts to capture Parliament—regarded by the Communists as entirely ineffective as a means of emancipation of the people—after all the years that we have experienced since 1925, now we have the curiously incongruous spectacle of the Communist organisations wanting to come into our midst and be part of the movement they have so derided.

“The Communist party in Great Britain, as in every other country in Europe, is the mouthpiece of the Soviet Government. Everything that the Soviet Government decides will be repeated, parrot-like, by the Communists.

" . . . And when they speak here they are expressing the Russian Government’s point of view.”

Membership

The Council’s report showed an increase in trade union membership by approximately 300,000, but London, while it has 2,500,000 industrial workers, has only 350,000 trade unionists.

One last thing about the Congress. No Socialist voice was heard to penetrate the confused ideas and oratory, shedding light with the Socialist explanation of events. 

Harry Waite

Press Cuttings (1948)

From the January 1948 issue of the Socialist Standard

One-third of Recruits Unfit

“Field-Marshal Viscount Montgomery, C.I.G.S., yesterday said at the annual meeting of the Royal Eye Hospital, Southwark, of which he is president, that about 19 per cent. of the age group eligible for national service would be unfit for the post-war Regular Army. A further 15 per cent. would not be fit for full military duties.

” ‘There are many causes why a third of those eligible for service are suffering from such a degree of disability,’ he added. ‘They include housing, bad nutrition, and, not least, the preoccupation of the medical profession with disease rather than with the promotion of physical fitness’.” — (Daily Telegraph 10/10/47.)

#    #    #    #

Great Men

“Here are some of the things Sylvester, for 30 years Lloyd George’s personal assistant says about his master :

“He was often peevish and childish; strangely lacking in physical courage; no greater autocrat ever lived; a most unholy muddler, and just a spoiled child.”—(News of the World, 28/9/47.)

#    #    #    #

Labour Party and the House of Lords

“The Party stands, as heretofore . . . for the complete abolition of the House of Lords . . .”—(“Labour and the New Social Order,” Labour Party, 1918, p.12.)

“Since our last report the following have been welcomed to our ranks: Lord Citrine (Sir Walter Citrine), Lord Dukeston (Mr. Charles Dukes), Viscount Hall (Mr. George Hall, M.P.), Lord Kershaw (Mr. Fred Kershaw), Lord Lucas (Mr. G. W. Lucas), Lord Shepherd (Mr. G. R. Shepherd), Lord Simon (Sir E. D. Simon), Lord Trefgarne (Mr. G. M. Garro-Jones), Lord Uvedale (Sir Ambrose Woodall) . . . Our total strength is 46.”—(From Labour Party Report on Labour Strength in the House of Lords. Conference Report, 1947, p.65.)

Editorial: Trade Union Congress re-affirms its Belief in Capitalism (1944)

Editorial from the November 1944 issue of the Socialist Standard

While re-iterating trade union demands for a higher standard of living and for changes in the structure and control of industry, the T.U.C. at Blackpool accepted the continuance of capitalist industry and trade and the exploitation of the workers through the wages system. Always the formula is the same, that of condemning particular abuses and coining vague phrases asking for sweeping changes, while at the same time voting for detailed schemes which accept the fundamentals of capitalism.

One resolution called on the Governments of the United Nations to insert in the peace settlement a statement of social principles and objectives as recommended by the International Labour Conference at Philadelphia (Daily Herald, October 20th, 1944). We only need to concern ourselves with two points in the “Declaration of Philadelphia” to see what a fraudulent document it is from the standpoint of working-class emancipation. The first clause is the short affirmation “Labour is not a commodity.” Technically, of course, this is true since the commodity the worker sells is not “labour” itself but “labour-power”; but no doubt those who drafted the clause were only being slipshod in using the wrong word. What they thought they were doing was giving an answer to the Socialist charge that under the wages system the worker is merely the seller of a commodity, his own mental and physical energies. They thought that if in some formal document signed by the capitalist governments it is affirmed that labour-power is not a commodity, then it ceases to be a commodity. Yet every observer who looks at things as they are, including the Labour representatives who endorsed it at the I.L.O. and the T.U.C., knows that labour-power is and remains what it has always been under capitalism a commodity bought in the market, just like the other commodities the capitalist buys. In effect, the I.L.O.’s reply to the question, “Will you abolish the wages system?” is the assurance that there is no wages system. Just as if a fireman, asked if he would or would not put out a fire that is consuming a house, replies “There is no fire.”

A later point in the precious Philadelphia Charter betrays the truth. Having declared that labour-power is not a commodity, the Charter goes on to define the conditions under which this allegedly non-existent commodity is to be sold, by demanding—

“Policies in regard to wages and earnings, hours and other conditions of work calculated to ensure a just share of the fruits of progress to all, and a minimum living wage to all employed and in need of such protection.”

Another T.U.C. resolution endorsed the General Council’s Report on Post-War Reconstruction. Although the Report attacks the existing organisation and control of industry it has nothing to offer but well-worn phrases about public ownership as a description of its proposed schemes of a slightly changed private ownership. Some industries are to be “publicly owned,” by which the Report means “taken over by a public corporation” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944). The present owners will give up their shareholdings in the existing concerns and receive in return Government bonds. “Basis for buying out the present owners, it is suggested, should be ‘reasonable net maintainable revenue’— that is, on the actual earnings over a period of years and on the probability of their continuance” (Daily Herald, October 3rd, 1944).

Industries not ripe for the public corporation form of State capitalism are to be regulated by Industrial Boards set up by the Government. Workers and employers are to have equal representation on the Boards, but the chairman and a small number of other independent members are to be appointed by the Government. The chairman and his “independent” colleagues will be able to decide all issues on which employers and workers are equally divided, but in what way they will be independent the T.U.C. does not explain. They will, of course, be entirely dependent on the capitalist state, committed to trying to keep capitalist industry running smoothly.

This, by the way, is a familiar device by the Fascist countries. In the name of democracy, the workers, who outnumber the capitalists by, say, ten to one, are to have “equal” representation with them.

Congress decided by a 4 to 1 majority that the German people share the guilt of their Nazi rulers. Sir Walter Citrine, saying there has been too much mushy sentimentality about this business, told Congress that when the Allies march into Berlin “we shall find so many anti-Nazis full of assurances that they have always been against the Nazis that it will be difficult to know who has been carrying on the war in Germany” (News-Chronicle, October 19th, 1944).

Millions of German workers (but by no means all) have indeed supported the interests of their capitalist exploiters in the Nazi Party, but Sir W. Citrine and the majority of T.U.C. delegates are surely the least fitted to protest against people who support what they profess to oppose, for has not the T.U.C. for decades re-iterated its denunciations of capitalism while continually supporting capitalism, and on occasion (as at present) giving its backing to avowedly capitalist politicians and governments? Since capitalism is the cause of war, none who support capitalism can disclaim responsibility for war.

According to the Daily Mail (October 20th), one proposal accepted by Congress was that utility goods should be continued after the war. This very humble request just about typifies present relationship of the T.U.C. with the capitalist class “We are only poor workers,” the proposal says in effect “we don’t ask for the good things we make for the rich, but please see we have a regular supply of the second-rate, the substitute the cheap and nasty.”

With equal humility Congress passed about its 15th protest resolution against the 1927 Trades Dispute Act though at present it is only protesting because the Prime Minister has continued, like his predecessor in office the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain, to withhold even the token concession asked for. The T.U.C. missed the bus by not getting something done four years ago. As it is they have waited until the capitalists— free from preoccupation with Germany—can give them undivided attention. They will no doubt get what they deserve.

It is sometimes instructive to take notice of what your opponents say about you. The T.U.C. is allegedly anti-capitalist, while Lord Beaverbrook’s Evening Standard is openly in favour of capitalism. What the T.U.C. does ought on this assumption to meet with the disapproval and apprehension of the capitalist press.. Instead, the Evening Standard assures its readers that the T.U.C. (despite its attack on non-union journalists sent as reporters) is quite harmless. Any who think the T.U.C. has moved “to the left,” says the Standard can be comforted. Congress accepted policies that are satisfactory to many people on the right. Congress for example, agreed that labour should continue to be directed— in other words conscripted— after the war. Congress steered steadily towards that Trade Union-Big Business collaboration which is anathema to the left.” (Evening Standard, October 20th, 1944).

The millionaire Press may be comforted, but present T.U.C. policy will bring no comfort to men and women trade unionists in the hard years before them.

Passing Comments: Unsolicited Testimonial to Mr. Gaitskell (1951)

The Passing Comments Column from the October 1951 issue of the Socialist Standard

Unsolicited Testimonial to Mr. Gaitskell

When 1 was reading in a public library, a lady next to me reading the Daily Telegraph approved so much of what she read that she had to unburden herself immediately; and 1 was the nearest person. I haven’t checked on all her facts, but the substance of what she said was this:

“Thank goodness someone’s talking sense at last—Mr. Gaitskell is saying they ought to give the workers bonus shares if the work is going well. Now that’s what I’ve always said—I had some shares in the South Metropolitan Gas Co. during the war and they used to give the workers bonus shares and it always kept them satisfied—they never had a strike all during the war! That’s just what I’ve always said—keep the workers contented and you won’t get any trouble. And I see Mr. Gaitskell has been saying we shouldn’t have any more taxation on the important people—the people with capital and the people who provide work. Because if you tax them they’re not going to stay in this country are they? And if they go how should we get on?—because they provide all the work.”

I feel sure that Mr. Gaitskell will be glad to know that, although he may not be very popular with the trade unions, his proposals have drawn forth the admiration of at least one shareholder.

* * *

State Capitalism

As the nationalised industries continue to publish each year their reports, showing how much interest has been paid to people who are called (for some reason unknown) “ex”-shareholders, it should become obvious to the most fervent nationalises that whatever nationalisation is or is not. it is not Socialism, and that the workers in nationalised industries cannot be said, by any stretch of the imagination, to be either the owners or the controllers of their industries. These facts, which the Socialist Party has been trying to propagate for the last half-century, have at fast reached the edges of that bastion of ignorance, the Labour Party. Among the first to make a public recantation is a Labour M.P., Fred Longden, who has just published a book of essays.

* * *

Lucrative Stockholding

In it he says that nationalisation “does not disturb the present social order.” It “does not dislocate the pyramid-like build of society. Its horizontal classes and perpendicular grades and castes remain intact with greater security than ever. Stockholding is sounder and more lucrative. Management rests in the hands of a Board that is more distant from the worker and consumer than ever. This is ’democracy’ with a very remote control. It is not Socialism.” (“The Proletarian Heritage,” quoted in Reynolds News, 12.8.51.)

With your last sentence, Mr. Longden, we couldn’t agree more. But what a pity it is that you have spent your political life in the Labour movement working to bring about that state of affairs you now so justly criticise. Still, we don’t want to harp too much on your past misdeeds. If you really want to bring about a Socialist society, you can still join with all the other people who want to do so. Apply at your nearest branch of the Socialist Party.

* * *

Never Say Die

Mr. Longden has at least been honest enough to admit that he was wrong, now that it is clear beyond any possibility of doubt that nationalisation is not Socialism. But there are others who are incorrigible —chief among them being the Stalinists. With them the evidence counts for nothing. Theoretical argument, practical demonstration, both leave them cold. Ignoring the experience of the coalminers, the gasworkers, the railwaymen, the Daily Worker continues to cheer on nationalisation projects wherever they appear. In Persia, a nationalisation demonstration evoked the approving comment, “Smallest hint of government weakness in face of imperialist pressure brings the crowds out to show the people’s determination to force oil nationalisation through” (11.7.51). And when the secretary of the “Northern Rhodesian African Congress” demands the nationalisation of the Northern Rhodesian copper mines, the Daily Worker headlines it “Africans want copper mines” (23.7.51). The Africans may want the copper mines. But if they do, they’re certainly going a queer way about it.

* * *

It’s What Yon Wanted

Even when trade unionists see that nationalisation has left them exactly where they were before, any attacks they make on the new state-directors, any claims they bring forward for higher pay, are greeted with a reproachful “well, you wanted nationalisation yourself.” The head of the British Electricity Authority, Lord Citrine, went along to the annual conference of the Amalgamated Engineering Union recently, berated those delegates who had attacked the B.E.A. administration, and ended up by appealing to “the trade unions, which were really responsible for bringing about nationalisation, to ‘give us a little help occasionally, and perhaps a little more charity when public utterances are made’.” (Daily Herald, 22.6.51.) And the trade unions cannot deny the charge that they helped to bring about nationalisation.

* * *

Labour “ Socialism ” in Action

From the Daily Herald (2.8.51): “The fall in share values, following Mr. Gaitskell's announcement a week ago that dividends are to be limited, is only one-third of their rise during the past three and a half months. With that statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer torpedoed a half-hearted Tory attack in the Commons yesterday.” But what an interesting commentary it makes on Mr. Gaitskell’s claim to be a Socialist when he publicly boasts that he isn’t half as hard on the shareholders, on those who live on the labour of others, as his opponents make out. In fact the Stock Exchange, despite the loud cries of anguish which were heard in Lombard Street when the slight dividend restriction was first announced, soon came to see what a mild measure it was. Even the small drop in share values which actually took place was not long-lived. Two and a half weeks after the original announcement the Sunday Express (12.8.51) said: “All but one-tenth of the losses has been regained. And from the way things are going it won’t be long before the remaining tenth is made good.”

Which, in practice, amounts to another vote of confidence by the shareholders in the Labour Government.

* * *

Discovery

Another of the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s remarks during the Commons debate on August 1st was this: “Figures of the distribution of property do not bear out any suggestion that ordinary shares are held in large quantities by the poorer section of the community.”

This must rank as the understatement of the month.

* * *

How to Fight Wars—1

From the Daily Graphic (24.7.51): “At Verdun in 1916 Petain flung back the German hordes with a scornful 'Ils ne passeront pas ’ (they shall not pass). Nor did they, although half a million men died round the shell-torn forts in five months.” Half a million men died, but not Petain, who became a General largely on the strength of that battle. (And if it was Petain who “flung back the German hordes,” what were all these other Frenchmen doing there?) Petain survived the men under his command for thirty-five years, dying at the age of ninety-five.

* * *

How to Fight Wars—2

General Kurt Student, formerly supreme commander of Hitler’s airborne troops, wrote an article in the Sunday Express last May 27th. He said: “ For me, as commander of the German airborne troops, the Battle of Crete in 1941 carries bitter memories. I miscalculated when I suggested this attack, which resulted in the loss of so many valuable parachutists that it meant the end of the German airborne landing forces, which I had created.” Many parachutists were lost. But modern war has its compensations. General Student is still with us. And ten years after his miscalculations at Crete, the General is still fit enough to write articles for the papers.

Alwyn Edgar

Rationalisation or Socialism. (1928)

From the October 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

The capitalist system of society is based upon the private ownership of the means of wealth production and distribution, by a minority of the population. The majority of the population, being property-less, are compelled to offer their services for sale to the capitalists, and receive in return sufficient to enable them to live and keep on working. Only the working class engage in the work necessary to production, but the wealth that results from the workers’ labour-power belongs to the capitalists, and therefore the system is an excellent one—for the capitalists.

This being so, any proposals which have for their object the smoother working of the present system should be welcomed— by the capitalists.

The system is essentially a competitive one, and though the capitalists’ interests are identical as against working-class interests, they are not identical in the struggle to secure the greater proportion of the profit accruing from the workers’ labour-power. This results in a tremendous waste. In most industries there is more plant and machinery in being than is necessary to produce sufficient to supply the markets; consequently many works are on short time, not working to their full capacity, or are actually closed down.

Thoroughly up-to-date and efficient methods of production exist side by side with inefficient, almost obsolete, methods.

These facts are fairly obvious, and attempts are being made to meet the problem, but we are concerned about it being clearly understood whose problem it is.

To increase the difference between the total wealth the workers produce and the amount they receive in the form of wages has always been the object of the capitalists, and what is referred to as rationalisation is only a phase of that estimable object.

In an article in the Daily Herald (August 24th), Mr. Citrine attempts to justify the action of the T.U.C. in acting in conjunction with a group of employers to secure “the maximum efficiency of labour with the minimum of effort,” to avoid “waste of raw materials and power” and “unnecessary transport, burdensome financial charges, and the useless interposition of middlemen.” As the General Council of the T.U.C. is supposed to represent the interests of the wage workers, it was up to Mr. Citrine to demonstrate that the object of these proposals is not to increase the difference between total wages and total profits.

Instead of doing this he proceeds to ignore the class division in society and indulge in vague talk about the “community,” and increasing the standard of living of the “people.”

As the article was a reply to a previous one by Mr. Hicks, he brings forward evidence to show that his attitude is quite in accordance with Trade Union policy both here and abroad, instancing a report published by the T.U.C. and the Labour Party in 1924 on the Waste of Capitalism, which, as he says, “was, in effect, a demand for the rational organisation of industry.” He also points out that the German Trade Union movement took the initiative in demanding the institution of Rationalisation in 1926.

To be able to give evidence of other suicidal policies is regarded as sufficient justification of the present one. We have some indication of how Rationalisation works in Germany in an article in the Manchester Guardian Industrial Relations Supplement (30/11/27), by C. W. Guillebaud. One of the “concessions” to the workers is the institution of Works Councils, on which both workers and employers sit; and the writer points out that

“One most significant feature of the development of the Works Councils has been the great decline in the number of those willing to submit themselves for election or re-election. . . . The chief causes of this tendency are, first, the power of employers to get rid of Works Councillors, . . . despite the protective provisions of the Act.”

It should be obvious that a worker with orthodox views will be a useful man for the employers, but one who realises the direct cleavage of interests between the two sides, and says so, will be given his cards and shown the gate.

Although the Trade Unions arose from the antagonism of interests between the property-owning employers and the property-less wage workers, they frequently function in the interests of the capitalists. The railway workers’ unions have recently successfully negotiated a 2½ per cent. reduction in their members’ wages, without the trouble and expense of a lock-out. While having a clear idea of the purpose of “rationalisation,” it is necessary to point out to the self-styled “left-wingers” that it is not something to be fought separately. At the annual conference of the National Minority Movement, Mr. Harry Pollitt moved a resolution which declared that “the chief issue before the working class was to fight Rationalisation” (Daily Herald, August 27).

Certain phrases seem to knock these shallow pates off their balance; “Mondism” and “Imperialism” are manifestations of capitalism. One is reminded of 1914, when the counterparts of the present left-wingers considered it “progressive” to fight against Prussianism.

The opening paragraph of this article being correct, the only problem the workers need concern themselves about is their non-possession of the means of wealth production, the solution of which is in their own hands, by organising as a class, politically, to take possession of them. The Socialist Party is the only organisation which concentrates the workers’ attention on that problem. Labour right-wingers, who urge the workers to take an interest in their masters’ problems, and left-wingers, who urge them to attack separate features of capitalism, are equally side-tracking them from the thing that matters.

J. L.

About Books (1954)

Book Reviews from the July 1954 issue of the Socialist Standard

British Trade Unions can be divided, briefly into three categories: unions that cater for workers in one trade only, like the United Society of Boilermakers; unions that embrace all the workers in an industry, like the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Union of Railwaymen; and unions that enrol members from a wide variety of trades, jobs and industries, such as the Transport and General Workers’ Union and the National Union of General and Municipal Workers.

The tendency during the past few decades has been for federations and amalgamations to thin out the ranks of the smaller craft unions and to create, by a merging process, the large organisations that we know today.

This process has created problems of organisation. Unions with hundreds of thousands of members, many of them engaged in different trades and spread all over the country, have had to devise some complicated machinery for the management of their affairs, the formulating and carrying out of national policies. Most of them have constitutions that provide for control of policy by the membership, but in practice, this democratic control does not work out. The majority of trade unionists take no part in the formulation of their union’s policy. Of those that are active the larger number have little, if any, understanding of the society in which their organisation functions and, in consequence, have their ideas moulded by their trade union officials. Thus, the officials are able to impose a policy on the unions.

A book entitled Power in Trade Unions, A Study of their Organisation in Great Britain, by V. L. Allen, has recently been published by Longmans, Green and Co., at 25/-. Mr. Allen examines the constitutions of 127 unions and shows the policy-making process, the power of trade union executives and permanent officers and the disciplinary measures used to ensure obedience from the members.

A similar work was published, in 1952 by George Allen and Unwin, entitled The Government of British Trade Unions, by Joseph Goldstein. Mt. Goldstein limited his study almost exclusively to the Transport and General Workers’ Union and revealed how apathy destroys the application of democratic principles.

Both these authors have collected masses of figures and have compiled many charts to illustrate their revelations. For the student of Trade Unionism both books are worth reading, but if one had to be selected we would recommend Mr. Allen’s.

The History of Trade Unionism, by Sydney and Beatrice Webb, although it does not bring the picture right up to date, is still the classic history of the subject A useful little book that brings the subject right up to 1952, is British Trade Unionism, a Short History, by Allen Hutt, published by Lawrence and Wishart. for 12/6. Mr. Hutt’s political sentiments peep through in places, but his book is a good, interesting, short history.

A less useful, though very interesting book, is an illustrated volume in the Britain in Pictures series, published by William Collins. It is British Trade Unions, by Sir Walter Citrine.

Two books, useful to students, covering a wide study of Trade Unions in a limited number of pages are Trade Unions Today, by Henry Collins (Frederick Muller Ltd., 6/-), and British Trade Unions, by N. Barou. (Gollancz. Left Book Club).

This small collection of books should give a student a satisfactory grounding in the subject and should make him realise the limitations of trade union action in improving the lot of the working class. Capitalism sets the limits and the trade unions, products of that system cannot break outside it. Only by social revolution can the working class escape from the ills which they seek to palliate through trade union action.

W. Waters.

Notes by the Way: The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means (1942)

The Notes by the Way Column from the February 1942 issue of the Socialist Standard 

The Archbishop’s Very Slender Means

On the resignation of the 77-years-old Archbishop of Canterbury the Daily Mail comments as follows: 

“Dr. Lang renounces a salary of £15,000 a year for a pension unlikely to exceed £1,500—or. as he put it, ‘to face the restraints and inconveniences of very slender means.'”—(“Daily Mail,” January 22nd, 1942.)

* * *

Sir W. Citrine on the Labour Party’s Attitude in the War

While the following candid statement by Sir Walter Citrine contains nothing not already widely appreciated, it deserves to be placed on record against the time when those who are less candid may want to give a different version. The statement was made in a speech at Maidstone on Saturday, January 24th, 1942.

“In this war no workman, particularly no trade unionist, should have the slightest hesitation in throwing all into the war effort. For years we have been shouting “Stand up to Hitler.” We wanted the Government to stand up to him over Austria, over Spain, and at Munich. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open. Now, we are in it, it does not become us to find any means of excusing any lack of enthusiasm”—(“Times,” January 26th, 1942.)

A somewhat different report was given in the People (January 25th, 1942): —

“We can be charged by other sections of the community as being one of the organised sections that demanded war. No one can say we did not enter this war with our eyes open.”

* * *

No Communism in Russia

Now that the British and Russian Governments are Allies and the “International” is being played here on ceremonial occasions as a mark of honour to the Russian Government, the idea has occurred to several newspapers that it is desirable to remove the impression that Bolshevism is a danger to capitalism. Hence the publication of information which hitherto has been ignored. Sir Bernard Pares, the authority on Russian questions, who has in recent years been favourably regarded by the Communists and has been a strong advocate of the Anglo-Russia Alliance, lectured at Manchester on January 10th on the Bogey of Communism. The Manchester Guardian (January 12th, 1942) reported him as follows: 

“There was only one period in Russian history when the Marxist doctrine was practised, and that was for the three years after the Revolution—1918 to 1921. That was a perversion of the big, warm family idea, and it was given up as hopelessly ridiculous. The doctrine ruling at present was exactly the same as here: ‘From everyone according to ability, to everyone according to his his work.” So it had been as long as Stalin had been in power. “Communism” was a thing which Russia might try to better to realise in the future, when the world was a better place.”

Then the Daily Mail (January 24th, 1942) had an article by Negley Farson on life in Russia, telegraphed from Moscow two days previously. Among the interesting points made by Parson are the following: —

“The Soviets have not changed Russian life so much as many outsiders think—nor did they ever intend to.

There are still beggars, although you will find them standing outside the churches. And that many churches are still open is proved by the fact that 25,000 people worshipped in Moscow on the day when an appeal was made for every Russian—Christian or atheist—to repel the German invaders.

Inequalities in earnings still exist in Russia. A man who cleans the streets gets about 100 to 200 roubles a month—an actor like Moskvin gets possibly 1,000 roubles for one special performance.

Soviet writers like Sholokhov, who wrote “And Quiet Flows the Don,” receive royalties just like any English or American best-sellers—only Sholokhov’s books probably sell in millions, for Russians are avid readers.

Waiters take tips, but on three occasions since I have been in Russia this time they have actually refused them from me. Yesterday two husky girls who carried my bags up to my room at the Hotel Metropole in Moscow (where I lived in 1915) handed me back part of my tip with a smile, saying I had given them too much.

Russians may also invest money in War Loans or Five Year Plan Loans, which formerly paid interest as high as six per cent. They may leave money to their children just like any Westerner. But the “crippling” power of money has been shackled by the fact that no man may use it to exploit another.”

On the education system he says: —

“Education is free and compulsory—and no amount of money can buy a better education for one child than for another in the First Grade—say, up to the age of 13 or 14. But after that age money may, strangely enough, provide additional knowledge. For example, for the teaching of music, languages, art or any special subject that a child might be interested in, special tutors may be paid for.

Also, although education is free up to the ages already mentioned, after that the pupil’s parent must pay a definite sum both for high school and university education.”

* * *

Death of the People’s Convention

According to the Daily Herald (January 7th, 1912) the National Committee of the People’s Convention decided on January 3rd “to suspend activity as a separate organisation,” thus failing by nine days to reach its first anniversary. It will be recalled that at its first convention held on January 12th, 1941, the Convention wanted a “People’s Government and a People’s Peace.” One of their main criticisms of the Labour Party then was that it ought not to be in the Churchill Government, a policy denounced by Mr. Pritt as “the linking up of its leaders with their class enemies.” Now the promoters of the Convention are all for the war and their criticism is no longer directed against Mr. Churchill.

* * *

British and Russian Foreign Policy

The Evening Standard (January 22nd, 1942) published statements which originated from Swedish sources about points discussed by Stalin and Eden during the latter’s visit to Moscow. Whether the statements are correct it is impossible to say, though evidently the Evening Standard attaches some weight to them. Some of the points seem likely enough in the light of past relationship between Britain and the Czarist Governments. Russia is alleged to want to keep the three Baltic States, and to secure territory from Rumania and Finland. Echoes of former Russian aims appear in the demand that “The Soviet Union must have guarantees that at no time in future can Iran (Persia) serve as a springboard for eventual invasion against the U.S.S.R.”

The same point is referred to by Madame Tabouis from New York as follows: —

“The demand for an outlet upon the Persian Gulf, which would create a new Russian “lung” seems to be uncontested.”—(“Sunday Dispatch,” January 4th, 1942.)

Other points in the Evening Standard statement are : —

“Russia has no interests in Africa; Britain’s bid for a dominant position in the Mediterranean is acknowledged as legitimate.

Russia welcomes British policy which seeks to ensure that never again will North Africa or Northern France serve as a jumping-off place for attack against the British Isles or the British Empire.”

According to Madame Tabouis the Moscow negotiations have left the position that “Britain’s voice will be all important in the matter of decisions regarding Northern and Western Europe, while the Soviets will retain an influential role in Eastern Europe and the Balkans.”

* * *

Who Should be in the War Cabinet ?

Mr. Hannen Swaffer, who is a loyal supporter of the Labour Party, suggests, in the People (January 25th, 1942), what should be the composition of the War Cabinet. His list is: Churchill, Beaverbrook, Bevin, Shinwell, Lloyd George and Anthony Eden. One significant feature of this list seems to have escaped Swaffer’s notice—at any rate, he makes no remark about it—the fact that three of the six are Conservatives, one is a Liberal, and only two are Labour M.P.s.

* * *

Communist Arguments for Lifting the Ban on the “Daily Worker”

When the Daily Worker was suppressed a year ago the Communists were opposing the war. Now their principle argument for the removal of the ban is that they could help the Government to increase production in a way that official propaganda fails to do. The Manchester Guardian (January 21st, 1942) reported speeches made by Daily Worker supporters at a lunch on the previous day: —

“Both the editor of the paper, Mr. Rust, and an unnamed shop steward from a London factory dwelt on the bad effect which its suppression had, they said, on the workers and therefore on production. Mr. Rust said that they wondered what was behind the unexplained suppression of the “Daily Worker,” and both speakers were sure that the removal of the prohibition on it would hearten the workers, increase their confidence in the Government, and raise production.”

The New Statesman (November 29th, 1941) published the following by one of their regular contributors : —

“A Communist friend put the matter like this. “The Government,” he said, “take for granted that the ‘Left’ must support the war as long as Russia’s in it. We must urge all possible production, and so we do.” We are pledged to support Mr. Churchill—and so we are; even to the point of supporting Conservative candidates at by-elections when other candidates put up specifically as all-aid-to-Russia candidates. They think they have no reason to worry about the Left any more; why go to the bother of allowing the “Daily Worker” to appear? They are making a mistake.They are quite right about us. Communists will do all they can. But there are other Left groups who take a different line, who find it very difficult to support Mr. Churchill and who may turn, if left alone, and run after all sorts of Trotskyites’ hares and I.L.P. red herrings. Such people take no notice of official propaganda. We are the only paper who.can influence those who think the whole war “hooey” anyway, or who are against fighting for the capitalist and so on. It’s our job to convince them, but we cannot possibly cover the field without the “Daily Worker.”

Edgar Hardcastle

Editorial: No Socialism After the War. Reassuring America. (1941)

Editorial from the March 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

Those who are in control of United States foreign policy, and who are deciding whether and to what extent munitions of war should be advanced to aid the British forces against the Germans, are naturally interested in the question what social changes are likely to occur in Great Britain after the war. They are behaving in just the same way as did the British propertied class during the Spanish civil war. It was all very well for the Duchess of Atholl and the Labour leaders to tell them that a Franco victory achieved by German and Italian arms would endanger British imperial interests, they still wanted to be assured that the Republican Government was not controlled by groups hostile to capitalism. They had and have their own very definite ideas about the greater and the lesser evil and it is only very naive Labourites and Communists who imagine that the way to secure support from the propertied class is to proclaim encroachments on propertied interests as a war aim. 

It is, therefore, not surprising that American politicians have been asking questions and have been given comforting—and as it happens, quite truthful—answers.

When Mr. Joseph Kennedy, former United States Ambassador in London, went back to U.S.A. he was questioned by a committee of Congress in connection with Roosevelt’s “Lease or Lend” Bill to aid Great Britain, and one of the questions put to him was, “Is England rapidly going Socialist?” Mr. Kennedy does not think it is. He said, however : —

“If you mean is the Labour Party becoming more effective in Government, that is so”.—(Daily Herald, January 22nd, 1941.)

Then there is the well-known American writer, Mr. Mark Sullivan, who is much disturbed by reports of the coming of Socialism to Great Britain. The Manchester Guardian (February 19th, 1941) reports him as follows : —

“Since our Congress is, in effect, about to underwrite British victory, it is reasonable our Congress should know any commitments that may have been made by responsible persons in Britain, to take effect in the event of victory; whether there are war aims which include Socialism for Britain.”

The Manchester Guardian, commenting on this, professes not to know the answer—”we are afraid that not even a Senate Committee will be able to help him. Indeed, we shall have to admit him to the secret that we are just as much in the dark about what Britain (and the United States) will be like after the war as he is himself.”

It is very modest on the part of the Guardian to disclaim knowledge, but not convincing. The Guardian knows as well as anybody that Mr. Churchill and the Tory Party have not entered into a secret pact with Mr. Bevin and Mr. Attlee to dispossess the capitalist class on the day the war ends. The confusion only arises because the Guardian, like other newspapers, has the habit of talking of Socialism when it means something else. This is clearly brought out in the words that come after those quoted above: “But we might guess . . . that both countries will have gone a good deal further on the New Deal road.” It appears that Mr. Mark Sullivan does not like Roosevelt’s “New Deal” programme of reforms of capitalism, and because he is himself ignorant or because he writes down to the ignorance of his readers he chooses to call this “Socialism.” The Manchester Guardian is certainly correct in its guess that the post-war difficulties will bring a new crop of social reforms; but that is not Socialism.

Sir Walter Citrine has been lecturing in U.S.A. and, according to the Daily Telegraph, he has been answering similar questions. Not being a man given to vagueness and hot air he has been able to reply in similar vein : —

“The tour (of Sir Walter Citrine) has been a great success and has proved very popular with American Federation leaders. In particular, it has had a reassuring effect on those who feared Britain was turning, or would turn, into a Socialistic State, which would prove as difficult for a democratic country like the United States to get on with after the war as Russia or Germany.”—(Daily Telegraph, January 29th, 1941.)

If it is true that Britain and America will not go over to Socialism at the end of the war, what will happen and what can Socialists usefully do? Is there indeed any point in carrying on with Socialist propaganda ?

What Will Happen After the War?

When it comes down to questions of detail Socialists are no better able than the Manchester Guardian to guess what particular forms the post-war aches and pains will take and what remedies will be prescribed by the rival political medicine men. Certain conditions can, however, be discerned fairly clearly. When peace comes there will at once be acute political controversy about the abolition of war-time restrictions and controls and State regulation of industry. Those industrial, commercial and financial concerns with sufficient resources to weather industrial depression will want a free hand to get back to the normal business of profit-making. They will make the most of a widespread popular reaction against restrictions and will exploit to the full any instances of civil service “red-tape” and inefficiency. The weaker firms and industries will, no doubt, look to Government subsidies to save them from bankruptcy at the hands of their bigger competitors, and will be prepared to support a continuance of Government control as the price that has to be paid. They will find themselves campaigning alongside the Labour Party, which will try to use increased State control as a means of extracting social reforms and of stabilising the position of the trade unions. The compromises resulting from this struggle will certainly contain legislation on such matters as pensions, workmen’s compensation, hours of work, health and unemployment insurance, school-leaving age, the trade unions, etc.; no Government will dare to face the workers entirely empty-handed.

An interesting forecast of the post-war world as it will affect one industry, cotton, has been sketched out by Mr. Raymond Streat, Chairman of the Cotton Board. The following summary from the News Chronicle is worth pondering over: —

“Mr. Streat starts from the assumption that the Lancashire cotton industry must export or die. Without a sufficient export trade added to the home trade the industry cannot retain the volume and variety of production necessary for efficiency and thus ultimately for survival. But can this sufficient volume of export trade be established in the face of foreign competition, which must be expected after the war to be even more formidable than before? Mr. Streat thinks it can be—within a period of five years, if the Cotton Board’s policy is adopted. This policy is a campaign on six fronts, or, as I would rather call it, a Britannia’s trident with six prong’s.

The first prong is Government assistance in the form of international trade agreements (“with a front seat for cotton goods every time”), export credits, etc. The second and sharpest is price control within the industry. “Managed prices,” says Mr. Streat, “confer enormous benefits on the producers,” but in return for these benefits they must sacrifice part of their former liberty : they must agree to tackle their own redundancy problems and must co-operate with labour and in technical advancement, “not defensively for the sake of their individual balance-sheets, but aggressively for the good of the industry.”

The third prong is commercial policy—a reform of Lancashire’s merchanting organisation and a selling price policy based on the principle of “what the traffic will bear.” The fourth prong is technical progress, the fifth a rational wages system—higher wage rates, but a sweeping away of obsolete operational practices and agreements—and the sixth is propaganda, sales promotion and market research.”— (News-Chronicle, February 3rd, 1941.)

Here is a programme on which the employers, the trade unions and the Labour Party will certainly be able to come together, but notice one very important feature to which the City Editor of the News Chronicle draws attention: —

“Such, very briefly, is Mr. Streat’s programme. Underlying it is his conviction that post-war international commercial relations will be based on the same nationalistic, protectionist principles as obtained before the war. International trade will be a matter of hard bargaining between Governments on import quotas : exchange control will persist as a permanent phenomenon, and with it barter and bilateralism. So the cotton trade must discipline, itself and arm itself with every offensive weapon known to modern trade warfare. Mr. Streat does not use quite this language, but this is really what it amounts to.”

So it is not going to be a very nice new world after all: and this is where Socialist propaganda comes in. Mr. Streat’s kind of programme means ; the danger of new and bigger wars if it is allowed to remain the basis of the social system for another 10 or 20 years after this war is ended. It is for Socialists to determine that that shall not happen. It is our task to explain to the workers why a seemingly “safe and sane” policy of seeking reforms and wage regulation is a policy surrounded by the same risks as existed before 1914 and before 1939. Probably people with Mr. Streat’s ideas will have their way, but the only safeguard for the future will be a large and growing number of workers who can get below the surface and see what are the limitations and dangers of such ideas.

Above all, Socialists alone can do the invaluable work of persuading the workers to give up their weakness for meaningless abstractions. They befog the clarity of thought without which there can be no correct action. Beware of vague appeals and promises about “justice,” “fair play for everybody,” “economic democracy,” etc. Insist always on explicit and concrete statements from the parties and politicians who promise to re-shape the world. Make sure that you understand precisely which way emancipation lies. If you are still convinced that capitalism can be made to work if only there are sufficient laws restricting the freedom of action of the capitalist, then be honest with yourself and declare that you are for capitalism and against Socialism. At the same time remember that it is your own responsibility to understand what Socialism is before you reject it; no leader can take that responsibility off your shoulders without the penalty of your neglect some day falling on you.

Industrial Peace: The Capitalist Utopia. (1928)

From the February 1928 issue of the Socialist Standard

Once again we are being regaled in the Press and from the platform with unctuous rubbish concerning the desirability of “peace” in industry. The overwhelming fascination which the topic appears to possess for capitalist representatives and labour leaders alike only speaks for their mental bankruptcy and the fatal readiness of the workers to be deceived by promises.

Fifteen to twenty years ago Sir Christopher Furness, with his co-partnership scheme, stood in the limelight of publicity much as Sir Alfred Mond does at the present day. The only novel feature of the situation is the fact that there is now in existence a body which is supposed to stand for the interests of the bulk of the trade unionists in the country, i.e., the General Council of the Trade Union Congress. The contempt which this body has for its supporters, and its utter disregard for their interests, was forcibly illustrated less than two years ago by its conduct of the so-called General Strike. Thanks to the treachery of this body, hundreds of thousands of the workers were victimised for their actions in response to their “leaders'” orders, without any serious attempt having been made to support the miners.

No wonder, then, that these champions of ignominious defeat and surrender, swollen-headed with all the self-importance of ignorance, should fall rapturously into the outspread arms of their class foes. What else can they do? They have neglected the great essential of working-class education, i.e., Socialist propaganda; and have thus climbed to office by exploiting the support of followers who lack the understanding necessary to the prosecution of an intelligent and courageous conflict with the exploiting class. They therefore enter into conference like whipped curs, hoping for conciliatory pats on their heads and a few bones to induce them to go quietly to their kennels.

What is to be the outcome of this hobnobbing of Trade Union officials with the representatives of capital? Can the workers expect to gain anything therefrom?

A few ideas in answer to these questions may be gathered from the “Manchester Guardian” supplement of November 30th, 1927, entitled “Industrial Relations.” It consists of a symposium of the views of a number of prominent members of the master class, such as Sir J. Stamp and Sir A. Mond, and notorious Labour “leaders,” such as MacDonald, Henderson, Clynes, Bevin, Citrine, Cramp, etc.

Sir Alfred Mond having taken the initiative in the recent conference, his views are of considerable interest. Dealing with what is termed the “rationalisation” of industry, he says :

  The growth of larger industrial units does, however, bring immense problems in its train. For instance, if complete economy is to be effected, it may entail the shutting down of obsolete or unprofitable plant, the scrapping of redundant agencies and departments. Obviously, unless there is an immediate expansion of production, temporary unemployment must follow from this.

Of course, he goes on to lay stress on the word “temporary.” Improved methods mean an increase in trade, we are told, and that in turn means more employment. The workers were told exactly the same tale over a century ago, when machinery was first introduced, but the nightmare of unemployment still haunts an ever-increasing proportion of workers.

It is obvious that, in order to smother the growing discontent of the workers under such conditions, some form of bluff is necessary, so Brunner, Mond & Co. instituted Works Councils, which have since been elaborated with the growth of the combine. This is supposed to secure the representation of the views and interests of the workers ; but another article in the supplement dealing with Works Councils in Germany throws an interesting light on what actually happens under this arrangement.

Theoretically, the Councils are supposed to be able to appeal to the courts to prevent dismissals “on the grounds of victimisation, injustice, or undue hardship,” but in practice, “the Councils cannot protect the employees against dismissal on the ground of trade depression or lack of work.”

Dealing with the question of improved security and higher status (things we hear a lot about nowadays), Sir A. Mond goes on to say,

  By inaugurating a Workers’ Staff Grade … up to 50 per cent. of all workers of over five years’ service will be eligible for election to the Staff, and once promoted they will enjoy rights similar to those enjoyed by the office staffs, including weekly instead of hourly rates of wages and the right to a month’s termination of employment. The healthy rivalry for promotion . . . should mean greater efficiency.

A typical capitalist dodge to intensify the competition between the workers, and thus wring more out of them.

Then, for the information of the workers, a monthly magazine is to be issued. In Germany, however, things are further advanced.

  The Councils are empowered by the Act to nominate one or two of their members with full voting rights, on to the control boards of all companies, and, in the larger firms, to have submitted to them a balance sheet and profit and loss account for the establishment for which they are elected. The Councils may also demand verbal explanations from the employer as to the significance and composition of any of the items so submitted.

  In practice these provisions of the Act have largely remained on paper. Even if the usual education and the experience of the Works Councillors were sufficiently good to enable them to understand the information which they are entitled to receive—they would have derived little benefit owing to the effective methods taken by most employers to prevent the Works Councils from using their rights to obtain any information that might be regarded as confidential. It is notorious that balance sheets are rarely self-explanatory, and it is usually impossible for the members of the Councils to check the accuracy of any additional data supplied.

The above is an illuminating reply to both Mond and the Trade Union officials who talk large about increased control of industry by the workers.

MacDonald opposes any application of what he calls book logic to capitalism. He criticises any attempt to apply the lessons of history to this notion of industrial peace.

He pays “unqualified tribute” to the railway companies’ conciliatory attitude; and is only worried about the coalfields because some of his political supporters have been boycotted by the managers.

Citrine is all for the unions

  actively participating in a concerted effort to raise industry to its highest efficiency by developing the most scientific methods of production, eliminating waste and harmful restrictions, removing causes of friction and avoidable conflict, and promoting the largest possible output so as to provide a rising standard of life and continuously improving conditions of employment.

His objection to such systems as “Taylorism” is not the effects of the system, but the fact that they are “automatically introduced without consultation with the workers’ representatives.” He is quite prepared to support the exploitation of labour-power so long as he and his ilk supervise the sale thereof.

The other workers’ (?) “representatives” follow in similar strain. So long as the trade unions officials are recognised and allowed to bold place and honour in the councils of the thieves, they are all in favour of peace. The testimonies of numerous capitalist apologists, statisticians and politicians, that the workers are relatively poorer than ever before, in spite of the accumulated powers of production, highly-developed efficiency, and all the rest of it, is simply ignored. Years ago, Seebohm Rowntree, Sir Charles Booth and others compiled the evidence showing the downward trend of the workers’ conditions of living. Political hacks like Lloyd George and Chamberlain broadcast it to gain votes for their policies of reform.

Yet these alleged leaders of labour, these misleaders, can think of nothing more original as a solution of the evils that afflict the class that carries them on their backs than to support the employers’ cry for “peace” and increased output.

The subject of the industrial conflict is the exact amount of blood, nerve and sinew that shall be sucked dry of energy in order that a small class of idlers may feast and frolic. The cause of the conflict is the fact that the idlers own the means by which alone the blood, nerve and sinew of the workers can be re-energised. Every increase in efficiency in the blood, nerve and sinew, every corresponding increase in its output, only heaps higher the wealth that the idlers waste. The sooner their maws are glutted, the sooner their wardrobes are crammed, the sooner their “ladies” are surfeited with cocktails and jewels — the sooner will the workers be “transferred” to the labour exchange or the Relieving Officer to feel the pinch of want.

Never has any capitalist, never has any labour leader produced a shred of evidence to conflict with this simple obvious fact. Similarly, not one of them dare deal with the only remedy. If the workers are to enjoy the fruits of their labour, they must own and control the means by which they produce them. The land, factories, railways, etc., must be made the common property of all to meet the needs of all.

That is what we mean by Socialism. It is to accomplish that which has led us to organise a Socialist Party. Forsake your masters and leaders and study the history and condition of your class for yourselves. You will then see that there has been no industrial peace since capitalism has existed—that your class has been compelled, from the day of its origin, to struggle for its existence, and that the struggle will go on until you discover the way to end it—by throwing the wealthy idlers from your backs—by using the political power which is yours whenever you choose to organise with us for Socialism.

Eric Boden