Introduction
The 20th century saw the passing existence of all the ideologies but socialism and communism lasted longer before giving in to democracy. Between the two, Communism has lasted longer than socialism in the 20th century (Furet, 2000). Deeper roots and a widespread extension are evident in communism with its survived experience. Capitalism and the evolving history were instrumental in the establishment of socialism and communism. The new ideologies sought to eliminate the problems in capitalism. Socialism was first established but it soon underwent a transition to communism. However, later democracy took the upper hand. The word “Socialism” was first coined by Robert Owen, the father of the cooperative movement in Britain immediately following its introduction as Marxism in Russia (Russell, 1972). It is mainly concerned with the economy rather than politics. Emphasis began to be laid on the basic income which was the ideal situation envisaged by many philosophers and ideologists for the common man or the worker class to preserve his rights of an income sufficient for his survival. The origin of the Labour Party of Britain was a sequel to the clamor for workers’ rights. The unity of Trade unions and the Trade Union Congress saw the evolution of several conditions for employment and work contracts which assisted both the working class and their employers to a certain extent. The conflicts were managed by the leaders mostly to the benefit of workers.
The Ills of capitalism
Capitalism indicated a concentration of power and wealth in a handful of individuals with a working-class of people who suffered for this. The exploitation of these people was the main feature of capitalism. Inequality was a prominent problem with profits meant only for the capitalists (Einstein, 2000). The profits were enjoyed by a few individuals and further reinvestment brought further profits. Politicians could not totally abandon the capitalists as their money and muscle power were needed for their political survival. The working class had difficulty in securing the backing of the politicians. Even the media and education facilities were in the hands of the powerful capitalists. The frustration that capitalism produced, the unemployment, the poor pay, and the infringement of the rights of the working class together must have provoked the society into socialism and communism.
The reaction
Socialism was a reactionary move to capitalism. Freedom, justice, and equality were the catchwords. Those in power had difficulty obliging and surrender their power and wealth(White, 2008). White commented that socialism through a democratic change preserved freedom better than through a forcible manner (2008). Individual liberty included the right to vote, securing employment, and worshipping freely. Freedom from interference and the ability to be in charge of one’s own life constituted the targeted feature. Inequities that arise due to physical or social class were to be removed through socialism. The fraternity was to offer their complete support to the transition increasing the feeling of belonging to a community. Real humanizing socialism was found in the poor working class who possessed the basic and simplest of values according to the opinion of George Orwell, the great thinker who was the “prophet of Utopias” (White, 2008).
Basic Income
The basic income is the first principle of Liberal neutrality (Howard, 2005). Any policy on employment includes the basic income and changes are inevitable according to the changing times and trends. Individuals strive for a good life whatever ideology they follow; they conform to the theory of justice with moral commitments to the priority of justice with ideas about the making of a person or goods or thoughts which are acceptable or condoned by most individuals (Howard, 2005). What was included as wages usually did not convey the real wages of manual labor as indicated by Mr.Giffen in the Associated Iron and Steel Workers (Spyers, 1894, p. 49). Much money out of the £867,000,000 represented their expenditure abroad; however, how much was spent on labor was hardly mentioned. It was difficult to differentiate wages from profit and the nature of interest. It was impossible to have the labor ability or capital investment diminished. The exact figures would have interested socialists who would have disapproved: the extent of money attained by the capitalists and the wages of the working class (Spyers, 1894, p.49). The minimum rates if mentioned, the employers would have refused to increase it during good times. Workers would prefer to have a fluctuating income based on the profits of the industry concerned but they yearn for stability. They believed that an Act of Parliament would influence the fluctuations.
The consensus opinion of the Socialist and Trade Unions was that they should lead the market rather than follow it (Spyers, 1894, p.55). The hours of labor was another bone of contention; the eight-hour day was a suggestion long spoken of. Many unionists protested that they would be unable to make up for the loss in money during the depression if the eight-hour schedule was imposed on them. They were the shoemakers, nut and bolt makers, and hand nail makers who were a small minority. The more modern of establishments had to conform to regulated hours with the innovations in technologies. “Miners, blast-furnacemen, enginemen and firemen, locksmiths, whitesmiths and cutlers, dockers, seamen, omnibus and tram drivers, railway servants, workers in textile trades, hosiers, boat clickers, carpenters, masons, painters, cabinetmakers, chemical-workers, coach-makers, gas-workers, printers and bakers” preferred regulated hours (Spyers, 1894, p. 69). Many wanted the regulated hours so that more vacancies were propagated and employment for more. In some of the industries, the shorter hours meant higher cost of production. Employer’s liability to the personal safety of his employees was another subject of discussion. The terms of the contract of service was to include the safety measures. The transition from the 19th to the 20th century had all the above ideas about employment for the working class with the ideas of socialism and communism incorporated on the way.
The Labour Party
This political party of Britain had its origins in the labour unions. It was believed to have originated from the TUC which has socialist affiliates in 1990 (Minkin, 1991, p. 3). Adverse conditions were prevailing over the nation when this happened. The Conservative Government was dominating and mostly indifferent to the needs of the people. The selection of the candidates from the labour unions was unacceptable by the middle class people. Organised labour was frowned upon by the judiciary then.
Trade union freedom which was not condoned by the judiciary was actually triggered into bigger proportions by their attitude and the Taff Vale judgement of 1901 (Minkin, 1991, p.3). In 1918, the adult Party officially embraced Socialism. Individual membership in the different parties which fed the adult party was recognized. In 1922, the strength of the Labour Party led it to become the Opposition Party formally. Minority Governments were formed by it in 1924 and 1929. In 1931 some of the leaders revolted and formed the National Government. In the next year, the Independent Labour party separated from the family of parties. The Trade Union Congress then attempted to facilitate a new relationship with the remaining parties. It also claimed the right of a parent to foster a new relationship within the family as frequent conflicts and the imminence of separation disturbed the harmony. The relationship survived as the family concept worked to a great extent. The participant unions provided the “financial, electoral and organizational” backing while the parent party protected them politically (Minkin, 1991, p. 4). The terms of contract, compact and partnership were more understood. The leadership of the TUC was believed to subject the political leaders to subordination. Soon a mafia movement was evident among the union leaders where votes were exchanged for political ambitions. The unions which were participants of the TUC were also members of the Labour party and controlled the Labour party permanently. The Labour Party had many dominant leaders. The trade unions contributed affiliation fees, donations and grants and sponsored many candidates for parliament. The constitutional rules of the Party incorporated the obligations to the unions. This automatically provided the unions sufficient scope for affecting the policies and composition of the Party. The cooperation between the unions and Party was necessitated by a constitutional rule and considered a duty. Members of the Party who intended to be members of the TUC had to be trade unionists after 1924. The party was taken to be the political loudspeaker of the Trade Unions. The movement came to be known as the Labour movement. It had a series of institutions which protected the interests of the workers in their roles as “producers, consumers and political citizens” (Minkin,1991, p. 4). The Movement evolved into a strong one with motives described as producers. The real interests of the consumers were missed. The cooperative institutions were not given an equal status. In turn, they refrained from taking an active part in the Party. The Labour Movement demonstrated unity between the unions and Party, the former industrial and the latter political. The unwaged and the women were under-represented.
The trade union relationship with the Labour party was maintained with restraint. Each functioned with care within its own focus. The leaders were careful in restricting their activities within their own circle and never interfered in the internal affairs of the other (Minkin, 1991, p. 26). In the 1920s and 1930s, efforts were made to rejuvenate the relationship and the functions of each. A committee for bridging and rebuilding the two was formed. Many obligations and guidelines were refreshed. The relationship of the TUC with the Labour Party was one of self control and was acceptable to the democracy of Britain. The trade union values included “freedom, democracy, unity and solidarity” (Minkin, 1991, p. 27). Their operative principle was priority.
Industrial freedom was of significant value. Subordination of an employee would be questioned and the management will be approached for arguing the employees’ position. The collective move enhances the liberty of the individual employees. They have a control over their workplace. Where previously they would have starved or been sick or gone hungry, their living style would have changed. Hurdles, internal or external, are handled better. Individuals sometimes have to face difficulties in one direction when trying to grow better in another. Maximum membership within the trade unions was necessary to fight for their rights. Collective freedom was incorporated in the Labour Movement. Hostility from the employers and judiciary was evident. The Party took care to protect industrial freedom (Minkin, 1991, p. 28). Autonomy and collective capacity were also protected. Limitations had therefore to be placed on the party activity of the leaders. The TUC was considered a separate body with a different function. Around 1925 the unified relationship ended. The TUC reserved the right to meet the Government on matters of representation in its integrity as a distinct body and decided to be the agency to be consulted by the Government. The TUC set aside its “constitutional obligations to the Labour Party” (Minkin, 1991, p. 29). The finances of the TUC were since then not used for the Labour party. TUC developed its own bureaucracy and philosophy. The autonomy of the constituent unions and the TUC as a whole were protected from the Party. The leaders of the member unions had their activities restricted. TUC realized that the party had their own functions and needed some freedom of discretion. Adopting a defensive attitude and status protectiveness, the trade unionists remained the administrators of the party. Party autonomy was crucial in that none of the affiliated associations or the TUC could use the sanctions of the Party against the Government so that the movement could continue. After 1931 there was a period of misunderstanding between the TUC and the Party. On several occasions, the TUC showed their reluctance to participate by attempting to reverse the decisions of the Party. The unions did not want to be taken fore granted. Initiative and power showed a transition. Activities which were being done together were now avoided. The autonomy of each institution was preserved. Simultaneously attempts at join together and share their activities were also being done. The TUC tried to assert its right to initiate matters for discussion and participate in them (Minkin, 1991, p. 30). There were frequent issues of conflict which were attempted to be resolved.
Democracy indicates a chain of representation which takes one to the national policy makers in a proper channel. Trade unions would be committed to democracy just as there is parliamentary democracy. Both the Labour movement and the Parliamentary democracy were believed to reinforce one another. However the Hastings Agreement of 1933 which restricted the level of union financial sponsorship was a practice reform. The needs of the party were recognized by the union leaders. Fusion was attempted; the unions joined in the selection of Parliamentary candidates. Trade union finances were restricted. The union understood the party requirements. The candidates had to refrain from speaking of financial support before the selection process was complete (Minkin, 1991, p. 33). However it was always possible to guess at the extent of contribution possible when a candidate from a particular union participated. All knew that cash considerations were significant but the issue was under-played. Accusations were already underway about the cash involvement. The union contributions to the Party were restricted or prohibited. Later another rule came into being: delegates were not to be considered as representatives of unions; they were all individuals. Unions tried to influence their candidates though the ballot was secret. The rules continued as such and accepted till 1987 when another reform was established. Party requirements were thereby adhered to by quiet acceptance. There was a problem with the constitutional authority of the Party: the Party Conference which had a majority of union candidates oversaw the Party constitution and Standing orders. The policy and principles were laid down by the Conference. Bones of contention were decided by them. The decisions made were implemented at the Party level and Parliament level (Minkin, 1991, p. 35).
Socialist groups considered this Party Conference as essential for the growth of the movement. Other groups of leaders used to question the propriety of the Conference. After there was a weakening of the authority of the Conference in the 1920s, a reaffirmation was made in the 1930s.
Unity, which was essential to the movement, was to be preserved. Occasions of conflicts between managers and unions cultivated hostilities between the two groups.
The Bridlington Agreement of 1939 attempted to root out the problems. The TUC was strong in the 1920s as the national centre of the industries. Election processes were performed in a correct manner. Canvassing or buying of votes were forbidden. Industrially based rules allowed the unions to oversee the NEC elections. Left radicalisation of the NEC was not possible however (Minkin, 1991, p. 36).
Solidarity was a feature of trade unionism and marked the loyalty of the working class leaders to the collective community. The workers were assisted when they had any disputes. The Party supported the trade unions in their efforts. The attempt to observe majority decisions could hurt the opinions of minority groups or be insensitive to them. Trade unions have been known to back a disciplinarian in their union. Issues have never required the services of an outside union. In 1931, there was a reinforcement of the TUC with the Party. Close collaboration between the TUC and the NEC with exchange of policy papers was initiated.
Priorities was a working principle in relationship to the Labour Party. The union activity and the political activity were coordinated by the principle of priority. Most of the union leaders had become socialists. The socialists supported public ownership rather than private (Minkin, 1991, p. 40). The priorities were the immediate problems of the Industrial workers. Collective bargaining and negotiation were the techniques involved in problem solving.
Changes which were significant occurred in the unions in the 1960s (Minkin, 1991, p.159). Many of the leaders became Leftwing and this transition threatened the relationships earlier formed and strengthened between the TUC and the Labour Party.
Changes in behaviour and institutional loyalties were evident. An upheaval of issues was observed. This raised the question as to how the Labour party could withstand the change. They could adopt the socialist ideology and elicit a change in the rules and leadership and weaken the Parliamentary leadership. Another change could be that trade unionism could be in itself a “radicalizing force” in the transition to Socialism.
After 1967, Leftwing leaders were recognized in 4 of the 5 large unions. The Rightwing block vote completely floundered (Minkin, 1991, p. 162). The unions kept moving from right to left and then back to right. These cross currents were significant for the Socialist leaders who became outnumbered many times. The Popular Front period, the Cold War hostile incidents and the emergence of communism were the immediate experiences. Even the prominent two Socialist leaders had arguments and differences of opinion based on “personal experience, union tradition, union composition and ideological values” (Minkin, 1991, p. 163). The two Socialist leaders retired and soon changed their ideology to that of the right. New socialist leaders were watching their frequent changes of behaviour. The changed leaders attempted to support the Labour Party. The issues of “wages, protection of real living standards, price controls, rents and food subsidies” were the problems mentioned in the Social Contract (Minkin, 1991, p. 166). Union leaders refrained from providing strong opinions.
Prices rose by 17% while wages rose by 24 % and very disproportionately. This caused inflation. In the mid 1970s, a steep rise in unemployment was noticed. Excessive wages were thought to be the cause of the problem. Leaders including the retired Socialists attempted to prevent the mass unemployment and restore the confidence of the international community. A new policy for incomes was drawn up. Soon a gap was noted between the Labour Party policy and the TUC economic policy. After 1977 a deflationary policy was adopted. The policies of the union leaders who kept changing their ideologies produced many problems in the economy of Britain in the 20th century.
Conclusion
Socialism and communism were the political thoughts which tried to replace the socioeconomic problems of capitalism in the 20th century. The attempt was successful only to a certain extent in that there were many new problems with the new ideologies. Moreover individuals who were the leaders themselves changed their thoughts so that disunity fell into the previous united front that the Trade Union Congress offered. The transition that was triggered through democratic means was found to produce better results than that through forcible methods. Conflicts began to break out between employers and employees. Public ownership was preferred but leaders preferred not to make strong contentions for issues. Inflation was the result seen as a 17% rise in prices when the wages rose by 24%. Economic problems changed but resolutions could never completely satisfy anyone.
References
Einstein, A. (2000). “Why socialism?” Monthly Review, Vol. 52, Issue 1, p. 56, Monthly Review Foundation Inc.
Furet, F. (2000). “The passing of an illusion: The idea of communism in the twentieth century” University of Chicago Press, London
Howard, M. W. (2005). “ Basic Income, Liberal Neutrality, Socialism and Work”. Review of Social Economy, Vol. 63
Minkin, L. (1991). “The contentious alliance:Trade unions and the Labour Party”, Edinburgh University press, Edinburgh
Russell, B. (1972). “A history of Western philosophy”, Touchstone, p. 781
Spyers, T.G. (1894). “An epitome of the evidence and the report of the Royal Commission on Labour” Published by Swan Sonneschein and Co.Ltd.:London, Royal Commission on Labour
White, R. (2008). “George Orwell: Socialism and Utopia” Utopian Studies, Vol. 19, Issue 1, Society for Utopian Studies