Jottings
One of the latest schemes for exploiting the labour of the workers has lately been placed before the capitalists of America by its originator, F. W. Taylor. Roughly, the scheme is to so systematise work among employees that no time is lost, nor material wasted. In bricklaying, for instance, it is shown that by the application of “scientific management,” the motions in laying a single brick have been reduced from eighteen to five. Mr. Taylor says it is possible to get at least three times as much work out of employees by his method. It is claimed that one of the most important features of this scheme of skinning is that it does away with strikes and brings peace between the capitalists and the workers.
There is not the slightest doubt about its success—from the capitalists’ point of view. It only remains for the master class of this country to follow the lead of their American prototypes. A scheme of this kind worked in conjunction with Lloyd George’s great “confidence ” trick, would prove an effective combination for still further strengthening the position of the master class.
To-day 100 men make 250,000 bricks where twelve years ago they produced only 30,000. Under the new scheme the output will be still further increased. To-day 850 “hands” in one factory produce 225,000,000 matches a day. Seventeen years ago 5.000 “hands” in thirty-six factories produced only 140,000,000 a day. Professor Herzeg, of Austria, has estimated that 5,000,000 with the help of modern machinery, could support a population of 20,000,000 with all the necessaries and small luxuries of life by working one and a half hours per day. As production to-day is carried on for profit and not fur use, it is highly improbable that such a scheme as that outlined by the professor will be put into operation.
“Justice” of 22.4.11 criticises the Liberal-like attitude of the I.L.P. Conference, yet when one reads the reports of both Conferences (S.D.P. and I.L.P.) one fails to detect the difference between the two. Both stand for social reforms and the perpetuation of the present system. Both spent the biggest portion of the time discussing such abstract questions as armaments and “palliatives”—things that are of no use to the working class. The real issue—Socialism—was entirely obscured. That there is a bond of interest, if not of friendship, between the two parties is shown by the follow¬ing extract from “Justice” (4.3.11):
“We don’t believe that the members of the Labour Party are ‘fakers and frauds’ as it pleases certain impossibilists to call them. We do not think they are venal, corrupt, or cowards, traitors or flunkeys. On the contrary we think they are all honourable men, and some of them we know to be jolly good fellows.”
Perhaps that is why the S.D.P. Conference rejected the resolution to affiliate with the Labour Party—they are afraid they might corrupt it !
Mr. Philip Snowden, M.P., commenting upon the lack of intelligence and the reactionary tendency of the I.L.P. in the “Christian Commonwealth ” (19.4.11), says :
“The unrest which exists in the I.L.P. and which is having its effect upon the usefulness of the party, is due to the fact that there is a section of its membership who are utterly devoid of a knowledge of political history, and have not the shadow of a conception of the way in which the reforms they talk about can, and will, be brought about.”
Exactly. On the admission of their “leader” they do not understand the Socialist position—not even to the extent of knowing how reforms will be achieved ! Whether Mr. Snowden belongs to this section he omits to state. I leave it to those of my readers to judge who have followed up his “political history.” He also informs us that the I.L.P. has decreased in membership during the last two years. Its income, too, and the sales of literature have fallen to an alarming extent—alarming, of course, to them. Mr. Snowden attributes it to the lack of intelligence amongst its members—a statement I am in entire agreement with.
According to Mr. W. T. Stead, the “Weekly Budget’s” weakly oracle, every man will be a slave under Socialism. That he believes the present system to be an ideal one is evident by a statement he made in a recent issue of that journal. Said he: “England as a rule may be said broadly to stand for liberty. The individual can do as he pleases, go where he pleases, and live where he pleases, without asking anyone’s leave and without waiting for anyone’s consent.”
How beautiful! But Mr. Stead does not discriminate. A certain section of society can, it is true, enjoy all these privileges, but it does not include the working class. Instead, it is the non-creative, loafing, parasitical class who pos¬sess all the privileges—by virtue of their ownership of the means of living. Liberty ? Yes ! Liberty to work sometimes—for a miserable pittance. Liberty to die of starvation. Liberty to rot in stinking slums or to sink into vice and crime ! To the workers England stands neither for liberty nor anything else, except exploitation. Thousands leave these shores in the course of a year to try their luck in other lands, but only to find that the same process of bleeding goes on there.