We Need Strikes Not Rallies

The TUC is proposing a mass rally in London on 18th June, to demand higher pay for workers. Rallies have a part to play in the right conditions, for raising spirits, engendering a sense of class solidarity and so on. However, rallies are not going to lead the government or employers to change positions or to concede higher wages, and better conditions. In fact, given the actual conditions now existing, with labour in short supply, forcing many employers to have to voluntarily offer much higher wages to get the workers they need, with large numbers of workers unionising for the first time, and taking action for higher pay, and with the cost of living for workers already rising by double digits, simply calling for a rally rather than organising more effective action, can be seen as the TUC, being behind the curve, and its lack of leadership, then, having a demoralising rather than stimulating effect.

In the 1980's, the defeat of one group of workers after another, culminating in the defeat of the Miners in 1984-5, and similar defeats were experienced by workers across the globe, such as with the defeat of the US Air Traffic Controllers, was testament to the fact that a qualitative shift in class power between labour and capital had occurred. It was not just that workers in Britain and the US faced hard nosed governments in the shape of Thatcher and Reagan, but industrial and economic power had moved decisively against workers, as new labour saving-technologies, introduced in response to labour shortages in the 1970's, which squeezed profits, now meant that unemployment rose, as the demand for labour grew at a slower pace than the expansion of labour supply, creating a relative surplus population. Output grew faster than employment, as these new technologies replaced labour, and also, thereby, caused wages to fall, and profits to rise. Gross output grew more slowly than net output, and the rate of profit increased significantly.

In those conditions, no amount of strikes or labour militancy could counteract these new material conditions. Indeed, the fact that the miners had to endure a strike of more than a year, and still lost, was proof that simply more militancy was never a sufficient response. Such responses were limited to bargaining within the system, and, now, labour had less power to bargain with. Only a solution outside the system was sufficient, a solution that required workers to demand control of their socialised capital, and to organise social production on an entirely different basis, but as the trades unions and the political leadership of the labour movement continued to simply bargain in the old way, that was never an option.

So, it was inevitable that workers would see their economic position deteriorate, and wages, or at least, their real wages/living standards would be squeezed, though of course, not uniformly, as some bore more of the burden than others. As Engels had put it,

“The history of these Unions is a long series of defeats of the working-men, interrupted by a few isolated victories. All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand in the labour market. Hence the Unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation. In a commercial crisis the Union itself must reduce wages or dissolve wholly; and in a time of considerable increase in the demand for labour, it cannot fix the rate of wages higher than would be reached spontaneously by the competition of the capitalists among themselves.”

(Engels - Condition of The Working Class in England p 243)

But, this is not the 1980's, or 1990's any more. Rather we have the other conditions, described by Engels, here. Already, in the early 2000's, we had wages starting to rise, as the effects of the new long wave upswing began to be felt. That always manifests itself with labour shortages in particular spheres, before it translates into a broader labour shortage, and wage rises. In 2008, it saw UK lorry drivers get a 14% pay rise, after just a 2 day strike, defying all the media talk about the demand being preposterous and unrealistic, and unachievable. It saw Chancellor Andrew Darling asking workers not to demand higher wage rises to catch up with sharply rising prices, because to do so would lead to inflation! The Governor of the Bank of England has made similar pleas today, as it and other central banks have caused inflation to again go to 1970's levels, as a result of their policy of QE, designed to inflate asset prices, and the policies of government over the last two years to pick the fruit of the Magic Money Tree, to pay wages to workers who they prevented from working as a result of lockdowns!

Indeed, after 2008, or more specifically after 2010, when the global economy had been stabilised, following the financial meltdown, governments acted specifically to try to prevent those conditions of the early 2000's reappearing. They imposed fiscal austerity so as to deliberately slow economic growth, and the consequent demand for labour and capital. They engaged in even more QE, so as to divert available money and money-capital out of the real economy and capital accumulation, into even greater speculation in financial and property assets. When that ran its course, they engaged in global trade wars to limit global economic growth, and then they resorted to the direct closing down of economic activity via a two year period of lockouts and lockdowns, under the spurious excuse of COVID19.

But, despite all of those measures to try to limit economic growth, the demand for labour, and so rising wages as the position of labour strengthens as against capital, they have failed. The demand for labour has continued to rise, and, as in the past, in several sectors there are now labour shortages pushing up wages, not even as a result of workers having to take action to demand them, but simply, as Engels states above, as a result of the demand and supply for labour, as employers are forced to pay higher wages to get the workers they require. Under those conditions, the last thing we need is a timid TUC, and trades union negotiators. Rather we want leaders who will seize the day, and the opportunities for workers that now present themselves.

In the 1950's, and 60's, as workers faced conditions similar to those we now see developing, workers swept past their existing leaderships, and took matters into their own hands. It was the time of a rapid development of grass roots trades unionism, of the development of the shop stewards movement, and wildcat industrial action. Bosses like to be able to deal via a tame trades union bureaucracy, as the entire mindset of the trades union official is to bargain within the system, which always entails never going beyond what the system itself will allow. But, with grass roots organisation, workers ignored the requirement to go through official procedures, and sensed their own economic power within the labour process. When they felt aggrieved, they simply downed tools, and adopted additional measures of workers self-government, such as the occupation, and restarting production under workers control. These are the tactics that workers need to adopt today, as the balance of power shifts decisively back in their favour as economic growth expands.

For one thing, workers should forget about the calendar when it comes to collective bargaining. Workers' living standards are being hit here and now as a result of inflation already above 10%, and other costs such as higher taxes and National Insurance. Why wait for a date on the calendar, set for annual pay negotiations? Strike now for higher pay, as well as for better conditions, shorter hours, more holidays, better pensions, and earlier retirement. Employers are short of labour in many sectors, and so such demands, in these sectors will be like pushing on an open door, as with the lorry drivers in 2008. In Britain, as it has fucked itself with Brexit, those labour shortages are even greater, in many sectors, and so there is even more reason to take such action, now. That of course, was the last thing on the minds of the Brexiters when they proposed it, as they expected instead even greater impositions on workers.  The Tory Right as they seek to provoke a trade war with the EU, still harbour such thoughts, but its unlikely they and their DUP allies will succeed.

In the 1970's, even Ted Heath's Tory government introduced monthly, automatic cost of living increases on wages and benefits. They did so, because it attempted to keep control with them. They calculated the rise in prices, and determined the rise in wages from it, and in so doing attempted to remove the direct action of workers to determine how much their wages should rise. In Italy, the Scala Mobile played a similar role, and was only scrapped when capital saw that workers' power had been undermined. But, it does indicate that workers should reject the calls of those like Darling and Bailey, who plead with workers not to demand wage rises to compensate for price rises. Why on Earth would workers not seek to do so, especially after 30 years when they were not in a position to do so, but now are!

Of course, not all workers are in that position. The labour shortage is growing in general, as opposed to just specific sectors. As I wrote recently, in the US, there are two job vacancies for every unemployed worker, and a similar condition is developing in Britain. Under these conditions, the last thing required is timid leadership, simply calling rallies rather than effective strike action. For one thing, we have still around 1 million workers, in Britain, on zero hours contracts. These tend to be the worst paid jobs, and in those sectors where the demand for labour is not growing in response to rising monetary demand. So, not only are these workers not able to gain from the growing economy, and monetary demand, but they also tend to be in the worst conditions in which to be able to organise effectively. They need the support of workers in general, and of the TUC.

There is no point having even a wage of £50 an hour, if you only get to work 1 hour a week! We should scrap the idea of a minimum hourly wage, and insist on a minimum monthly wage of £2,000 for all workers. That way, workers can have some stability to plan their lives and the finances. It also means that employers would be forced to employ workers for a reasonable number of hours each month, whilst if they wanted to have flexibility by that consisting of more hours one day or week compared to another, that is possible. Of course, any such flexibility should be negotiated with appropriate unions in the workplace.

Rather than planning just protest rallies, the TUC should be planning a General Strike to demand such a minimum monthly wage of £2,000 per worker. That would have the benefit of protecting all such workers, and is far better than the suggestions of increasing in-work benefits and so on, which simply subsidise small, low paying employers, and do so by penalising bigger, higher paying firms. But, all such measures still amount to merely bargaining within the system. Workers are in a better position to do that, now, as a result of a resumption of the long wave uptrend, and that will last for maybe another 15 years, but, it will again end, just as it did in the 1980's, and workers will then find themselves on the back foot.

Instead of just bargaining within the system for better pay and conditions, workers need to demand control of their own collective property. As Marx put it, the corporations as much as the cooperatives are the collective property of workers, the transitional form between capitalism and socialism. Yet, its not workers and managers that exercise control over this their collective property, but shareholders, who are merely creditors of the company, people who lend money to it, in return for interest in the form of dividends. If we want to end the perpetual condition that workers find themselves in, we must demand an end to that unjust and indefensible condition in which non-owners of property exercise control over it, and the owners of that property are denied control. We need to elect a Workers Party committed to ending that situation, and changing company law to remove the right of shareholders to elect company boards, and so on. Democratic control of companies should reside with their collective owners, the workers and managers within them.

The TUC Position On Europe Is Crazy

The TUC has decided to threaten David Cameron by placing a gun to the head of British workers.  It is telling Cameron, in effect, "stop threatening to kill us, or we will commit suicide!"  That is the closest analogy I can think of, to describe just how crazy the current position is that they have adopted.  In fact, its crazier than that, so crazy that its impossible to actually find a fitting analogy.

David Cameron is proposing to hold a referendum on continued EU membership.  Everyone knows, or thinks they know, that Cameron does not want to leave the EU.  The belief is that Cameron was snookered into offering a referendum as a means of assuaging the right-wing Eurosceptic backbenchers of the Tory Party, who were running scared of the inroads being made by UKIP into their vote, and in any case, whose conservative, nationalist ideas they support.  Cameron, by contrast, so the theory goes, realises that the EU is vital to the economic interests of big capital, and so will ultimately want to remain in the EU, with just minor changes.

The thinking behind the TUC strategy seems to be, therefore, that if Cameron does not want to leave the EU, and is actually relying on the Labour Movement to do the work, and deliver the votes to stay in on whatever basis, then the Labour Movement should deny him those votes, unless he drops the idea of negotiate away all of the current protection for workers contained in the EU legislation, and treaties.

But, this is a crazy strategy for several reasons.  Firstly, its not at all clear that Cameron does want to stay in the EU.  The fact is that the Tories represent specific economic and social interests.  They represent on the one hand the owners of fictitious capital.  That is those people who own, not real capital in the shape of factories/shops/offices, machines and labour-power that produce profits, but who own purely financial assets such as shares, bonds and so on, upon which they receive interest, and capital gains from speculation, and those who own land and property who earn rent, and obtain similar capital gains.  Secondly, they represent those small capitalists who do own actual productive-capital, but whose interests like those of the owners of fictitious capital is antagonistic to the interests of big, socialised capital, because its continuance is always at threat from that big capital.

A look at the Tory membership, shows that it is overwhelmingly comprised of people that fall into these categories, and those who vote or it are either comprised of the same social groups, or those whose ideas do not rise above those engendered by those forms of capital.  In fact, the interests of the owners of fictitious capital, and those who make their money in Britain from trading it, is not at all served by the EU.  Not only can the owners of fictitious capital, such as shares and bonds, shift that ownership to similar fictitious capital, anywhere in the world, at a press of a button, but with Britain outside the Eurozone, the financial centre of the EU, is inexorably moving from London, to Franfurt, where the ECB is based.

The interests of all those small capitalists, who rely on a continuation of the early Victorian era measures against workers rights that the Tories are pushing through, most certainly do not have an interest in remaining in the EU, which represents a much greater opportunity for big socialised capital to be concentrated and centralised even more, and thereby make the remnants of the old private capital even more irrelevant.  So, it is no wonder that the Tories, and UKIP that are both based on those reactionary elements of society should be opposed to the EU.  It is also objectively why the working-class should be in favour of it, because it represents a rational continuation of the process of the development and maturing of capitalism, and thereby brings it denouement, and replacement by socialism all that closer.

A strategy that has as its core the idea that Cameron wants to stay in the EU at all costs, is, therefore, deeply flawed.  But, even if cameron personally did want to stay in the EU that is irrelevant, because just as he has been led to hold this referendum, so he will be pushed by the Tory Party, and the reactionary class interest it represents to push increasingly within that referendum campaign, for Britain to leave.  If not, he will, and may in any case, be simply replaced by an even more authoritarian, Bonapartist representative of those class interests, such as Boris Johnson.  The continual erosion of civil liberties, and basic rights by the Tories, is a fundamental aspect of that process, as I set out some time ago, comparing the trajectory of the Tories with the process analysed by Marx that led to the coup of Louis Bonaparte.

But, it is a crazy strategy for another reason.  The threat being posed to workers rights, is a threat being posed by the UK government, to rights that are provided to all European workers, by the EU. So, on what rational basis does it make sense to threaten to withdraw from Europe, which provides those rights and guarantees, in order to retreat into Britain, which wants to undermine and to remove them?  It makes no sense whatsoever.  A withdrawal from the EU, under such circumstances, would not be a means of recovering those rights, but of making it even more difficult to retrieve them.

John Major's Tory government, negotiated an opt out of the EU's Social Chapter, but even Blair, when he was elected in 1997, was able and prepared to overturn that, and to sign Britain up.  Even if the worst happened, and Cameron signed away those rights again, a future Corbyn Labour Government could simply sign Britain up once again.  But, if you have left the EU that option has then been removed, and in the meantime you have separated British workers from a struggle by all workers across Europe for an extension of workers rights within the EU as a whole.

The idea that workers rights in Britain can be defended or extended by a Little Englander retreat into the British state is crazy, because it is that British state which is the main proponent of such attacks on workers rights not the EU.  The crazy strategy of the TUC and elements of the Labour Party, is simply a reflection of the fact that the Labour Movement itself continues to be dominated by conservative, nationalist ideas that have weakened it throughout its history.  Its time those ideas were defeated and cleared out once and for all.

We should return to the basic idea, not of throwing up additional national borders, but of pulling them down.

Workers of the World Unite.

The Return Of Euro Stalinism

I was watching some of the TUC debates today, and was struck by the extent to which the approaches being pursued amount to a rehashing of those stale, failed, and often reactionary ideas of Euro-Stalinism, put forward in the 1980's that were symbolised by the Alternative Economic Strategy. I was also thinking about the roots of those ideas.

Trotsky argued that Stalinism took on the ideas of Menshevism. But, Menshevism is just another name for Reformism. The social roots of reformism are the Trades Unions whose function is to preserve Capitalism by limiting the workers to simply bargaining within it with a consequent implication that, ultimately, bosses and workers have a shared common interest. The mass unions created by the “New Unionism” at the end of the 19th Century absorbed that ideology from the existing Craft Unions. Marx and Engels analysed the craft unions, and saw in them vestiges of the old Feudal Guild Monopolies. These unions, basing themselves on that craft exclusivity, and the limitations it placed on entrance into these trades – rather like similar restrictions exist today for entrance into the professions – enabled them to secure for themselves enhanced wages and conditions. Given that the Craft Guilds out of which they emerged were based on the idea that their was a progression up to the position of Master, it is not surprising that an ideology of shared interest, and bargaining developed. Moreover, in a period in which Britain itself held a Monopolistic position within the world market, and through its Feudal relations in the Empire, it was possible for the Monopoly Profits so obtained to be shared to a small extent, with such a group of workers who themselves were able to benefit from having their own partial monopoly. They became as Engels described them, an Aristocracy of Labour.

Just as the old feudal monopolies were reactionary, and Capitalist Competition performed a hugely revolutionary role in sweeping them away, so the remnants of them within the Craft Unions was reactionary. The way forward towards Socialism did not, and does not reside in attempts to limit the revolutionary role of competition in driving forward innovation, and to putting in its place modern versions of those old feudal monopolies, restrictions, and regulations that foster reactionary ideas about protectionism of various kinds – and which under current conditions can only enhance the idea of shared common interests with Capital (workers in a private firm are encouraged to see their future as tied to its future, State Employees are encouraged to see their interests as tied to the preservation of that State Monopoly) – but in utilising that revolutionary force in the interests of workers. Workers real enemy is not Competition, but Capital, i.e. their divorce from ownership of the means of production. In the absence of the ability to adequately plan economic relations – which is not likely to arise until well into the first stage of Socialism – then, in reality, Competition remains the most powerful weapon, the most revolutionary tool to be used by workers to drive forward technological development, efficiency, and their own economic and social position. Their interests lie not in attempts to return to those old feudalist restrictions, but in regaining ownership of the means of production.

I was reading an old interview done by Geoff Foote with Tony Benn in 1982, the other day.
Foote, in dealing with the AES and the Corporatism of the Welfare State put to Benn the view that Marx had outlined when he said of English socialists like Thomas Hodgskin, that they “did not like capitalists very much, but wished to retain Capital.” (Capital & Class 17 p19) That seems to be a good description except that much of the Left has its sights badly adjusted so that instead of focussing its fire on the Capitalists, they aim short and hit instead the ranks of the middle classes.

That was what came out in some of the debates I saw today. I was particularly struck by it, in relation to a number of contributions in relation to the idea of a High Pay Commission. I dealt with most of the arguments about why such a proposal is a bad idea for workers in my blog Beware Greeks Bearing Gifts.

“At the moment the talk only seems to surround the high pay of people in top Executive positions. The Labourite Compass Group have been talking about the establishment of a High Pay Commission. Its not clear how the extraordianrily high pay of Pop Stars would be controlled, for example. Would it just mean setting a limit, and then allowing the recording company to make even bigger profits from not having to pay the singers so much? Or would it mean introducing some kind of sliding scale of prices of music so that the more succesful a record, and the more a singer would make from it the lower the price of that song became to reduce the income? Would this High Pay Commission decide how much different footballers were worth, and thereby set the transfer fees accordingly?”

What, in fact, this kind of reactionary nonsense opens up is the possibility, accepted as necessary in the AES, of introducing an Incomes Policy across the whole of the economy. In fact, I had to laugh when listening to a delegate from the University Lecturers making this argument in relation to the difference between the salary of a University Vice Chancellor and an ordinary lecturer. I could not help but put myself in the place of the poor worker slaving away in McDonalds, who would look at the lecturer, and think, “Bloody good idea, but why are you earning so much more than me, shouldn't we reduce your salary too?” That is where this kind of bureaucratic, regulatory approach leads. But, the same kind of protectionist arguments were used in relation to the whole of the debates over the Public Sector. And that is not surprising, because the Public Sector now stands in a similar relation to the rest of the working class that those old craft unions stood, as an aristocracy of labour, to workers in the 19th century. Just as those old Craft Unions benefited from the Monopoly position of Britain, and benefited from their own partial Monopoly position in relation to the supply of labour, so too Public Sector workers benefit from the Monopoly position of the Capitalist State, and benefit from their own partial monopoly position within it, arising from the strength of the Public Sector unions, which is where the vast majority of all unionised workers are to be found.

That old craft unionism based on such monopolies led to reactionary demands to hold back the kinds of changes that eventually led to the deskilling of jobs, and growth of a mass of unskilled workers who formed the backbone of the “New Unionism”. It also led to the support of reactionary, protectionist ideas, because it was clear that the position of those craft workers was directly linked to a continuation of the Empire, and of Britain's privileged position in world trade. I have given a flavour of those debates, and the divisions within the Movement in my blog 1905 – Reform & Revolution, about the TUC Congress that took place in that year here in Stoke, and which took the decisions on setting up the Labour Party. Much of the debate surrounding the Public Sector has that same ideology of protectionism about it that the debates over Import Controls, and the AES had in the 1970's and 1980's.

In his “Imperialism, The Highest Stage of Capitalism”, Lenin set out why, although these Monopolies would suffer these kinds of inefficiencies, it was reactionary to try to turn the clock back.

“Kautsky broke with Marxism by advocating in the epoch of finance capital a “reactionary ideal”, “peaceful democracy”, “the mere operation of economic factors”, for objectively this ideal drags us back from monopoly to non-monopoly capitalism, and is a reformist swindle.

Trade with Egypt (or with any other colony or semi-colony) “would have grown more” without military occupation, without imperialism, and without finance capital. What does this mean? That capitalism would have developed more rapidly if free competition had not been restricted by monopolies in general, or by the “connections”, yoke (i.e., also the monopoly) of finance capital, or by the monopolist possession of colonies by certain countries?

Kautsky’s argument can have no other meaning; and this “meaning” is meaningless. Let us assume that free competition, without any sort of monopoly, would have developed capitalism and trade more rapidly. But the more rapidly trade and capitalism develop, the greater is the concentration of production and capital which gives rise to monopoly. And monopolies have already arisen—precisely out of free competition! Even if monopolies have now begun to retard progress, it is not an argument in favour of free competition, which has become impossible after it has given rise to monopoly.

Whichever way one turns Kautsky’s argument, one will find nothing in it except reaction and bourgeois reformism.”

In Capital, Marx said that Competition breeds Monopoly, but in turn Monopoly breeds Competition. What he meant was that the normal process of centralisation and concentration of Capital that arises from competition leads logically to the establishment of ever larger companies that exert a Monopoly position. As Engels elaborates in “Anti-Duhring”, the logic of this process is that Capital becomes concentrated in Trusts, and cartels, and eventually into State Capitalism, which is the biggest Monopoly of all. However, competition itself had arisen because of the limitations, the inefficiencies of the Guild Monopolies, and the same causes would mean that large capitalist Monopolies would suffer similar inefficiencies, which would lead to the development of competition against them – a classic example is the way the Monopoly of IBM was laid low, by a few young blokes working out of a garage who provided IBM with its operating system, and went on to become Microsoft!

So Lenin is absolutely correct in rejecting the reactionary and reformist ideas put forward by Stalinism of things such as an “Anti-Monopoly Alliance”, and the arguments he put forward here, along with those put forward by Engels in Anti-Duhring are the basis of why Marxists oppose privatisation i.e. it is a step backwards to a form of Capitalist property whose day has gone, and whose logic is in any case only a reconstitution of Monopoly and State Capitalism! But, Marxists, again basing themselves on these arguments of Marx, Engels and Lenin most certainly do not commit themselves to a defence of Monopoly or State Capitalism on the basis that it is in some way “better”, more efficient, more equitable, more socialist! And, on that basis there is no reason to argue from a “protectionist” stance FOR Monopoly or State Capitalism. Lenin's objection to Kautsky was the idea that such a return to free competition could be legislated. It is not that concretely, in some instances new more vibrant enterprises might arise that can supplant the old monopolies. And to the extent they can do so it is not in the interests of Marxists to stand in their way. Our job is not to act as arbiter between one form of capitalism and another, but to argue for Socialism, for direct workers ownership of the means of production to both.

And, in fact, it is clear how reactionary these ideas are when they are considered closely. Margaret Thatcher once argued that there was “No such thing as society” by which she meant that there were only self-serving individuals who come into relation with one another in a Smithian sort of way to provide for each other the things they need naturally out of the drive to maximise their own benefits. The Left naturally rejected such an idea, pointing to the fact that even under Capitalism there is considerable evidence of that “Selfish Gene” that Dawkins describes at play, which leads naturally to compassion, co-operation and so on unrelated to any immediate economic motive. We rejected the idea that the only way in which society and production could be organised was on the basis of individualism. Yet, much of the Left's rejection of Cameron's “Big Society” idea has rested on arguments which are essentially an acceptance of that Thatcherite ideology, or else an acceptance of that other mainstay of bourgeois ideology, the idea that Socialism is impossible, because workers will always require some Capitalist, be it private or State, to provide the capital, and to organise production. It is a measure of the extent to which the working-class, and even those who consider themselves “Marxists” remain trapped within bourgeois ideology.

TUC Votes For Co-ordinated Action

The TUC has voted this morning for Co-ordinated action aginst the Cuts and Privatisation, as the BBC has reported. Only one union voted against the composite. BALPA questioned whether such action was the best way of winning Public Support. They are wrong. When someone is about to hit you over the head, your first response has to be to raise your arms to block the blow, not look around to see whose assistance you might enlist! The question is not whether co-ordinated action is needed, but what kind of co-ordinated action should be taken.

Matt Wrack of the FBU pointed out what should be obvious, and his view was partly echoed by a commentator from IPSOS, the polling organisation, on the BBC News. An IPSOS poll shows that only 30% of people are definitely opposed to the Cuts. But, as he says, this does not relate to how people feel about cuts that might affect them. This is precisely the point that Matt made in his speech. It is one thing for people to say, in the abstract, that they accept the Government's line that the Cuts are necessary - the Government has the advantage of an appeal to "Common Sense" - but when it is no longer a matter of considering it in the abstract, but of considering the closure or lack of maintenance to your kids school, the closure of the Care Home, or withdrawal of Social Workers that assist your elderly relative, the closure of your Library and so on, then it may not appear to be such "Common Sense" after all. But, it is necessary for the unions, and the LP to get this over to workers, in their communties, now not wait until the Spring, when Local Authorities will begin making these cuts in earnest.

At the Council where I used to work, the Housing Department enlisted the assistance of its workers, to go out into the estates, handing out leaflets and organising meetings, to convince tenants of how beneficial to them the handing over of their Council houses to an ALMO would be. The unions need to do the same thing now, but to convince workers in their communities how devastating the withdrawal of particular facilities will be to their lives. National Demonstrations etc. are all very well and good, but they are fighting on that abstract level, which is a space in which the Liberal-Tories have an advantage. Everyone can imagine that what appears to be "common sense" is so, so long as it is thought to affect someone else. If widespread support is to be built, such that the inevitable attempt of the Liberal-Tories, to split Public Sector from Private Sector workers can be defeated, then it is vital, and urgent, that such a campaign be built from the ground up, from within each community, giving concrete examples of the services that WILL be axed, or reduced. The strength of the anti-Poll Tax movement was precisely that it grew up out of such community based campaigning.

But, there are other things that can be done immediately too. Every union Branch should ballot for industrial action to black any work on formulating Budgets, which are based on a requirement to cut jobs and services. A strike is a blunt tool, that frequently hurts the workers, who depend on the service, at least as much as the employer - in fact, as Engels says there are times when employers seek to save money, when they welcome strike action. The Left has frequently spoken about "Workers Control" in the abstract, linking it in a Utopian manner to the demand for nationalisation. But, here is an opportunity to use the idea of Workers Control in a concrete, practical way. Rather than a blanket strike that withdraws vital services from those that need them, why not actually take industrial action that asserts such Workers Control over the work process, and which directly hits the employer. If UNISON pulled out all of its workers responsible for collecting and processing Council Tax, and rents and other income that would be popular with those who were not being taxed, and would immediately hit the employer without hurting those who need the services. Withdrawal of Cashiers from Sports Centres, whilst leaving supervisory, and manual staff in to run the service would have the same effect - in fact it would probably increase Sports Centre usage no end! HMRC staff could follow a similar line of action ensuring that rebates were paid out, but blacking action on collection.

And, as I have previously suggested, if such action is built from the ground up uniting both Public and Private Sector workers, a plan for actual defence of facilities needs to be put in place. Government workers are used to having to deal with Emergency Planning. That expertise needs to be used now, to put in place plans to defend Public buildings and facilities. Any facility threatened with closure should be occupied, and kept running by the community, and by its workers. Better still, having taken it over, and brought it under direct Workers Ownership, we should demand it stays that way, to prevent the State from merely waiting until a better time for it to renew the attack. As I've written previously, it was great that Liverpool Council built lots of Council Housing in the 1980's, but if those houses had been transferred to the ownership of the workers who lived in them, by establishing a Housing Co-operative, the later attacks on them, in the form of higher rents, and privatisation could never have happened.

The problem is that the TUC leadership on past experience will talk a good fight now, but any action will be limited to the kind of action that fails to challenge Capitalist property, fails to challenge the right of management to manage, and is limited to a series of tokenistic gestures, which unless they are properly built for from the ground up will be damp squibs which will then be used to justify calling off any further action. That is its function, to absorb the pressure form below to negotiate with the employer, and to sell out for some kind of shabby compromise deal. That is another reason that, if the fight against the Cuts is to succeed, it has to be based on the establishment of local Rank and File Committees of workers inside and out of the Public Sector, and has to be co-ordinated by a National Rank & File Steering Committee.

But, we should take heart. As Chris Bambery said at the NSTC meeting against the cuts, the Government is not the same as the Thatcher Government of the 1980's. It is a weak Government. That is true. This is not the 1980's, which is a point I have been making for some time. Every Trade Union militant knows that the attitude of bosses to strikes is not the same all the time. There are times when, as Engels says, employers welcome strikes, when they have an excess of goods to sell, when they need to save money, and a strike saves them wages, for instance. At those times a wise union militant will look for alternative actions to take than just the strike the employer wants them to employ. There are times when the employer does not welcome a strike, but when they will endure it rather than concede, because they cannot afford to make concessions. Under such conditions, a strike is likely to be long and bitter, and risk the possibility that even if succesful, it might be at the cost of the business closing down. Finally, there are times when the employer does not welcome a strike, and where the costs of it will outweigh the profits they could be making, and the market share they might be losing, and so they will quickly make concessions. In the 1980's, as in the 1930's, the global economy was going through a Long Wave decline. During the 1960's and 70's the Rate of Profit was falling, and when the Slump arrived, the use of Keynesian measures only drained the available stores of profit, with no sign of a sustained recovery during which they could be replenished. Ultimately, Capital decided that the costs of conceding were greater than the benefits of resisting.

But, this is not the 1980's. For the last 11 years, the world has been in a Long Wave Boom, rates of profit have been rising, and around the globe massive amounts of profits have been stored up as Money Capital, sitting in sovereign wealth funds in Asia, the Middle East and elsewhere, as well as on the Balance Sheets of the big corporations. Only a portion of those reserves were mobilised to stop the crisis caused by the Banks. The profits to be made by Capital by an early resumption of the global boom are immense, the costs to it of a renewed recession are equally immense, not just in economic, but also in political terms. The Tories, like other right-wing governments in Europe, are not carrying out this policy because Big Capital needs it, or because it is in the interests of Big Capital, quite the opposite is the case. That is a big difference from the 1980's, and a fundamental weakness of the Government's position. It is no coincidence that sections of the State, most dear to the hearts of the Tory faithful - the Police and Armed services - have over recent weeks been issuing repeated statements about the calamity that will befall the nation as a result of the Cuts. In the last few days we have had heads of the Police coming out, and talking, for instance, about it being like Christmas for the criminals. We should not and cannot rely on these elements within the State fighting our battles for us, nor should we even think of making common cause with them simply to defeat the Tories - our interests do not coincide except superficially and momentarily. But, we should recognise the real basis on which the Tories are fighting this battle, and recognise the weakness of their position. We should recognise that just like the bosses in that last scenario, a determined and effective campaign can quickly defeat the Government, because immense pressure will be placed upon it by the big bosses to do so, once the threat to their profits becomes even more apparent than the string of bankrupties, and profits downgrades already makes it.

Healthy Debate

I caught some snatches of debate at the TUC over Health. I don't intend to write a critique of the debate for the simple reason that I did only catch snatches of it. But, in one of those snatches the comments of one delegate struck me as symbolising what is wrong with much of the Left's attitude.

The delegate commented that the NHS had been transformed from the poor condiiton it was in in 1997 as a result of the billions of pounds of funding that had been pumped into it. She also said that the targets set had also had some effect in bringing about improvements, but then went on to say that now targets were having a negative effect. The comrade gave the example of A&E waiting times. The Government's target was that no one should have to wait more than 4 hours. Unable to meet this target she related how hospitals had resorted to keeping people in ambulances so that they were not registered as waiting!

Now, it could be me, but is it not a bit cock-eyed to be blaming targets for this situation? Having piled billions of pounds into the NHS, to bring its level of funding up to the same level as other socialised Healthcare systems in Europe, is it not reasonable to suggest that this money be used to achieve improvements for those that depend on the system? Is it actually unreasonable to demand that people should not have to wait more than 4 hours if they have had to resort to a visit to A&E???? I don't think so. Surely, what is unreasonable is that given the vast amounts of money pumped in, hospitals were still failing to meet such a basic requirement! Surely, what is unreasonable is the despicable attitude of hospital administrators, who fail to have regard for the health and welfare of patients by keeping them in ambulances so that they do not show up as waiting!!!!

In fact, those are precisely the same kinds of bureaucratic attitudes and actions that characterised the bureaucrats who ran the state owned enterprises in Eastern Europe, who went to ridiculous lengths to subvert the targets for production given to them rather than actually improve the efficiency of the plants they were supposed to manage. To be honest, we see similar things in large private companies where professional managers and bureaucrats try to look after their own personal interests, but there the private owners of these companies will only allow so much before they clamp down. The problem in Eastern Europe, and the problem in State Capitalist enterprises is that there is no means by which the supposed owners - the workers in one, "society" in the other - can exercise the kind of control that private owners can through a Board of Directors etc.

I've spoken elsewhere about the way in which State Capitalist bureaucracies work such as that in the NHS, and in Local Councils. My own area is not exceptional. One of the first things that happened after Labour made available huge sums for the NHS was a massive new building programme was introduced. At the local hospital already inadequate Car parking space was built over to accommodate new accommodation, making the parking even kore horrendous for patients and visitors. Then the bureaucrats ran out of money, and their first reaction was to make redundant hundreds of nurses!!! I saw the same thing at my local Council. From when I first started work there over 1,000 manual workers lost their jobs as part of CCT. At the same time the number of Managers and Supervisors increased!!! Every year during the Tories reign budgets were cut, and services to the Public were reduced. Yet, not one of the Accountants or Solicitors lost their job. Of course, as a Trade Unionist, you are not going to argue that such workers SHOULD lose their jobs, but as a socialist you have to question whether the function of a Council is to take large amounts of Council Tax from one group of workers, simply to keep a few other workers in jobs, whilst the workers who were actually providing a service get sacked!!!

Why, is it that such jobs get protected whilst the jobs of those providing the service get axed? Because the power, status, and salaries of the top bureaucrats is dependent upon the number of higher paid bureaucrats directly beneath them, not by the lowly paid minions who provide the service to the Public!

The tendency to try to subvert instructions is also indicative as I have said elsewhere of the problems of a directive planning system, be it bureaucratic as in the Stalinist states, or democratic as Trotskyists have suggested as some kind of miracle cure. In a sense the targets for the NHS ARE an example of such democratic planning. "Society" has democratically decided on a Governemnt committed to an expansion and improvement of the NHS. It has by the same means voted financial resources to achieve it, and set targets for the improvements it seeks. But, the fact that all of that has arisen democratically does not change one jot the fact that for those working in the NHS those targets and directives appear as instructions from above. Nor would it make any difference in that regard if this democratic process consisted of extensive discussions amongst all workers in a Workers State of such priorities, leading to the formulation of a Plan. The same thing applies to be carried out that Plan requires a set of instructions and targets then to be drawn up, and sent to each economic unit for implementation.

The fact that workers in any economic unit have been involved in that process is no guarantee that they will accept or implement the directives as they are handed down to them, any more than people necessarily accept democratically fomulated laws not to speed or use mobile phones whilst driving! Arriving at such a situation will take a long drawn out process during which what Marx described as the alienation of Labour withers away. It requires that worekrs see themselves not just as producers in one sphere and consumers in another, and that they do not see themselves as producers in this enterprise as opposed to some other, but as workers within one huge enterprise comprising the entire economy meeting their own as well as every other workers needs.

See: Alienation of Labour

But, the fact is that although Capitalism on the one hand creates the conditions for achieving this by replacing the individual labour of peasant and artisanal production with the collective and Co-operative production of the global division of labour, it more powerfully works in the exact opposite direction. It divides worker from worker in a myriad of ways within the factory, between factories, between industries, and between countries. Its little wonder that within the bounds of Trade Union struggle on the basis of Capitalist production there has been little advance in developing international workers organisation and solidarity, because the whole basis of Capitalism reinforces the most basic competition BETWEEN workers on a daily basis - hence demands such as "British Jobs 4 British Workers". Moreover, there is a great incentive for workers to take the attitude that they should do as little work for as much wages as they can irrespective of the consequences for other workers in the quality of the products etc. Such attitudes will not change overnight.

That has been demonstrated by some of the other debates at the TUC I have heard. Pretty much without exception I have noticed how little any of the contributions have to do with CLASS struggle or CLASS interests. Every delegate that has got up to speak has been concerned to advance their particular SECTIONAL interest. Of course, its not presented that way often. Delegates frame their argument in terms of why it would be good for everyone if there particular resolution were adopted, but the driving force behind it is to advance the interests of their particualr group of workers. Its a bit like the way things happen on Committees where the members basically take the attitude of look I'll support your proposal if you support mine. Lenin and Trotsky criticised that method of operating within the Second International, and there are many similarities. Just as an international programme cannot be simply an amalgam of various national programmes so a class programme cannot be simply an amalgam of various sectional programmes and interests.

Believing that "after the revolution" the simple transformation of property forms into collective ownership - still less state ownership - is going to change that is to court disaster. Had workers in Russia after 1917 taken an active interest in their vast majority in actually running the factories they were now the supposed owners of, then the bureacratisation could not have occurred. Change of ownership simply is not sufficient to change that mindset and level of class conscioussness in so short a period of time.

That is why only by workers now becoming the direct owners of the means of production, and running them on a Co-operative basis that requires their active involvement on a daily basis, only by breaking down the distinction between worker and owner so that as producers Co-operative workers have a direct incentive to work effectively and meet the needs of worekrs as consumers, only by building increasing links themselves between one Co-operative enterprise and another can that reproduction of competition between workers inseparable from Capitalist production be broken down. Only by such a change in real ownership and control of the means of production can the alienation of labour begin to wither away.

Why So Many Merchants of Doom?

Last week on BBC News it was reported that there had been complaints about the way they were reporting the Economy, ad talking us into recession. The complaints didn't come from the Government, but from viewers. Indeed, over recent weeks and months the News has been full of stories of economic woe. On the Business news on News 24 this morning even one of the presenters complained about the fact that the Business Correspondent had yet again come out with another dollop of gloom and foreboding. "But we're only reporting the facts", came the reply.

But, is that all they are doing. Take this morning. The correspondent echoing what had been reported in many of the morning papers said that a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce was forecasting that Britain was just one quarter away from recession. Is that true? No it isn't. The technical definiiton of a recession is two consecutive quarters of economic growth. Now remember that what this report is based on is not actual economic data provided by the Office for National Statistics, but a survey by the BCC - and they have no axe to grind do they? Has there been two consecutive quarters of negative economic growth? No, so far there hasn't even been one, so how can we be just one quarter away? In addition, the BBC presenter seamlessly conflated two different economic statistics to come up with the "facts" they were just presenting. What he reported on, and what the survey detailed was not economic growth i.e. how much the economies National Income has changed by, but was the views of some - not all - of their members who were surveyed about their level of orders. But two quarters of decline in orders is not the same as two quarters of decline in output of the entire economy. For one thing, as I have blogged about in the past there are many manufacturing businesses that have full order books, some going out at least 6 years into the future. The reason is that they are supplying rapidly growing economies in China and Asia. So depending on who was surveyed that could be understated.

Let's look at the reality of the situation. Almost a year ago, the world was hit by the worst financial - I stress financial not economic - crisis since the 1930's, in the form of the Credit Crunch. In addition to that we had oil prices risng to historically high levels, and they have continued to increase. Oil price rises have been matched by huge rises in the prices of other commodities such as iron ore, coal, and food. In most other periods the Credit Crunch alone, the first run on a British Bank for 150 years and so on would have been enough to send the economy spiralling down along with the rest of the world. In fact, despite all the above the US economy grew in the Fourth Quarter of last year by around 5%, and continued to grow though at less than 1% in the First Quater of this year. Both the UK economy and the European economy grew also. The german economy which is the most important economy in Europe has been actually growing more powerfully rather than showing signs of weakness. In China and Asia, economic growth continues to roar away at around 10% pa. plus. And in the resource rich countries in the Middle East, in Latin America, and even in parts of Africa the soaring demand and prices for raw materials and food has been lifting growth rates to record heights.

In any other period we would not be searching round for evidence of recession we would already be deeply immersed in one. The fact is that the soaring prices of commodities, the rising price of food and so on, is an indication of the strength of the worldwide economic boom, and the fact that the liquidity that was pumped into their economies during the downturn of the 80's and 90's by the US, Japan, Britain and others, which formerly went into asset price bubbles, is now being soaked up in rising commodity prices.

So why all the Merchants of Doom? Perhaps, a number of reasons. Firstly, it is undeniably true that economic growth has slowed down, even though it has not slowed so much as to go into reverse. After a period of rapid growth a rapid slow down is sometiems called a "growth recession" i.e. there is growth, but it feels like a recession compared to what happened before. I hate the term. Economics like any science should aim at precision. But, in reality growth has not slowed that much anyway. Look at the recent UK Retail Sales data, which whatever the BCC Survey might have found, showed that actual sales rose 8% during the month. Partly, there is a US/Euro centric element to this too. Its certainly, true that the older sclerotic economies such as the US and UK are experiencing low growth at the moment, and compared with China's 10% that seems VERY bad. But, that does not make it a recession, and its a fact of life that everyone will have to get used to that the balance of power is shifting decisively Eastward to China and India. I only hope that British people in a couple of decades time when they have to go in search of better jobs in Inida, don't come across the same kind of racism people from the Sub-Continent have experienced here!

According, to another survey, this time by the online Stock Market group Internaxx forecast that China would become the world's leading economic superpower within just five years, overhauling the US.

So, partly it could be that keeping up with the Jones's factor that comparing ourselves with more dynamic economies we seem to be doing not so well. Secondly, people look at very superficial things to determine whether they think they are doing well and confuse that with whether the economy is in a recession. That simply reflects an understandable lack of knowledge of economics. So, the Credit Crunch, Northern Rock, falling house prices, Building Societies asking that people might like to save some money before they ask to borrow some to buy a house, and so on, make people feel that things are not going to well, because all those things are very visible. But, if you look at those things what do they really amount to.

The only people who lost out with Northern Rock were a handful of shareholders - though we'll have to see if the taxpayer gets their money back entirely in the end. The Credit Crunch does not really impinge on most individuals it is really a freeze on lending between banks. Why anyone sees falling hopuse prices as a bad thing I really don't know. We don't think its a bad thing when we come to buy anyhting else, be it a car, a fridge or whatever, so why is it not a good thing when the price of houses falls??? For all those people who have been unable to raise enough money to buy one, its a very good thing - and remember that could be your kids now or in the future. Even negative equity is not necessarily a problem. The only time negative equity - owing more on your mrtgage than your house is worth - is a problem, is if you have to sell your house. But, as long as people continue to have jobs, and earn wages to pay the mortgage they took out the value of the actual house is irrelevant.

And, personally, I think that Building Societies and Banks, always should have been asking people to have saved money if they want to buy a house. I bought my first house when I was 23, and my wife was 21 back in 1977. Both of us had low wages even for people of that age. Yet, in three years we saved enough to buy the house outright around £5,500 - or the equivalent of about £80,000 today. So I'm sorry, but when I see people driving round in cars, spending loads of money on mobile phones and other things, and then complaining they can't save money to buy a house, I can only say they don't really want a house that much, and probably if they want to keep spending money on all these other things, they would be better renting. Had banks and Building Societies retained the regulations they had before Maggie Thatcher deregulated them the bubble in house prices, and in debt would not have happened, and millions of people would not have lost everything they had.

The media, of course, has to sell papers and so on, and moaning and crises always sell more than an analysis of the facts, so its no wonder that those superficial effects are blown up by the press, and the TV have to follow suit - after all much of 24 hour newscoverage consists of repeating the same News every 15 minutes, and interviewing the same group of newspaper journalists for their "expert" opnion.

But, its also possible to detect other motivations. Take the BCC today in their interview with the BBC. Their spokesman was ,of course, quick to point out that these economic conditions made it vital that the Government did not icnrease taxes on businesses. And of course all those changes that might have protected workers against unscrupulous bosses would have to go too! A few weeks ago at the time of the Tanker Drivers strike, I was watching a discussion on BBC's Newsnight. Those around the table were discussing inflation, and the danger that workers might actually want to see their wages go up to cover price rises. The right-wing pundit, Ruth Lea, who at one time worked for the Institute of Directors, commented that "The tanker drivers might demand this pay rise, but they are unlikely to get it in the present economic climate." This comment was made shortly after a news item with Dave prentiss of UNISO saying that it might be necessar to re-open the Health Service workers 3 year pay deal.

The good thing was that the following day the Tanker Drivers won their pay claim. It comes on the back of similar double digit pay rises in Germany for many workers feeling their own strength again as a result of several years of strong economic growth as the new Long Wave boom gets under way. Government and capitalist pundits do this sort of thing all the time to shape public opinion in the way they desire, even amongst themselves. For example, a whole Branch of Kremlinology developed on trying to detect what the hidden words of Alan Greenspan meant, Central Bankers and Finance Ministers try to influecne Currency markets by talking up or down their currencies, hinting at possible futur action, or possible problems on the way that might need higher or lower rates and so on. It is part of their stock in trade. At the moment the bosses and their whole ideological aparatus must be worried that rising inflation at a time when workers are agin finding their feet will lead as it did in the 1950's and 60's to a resurgent Labour Movement. Part of central Bank's interest rate policies is designed precisely to try to dampen such militancy, and to discipline emplyers against conceding to pay rises to their own employees. All of the Merchants of Doom are playing to the gallery in such conditions.

Workers should not be taken in. This is at best a temporary decline in a powerful - possibly more powerful than the world has ever seen - new Long Wave boom that will last another 20 years. It is more noticeable in the US and UK because of the relative underperformance those economies will suffer compared to newer more vibrant economies. It is an opportunity for workers to rebuild their Labour mvoement and assert their interests as against Capitalism.

Does Darling Think We're Daft?

On the Andrew Marr programme this morning Alistair Darling came out with the most appalling drivel I've heard from a politician in a long time. Asked about the current increase in inflation, and the Government's position, in relation to pay rises, Darling said,

"We don't want to get into a situation where workers push for pay rises, which are then fully absorbed by inflation!". 

Well, no workers don't want their real wages eroded by inflation either. Doesn't this mean that they are then right to push for wage rises to cover that inflation? Well, no according to someone who as Chancellor of the Exchequer is supposed to have some grasp of basic economic concepts. What workers must accept is pay rises, not in line with inflation, but "in line with the Government's inflation target of 2%."

Well excuse me, but if workers accept pay rises of just 2%, whilst even according to the Government's phoney figures prices are rising by more than 4%, doesn't that mean that not only is the whole 100% of that pay rise swallowed up by inflation, as Darling told us he didn't want to happen, but is swallowed up TWICE by inflation! Not only is 100% of the pay rise swallowed up, but 200% of the pay rise is swallowed up.

The other nonsense the Government has come out with, in the last few days, is a statement by Malcolm Wicks the Energy spokesman, who said that workers should not seek to be compensated for the likely 40% increase in energy prices, at the end of this year, because those price increases are only temporary!!! No they aren't. The increase in Gas and Electricity prices will not be reversed they will stay high. What Wicks means is that the 40% price increase, this year, will drop out of the annual inflation figure a year on, assuming there is no further huge increase then. But, that is not at all the same as saying the actual increase is only temporary.

If it were, then workers could equally well turn round and say we want a 40% pay rise, but don't worry it's not inflationary because its only temporary, we won't ask for 40% next year as well!

Do they think we are daft or what? They admit that the inflation is not the fault of workers, they say its imported. Actually, it isn't its home grown. Inflation does not arise as a result of increases in costs, but of increases in the money supply, issued by the State, to monetise those increased costs as a means of protecting bosses profits. If money supply is kept constant then rising costs can be accommodated in a number of different ways. Either the total volume of economic activity is reduced, or else the volume of activity can remain the same, and the total amount of work done to achieve it has to rise, because rising costs actually just means it now takes more labour time to produce things than it did previously. That extra work can itself be paid for in the short term, in two different ways. Either, workers pay for it in terms of lower wages - which is what the Government is proposing now - or else the bosses pay for it through lower profits, which is what socialists say should happen.

The oil tanker drivers have shown the way forward in Britain, just as German workers over the last few months have shown similarly that by militant strike action large pay increases can be won to cover rapidly rising prices. The real level of inflation is probably around 12% not the 4% the Government admits to. Over the last 25 years, companies have increased the rate of profit. In the last few years, as the new long wave boom has kicked in, they have been able to use that to increase their actual volume of profits massively, which is why they have lots of cash and have not been affected by the credit crunch. Now it's the time of workers to take advantage of the boom and the increased demand for labour-power to recover lost ground.

Last week showed that all the doom and gloom put out by the media, and even some sections of the left about recession etc. is ill-founded. Not only is the world economy booming, but the European economy, and even the British economy, remains strong. Last week it was announced that Retail Sales grew by 8% confounding pundits who expected a fall. In fact, the figures are not that difficult to understand. One consequence of the credit crunch has been that the housing market has seized up. But, that means that all those people who would otherwise have been spending a load of money on overpriced houses, now have that money to spend instead on other things. The money paid out on mortgage payments does not count in the figures for retail sales, but use the money you would have paid in mortgage payments to buy clothes or food, which were the biggest rises in retail sales, and it does.

In addition, British consumers had masses of credit card and other personal debt. If you have maxed out on your mortgage to buy some overpriced house, you probably had to buy the furnishings and even your clothes and other everyday items on the never never as well. With interest rates on that credit card debt ranging from 16% to 30%, that meant that people were frittering away up to £300 for every £1,000 of debt just on debt servicing! That debt servicing, as opposed to the clothes and other items it was run up on, also doesn't count in the retail sales figures. But, if a lot of people haven't bought the house they might have bought, if they have saved some of that money, and paid off some of that huge credit card debt, then the debt servicing charge falls too, releasing a considerable amount of cash for spending on actual goods and services, as opposed to just disappearing in interest payments.

Retail Sales in the US have also been quite robust as US consumers have begun receiving their tax refunds from Bush's large dose of Keynesian demand management, and US exports have slowly been rising as the Dollar has continued to fall, and Chinese consumers have begun to spend a little more out of their rapidly rising incomes. All in all, the long wave economic boom looks fully intact. Workers should not be scared off by the scare stories, but take heart at the rising prosperity of capitalism, and demand a share of it. But, nor should they forget the last 25-30 years, which will again return if capitalism continues. As Marx said, wage increases are not enough; what workers need is to replace the system based on wage labour itself. Workers need to use the capital locked up in their pension funds to buy up and convert into co-operatives the main capitalist enterprises so as to bring them under their own ownership and control; they need to demand that the State pension scheme, which is used for State financing, and reduced at the whim of capitalist governments, also be handed over to the workers, so they can control their own funds; they need to demand much larger contributions from the bosses, to their pension funds, in the same way that the bosses themselves siphon off huge amounts to their personal pensions; they need an Action Plan, geared to using workers funds to meet the pressing needs of workers, through their own independent class action, as opposed to a reliance on the capitalist state; things such as taking control over and running, on a co-operative basis, housing, and house building, the maintenance of estates etc.; they need to develop organic links between all the workers organisations, especially the workers cooperatives, in order to begin to develop an organic workers plan of production and distribution, to remove the potential for the recurrence of capitalist crises; they need to develop and extend the natural forms of workers democracy that develop on these cooperative forms, as an alternative to the rigged bourgeois democracy of the bosses. And they need to utilise the organisation of the Labour Party as a structure within and through which the political lessons of such development are channelled and codified so that the working class can confront the inevitable political challenge the bosses will mount to such a development, and thereby transform the Labour Party into a true Workers Party, not just made up of workers, but closely mirroring and furthering their interests, not just of today, but of the future.

1905 - Reform and Revolution

In 1905 the workers, peasants and bourgeois revolted against Tsarism demanding a democratic assembly and land reform. Prince Michael of Russia, who the nobles were to try to place on the throne in 1917 came to stay at Keele Hall (now part of the University) just outside Newcastle under Lyme. Keele Hall was the home of the Sneyd Family, and during the early 19th century it was from here that the dragoons were sent down into Stoke to massacre local Chartists on the many occasions they were rioting, or liberating food from barges on the canal to be distributed amongst starving workers. Newcastle under Lyme itself had even earlier been an area of radicalism. One of the regicides that signed the death warrant of Charles I was Major General Thomas Harrison from Newcastle under Lyme. During the 19th century Stoke was one of the main centres of the Chartists Movement, drawing its strength from the then militant Pottery Union, as well as from the textile workers in the surrounding towns such as the silk workers in Leek. The atrocious conditions in the local industries are described by Marx in Vol I of Capital. It was fitting then that the TUC Congress of 1905 that was so important in relation to the establishment of the Labour Party was held here in Stoke.

The 38th Trades Union Congress opened at noon on Monday 4th September 1905 at the Victoria Hall, Hanley. James Sexton, President of the Congress observed that with the exception of the London Congress it was the largest ever organised. Herbert Emery, president of the North Staffordshire Trades and Labour Council said he had two motives for inviting the Congress to the area. Firstly, to show that the morality of the district was not as bad as had been portrayed, and secondly, to act as a stimulus to Trade Unionism in the area which was, “perhaps not so strong as it ought to be.” (Staffordshire Advertiser). He was right. The defeat of the Chartist Movement, which saw the deportation to Australia of many of its leaders in North Staffordshire, to Australia, also saw defeats for the local Trades Unions. The Pottery Union was involved in a very long dispute which ended in defeat. The union and its successors never recovered, to the extent that it was to never again organise any serious industry wide strike. Its resources went into other ventures such as establishing Emigration Societies, but later it was also to channel its resources into the Labour Party.

The North Staffs Trades and Labour Council was established in 1893 on the suggestion of Tom Mann. I am proud to say that for two years during the 1980’s I was its President. Soon after it was established it succeeded in obtaining the appointment of several old Trades Unionists as magistrates, and was particularly successful in promoting the representation of the working class on to local School Boards and Town Councils. By 1905, nearly all the districts unions were affiliated.
Mr. Richard Bell MP, seconding a motion thanking the Mayor and reception committee said there was a time when Trades Unions were not respectable enough to be welcomed by the Mayor, and he looked forward to the day when they would be respectable enough to be welcomed by the Lord Chancellor. The statement reflects the policy of the Trade Unions at the time of seeking respectability. It was this search for respectability which had sapped much of the strength that Trade Unions had built up in the preceding period. Moreover, along with the development of a layer of privileged workers (the labour aristocracy), the maintenance of relative prosperity, and a high degree of bourgeois democracy (after workers got the vote the extent to which bourgeois parties sought to incorporate them was Disraeli’s quite deliberate attempt to win workers votes, which created the basis of working class Tories), it led to the Trade Unions developing an upper layer – the bureaucracy – which formed into a definite social grouping balancing between the workers and the bosses.

The first day’s business finished with the delegates spending the afternoon at Trentham Hall, Park and Gardens. Trentham Gardens remained a favourite place for local workers to spend leisure time up to the present. It was the home of the Duchess of Sutherland who also gets a mention in Capital. Marx refers to the barbaric way in which she threw her clansmen of their land in Scotland in order to make way for sheep, and grouse shooting.

That evening the Independent Labour Party held a demonstration and meeting at the Temperance Hall, Hanley. The choice of the Temperance Hall was probably not accidental. One of the main influences in the development of Labourism was Methodism, and Methodism was very strong in the area. John Wesley held regular sermons up on Mow Cop the nearest thing to a mountain in North Staffordshire, and the last link of the Pennines. Mr. F. Hayward presided. On the platform were the Rev. A.F. Smith (Stoke), Mr. Bruce Glassier (Labour candidate for the Bordesley Division), Mr. John Hodge (Labour candidate for Gorton), Mr. R. Smillie (Labour candidate for Paisley), Mr. Pete Curran (Labour candidate for Jarrow), Mr. A. Sumner (Islington), and Miss Billington, organiser of the ILP.

As with all the political organisations of the working class at the time, there are few available records of the size, influence, and activities of the ILP in Stoke. At the time I was writing this history 30 years ago I contacted the ILP, SPGB (descendant of the SDF) and other organisations for any information they had but with little success. What information I have gathered is based on reports in local newspapers at the time, and archive material from Keele University library etc. If anyone has further information regarding the ILP, SDF in Stoke at this time I would be grateful.

Two miners had been elected to Parliament in 1874. The total of working class candidates elected became 3 in 1880, 11 in 1885, and 10 in 1886. But all of these sat with the Liberals and were known as Lib-Labs. In 1893 though the ILP was founded under the chairmanship of Keir Hardie. The ILP set out to build up a separate parliamentary Independent Labour Party. At the next election in 1895 the ILP had 28 candidates, but all of them including Hardie were defeated. The objective of the ILP was outlined during the meeting referred to above. The chairman of the meeting said he believed the ILP was the logical extension of Trades Unionism. The ILP believed that workers would not achieve the reforms they were seeking until they organised politically as well as industrially. The Liberals and Tories he said were simply two wings of the same party, the employing capitalist party. The capitalists interests were diametrically opposed to those of workers, he said, and they could not confer benefits on the workers without dispossessing themselves. Only the creation of socialism could end the evils which bedevilled the workers, he continued. A motion, proposed by John Hodge was carried which said,

“That the welfare of the country demands the substitution of an industrial commonwealth for the present competitive economic system, and that the reforms necessary to ensure this can best be obtained by the independent organisation and representation of the workers.”

Not a bad idea at all. Can you imagine Tony Blair or Gordon Brown voting for that.

The need for independent labour representation was a recurring theme in the meetings organised outside the Congress, and during the Congress’s own deliberations that week. This was no co-incidence. After its failure in 1895 the ILP recognised the need to gain the support of the Trade Unions. At the same time the unions reeling from the attacks being made on them by the ruling class became more aware of the need to extend the bargaining role into Parliament. The Taff vale Railway Company in South Wales had suffered loss by a strike, and in 1901 sued the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. The court decided that the union must pay large damages. The effect of the ruling was to put union funds in danger. The Tories anti union laws passed 80 years later put workers almost back to this situation, and of course Blair’s government has continued those laws.

In 1900 the Labour Representation Committee had been set up as a result of a meeting in London of the ILP, the Social Democratic Federation, the Fabians, and the Trade Unions. It acted as a loose federation seeking to promote the political organisation of the working class. After Taff Vale the process of welding this federation into an independent party of labour was speeded up. Thus unlike the European example of large social democratic parties with Marxist programmes setting up their own unions, the process was the exact opposite in Britain with a social democratic party being formed largely by the unions. Many of the Trade Union leaders, many of whom were Liberals, opposed the idea, believing they couyld obtain the reforms they required through the Liberal party. The effect of this was that unlike its European counterparts, which had Marxist programmes, the Labour Party emerged as a party whose ideas were a mixture of Liberalism and Fabianism. The only avowedly Marxist organisation which had taken part in the setting up of the LRC was the SDF, and it had split away in 1901. The Trade Union leaders insisted that no reference to socialism was to be included in the goals of the party.

Discussions with the other organisations in the LRC took up a lot of the TUC’s Parliamentary Committee’s time during the year before the 1905 Congress and its report, amounting to some 17 pages, was discussed on the second day. Opening the morning’s business the President, James Sexton, in his speech, gave a good summary of the issues the Congress would be concerned with that week.

“The fate of the Trades Disputes Bill throws a lurid light upon the boasted but absolutely fraudulent representative character of the House of Commons,” he said, “For can there be a greater satire than is represented by the fact that a measure of this character, carried by a substantial majority of 122 in the House itself was at the mercy of, and consequently destroyed by 21 members, most of them employers interested in the Committee stage of the Bill.”

The Trades Disputes Bill was introduced by the Liberals to reverse the decision in the Taff Vale judgement. In 1906 when the LRC became the Labour Party the election of that year brought 29 Labour MP’s to Parliament. Those MP’s were able to exert pressure on the Liberals, and the result was the Trades Disputes Act was passed. It prevented unions from being sued for losses during a dispute, and established the right to picket. The Act was basically emasculated 74 years later by the Tories in the Employment Act.

Sexton went on to discuss a number of other issues which are still important today. The fact they are still important issues today is perhaps an illustration of how the unions search for respectability which was extended into the reformist approach of the Labour party not only had the effect of sapping the strength of the movement, but also singularly failed in even securing its original limited objectives. These issues were the Conspiracy laws affecting Irish agricultural organisations, the Aliens Bill, the amendment of the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and the Unemployed Bill.

The Conspiracy laws were used against Des Warren and Ricky Tomlinson during the Building Workers Strike (see:Workers Fight Article by Cynthia Baldry 1973). The Conspiracy laws allow the police to imprison people including in this case members of the Labour Movement when they are unable to bring to court any evidence that a crime has been committed. In fact, as in the case of the Shrewsbury Two, you can be sent to prison for conspiring to do something which is not itself illegal. Since then the Prevention of Terrorism Act, and Blair’s new anti terror measures have introduced into the bosses armoury of weapons many more means by which to attack and suppress working class opposition.

The issue of compensation is one that concerned the Potteries particularly being an area where its workers suffered from pneumoconiosis in the pottery and mining industries. The pottery industry in particular has seen a long battle for the compensation of its workers whose lives are ruined as a result of this terrible disease. But it is an important point to note that after 100 years workers are still expected to be content with compensation for their lives being ruined, rather than the cause of their suffering being removed. In the case of asbestosis there was for years no prosecution of firms breaking the health regulations, and the workers were not even made aware of the danger they faced. As the recent fire in Hemel Hempstead and previous disasters such as Flixborough, Seveso, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and many more incidents show the use of dangerous chemicals and nuclear power present if anything more of a threat to workers health and safety than ever before, not just at work, but in the workers communities that surround such plants. To make matters worse the Health and Safety at Work Act actually reduces workers rights by making them as well as the bosses responsible for their own and their workmates health and safety, often in cases where this is outside their control.

Speaking about the Aliens Bill, a measure to restrict immigration, Sexton said it was being used by the government as an “appeal to stupid blind prejudice” to gain votes at the next election. “It is claimed,” he said, “that this Bill will relieve sweated workpeople by prohibiting the introduction of cheap labour from other countries. The political dishonesty of the measure needs no other argument than the fact that while the promoters profess to shut out undesirables from the UK in order to help the British workman here, they rushed a measure through to introduce the most undesirable kind of cheap labour into South Africa.”

100 years on Sexton could give Blunkett or Charles Clarke, or John Reid or Jacqui Smith lessons on socialist principles.

Sexton went on to discuss the Unemployed Bill. If credit was due to anyone for its passing it was the TRUC for its constant pressure, he said. But he questioned whether any credit at all was due for what was after all a compromise “born of political expediency, and desperation.” He noted that a national register of unemployed would enable the capitalists to point to this over-abundance of labour on the market as an excuse for cutting wages. Sexton also noted that such a register could also enable the bosses to use it as a register of potential blacklegs during a dispute. This idea was developed by Tory James Prior, that the unemployed should work for their benefits, and also forma the basis of Blair’s various workfare schemes.

One policy pursued by the government back in 1905 supposedly to reduce unemployment was Protection, the use of Tariffs and quotas on foreign goods to reduce imports. This policy, Sexton said, was as unstable as when it was practised by Joseph in the land of the Pharaohs. “Protection,” he said, “will but bind our fetters closer and give the monopolist greater advantages than ever.” He argued that “Free trade could only be developed in the true sense of the word when the freedom of produce has been secured, not for the benefit of the few, but for the benefit of all mankind…”

At the time I was writing this back in the late 1970’s early 80’s it was obvious how far back the Labour Movement had gone in its ideas. The Communist Party and its fellow travellers within the Labour left had produced the Alternative Economic Strategy a thoroughly reactionary document which sought to develop British capitalism through an extension of state capitalism, and intervention by the capitalist state behind high protective tariff walls. It implicitly put the blame for the crisis of capitalism at the time on foreign workers or the Common Market stoking the fires of national chauvinism and racism. In 1905, however, the Labour Movement laid the blame right where it belonged, at the feet of the capitalist system, and argued as does Owen the socialist in Tressell’s “Ragged Trousered Philanthropists” that the answer is neither Free Trade nor Protection but the replacement of capitalism with socialism.
Sexton concluded this lengthy speech by dealing with the need for independent labour representation. He noted that workers were paying out £2 million a year to build up their unions but were having to vote for parties who were at the same time attempting to destroy the unions. (The more things change the more they remain the same). He noted the effect of the Taff Vale judgement on Trade Union organisation, and declared “independent labour representation is the only salvation of the Labour Movement.”The Political Committee’s report was taken next.

One issue raised in the discussion was the need for a Labour Movement paper.
In the afternoon, the Congress went on to discuss the motions on the agenda before it. These covered victimisation of trade unionists, hours of work in shops, lack of sufficient welfare provision for the blind. A motion was next carried unanimously calling for public bodies to be set up providing work fort he unemployed at fair wages, and for local authorities to be able to issue their own credit notes in order to escape the crippling interest charges on borrowed money.

The last discussion of the day welcomed the reduction in the consumption of alcohol and called for the trade to be brought under public control.

There was a meeting that evening in Burslem Town Hall in support of Trade Unionism and the candidature of Enoch Edwards as the Lib-Lab candidate for Hanley. Thomas Burt MP, Secretary to he Northumberland Miners Union, criticised the Government’s Aliens Bill. There was no other country than Britain, which had sent such a large number of its population to other countries, and no country in Europe with a smaller immigrant population, he said. And showing how little things have changed, he commented that the Aliens Bill would also be used against those seeking asylum. Enoch Edwards was a local man. He was General Secretary of the North Staffordshire Miners Association, and President of the Miners’ National Federation. In the election of 1906 he was elected as a Lib-Lab for Hanley. In 1900 he had contested the seat against the Tory MP A.H. Heath. At that election he lost by 642 votes. In 1906 the result was 9,183 for Edwards and 4,287 for Heath a majority of 4,896.

At another meeting that night held in Longton, and organised by the unions involved in the various branches of the pottery industry the chairman of the meeting said that Longton “was the black spot in local Trades Unionism, and as a result they saw in the china trade some of the masters taking advantage of the trade depression by invading prices and doing all they could to further enslave and tyrannise the workers.”

The annual conference of delegates to Congress representing trades in which women were employed also held its meeting on the Tuesday evening at the Grand Hotel in Hanley under the auspices of the Women’s Trade Union league. Mr. D. Shackleton MP presided, supported by Miss Tuckwell (President), and Mary Macarthur (Secretary), Constance Smith, Miss Bennett, Margaret Bondfield, and Miss Lindstrom (delegate from the Women’s Trade Union League America). There was also a meeting that night at the King edward’s Hall, Hanley under the auspices of the Amalgamated Society of Wood-cutters, the Cabinet makers, and the Furnishing Trades Unions.

At a meeting in the Masonic Hall, Hanley organised by the Council of Ruskin College Oxford, Robert Young explained that Ruskin was the first institution in the country to teach the economic and social questions from the point of view of the worker. A meeting of the Amalgamated Society of Tailors and Tailoresses was held at the Temperance Hall, Hanley with Mr. J. Morris (President of the hanley Branch) chairing, Mrs. Chew, organiser of the Women’s Trade Union league was the main speaker. Other meetings that night were organised by the Bakers and Bricklayers.

Motions discussed during Wednesday’s business at the Congress included condemnation of the Home secretary for refusing to abolish privileged cabs on the railways, against the need for character references from former employers, and for the nationalisation of railways, canals, mines and minerals. A motion proposed by Ben Tillet calling for an expansion of bodies for arbitration and conciliation was soundly defeated by 92,000 votes on a card vote. Mr. Harvey of the Miners Association, Chesterfield said, “the miner’s were not prepared to submit the bread and cheese and the lives of 800,000 workers in the mines to the will of two men. The resolution was the bolstering up of non-unionism.”

What a far cry from this explicit belief in the power of workers independent direct action and equally explicit rejection of class collaboration are the present union leaders, who place all their faith in bodies like ACAS, the legal skills of their teams of lawyers and fear direct action by their members.

Congress then went on to discuss a resolution setting out requirements for the extension of the Workmen’s Compensation Act.

In the afternoon session discussion was mainly devoted to a Free Trade resolution. John Ward of the navvies union, and Labour candidate for Stoke proposed the following resolution.

“That in the opinion of this Congress any departure from the principles of Free Trade would be detrimental to the interests of the working classes on whom the burdens of Protection would press most heavily, and injurious to the nation as a whole; that protective duties by increasing the cost of people’s necessaries are unjust in incidence and economically unsound, subsidising capital at the expense of labour; and that a system of preference or retaliation by creating cause for dispute with other countries would be a hindrance to international progress and peace.”
In his opinion “they would always have the poverty problem so long as there was a private ownership in land and capital.” (Applause).

Mr. Albert Stanley (Cannock Chase Miners) seconding the motion said that after the repeal of the Corn laws millions of loaves of bread had found their way into workers homes. Pete Curran (Gasworkers Association London) supporting the motion said, “What they wanted to do was to join hands with their comrades across the seas and instead of building up walls, they wanted to break down existing walls.” (Applause). The motion was carried with 1,253,000 for and only 26,000 against. The result was received with great acclamation.

On Wednesday evening there was a demonstration and meeting at Stoke Town Hall in support of the candidature of John ward for the Stoke seat. Ward was born in Andover in Hampshire and began work on a farm at the age of seven. Later he became a navvy working on the Andover to Marlborough Railway and the Manchester ship Canal. During his early teens he joined evening classes in the village of Weybridge conducted by a Mrs. Stock and her daughter Ellen, where he learnt to read. Reading he wrote later, “changed the whole course of my life.” In 1885 he enlisted for railway construction work with the British Army in the Sudan, for which he received the Queen’s Silver medal and the Khedive’s Bronze Star, medal and clasp. His experiences in the Sudan made him “anti war and anti many other things.” (Rev. of Revs 1906 p571), and a reading of Hyndman’s translation of Kropotkin’s “Appeal to the Young” helped to move his ideas towards acceptance of a radical reconstruction of society. Personal contact with Tom Mann and John Burns aided the process and he joined the Battersea Branch of the SDF. In 1886 he was chosen by the SDF to test the legality of a ban on unemployed demonstrations imposed by the Commissioner of London police.

In 1889 Ward became chairman of he SDF branch and in the same year established the Navvies, Bricklayers’ Labourers and general Labourers Union. After a series of strikes in West London, ward along with Jack Williams of the Gasworkers established the National federation of Labour Union. The history of the union is obscure but the Navvies Union continued though was never very effective. In 1906 the “Labour leader” described it as “simply a benevolent friendly society” in which the “working expenses” absorbed sixty per cent of the contributions of the membership.

In 1888 Ward stood as a candidate for the Central democratic Committee in the London School Board election along with Annie Bezant, Harry Quelch, and Amie Hicks. Only Annie Besant was elected though Ward polled over 8,000 votes. In March 1892 he stood and was defeated in the LCC elections. His failure led him into the Progressive camp. He was adopted as parliamentary candidate for Wandsworth in 1894 but did not contest the seat. Ward began to move increasingly towards Liberalism and by the end of the nineties had renounced his social democratic past. Moreover, ward was anti-semitic. At the 1900 TUC he had argued against the Boer war on the basis that it was being fought for control over the goldfields for cosmopolitans “most of whom had no patriotism and no country.”

As early as 1902 Ward began negotiations in Stoke and with the help of Richard Bell concluded arrangements with local Liberals despite the fact that the Navvies Union was affiliated to the LRC. In 1903 Ward with Bell, and W.C. Steadman refused to sign the LRC constitution and was removed from their lists. In 1906, therefore, Ward stood successfully as a Labour candidate but without the support of the LRC. Ward held the seat in 1910, and was returned unopposed as a coalition Liberal in the coupon election of 1918. In 1922 he was elected with a majority of 6163 as a National Liberal over the Labour candidate. He hung on to the seat in 1923 with a majority of 617, and with Conservative and Liberal support won as a Constitutionalist in 1924. In 1929 he was beaten by the Labour candidate, Lady Cynthia Mosley, first wife of the later fascist Oswald Mosley.

Despite his earlier anti war sentiments, at the outbreak of the First World War, Ward helped to recruit workers to be slaughtered. He helped recruit five Labour battalions, and was given first the rank of captain, and later that of lieutenant colonel. In the Summer of 1918 he went to Siberia as part of the interventionist forces trying to crush the Russian workers. Ward’s battalion was attached to the forces of the Tsarist, White Guard, General Kolchak.

Although in 1905 Ward had moved a long way from his SDF roots, the extent of his later betrayal was not so apparent. The meeting at Stoke Town hall was chaired by James Sexton. A resolution was passed from Mr. H. Leese.

"That this meeting is of the opinion that the further progress and welfare of this country will be better secured by an increase in the number of direct labour representatives in the British House of Commons.”

Ward quoted figures showing that the working class was producing great amounts of wealth whilst many of their number languished in workhouses, asylums, prisons, hospitals, and were forced to live in inadequate conditions, and sleep in barns and sheds.

Also on the Wednesday evening their was a meeting at the Temperance Hall, Hanley organised by the Hanley branch of the SDF. The main speakers were the Countess of Warwick and H.M. Hyndman (leader of the SDF and candidate for Burnley). Mr. T. Whittingham, one of the Labour councillors on Hanley town Council and a co-opted member of the Reception Committee, presided. He said that in the Sentinel (the local newspaper) the week before there was a statement that Socialism and Trade Unionism were antagonistic to each other. That was not true, he said, socialists always recommend workers to combine in Trade Unions, and at the same time they were anxious to bring about a social state in which trade unions would not be necessary.

A motion was moved by Mr. C.F. Davis,

“That this meeting of socialists and trade unionists appeals to its comrades throughout the British Empire, also those on the continent of Europe, and all over the world to use vigorously their great and growing influence to do away with all forms of secret diplomacy, and to bring about permanent peace among the peoples, seeing the social struggle against the capitalist class, in which they are universally engaged demands the continuous exercise of all their energies to overthrow the common enemy in all countries fort he purpose of replacing the anarchy and horror of competitive capitalism by the order and well being of the co-operative commonwealth.”

Mr. F. Knee seconded the resolution which was supported by the Countess of Warwick. She said that she was in no sense a speaker in the socialist movement, only a woker in the cause of children. Having been in Hanley a few days the cause of the children had been even more strengthened in her. “I cannot see,” she said, “how you parents can see the conditions under which the children in this district are living, and cannot pull yourselves together and create such a movement as the world will not withstand.” There was another reason why a socialist meeting should be held, namely that the great Parliament of labour was meeting within their midst, and the work being done there day by day to ameliorate the lot of the worker encouraged them to hope that the workers would feel how the power lay in their own hands to work out their own salvation. The resolution was adopted, and H.M. Hyndman then delivered a speech on “Trade Unionism, Internationalism and Foreign Policy.”

There is little information on the local SDF. It was formed in Silverdale (a village outside Newcastle under Lyme) in the 1890’s by Arthur Deakin. Fanny Deakin, Arthur’s sister, was also a member of the SDF, but she later joined the ILP when the SDF split. In 1917 she was elected to the Wolstanton and Stoke Board of Guardians. She was a leading figure in setting up the Labour Party in Silverdale in 1919. In 1921 she was elected as the Communist Party/Co-op candidate for Wolstanton and joined the CP in 1923.

The SDF was formed in 1894. It was an avowedly Marxist organisation and as with so many Marxist organisations since in Britain it was sectarian. It was the property of H.M. Hyndman who exercised control through ownership of the group’s printing press. The SDF suffered a number of splits, the first being in 1895. The next split led to the creation of the Socialist Labour Party. It was founded in America by Daniel De Leon and took up a dominant position in American socialism. The SLP was the closest thing top Bolshevism before the First World War. It gave a clear criticism of the Second International, pinpointing Adler’s weakness, the feebleness of the Second International, and gave a criticism of Parliamentarism, though it was in favour of parliamentary activity. Like the Bolsheviks the SLP argued for the importance of political organisation on the basis that the working class remained a slave class until it takes power. De Leon came up with the idea of organising in industry rather than in Trade Unions which could also act as organs of power. The SLP was more sectarian than the First International. It attempted to form unions where they did not exist. The method used in America against the AFL was transferred to Britain without taking account of the fact that in Britain unions already existed. The SLP had a great effect on the British Communist Party during the 1920’s.

The next split in the SDF occurred in 1905, and led to the formation of the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The SPGB is an extremely sectarian organisation which sees strikes for higher pay as a diversion from the task of replacing the wages system altogether. The SDF continued to exist and even to grow to some extent. IN 1907 it became the Social Democratic Party. With the growth of the Labour Party the SDP became the tail of the Liberal Party (a process I have referred to ealier in relation to John Ward). The SDP split once again and this time a fusion with the ILP led to the creation of the British Socialist Party which later became the Communist Party.

On Thursday the Congress took amendments to standing orders. A motion to have the president elected by Congress rather than the PC was defeated. Congress went on to discuss a motion condemning the Government’s Education policy, and calling for free state primary and secondary education compulsory until 16 or until such age as the University course begins, on the basis of equal opportunities, and where necessary the provision of means to allow capable students to go through University. The motion also condemned the use of exams for assessment, called for schools to be secular and administered directly by elected representatives of the people. The motion was carried with a minor amendment to the wording.

That evening a meeting of the National Amalgamated Union of Shop Assistants, Warehousemen, and Clerks was held at the YMCA Hall, Marsh Street, Hanley. Mr. H. Emery, President of the NST&LC, presided with the support of Lady warwick, over a well attended meeting. Mr. E. Burrows proposed that,

“This meeting of North Staffs shop workers affirms its entire confidence in organisation as being the only means whereby the conditions of employment in shops can be improved and maintained, and further, hereby calls upon all employees in the distributive trades to join the NAUSAWC and through it to combine with other workers in maintaining the solidarity of labour."

In urging the necessity of organisation he said they must remember that they were of the same army of labour as the navvy and the labourer. Lady Warwick supporting the motion said that, “with all the sympathy she had with their trade unions she would urge that it was so easy to go a step beyond and realise the power that lay in the hands of the workers of this country. If not for their own sakes, for the sake of their children. Socialism was quite easy if they would only consider it and think about it.”

Friday’s session of Congress opened with a motion on hours of work. Once again although unions have discussed this issue on almost every union Conference since little has been achieved, and rather than a reduction in working time, Blair now wants to make workers work even longer rather than retiring earlier, even though workers now work more intensively than they have ever done. The motion noted that with the present rapidity of production and the continuous introduction of labour saving equipment Congress should call for a maximum working day of 8 hours or 48 hours per week. The motion went on to condemn night working and called for the abolition of systematic overtime working. Mr. H. Emery of the Bakers supported the resolution saying that locally, bakers were working 80-90 hours per week.

Congress then went on to discuss a motion by Will Thorne on behalf of the London Gasworkers. On the physical deterioration of the working class. The motion, amongst other things, called for the provision of at least one free school meal every day, free medical advice and inspection for children, and for PT to become a necessary part of the school curriculum. The motion was carried.
A motion, proposed by C.F. Davis (Compositors, London) was then discussed. It pointed out the need for Local Authorities to provide decent housing for workers, and was carried unanimously. Congress went on to discuss conditions and wages in Government employment, the failure of Government departments to comply with the Fair wages resolution passed by the House of Commons in February 1891, the need for greater protection against injury in the pits, old age pensions, conditions in the postal service, the Workmen’s Compensation Act (the resolutions on which had been referred to committee earlier in the week), and a motion from John Ward condemning the Government for importing Chinese labour into South Africa, “to prevent it from becoming a white man’s country.”

A further meeting in support of Ward’s candidature was held on Friday night in Longton Town Hall with a crowded attendance. Cllr. H. Leese presided. The chairman said the Congress had one great objective, “namely, that the workers of the country instead of crying out for Empire should have better conditions under which to toil and live.” Whether this was a veiled attack on Ward’s position is not clear. He was pleased that there was already an awakening among workers for the need for independent labour representation. Mr. W.C. Steadman stated that the problems of low wages, long hours, poverty and high rents could be solved by only one class – the people directly suffering from these problems. He hoped that Stoke and Hanley would play their parts in returning the Labour candidates.

The last session of Congress was on Saturday morning when the only motion on the agenda was from the Shop Assistants calling for an end to the living in system whereby shop workers were paid partly in truck.

In the week before the Congress there had been a number of meetings. The first was on Saturday 2nd September. Held in the Victoria Hall, Hanley by the National Housing Reform Council. Mr. George Cadbury moved a resolution calling attention to the need to remove slum property and opposing the building of dreary block dwellings, and calling for future dwellings to be built on garden village lines. Again how far back have we gone with Prescott et al calling for workers to be crammed into so called affordable housing, which is another name for high density, low quality future slums to be built on brown field sites that would be better used to provide some open space to already congested and overcrowded areas. Cadbury went on to say that the most hopeful sign was that all over the world “labour was becoming more united, and before long men would refuse to lose their manhood and become mere machines to shoot down women and children at the will of a despot like the Tsar of Russia, or to slaughter their fellow workmen because they happened to live in another country.” The speech was extremely relevant to what was going on in Russia at the time where the first Revolution was getting under way, and unfortunately even more relevant to the developments just 9 years away where far from the sentiments expressed by Cadbury the leaders of labour throughout the world would line up their members to kill each other on a scale unprecedented in history for no other reason that they happened to live in another country.

The following day a meeting was organised by the Amalgamated Society of railway Servants at Stoke Town Hall. The attendance was only small but Sundays was the only day Railworkers didn’t work. A motion was passed calling for greater representation on public bodies and in Parliament. Cllr. H. Leese moving the resolution concluded by saying that he hoped that the holding of the Congress would instill more enthusiasm into local workers, “for he did not know any place in the kingdom that wanted waking up more.” Mr. Bell addressing the meeting said that he hoped the Congress would open the eyes of local workers “to the deplorable conditions into which they had dropped for want of organisation.”Another meeting that night at the Victoria Hall discussed “Education and National Physique”. The meeting was well attended. Will Thorne presided. Lady Warwick speaking for the SDF said in the Potteries where the physique of the people fell so lamentably below what ought to be the national standpoint it was necessary to set the task of building up better bodies for the workers in the next generation. She warned them that where there children were concerned not to be too timid in their demands.

The condition of workers in the Potteries was notoriously bad. Karl Marx in Capital quotes a Health Inspector’s Report on the District.

“Each successive generation of potters is more dwarfed and less robust than the preceding one.”

And another doctor says,

“Since he began to practice amongst the potters 25 years ago he had observed a marked degeneration especially shown in diminution of stature and breadth.”
According to Dr. Arledge, senior physician at the North Staffs Infirmary.
“The potters as a class both men and women represent a degenerated population both physically and morally. They are as a rule stunted in growth, ill shaped, and frequently ill-formed in the chest; they become prematurely old, and are certainly short lived; they are phlegmatic and bloodless, and exhibit their debility of constitution by obstinate attacks of dyspepsia, and disorders of the liver and kidneys and by rheumatism. But of all the diseases they are especially prone to chest disease, to pneumonia, phthisis, bronchitis and asthma. One form would appear peculiar to them and is known as potter’s asthma, or potter’s consumption. Scrofula attacking the glands or bones or other parts of the body, is a disease of two-thirds or more of the potters….That the degenerescence of the population of this district is not even greater than it is, is due to the constant recruiting from the adjacent country, and intermarriages with more healthy races.”(Children’s Employment Commission First report p24. Quoted in Karl marx Capital Vol. I p235 Lawrence and Wishart Ed. 1977)

John Ward and The LP

John Ward, one of the two Labour candidates elected from Stoke in 1906 was also one of the founding members of the Labour Party. On 16th February 1905 a Joint Conference between the TUC, LRC and GFTU took place at Caxton House. It established a Joint permanent co-ordinating committee with three joint secretaries from the three organisations, and became known as the Joint Board. At the TUC Congress held in Stoke that year the TUC had ratified the agreement reached in February and formally agreed to throw its weight behind the LRC which became the Labour Party. At the first Joint Board meeting on 29th November 1905 the representatives of each organisation were as follows.

From the TUC.

D.C, Cummings
D.J. Shackleton
J.J. Stevenson
W.C. Steadman

From the LRC

Keir Hardy
Ramsay McDonald
Arthur Henderson

From the GFTU

Pete Curran
Allan Gee
John Ward
I. Mitchell

When the debate took place, however, at the Stoke Congress it foreshadowed what was wrong with the political basis on which the Labour Party was established.

The debate took place on the second day of Congress. The TUC Parliamentary Committee had spent most of 1905 in meetings with the LRC, and its report amounted to 17 pages. A resolution was put by the Stevedores Union calling on the Parliamentary Committee to convene a conference of the TUC, GFTU, and LRC for the purpose of amalgamating into one body in order to be more powerful and effective. However, Ward's Builders Labourers' Union who seconded the motion had other motives. They voiced the opposition of a number of union leaders to having socialists on the Labour Representation Committee. They wanted unity in order to bring the LRC under the complete control of the TUC. The majority of delegates were satisfied with the agreement reached at Caxton House and rejected the motion.

That was the background to Ward refusing to sign the LRC Constitution.