Britain’s 1919 coal shortage gave striking miners genuine revolutionary leverage.

Evidence

According to Vernon Hartshorn, a leader among Welsh miners who had given witness during the Sankey proceedings, the miners had unearthed a constitutional mechanism by which structural change could take place in Great Britain. Commenting on the proposals of the second report, Hartshorn wrote: “Th ey go to the very roots of the capitalist system. Th e recommendations comply with all the forms of constitutional procedure, though they foreshadow change which is truly revolutionary” (South Wales News, June 30, 1919, reprinted in Ives 2016, 208). — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 407 (#expands, via linked claim)

Commissioners gave lengthy technical reports on the workings and economic benefi ts of nationalization: the unifi cation in production, in buying and selling, in transport, and in distribution would result in enormous economies and far greater effi ciency in the coal mines, securing “a cheap and adequate supply of coal” (Great Britain, Royal Commission on Coal Industry 1919b, vi). In his report, Sidney Webb summarizes the rationale behind the experts’ view: “Nationalisation is called for (1) as the only means of adequately improving the position of the miners with regard to housing, accidents and special disease and infantile mortality; (2) as the only means of dealing economically and effi ciently with the nation’s coal resources; and (3) as the only means of ensuring that the coal is supplied to the consumers with regularity and at the lowest cost” (Great Britain, Royal Commission on Coal Industry 1919b, 478). Th e potential merits of nationalization were considered even by orthodox economists such as A. C. Pigou. In his deposition to the commission in April 1919, Pigou stated that “under full nationalization there are possibilities of results better than any other plan can off er” (Great Britain, Royal Commission on Coal Industry 1919b, 417). Nationalization was thus understood as a guarantee of effi ciency and the common interest; it was going to benefi t the nation, not just the miners. As John R. Clynes, Labour MP, put it: “National ownership is advocated not for a trade, or a class, or a sectional benefi t. Gain for the community inspires the demand made for immediate changes in both the terms of service, and the conditions of ownership of this great property” (Hodges 1920, iv). — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 1669 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Miners saw the Sankey proposals as constitutionally formal yet truly revolutionary — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 407; Even orthodox economists in 1919 backed coal nationalization as efficient — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 1669; British coal shortages gave miners strikes revolutionary potential in early 1919 — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 388

Related

• Miners saw the Sankey proposals as constitutionally formal yet truly revolutionary (similarity 0.88)
• British coal shortages gave miners strikes revolutionary potential in early 1919 (similarity 0.85)
• Even orthodox economists in 1919 backed coal nationalization as efficient (similarity 0.85)
• Britain’s 1919 cabinet conceded a commission under duress despite hostility to miners. (similarity 0.78)

Broader Connections

• Miners saw the Sankey proposals as constitutionally formal yet truly revolutionary #expands (0.82) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 407
• Even orthodox economists in 1919 backed coal nationalization as efficient #corroborates (0.80) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 1669