A Remarkable Report. Capitalism condemned by its own officials
At one time the reports of British factory inspectors stood as models to the world of fearless and truthful reports on industrial conditions. Marx and Engels made frequent reference to them. If the pioneers of scientific Socialism were alive to-day, they would, one feels sure, recognise in America the modern leader of the world in matters of labour statistics. Some years back a remarkable report of the U, S. Bureau of Statistics of Labour gave some startling facts regarding the increasing rate of exploitation of labour. So frank and outspoken, indeed, was that report, that it was suppressed by the powers that be shortly after publication. Nevertheless the facts had got abroad, and the ruling class could not undo the conscientious work of the State employed investigators. Now there is to hand the abstract of another report from the United States which seems likely to share the same fate. A Canadian comrade has kindly sent us the report of a committee appointed by the Toronto District Trades and Labour Council which gives many useful extracts from the published conclusions of the U. S. Commission on Industrial Relations appointed by the United States Congress. The report of that commission was drawn up by Basil M. Manley, and adopted by Chairman F. R. Walsh, J. B. Lennon, James O’Connell, and Austin B. Garretsen, the Commissioners. The report is so interesting, and so unexpectedly outspoken, that we make no apology for reproducing the major portion of the quotations, with acknowledgements, of course, to the Toronto Council.
The Commission was appointed with wide powers, one of which, to “seek to discover the underlying causes of dissatisfaction in the industrial situation and report its conclusions thereon,” was enough to make its report a historic one.
Some idea of the work undertaken may be gathered from the following: 740 witnesses were examined upon industrial subjects, 230 were affiliated with employers, 245 with labour, and 205 were unaffiliated with either group.
The report, finds that the causes of unrest group themselves under four main sources, which include all the others.
1. Unjust distribution of wealth and income.
2. Unemployment and denial of opportunity to earn a living.
3. Denial of justice in the creation, in the adjudication and in the administration of law.
4. Denial of the right and opportunity to form effective organizations.
Discussing the first of these causes, the report summarises evidence showing that 44 families possess aggregate incomes totaling at the least fifty millions per year, while between one-fourth and one-third of male workers in factories and mines, 18 years of age and over, earn less than $10.00 per week, and only about one-tenth earn more than $20 per week.
Inequality in the distribution of wealth and income is set forth as follows :
“First, with regard to the adult workmen, the fathers and potential fathers, from whose earnings according to the “American standard,” the support of the family is to be derived.
Between one-fourth and one-third of male workers in factories and mines 18 years of age and over earn less than $10 per week ; from two-thirds to three-fourths earn less than $15, and only about one-tenth earn more than $20 a week. This does not take into consideration lost working time for any cause.
Next are the women, the most portentously growing factor in the labor force, whose wages are important, not only for their own support or as the supplement of the meager earnings of their fathers and husbands, but because through the force of competition in a rapidly extending field, they threaten the whole basis of the wage scale. From two-thirds to three-fourths of women workers in factories, stores, laundries, and in industrial occupations generally, work at wages of less than $8 a week. Approximately one-fifth earn less than §4 and nearly one-half earn less than $6 a week.
Six dollars a week—what does it mean to many? Three theatre tickets, gasoline for the week, or the price of a dinner for two ; a pair of shoes, three pairs of gloves, or the cost of an evening at bridge. To the girl it means that every penny must be counted, every normal desire stifled, and each basic necessity of life barely satisfied by the sacrifice of some other necessity. If more food must be had than is given with 15 cent dinners, it must be bought with what should go for clothes; if there is need for a new waist to replace the old one at which the forewoman has glanced reproachfully, or at which the girls have giggled, there can be no lunches for a week, and dinners must cost five cents less each day. Always, too, the room must be paid for, and back of it lies the certainty that with slack seasons will come layoffs and discharges. If the breaking point has come, and she must have some amusement, where can it come from ? Surely not out of six dollars a week.
Last of all are the children, for whose petty addition to the stream of production the nation is paying a heavy price in ignorance, deformity of body or mind, and premature old age. After all, does it matter much what they are paid, for all experience has shown that in the end the father’s wages are reduced by about the amount the children earn. This is the so-called “family wage,” and examination of the wages in different industries corroborates the theory that in those industries, such as textiles, where women and children can be largely utilized, the wages of men are extremely low.
The competitive effect of the employment of women and children upon the wages of men, can scarcely be over-estimated. Surely it is hard enough to be forced to put children to work, without having to see the wages of men held down by their employment.
This is the condition at one end of the social scale ; what is at the other ?
Massed in millions, at the other end of the social scale are fortunes of a size never before dreamt of, whose very owners do not know the extent, nor without the aid of an intelligent clerk, even the sources of their incomes. Incapable of being spent in any legitimate manner, these fortunes are burdens, which can only be squandered, hoarded, put into so-called “benefactions,” which for the most part constitute a menace to the state, or put back into the industrial machine to pile up mountains of gold.
We have, according to the income tax returns, 44 families, with incomes of $1,000,000 or more, whose members perform little or no useful service, but whose aggregate income, totalling at the least fifty millions a year, are equivalent to the earnings of 100,000 wage earners, at the average rate of $500.”
The Commission quotes a statistician of conservative views as showing that the wealth of the U. S. A., as near as can be estimated, is distributed as follows:
“The “Rich,” 2 per cent of the people, own 60 per cent. of the wealth.
The “Middle Class,” 33 per cent. of the people, own 35 per cent. of the wealth.
The “Poor,” 65 per cent. of the people, own 5 per cent. of the wealth.
This means, in brief, that a little less than two million people, who would make up a city smaller than Chicago, own 20 per cent. more of the nation’s wealth than all the other 90 millions.
Between the two extremes of superfluity and poverty is the large middle class, farmers, manufacturers, merchants, professional men, skilled artisans, and salaried officials whose incomes are more or less adequate for their legitimate needs and desires, and who are rewarded more or less exactly in proportion to service. They have problems to meet in adjusting expenses to income, but the pinch of want and hunger is not felt, nor is there the deadening, devitalizing effect of superfluous, unearned wealth.
From top to bottom of society, however, in all grades of incomes are an innumerable number of parasites of every conceivable type. They perform no useful service, but drain off from the income of the producers a sum whose total cannot be estimated. Besides the economic significance of these great inequalities of wealth and income, there is a social aspect which equally merits the attention of Congress. It has been shown that the great fortunes of those who have profited by the enormous expansion of American industry have already or will in a few years pass by right of inheritance to the control of heirs or to the trustees who act as their “vice regents.” They are frequently styled by our newspapers “monarchs of industry,” and indeed occupy within our republic a position almost exactly analogous to that of feudal lords.
These heirs, owners only by virtue of the accident of birth, control the livelihoods and have the power to dictate the happiness of more human beings than populated England in the middle ages. Their principalities, it is true, are scattered and, through the medium of stock-ownership, shared in part with others ; but they are none the less real. In fact, such scattered, invisible industrial principalities are a greater menace to the welfare of the nation, than would be equal power consolidated into numerous petty kingdoms in different parts of the country. They might then be visualized and guarded against …..now their influence invisibly permeates and controls every phase of life and industry.”
Dealing with the second cause of industrial unrest the Commission says :
“As a prnne cause of a burning resentment and a rising feeling of unrest among the workers, unemployment and the denial of an opportunity to earn a living is on a parity with the unjust distribution of wealth. They may on a final analysis prove to be simply two sides of the same shield, but that is a matter which need not be discussed at this point. They differ in this, however, that while unjust distribution is a matter of degree, unemployment is an absolute actuality, from which there is no relief but soul-killing crime and soul-killing charity .”
Under the head “Denial of Justice,” found to be the third principal cause of unrest, the report cites numerous typical instances to prove, among many other charges, the following :
Seventh, that laws designed for the protection of labor in workshops, mines and on railroads are not effectively enforced except in a few states.
Ninth, that during strikes, innocent men are in many cases arrested without just cause, charged with fictitious crimes, held under excessive bail, and treated frequently with unexampled brutality for the purpose of injuring the strikers and breaking the strike.
Tenth, that in many localities during strikes not only is one of the greatest functions of the state, that of policing, turned virtually over to employers or arrogantly assumed by them, but criminals employed by detective agencies and strike breaking agencies are clothed by the process of deputation, with arbitrary power and relieved of criminal liability for their acts.
Eleventh, that during strikes in many localities the entire system of civil government is suspended and there is set up in its place a military despotism under so-called martial law.
Twelfth, that in some localities the control by the employers of the entire machinery of government is so great that lawless acts on the part of agents of the employers go unheeded and unpunished, while vindictive action against the leaders of the strike is accomplished by methods unparalleled in civilixed countries.
In each instance what Mr. Manley considers convincing proof that these charges are fully justified is cited in the form of testimony before the Commission setting forth specific cases, the facts of which are admitted by all concerned. Evidence gathered in the Commission’s investigation of the Colorado strike is cited in substantiation of the twelfth charge.
The report says regarding remedies :
“In considering the action which needs to be taken it has been urged by some that the end to be achieved is to place personal rights on a parity with property rights. It is necessary to render a firm protest and warning against the acceptance of such an ideal. The establishment of property rights and personal rights on the same level can leave only a constant and ever-growing menace to onr popular institutions. With the acceptance of such an ideal our democracy is doomed to ultimate destruction. Personal rights must be recognised as supreme and of unalterable ascendency over property rights.
Relief from these grave evils cannot be secured by petty reforms. The action must be drastic and directed at the roots from which these evils spring.
It is also pointed out that the evolution of modern industry has greatly increased the necessity for organization on the part of wage-earners, while it is not admitted that the employer who has only one employee is on an economic equality with the person who is employed by him, because of the fact that the employer controls the means of livelihood which gives him an almost incalculable advantage in any bargain, nevertheless this condition of inequality is held to have been enormously increased by the development of corporations controlling the livelihood of hundreds of thousands of employes, and by the growth of employers’ associations whose members act as a unit in questions affecting their relations with their employes,
The conclusions upon this question, however, are not not based upon theory, but upon a thorough investigation of typical situations in which the contrast between organization and the denial of the right of organization could best be studied. The Commission has held public hearings and has made thorough investigations in such industrial communities as Paterson, New Jersey ; Los Angeles, California ; Lead, South Dakota ; and Colorado, where the right of collective action on the part of employes is denied. These investigations have shown that under the best possible conditions, and granting the most excellent motives on the part of employers, freedom does not exist either politically, industrially, or socially, and that the fibre of manhood will inevitably be destroyed by the continuance of the existing situation.”
Thus for the report, as quoted by the Toronto Labour Council. Like Oliver Twist, the latter want more. They want the Dominion Government to appoint a similar commission. They may succeed, for hard words break no hones and butter no parsnips. The U. S. Report contains most useful facts, and is an effective condemnation of wage slavery. It is useful to the Socialist, and cannot be other than a thorn in the side of the capitalist ; but unless the workers heed its lesson and take action on Socialist lines, the advance is nil. The capitalist will not be moved ; and it is very doubtful indeed if the Canadian commission, if appointed, would even be allowed to speak so frankly. There are the traditions of British “fair play” to be contended with. Nor is there any need to beg our masters to do likewise. What is true of the United States in the subject matter of this report, is true of Canada and true of Britain, and true of every place where capitalism reigns supreme. The facts are there, let them be driven home to the workers, and let the workers act accordingly. There is no need to beg the masters to condemn themselves in word, while intelligence and union among the workers would enable the latter to get rid of them in fact. And while it is pleasant to hear capitalism condemned by its officials, it is utter waste as far as we are concerned, if the facts disclosed do not make larger numbers of wage workers determined to get rid of the wages system that is so clearly branded in the report as a system of slavery.
ED. COM.