TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/caps/20s/20soc

Text File | 1992-09-25 | 10.0 KB | 213 lines

                                                                                Socialism In Britain


  [From the distant perspective of today, it is rather difficult
to appreciate what a powerful economic and political force
Socialism was considered to be in the 1920s; with only a few
exceptions (notably the Scandinavian countries), Socialist
economies in the 1980s are either economic basket cases, brutal
tyrannies, or both. But back then, even in stable industrial
democracies like Britain, there was a terrible fear (born of
Russia's dire example) of what workingmen would do if let loose
to run the government.

  In fact, to the consternation of the ruling classes, a
"Socialist" government--actually a coalition of the Labor and
Liberal parties, but headed by a Labor Prime Minister, Ramsay
MacDonald--did come to power in Britain in 1924.]


(FEBRUARY 4, 1924)

  The Government in London does not represent the sentiments of
a vast proportion of the British electorate. The Conservatives
hold more seats than any other Party in the House, Labor next,
then the Liberals. The Liberal Party, therefore, represents the
balance of power. The Labor Party, in other words, must mind its
p's and q's, or it runs a danger of being ousted by a transfer
of the Liberal votes to the Opposition. At the next session of
Parliament the Liberal Party will, it was stated, make it clear
that they have no sympathy with radical Socialism or with a
capital levy. As the Conservatives will lead the Opposition, it
is likely that the Labor Government will sit at its feast of
power, like Damocles, with the sword of Conservatism suspended
by the hair of Liberalism above its head.


  [The coalition government lasted only eight months and was
roundly defeated in Britain's third election in two years.]

(NOVEMBER 10, 1924)

  The great issue of the election was a fear of Socialism,
expressed in the policy of the Labor Party. Socialism, at least
for a time, is now a dead letter--an overwhelming body of the
electorate voted against it. An even greater body would have
voted against it, had many of Labor's supports believed that
their leaders would be influenced by the extremists.

  The fight which Conservatives and Liberals have won against
the Laborites has ended in a victory for the rights of
individuals over the rights of the State. Disraeli put it more
clearly when he attacked the Liberals: "I prefer the liberty we
now enjoy to the Liberalism they promise, and find something
better than the rights of men in the rights of Englishmen." The
Conservatives have made it: "We prefer the liberty we now enjoy
to the Socialism they promise, and find something better than
the rights of the State in the rights of Englishmen."


  [The militancy of British labor (the organized workers as
opposed to the political party) continued to grow, culminating
in one of the worst crises to afflict an industrial state in the
20th century--a general strike. It was resoundingly defeated,
of course, but it set the pattern for continuous labor strife
for the next six decades and bitterly exacerbated the class
struggle that has undermined British industrial productivity and
efficiency.]

(MAY 10, 1926)

  The extreme gravity of the crisis was made apparent when the
King transferred his Court from Windsor to Buckingham Palace,
conferred hourly with Premier Baldwin over a private telephone,
and finally issued a proclamation, under the Emergency Power Act
of 1920, by which he invested the Premier with virtually the
authority of a Dictator.

  Within a few hours soldiers, sailors and marines were on their
way to points of expected unrest. Soon afterward civilian
volunteer organizations, long ago prepared against just such an
emergency by prominent Conservatives, began to function for the
maintenance of indispensable industries. The Government
announced that, in these circumstances, famine conditions were
not imminent. Ominously the hours drew nearer midnight.

  Since the organized workers of Britain have never before
attempted united coercion, it was not generally realized last
week how numerous and well co-ordinated are their ranks. Nowhere
else, except in Soviet Russia, is trade unionism so firmly
grounded. Last week it was estimated that as many able bodied
workers are controlled, as to strikes, by the Trades Union
Congress as there are men, women and children in New York City.
The unionists operate, in normal times, virtually all the land
and sea transport services, the mines, most heavy manufacturing
and the building trades.

  Last week these men, together with "the army of unemployed
workers" (rarely fewer than a million strong in the British
Isles since 1920), thought chiefly in terms of hours, shillings,
bread and shelter, as that midnight approached.


(MAY 17, 1926)

  So complete was the paralysis of the English press as a result
of the general strike, that many London firms with branches in
the U.S. were kept informed of what was happening in England by
cablegrams from Manhattan summarizing the newspaper accounts
published in the U.S.

  The great transatlantic liners were forced, in several
instances, to embark and disembark their passengers at English
ports solely with the aid off clerical employees of the
steamship companies, who left their bookkeeping and ticket
selling to do the work of longshoremen. Elsewhere, the rail
service was sketchily maintained by volunteer crews.

  But the Government relied for the distribution of food and the
mails upon the "O.M.S." (Organization for the Maintenance of
Supplies), a sort of "volunteer work-army" created months ago
against just this emergency by such leading Conservatives as
Lord Jellicoe, and directed by Postmaster General Sir William
Mitchell-Thomson in London, assisted by ten O.M.S. district
commissioners at strategic points throughout the British Isles.
thousands of motor cars and trucks were placed at the disposal
of the O.M.S. by their owners and, in London, Hyde Park became
a gigantic trucking and distribution centre. Since sufficient
gasoline was on hand last week to last three months it appeared
that, barring violence, the O.M.S. would effectively prevent
famine.

  While "riots" were reported to have taken place at London,
Manchester, Newcastle, Leeds, Liverpool, Dundee, Glasgow and
elsewhere, the astonishingly peaceable nature of these
disturbances was well shown by a Government announcement late
in the first week that so far only one man had been killed in
the entire British Isles as a direct result of the strike. but
as the second week opened, four railway trains operated by
O.M.S. crews were derailed or wrecked near Berwick, Cambridge,
Newcastle and Edinburgh respectively and seven deaths resulted.
Later, a policeman was stabbed and another hit on the head with
a hammer, at London, while ugly riots occurred at Edinburgh.

  Such violence as had taken place was confined to the throwing
of stones at the 2,000 odd trains which were run daily by
volunteers; and to forcible interference with the running of
some hundreds of the several hundred thousand supply trucks. No
trains were wrecked by the strikers, and the overturning and
wrecking of trucks by mobs was generally conducted in an almost
orderly fashion, very few truck drivers or passengers being
molested or beaten.

  The Government wisely kept its armed forces in the
background, except at strategic points, and there displayed them
n overwhelming force and full war regalia. Late in the week for
example there battalions, equipped with 16 armored cars and
accompanied by several machine gun detachments, convoyed a
two-mile-long procession of 104 trucks loaded with flour from
the Victoria Docks, on the Thames, to the great Hyde Park
distribution centre, eleven miles distant. Naturally there was
no occasion for the firing of a single shot.

  The sensation of the week was the rejection by the British
Trade Union Council of a "strike fund" check for 250,000 gold
rubles ($125,000) despatched to it by the All-Russian Central
Council of Trade Unions. At Amsterdam, however, the Netherlands
Trade Union Congress voted 60,000 gulden ($24,250) for the same
purpose, with every prospect of it being most gratefully
accepted, and in France, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia,
Japan, Mexico, labor organizations manifested their sympathy for
the British strikers by commendatory votes, scattered strikes,
monetary contributions, or by taking steps to hamper essential
exports to Britain.

  The British Trade Union Council directed its activities last
week chiefly to strengthening the morale of the strikers,
starting machinery for issuing "strike pay" to the five or six
million men who had stopped work, and combating the Government's
anti-strike propaganda.


(MAY 24, 1926)

  The great strike ended. Britons at first cared little why or
how. It was over. But its effects lingered, long to be felt. The
"strike wounds" of industry were healing slowly. If they were
to heal completely, the cure must be wrought by the aid of
lessons learned.

  A great figure had emerged, Stanley baldwin. But his ultimatum
to the strikers--that negotiations with them could not be
resumed until the strike was called off--made it necessary that
before he could become the--at least temporary--national hero,
an unofficial mediator should be found.

  The Premier stuck to the letter of his ultimatum, said not a
word until Mr. Pugh said quietly that the Trade Union Council
had decided to terminate the general strike. Victorious, Mr.
Baldwin level-headedly exclaimed: "I thank God for your
decision!"

  An instant later the Government radio broadcast a few
sentences which sent tingles of emotion coursing up British
spines. Brittania had muddled through.

  Cables soon indicated that urban transportation was almost
normal and the railways were rapidly recovering but
industry--especially in Scotland--was coming back very slowly.
Experts placed the cost of the strike to Britain at 250,000,000
pounds, opined that the Government's strike expenditures totaled
at least 10,000,000 pounds.