Socialism As It Is

W >> William English Walling >> Socialism As It Is

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45

In the same year a great agitation began, led by the most prominent
advocate of industrial unionism in Great Britain, the Socialist, Tom
Mann, who with John Burns had been one of the organizers of the great
dockers' strike in 1886, and who had returned, in 1910, from many years
of successful agitation in Australia to preach the new unionism in his
home country. That this agitation was one of the causes of the great
seamen's, dockers', and railway strikes that followed is indicated by
the fact that Mr. Mann was at once given the chief position in this
movement.

His first principle is that the unions should include _all_ the workers,
in their respective industries:--

"Skilled workers, in many instances doing but little work, receive
from two to seven or eight pounds a week, whilst the laborer,
having the same responsibilities as regards family and citizenship,
is compelled to accept one third of it or less.

"This must not be. We must not preach social equality and utterly
fail to practice it; and for those receiving the higher pay to try
and satisfy the demands of the lower-paid man for better conditions
by telling him it will be put right under Socialism, is on a par
with the parson pretending to assuage the sufferings of the
poverty-stricken by saying, 'It will be better in the next world.'
It must be put right in _this_ world, and we must see to it _now_."

Unions composed exclusively of skilled workers, as many of the present
ones, operate against the interests of the less skilled--often without
actually intending to do so. Mr. Mitchell, for instance, concedes that
the trade unions bring about "the elimination of men who are below a
certain fixed standard of efficiency." This argument will appeal
strongly to employers and believers in the survival of the fittest
doctrine. But it will scarcely appeal to the numerous unskilled workers
eliminated, or the still more numerous workers whose employment is thus
lessened at every slack season. Mr. Edmond Kelly shows how the principle
acts--"Where there is a minimum wage of $4 a day the workman can no
longer choose to do only $3 worth of work and be paid accordingly, but
he must earn $4 or else cease from work, at least in that particular
trade, locality, or establishment."[254] The result is that the highest
skilled workmen obtain steady employment through the union, while the
less skilled are penalized by underemployment. The unions have equalized
daily wages, but the employer has replied by making employment and
therefore annual wages all the more unequal, and many of the workers may
have lost more than they gained. Whereas if each man could secure an
equal share of work, he might be paid according to his efficiency and
yet be far better off than now. But the only way to secure an equal
amount of work for all is through a union where all have an equal voice
and where the union is strong enough to have a say as to who is to be
employed.

It is this tendency either automatically or intentionally actually to
injure unskilled labor, that has led men like Mann and Debs and Haywood
to their severe criticism of the present policies of the unions, and
even affords some ground for Tolstoi's classification of well-paid
artisans, electricians, and mechanics among the exploiters of unskilled
labor. In the days of serfdom, the great writer said, "Only one class
were slave owners; all classes, except the most numerous one--consisting
of peasants who have too little land, laborers, and workingmen--are
slave-owners now." The master class, Tolstoi says, to-day includes, not
only "nobles, merchants, officials, manufacturers, professors, teachers,
authors, musicians, painters, rich peasants, and the rich men's
servants," but also "well-paid artisans, electricians, mechanics," etc.

Mr. Mann thus defines the attitude of this new unionism to the old:--

"It is well known that in Britain, as elsewhere, there is only a
minority of the workers organized; of the ten millions of men
eligible for industrial organization only one fourth are members of
trade unions; naturally these are, in the main, the skilled
workers, who have associated together with a view to maintaining
for themselves the advantage accruing to skilled workers, when
definite restrictions are placed upon the numbers able to enter and
remain in the trades.

"We have had experience enough to know that the difficulties of
maintaining a ring fence around an occupation, which secures to
those inside the fence special advantages, are rapidly increasing,
and in a growing number of instances, the fence has been entirely
broken down by changes in the methods of production. We know,
further, that ... the majority of trade unionists still remain
_sectionally isolated_, powerless to act except in single'
sectional bodies, and incapable of approaching each other and
merging and amalgamating forces for common action. _This it is that
is responsible for the modern practice of entering into lengthy
agreements between employers and workers. Sectional trade unions
being incapable of offensive action, and gradually giving way
before the persistent power of the better organized capitalist
class, they fall back upon agreements for periods of from two to
five years, during which time they undertake that no demands shall
be made._" (My italics.)

The industrialists, therefore, advocate the termination of all wage
agreements simultaneously and at short intervals or even at will (like
tenancies at will, or call loans). They claim that employers are
practically free to terminate _existing agreements_ whenever they
please, as they can always find grounds for dismissing individuals or
for temporarily shutting down their works or for otherwise
discriminating against active unionists or varying the terms of a
contract before its expiration. But it is in America that the policy of
no agreements, or agreements at will is most advanced. In Great Britain
it is thought that agreements for one year and all ending on the same
day may lead to the same results. If there is a central organization
with power to call strikes on the part of any combination of unions, and
the large majority of the workers are organized, it is held that the new
unionism will soon prove irresistible, even if agreements in this form
are retained.

The recent strikes have not only been stimulated by this gospel and led
by its chief representatives, Tom Mann, Ben Tillett, and others, but
from the very first they have been an actual application of the new idea
and have marked a long step towards the complete reorganization of the
British unions. They were started with the seamen's strike in June, when
the dockers in many places struck in sympathy, at the same time adding
demands of their own. When the seamen won their strike, they refused to
go back to work at several points, against the advice of their
conservative officials, until the dockers received what they were
striking for. With the dockers were involved teamsters, and these from
the first had agreed to support one another, for _they were both
connected with Mr. Mann's "National Transport Workers' Federation_." And
the railway strike was largely due to the fact that the railway unions
decided at least _to cooeperate_ with this federation. The dockers had
remained on strike at Liverpool in sympathy with the railway porters who
had struck in the first instance to aid the dockers, and at the first
strike conference of the railway union officials, forty-one being
present, it was voted unanimously "that the union was determined not to
settle the dispute with the companies unless the lockout imposed upon
their co-workers because of their support of the railroad men at
Liverpool and elsewhere is removed and all the men reinstated."

There can be little doubt that the railway strike would neither have
taken place at the critical time it did, nor have gone as far as it
went, except for this new and concerted action which embraced even the
least skilled and least organized classes of labor.

Accompanying this movement toward common action, "solidarity" of labor,
and more and more general strikes, was the closely related reaction
against existing agreements--on the ground that they cripple the unions'
power of effective industrial warfare. For several years there had been
a simultaneous movement on the part of the "State Socialist" government
towards compulsory arbitration, and among the unions against any
interference on the part of a government over which they have little or
no control--the railway strike being directed, according to the
unionists, as much against the government as against the railways. For
many years the government, represented by Mr. Lloyd George or Mr.
Winston Churchill, had acted as arbitrator in every great industrial
conflict, and had secured many minor concessions for the unions. As long
as no critical conflict occurred that might materially weaken either the
government or the capitalist or employing classes as a whole, this
policy worked well. It was only by a railway strike, or perhaps by a
seamen's or miners' strike that it could be put to a real test. By the
settlement of the threatened railway strike of 1907 the employees had
gained very little, and had _voluntarily_ left the final power to decide
disputes in the hands of government arbitrators. A conservative
Labourite, Mr. J. R. MacDonald, writing late in 1910, said:--

"We held at the time that the agreement which Mr. Bell accepted on
behalf of the Railway Servants would not work. It was a surrender.
The railway directors were consulted for days; they were allowed to
alter the terms of agreement at their own sweet will, and when they
agreed, the men's representatives were asked to go to the Board of
Trade and were told that they could not alter a comma, could not
sleep over the proposal, could not confer with any one about it,
had to accept it there and then. In a moment of weakness they
accepted. An agreement come to in such a way was not likely to be
of any use to the men."[255]

Nevertheless, this extremely important settlement was accepted by the
union. Mr. Churchill did not know how to restrain his enthusiasm for
unions that were so good as to fall in so obediently with his political
plans. "They are not mere visionaries or dreamers," says Churchill,
"weaving airy Utopias out of tobacco smoke. They are not political
adventurers who are eager to remodel the world by rule of thumb, who are
proposing to make the infinite complexities of scientific civilization
and the multitudinous phenomena of great cities conform to a few
barbarous formulas which any moderately intelligent parrot could repeat
in a fortnight. The fortunes of trade unions are interwoven with the
industries they serve. The more highly organized trade unions are, the
more clearly they recognize their responsibilities."[256]

By 1911 the whole situation was completely reversed. Over less important
bodies of capitalists and employers than the railways, the government
had power and a will to exercise its power. The railways, however, are
practically a function of government--absolutely indispensable if it is
to retain its other powers _undiminished_. It was for this reason that
little if any governmental force was used against them, and the
agreement of 1907 came to be of even less value to the men than
agreements made in other industries. When the chorus of union complaints
continued to swell, and the men asked the government to bring pressure
on the railways, at least to meet their committee, it acknowledged
itself either unable or unwilling to take any effective action unless to
renew the offer to appoint another royal commission, essentially of the
same character as that of 1907 except that it should be smaller and
should act more speedily. This still meant that the third member of the
board was to be appointed by a government, in which experience had
taught the workers they could have no confidence--_at least in its
dealings with the powerful railways_.

In view of this inherent weakness of the government, or its hostility to
the new and aggressive unionism, or perhaps a combination of both, the
unions had no recourse other than a direct agreement or a strike. But
the refusal of the railways to meet the men left no alternative other
than the strike, and at the same time showed that they did not much fear
that the unions could strike with success. It was no longer a question
of the justice or injustice, truth or untruth, of the unions' claims.
The railways, in a perfectly practical and businesslike spirit,
questioned the power of the unions, by means of a strike, to cause them
sufficient damage to make it profitable even to meet their
representatives--without the presence of a government representative,
who, they had learned by experience, would in all probability take a
position with which they would be satisfied. Mr. Asquith's offer, then,
to submit the "correctness" of the unions' statements and the
"soundness" of their contentions to a tribunal, was entirely beside the
point. The representatives of the railways were sure to give such a
tribunal to understand, however diplomatically and insidiously, that the
unions were without that power, which alone, in the minds of "practical"
men, can justify any considerable demand, such as the settlement of all
questions through the representatives of the men (the recognition of the
union).

Doubtless the railways had refused to meet the union representatives
until they felt assured that the government's position would on the
whole be satisfactory to them. The government's real attitude was made
plain when, after the refusal of the unions practically to leave their
whole livelihood and future in its hands, as in 1907, it used this as a
pretext for taking sides against them--not by prohibiting the strike,
but by limiting more and more narrowly the scope it was to be allowed to
take.

The government loudly protested its impartiality, and gave very powerful
and plausible arguments for interference. But the laborers feel that the
right not to work is as essential as life itself, and all that
distinguishes them essentially from slaves, and that no argument
whatever is valid against it. Let us look at a few of the government
statements:--

The government, said the Premier, was perfectly impartial in regard to
the merits of the various points of dispute. The government had regard
exclusively for _the interests of the public_, and having regard for
those interests they could not allow the paralysis of the railway
systems throughout the country, and would have to take the necessary
steps to prevent such paralysis.

The representatives of the unions replied by a public statement, in
which they declared that this was an "unwarrantable threat" and an
attempt to put the responsibility for the suspension of work on the
unions:--

"We consider the statement made in behalf of his Majesty's
government, _an unwarrantable threat_ uttered against the railroad
workers who for years have made repeated applications to the Board
of Trade and also to Parliament to consider the advisability of
amending the conciliation board scheme of 1907.... And further it
shows a failure of the Board of Trade to amend its own scheme, and
also of the railroad companies to give an impartial and fair
interpretation of such schemes.... And inasmuch as this joint
meeting has already urged the employers to meet us with a view to
discussing the whole position and which, if agreed to by them,
would in our opinion have settled the matter, _we therefore refuse
to accept the responsibility the government has attempted to throw
upon us_, and further respectfully but firmly ask his Majesty's
government whether the responsibility of the railroad companies is
in any degree less than that of other employers of labor."

In other words, there is and can be no law compelling men to labor, and
no matter what the consequences of their refusal to work, it is a matter
that concerns the workers themselves more than all other persons.

Mr. Winston Churchill made a more detailed statement. He said that "the
government was taking all necessary steps to make sure that the _food
supply as well as fuel and other essentials_ should not be interrupted
on the railways or at the ports."

"All services vital to the community should be maintained, and the
government would see to that, not because they were on the side
either of the employers or the workmen, but because they were bound
to protect the public from the danger that a general arrest of
industry would entail." He continued:--

"The means whereby the people of this land live are highly
artificial, and a serious breakdown would lead to starvation among
a great number of poorer people. Not the well-to-do would suffer,
but the poor of the great cities and those dependent upon them, who
would be quite helpless if the machinery by which they are fed--_on
which they are dependent for wages_--was thrown out of gear.

"The government believes that the arrangements made for working the
lines of communication, and for the maintenance of order, will
prove effective; but, if not, other measures of even larger scope
will be taken promptly. It must be clearly understood that there is
no escape from these facts, and, as they affect the supply of food
for the people, and _the safety of the country, they are far more
important than anything else_."

To this the railway workers answered that it is to protect their own
food that they strike, and that food is as important to them as to
others, that practically all those who are dependent on wages are
willing to undergo the last degree of suffering to preserve the right
to strike, that the means of livelihood of this majority are no whit
less important than the "safety" of the rest of the country. Moreover,
if the government is allowed to use military or other means to aid the
railways to transport food, fuel, and other things, more or less
essential, it prevents that very "paralysis" which is the necessary
object of every strike. Industrial warfare of this critical kind must
indeed be costly to the whole community, often endangering health and
even life itself, but the workers are almost unanimous in believing that
a few days or weeks of this, repeated only after years of interval,
costs far less in life and health than the low wages paid to labor year
after year and generation after generation. _They demand the right to
strike unhampered by any government in which capitalistic or other than
wage-earning classes predominate._ Only when the government falls into
the hands of a group of wholly non-capitalist classes--of which wage
earners form the majority--will they expect it to grant such rights and
conditions as are sufficient to compensate them for parting with any
element of the right to strike.

The great British strike, then, had a double significance. It showed the
tremendously increased strength of labor when every class of workers is
organized and all are united together, and it showed an increasing
unwillingness to allow separate agreements to stand in the way of
general strikes.

The strength of the strikers in the British upheaval of 1911,
however, has been grossly exaggerated on both sides. There is no
doubt that the aggressive action came from the masses of the
workers, as their leaders held them back in nearly every instance.
There is no question that the various unions cooeperated more than
usual, that vast masses of the unskilled were for the first time
organized, and that these features won the strikes. The advance was
remarkable--but we can only measure the level reached if we realize
the point from which the start was made. As a matter of fact, the
unskilled labor of Great Britain until 1911 was probably worse paid
and less organized than that of any great manufacturing
country--and the advance made by no means brings it to the level of
the United States.

Since the great dock strike of 1886, led by John Burns and Tom
Mann, unskilled labor has tried in vain to organize effectively
unions like those of the seamen and railway servants, the majority
of whose members were neither of the least skilled nor of the most
skilled classes, had an uphill fight, and were only able to
organize a part of the workers. Five dollars a week was considered
such a high and satisfactory wage by the wholly unskilled (dockers,
etc.) that it was often made the basis of their demands. The Board
of Trade Report shows that 400,000 railwaymen, including the most
skilled, had from 1899 to 1909 an average weekly wage varying from
$6.35 to $6.60 per week. The railway union found that of a quarter
of a million men 39 per cent got less than $5 a week, and 89 per
cent less than $7.50. Seamen at Liverpool received from $20 to
$32.50 a month.

If then the Liverpool sailors received an increase of $2.50 a
month, while the wages of other strikers were raised on the average
about 20 per cent, what must we conclude? Undoubtedly the gain was
worth all the labor and sacrifice it cost. But it must be
remembered, first, that these wages are still markedly inferior to
those of this country in spite of its hordes of foreign labor; and
second, that the increase is little if any above the rise in the
cost of living in recent years, and will undoubtedly soon be
overtaken by a further rise. The great steamship lines increased
their rates on account of the strike almost the same week that it
was concluded, and the railway companies gave in only when the
government consented that they should raise their rates. But the
larger part of the consumers are workingmen, and their cost of
living is thus rising more rapidly than ever _on account of the
strikes_. Finally, the unions of the unskilled are as a rule not
yet recognized by their employers, while the railway union is
probably as completely at the mercy of the government as ever.

In a word, _the point reached_ is by no means very advanced; on the
other hand, _the material gain made_ in view of the former
backwardness of the railwaymen, seamen, and dockers is highly
important for England, while the methods employed, the movement
having originated from below, and having been sustained against
conservative leaders (only a few radicals like Tom Mann and Ben
Tillett being trusted), is of world-wide significance. The unions
as well as their common organizations, the Trade Union Congress,
the Labour Party, and the General Federation of Trade Unions are
drawing closer together, while the Socialists and revolutionary
unionists are everywhere taking the lead--as evidenced, for
example, by the election of the most radical Socialist member of
Parliament, Mr. Will Thorne, to be President of the 1912 Trade
Union Congress.

The success of the new movement as against the older Labour Party
and trade union tactics may also be seen from the disturbed state
of mind of the older leaders. Take, for example, the attack of the
Chairman of the Labour Party, Mr. J. R. MacDonald:--

"The new revolution which Syndicalism and its advocates of the
Industrial Workers of the World contemplate has avoided none of the
errors or the pitfalls of the old, but it has added to them a whole
series of its own. It has never considered the problems which it
has to meet. It is, as expressed in the _Outlook_ of this month, a
mere escapade of the nursery mind. It is the product of the
creative intelligence of the man who is impatient because it takes
the earth twenty-four hours to wheel around the sun (sic).... The
hospitality which the Socialist movement has offered so generously
to all kinds of cranks and scoundrels because they professed to be
in revolt against the existing order has already done our movement
much harm. Let it not add Syndicalism to the already too numerous
vipers which, in the kindness of its heart, it is warming on its
hearthstones."[257] [258]

The new revolutionary unionism takes different forms in Great Britain,
France, and America. In France it has expressed itself through agitation
for the general strike and against the army, the only thing that a
general strike movement has to fear. The agitation has completely
captured the national federation of unions, has a well-developed
literature, a daily paper (_La Bataille Syndicaliste_--The Union
Battle,--established in 1911), and has put its principles into effect in
many ways, especially by more numerous and widespread strikes and by
attacks on military discipline. But there has been no strike so nearly
general as the recent British one, and both the efforts in this
direction and those directed against the army have a future rather than
a present importance and will be considered in succeeding chapters (Part
III, Chapters VI and VII).