The intelligent woman's guide to socialism and capitalismShaw, Bernard
General
The intelligent woman's guide to socialism and capitalism
Shaw, Bernard
Capitalism; Socialism
We now have to consider what a union of proletarians can do to defend
their livelihood from the continual encroachments of Capitalism. First,
when the union is sufficiently complete, it enables them to face the
employer without any risk of being told that if they will not submit
to his terms others will. If nearly all the bricklayers in a town
form a union, and each pays into it week by week a small contribution
until they have a little fund to fall back on, then, if their employers
attempt to reduce their wages, they can, by refusing to work and living
on their fund, bring the employers’ business to a dead stop for weeks
or months, according to the size of the fund. This is called a strike.
They can strike not only against a reduction of wages but for an
increase, or for a reduction of their working hours, or for anything
that may be in dispute between them and the employers. Their success
will depend on the state of the employers’ business. The employers
can practically always wait if they choose until the strike fund is
exhausted, and thus starve the strikers into submission. But if trade
is so flourishing at the moment, and the employers consequently in such
a hurry to get on with their profit making, that they would lose more
by an interruption to their business than by giving the strikers what
they demand, then the employers will give in.
But the employers will bide their time for a counterstrike. When trade
gets slack again, and they have little or nothing to lose by shutting
up their works for a while, they reduce the wage, and lock out all the
workers who will not submit to the reduction. This is why an employers’
strike is called a lock-out. The newspapers use the word strike for
strikes and lock-outs indiscriminately, because their readers blame the
workers instead of the employers for a strike; but some of the greatest
so-called strikes should have been called lock-outs. A boom in trade
always produces a series of strikes which are generally successful. A
falling-off in trade produces a series of lock-outs; and they, too, are
generally successful, the one series undoing the work of the other in a
dreary see-saw. After the war we went through a gigantic boom followed
by a disastrous slump, with strikes and lock-outs all complete. Your
own experience of these civil wars of strike and lock-out must have
left you convinced that they are public disasters which would have no
sort of sense in a well ordered community. But let that pass for the
moment. We have not yet finished our study of primitive Trade Unionism,
nor seen what it led to besides saving up for a strike and then
“downing tools”.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account