A new social revolution

Faulty reasoning and as a result faulty conclusions are very often due to the lack of consideration of vital factors involved. Proposals, for instance, are often made by various would-be-reformers to improve the lot of the workers whilst retaining the present economic set-up, that is the capitalist system. Bearing upon this it is worth while considering an article written by a reformer of longstanding, Mr. B. Seebohm Rowntree which appeared in the “Evening Standard,” (February 20th, 1945), headed, “A New Industrial Revolution.”

We are told that if the aim of the Government as regards “the maintenance of a high and stable level of employment after the War is achieved it will revolutionise the status of the workers.” May we quickly add that if the aforesaid does occur it will also revolutionise the ideas that Socialists hold on capitalism, but since we are aware of the fact that the only time our masters seem to be able to keep all of us busy is in the preparation or in the actual waging of war we are quite confident that Socialists will need to make no changes of their ideas now that the slaughter has abated. The fact of the matter is that the only way the status of the workers can be revolutionised is by the abolition of capitalism. No such proposition is made by Mr. Rowntree.

The proposals that are elaborated are based on the contingency that “if a state of full-employment is stabilised, authority, based on the ability to dismiss employees will largely disappear.” Mr. Rowntree need not have gone to the trouble of racking his brain as to how to deal with this question. The Socialist assures him that this ticklish problem will not arise in peacetime, and that our masters’ authority to employ or dismiss us at his beck and call will remain unaffected. On the contrary, all the things point to the strengthening of his hand. However, let us pause for a moment to consider how the above assertion of the employer’s freedom to employ or dismiss is contradicted, in almost the next breath. Apparently, it seems, that now the owner is not the authority any more. “As a matter of fact all those employed in industry are SERVANTS OF THE CONSUMERS. It is the consumers who give the orders, and the greatest industrial magnates must obey them if he wants to stay in business. So the master and servant relationship within an industrial enterprise is unrealistic.” Following from this one is inclined to suggest that employers should now unite to resist the encroachments of their common enemy, the consumer! This childish argument is based on the fallacy of ignoring the fact that the producers, that is the working-class, are at the same time the vast majority of the consumers and secondly, that they have by no means that independence of choice which Mr. Rowntree is too hasty in crediting them with. How many of us for instance would consume our daily “sausage and mash” at the factory canteen or local cafe if we could but take a stroll down to Claridges or the Dorchester and there exercise a freer and far more welcome independence of choice? Further, has Mr. Rowntree forgotten the extent to which our own tastes are artificially formed for us, and therefore restricted, by constant plugging and advertisement. For the vast majority of consumers, i.e., the workers, the ability to pick and choose between one product and another is largely nonexistent. They have to buy what the big monopolies have decided to produce and have to like it, for the simple reason that they cannot afford to do anything else. Freedom of choice is restricted to the rich consumers and that invariably means luxuries which workers never can enjoy so long as capitalism lasts.

As a result of his fallacious idea that the consumers are the real masters in society, Mr. Rowntree comes to the conclusion that “employers should regard themselves and all their employees as being fellow-servants.” That says he, “is their true relationship.” We are told that some employers would resent this suggestion. May we inform Mr. Rowntree that there are quite a lot of workers who would resent this equally as much. The cold fact of reality is that the production and distribution services under capitalism are incidental to the making of profits. And since the making of profits involves the exploitation of the workers we should like to know how the receivers of profit, i.e., the employers can be the “fellow-servants” of those who produce it for them.

Further we discover that Mr. Rowntree wishes to introduce a greater degree of democracy into industry. He proposes that (a) arbitration boards be set up to deal with breaches of factory rule and (b) to establish Works Councils “on which members of the administrative staff and representatives elected by the workers should serve.” His reasons for desiring these proposals to be put into effect are not hard to discover. According to Mr. Rowntree it “would remove the chance of a strike occurring where the workers consider that a worker has been wrongfully punished.” Workers, so we are led to believe, would “feel that they are part of the show.” Employers could confidently expect a good and a growing response front the workers and of course it would mean “Prosperity for industry.” As regards the latter slogan let it be once again emphasized that prosperity for industry means the OWNERS of industry. We note too, that the workers will only be allowed to “feel” part of the show; they will only be “treated” as co-partners. This vague language is not a strange one to our apologists for capitalism. Even if the proposal mentioned were put into effect the enslaved position of the working class would not be altered in the slightest. It is extremely doubtful even that they could possibly serve the interests of the workers in their daily struggle against their profit-hunting masters, if we are to judge by the biased behaviour of the war time arbitration boards. Most likely they would prove a very effective instrument in the hands of the capitalist class to perpetuate their system of exploitation. Remember well that in the war despite “full-employment,” arbitration boards and factory committees, strikes and industrial unrest have been very prevalent and peace and harmony have not been produced in industry. This must necessarily be so because the conflict of interests between master and slave, in this case capitalist and wage-slave, is irreconcilable, in war or out of war. Since Mr Rowntree seems to be very concerned with actualities let the Socialist Party inform him that as long as industry is monopolised by a small section of the population who use it as a source for their profit and power so long will peace and harmony of effort be an unrealisable fantasy. May we further suggest that there was no need of him to dwell upon the desirability of a “new industrial revolution.” This revolution has already been accomplished in the course of the last 150 years. What is urgently required, however, is a new social revolution, the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of Socialism. This would place into the hands of the whole community the ownership and control of the instruments of production and distribution. The degradation and humiliation of wage-slavery would then be a thing of the past.

M. J.