November
30 and beyond
Preparing for the showdown
The one-day public-sector strike on 30 November is
expected to involve nearly four million workers – the biggest single day
of industrial action in Britain’s history. In the face of the Con-Dem
coalition’s savage austerity, public-sector workers are preparing for a
hard struggle to defend pensions, services, pay and conditions. PETER
TAAFFE writes on this potentially momentous turning point.
AS THE 30 November public-sector strike looms, the
question on the lips of activists in the labour movement is: what next?
Will the strike succeed in pushing the government into a humiliating
U-turn on pensions and the cuts programme as a whole? If so, will this
lead to the toppling of the Con-Dem coalition and a general election –
as in 1974 during the miners’ strike (see article on page 24) – and the
defeat of David Cameron and co? On the other hand, will the unions and
labour movement suffer setbacks, as in Greece, or a standoff, like the
workers of other countries? These are burning questions confronting all
trade unionists, young people and the working class generally.
If it goes ahead, the strike will represent a social
earthquake, the biggest single day of concerted strike action since the
1926 general strike. This point has been emphasised by the Socialist
Party and others, and is now echoed by Britain’s capitalist media. They
repeat what we pointed out previously that, although 2.75 million
workers came out in 1926, it was over nine days. On the first day of the
general strike, there were no more than 1.75 million striking workers.
This time, if the strike succeeds in bringing out
three million workers – and if the mood for action among working-class
people, particularly trade unionists, was the only criterion then it
would be a certainty – this will be the biggest ever one-day strike
action of the working class in Britain.
But this has not been planned for, let alone
desired, by the leading combatants on both sides. The Con-Dems, through
the implementation of their vicious class-war policies, were seduced by
the notion that the trade unions had been ‘tamed’: they were now
incapable of resisting the onslaught on living standards and vital
services in the NHS, education, etc.
And, if truth was told, most union leaders,
particularly the right wing, by their timidity in word and deed,
reinforced the impression that there was little appetite in the labour
movement for decisive resistance to the government. Anti-union
propaganda over the last 20 to 30 years has left its imprint. Even some
very good left-wing workers have absorbed the mistaken idea that the
unions are ‘unpopular’. This is reinforced by the top layers of the
unions, whose normal response is prevarication and delay, rather than
confidence that the working class can respond to an urgent call for
action. This was the prevailing outlook in these circles in the first
period after the government was elected. However, faced with incessant
pressure from the base of the trade unions, in which the National Shop
Stewards Network (NSSN) played a vital role, they were compelled to call
the mass demonstration of 26 March. Appetite grows with the eating. This
mighty display of working-class power – in the best traditions of the
British working-class movement, seemingly ponderous but with stubborn
determination to push back the class enemy – was followed by the
tremendous 30 June strike against the attack on pensions.
Deep bitterness and resentment
THE GOVERNMENT’S PUBLIC-sector hit man, Francis
Maude, jeered on TV that Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the PCS
civil service union, "would not carry his members" in strike action.
Maude was forced to eat his words as many more workers than those who
voted to strike joined walkouts, picket lines and massive
demonstrations. This underlines what Len McCluskey, general secretary of
Unite, emphasised after 26 March: the huge latent authority which the
organised working class and trade unions possess.
Although the unions have been reduced virtually to
half the size they were in numbers in the 1970s and early 1980s – now
with just six to seven million members – they nevertheless organised the
biggest specifically working-class demonstration in Britain’s history,
exceeding even the tumultuous demonstrations of the 1970s and 1980s.
Moreover, on 26 March they succeeded in mobilising, in particular,
sections of the so-called ‘squeezed middle’ – the middle-class that has
also been hammered economically by Cameron’s ‘big society’, in reality,
big-business government. This reinforces our contention that, properly
organised and led, the trade unions are the single biggest force for
defeating the government, by mobilising and gathering behind its banner
all the discontented layers in society.
Moreover, the ruling class and its political
representatives – the Con-Dem government, at this stage – can feel this
and are already manoeuvring in an attempt to avert the looming
confrontation of 30 November. Attempts to divide the unions, as well as
legal threats to prevent strike action going ahead, will probably be
deployed. There have also been behind-the-scenes ‘negotiations’ with the
leaders of the TUC. This saw TUC general secretary Brendan Barber
sneaking behind the backs of union members to secretly meet Tories, like
George Osborne, at their conference – reportedly, even "enjoying a
private dinner" with this odious character – in the ‘worthy cause’ of an
attempt to arrive at an ‘agreement’ over public-sector pensions. The
government, however, is only interested in massively raising
contributions from public-sector workers and a diminution of how much it
pays into the pensions’ pot.
These negotiations appear to have broken down, but
it cannot be guaranteed that they will not be resumed. Given the
underhand activity of the TUC already and the lukewarm acquiescence of
Brendan Barber and the right wing of the trade unions to 26 March and 30
June, union members must demand that they remain intransigent on the
issue of pensions. All negotiations should be open and transparent.
There must also be a determination not to give ground on the fundamental
principles of defending the existing pensions’ arrangements.
Savage austerity
PUBLIC-SECTOR WORKERS are in no doubt that this is
the least that is required. The very fact that the National Association
of Head Teachers has pledged itself to join the 30 November action is
proof, if further proof was required after 26 March and 30 June, of the
deep bitterness and resentment at the brutal policies of the Con-Dem
government.
This extends to the whole panoply of cuts proposed.
Over the first twelve months of this government, 250,000 public-sector
jobs disappeared. More than 100,000 jobs have been lost in local
authorities alone across England since the general election, with
further cuts to come, according to the GMB union. Many workers have
reluctantly taken payoffs; some because they are older and near to
retirement, others because they lack confidence in a successful outcome
for the trade unions in this battle. Still more, perhaps naïvely,
believed that the current economic ‘difficulties’ will give way, as in
past recessions, to a further upswing with economic and job prospects
improving.
But there is no end in sight to the jobs slaughter,
with many more workers due to be emptied out of the public sector in the
next three years. Those who remain in employment will be more prepared
to struggle, particularly where there is decisive leadership, against
the savage austerity programme – planned poverty, in effect – which
Osborne and Cameron seek to carry through. Therefore, a correct
programme, strategy and tactics from the trade unions up to and after 30
November are crucial to the outcome of what is a titanic struggle for
the very fate of this and future generations of the working class.
One million Unison members are currently balloting
for strike action alongside teachers, civil servants and others on that
day. Local government and health employers may seek to thwart them by
recourse to the law. This must be fought against. It should also be made
clear that if undemocratic, ‘unlawful’ measures are employed by the
government, the bosses and their courts, action will be taken, if
necessary from below, to ensure that workers will come out on that day.
It is crucial, therefore, for mass meetings to take place well in
advance of 30 November so that workers can be organised, educated and
steeled for the battle to come.
Trade union leaders, such as those at the helm in
Unison, like Dave Prentis, have habitually used strike ballots as a
bargaining tool to extract some, usually secondary and inadequate,
concessions. This is not one of those occasions when such an approach is
acceptable. The government is hoping to inflict a defeat on the trade
union movement as a whole which could then be used as a template, like
the miners’ strike for Margaret Thatcher, for intimidating and cowering
other workers not to struggle or strike. In other words, the general
fate of six to seven million trade unionists is at stake. Everything
which is precious and has been achieved in struggle is on the line, not
just for public-sector workers but those in the private sector, too, for
the unemployed and the poor. There must be no flinching on the part of
the leaders in the face of the Tory-Lib Dem capitalist enemy.
When balloting for 30 November, it is also necessary
that it should be accompanied with votes for ‘discontinuous action’,
which will allow for further strikes if the government does not give in
to the unions’ demands. Teachers and civil servants are acting in this
fashion and so should others. Moreover, it will be mainly national
action which will be decisive in forcing the employers into making
concessions. Yet the Unison leadership, by flagging up local and
selective action after 30 November, is indicating a retreat from making
a priority of a full mobilisation at national level.
Of course, citywide and regional strikes will
be necessary – as has already partially taken place in Southampton with
Unison and Unite, and in the civil service – but this should be
auxiliary to utilising the full power of national action.
Moreover, so serious is the outcome of the struggle,
particularly the need to organise a mass effective strike on 30
November, that negotiations should not be in the hands of a handful of
union general secretaries. There must be democratic involvement of
national executive committees, drawing in rank-and-file representatives
from the workplaces in the national planning for strike action, and in
any negotiations which take place before or after 30 November. This
could then be replicated in the areas with the formation of local strike
committees.
Systemic failure
THIS SITUATION IS given added urgency by the
desperate plight of world and British capitalism which is already
dragging millions into a spiral of unprecedented decline in employment
and a massive increase in poverty and insecurity. The OECD estimates
that there are officially 40 million unemployed in the advanced
industrial countries, an increase of 20 million since the crisis began
in 2007-08. This does not include the semi-employed, in precarious work
– a new category in the working class, the ‘precariat’.
The ‘great and good’ of world capitalism –
governments, legions of commentators and thousands of ‘expert’
economists – are at a complete loss as to what to do about an economic
crisis which is rapidly undermining the foundations of their system.
Some seek to outdo Marxists and socialists in describing the seriousness
of this crisis. It is now impossible to open a newspaper, particularly
the serious capitalist journals, without reading headlines like that
above a recent article of the ‘sober’, liberal capitalist Will Hutton:
Our Capitalist System is Near Meltdown. (The Observer, 18 September)
Much to the chagrin of other spokespersons, even the
governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, who had signed up to
Osborne’s austerity programme, now warns that the present ‘financial
crisis’ is the "worst ever". It is not just ‘financial’, but is a
systemic crisis of capitalism as a whole. The financial madness of the
last 20 years of neo-liberal capitalism masked this but, ultimately, has
served to deepen and prolong an already existing organic crisis of
capitalism worldwide. The origins of this crisis, as Socialism Today
explained again and again before its onset, arose from the blind alley
the system found itself in as far back as the 1970s. Incapable of
finding a profitable outlet in productive industry for the massive
surpluses accumulated, capitalism sought a way out through ‘financialisation’.
This built up a colossal house of cards which has now come tumbling
down.
The causes of this crisis cannot be found in just
one of the contradictions of capitalism which Karl Marx analysed –
indeed, he was careful not to single out only one cause to explain a
specific crisis. Undoubtedly, the limited purchasing power of the masses
examined by him, reinforced by massive inequality which is a feature of
the last 20 to 30 years, as well as the current attacks on living
standards, are big factors in the present crisis.
On the other hand, the long-term tendency of the
rate of profit to decline, particularly when there is a drop in the mass
of profits in which the capitalists are most interested, can be a factor
leading to crisis. This is certainly not the case in the current
situation, where there is a colossal accumulation of capital (what the
capitalists call ‘liquidity’), but with no profitable outlet. Yet,
ultimately, it is a crisis of profitability in the sense that capitalism
cannot profitably invest at present.
The whole system, as Marx pointed out, is based upon
production for profit and not social need. Therefore, if capitalism
cannot find a profitable outlet, the system jams. We see this today. It
is the inherent contradictions of capitalism – dismissed out of hand by
capitalist economic experts in the past – which have laid the basis of
this crisis and the social nightmare which now confronts the working
class.
Desperate times, desperate measures
THE ATTITUDE OF so-called ‘captains of industry’ –
the capitalists themselves – towards the government that allegedly
represents them is like the football crowd whose team is losing and in
despair shout at their own manager, ‘you don’t know what you’re doing’.
This is well illustrated by the paralysis over what to do about the
eurozone crisis. Capitalist governments have no idea how to solve the
so-called ‘sovereign debt crisis’. The latest proposal – cooked up by
German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and French president, Nicolas Sarkozy
– is to establish a safety net of possibly as much as €2 trillion to
establish a financial firewall to save Spain, Italy and France, in
particular, from the bond vigilantes. The fate of Greece – whether it
will default and, if it does, in what timeframe – remains uncertain.
There is a great reluctance to even contemplate this now because of the
contagious effects on other countries. It is an open question as to
whether they can succeed in the short term. And there is rising
opposition. In Germany, for instance, 66% in polls are opposed to
bailing out Greece because of a well-founded suspicion that, ultimately,
it is the masses who will pay through increased taxes – as in the past
when the financial sector has been bailed out by governments
On the other hand, desperate times evoke desperate
‘solutions’. In 1923, Germany defaulted on its reparation payments to
France under the Versailles treaty. This provoked the French occupation
of the Ruhr area and contributed to the German revolution of 1923 in
which the working class could have taken power if it had a more decisive
leadership at the head of the Communist Party. Frightened by these
events, the capitalists, above all in the US, intervened with the ‘Dawes
plan’. This effectively bailed out Germany, for a period at least. Later
on, this broke down, particularly with the onset of the 1929-33 crisis
and everything which flowed from this: the rise of fascism and Hitler,
etc. Stephen King of HSBC bank spoke in apocalyptic terms when
contemplating a failure to take measures to solve the crisis: "A euro
breakup would be a disaster, threatening another great depression".
Today’s developments are not taking place in a
vacuum but are adding to the pervading insecurity of the working class
leading to the social explosions which are already taking place. Greece
has shown this can take on a revolutionary or near-revolutionary form in
an elemental mass revolt which can threaten capitalism itself even
without leadership.
Therefore, the European capitalists have resorted
increasingly to a form of parliamentary Bonapartism – dictatorial
measures – bypassing elected parliaments to enforce urgent measures
which defend their interests. The same is true in Britain with an
ever-increasing array of extra-parliamentary, semi-dictatorial weapons
concentrated in the hands of the state and the government as a means of
combating the revolt of the working class against its measures.
Stagnation and decline
THE ECONOMIC AND social calamity has ruined the
script of Cameron that cuts in public expenditure lead to economic
revival. It has also compelled Osborne to undertake his economic U-turn,
described as ‘credit easing’, announced in a vacuous speech to a sparse
and half-awake audience at the farce of a Tory party ‘conference’ in
Manchester.
The paralysis in the banking credit system – the
nerve centre of capitalism, as Marx described it – has also led to the
Bank of England announcement of an injection of £75 billion additional
‘quantitative easing’, the printing of money. This is a desperate
attempt to breathe life into a virtually frozen system, symbolised by
the refusal of the banks to lend even to each other and to businesses,
as well as the reluctance of companies to seek loans in the first place
because of the dismal economic prospects. This has been described by
commentators as an economic ‘shock and awe’ programme. It is more akin
to sparklers on bonfire night than the economic fireworks demanded by an
increasing chorus of capitalist critics of the government.
No sooner was this quantitative easing announced
than speculation grew that it would not be enough and that a third and
fourth round would be necessary. But this, in turn, is no more
guaranteed to succeed in ‘stimulating growth’ in Britain as the efforts
of European governments are to save the euro. Capitalists confess that
they are running out of ammunition. Stephen King aptly summed up
Osborne’s performance: "As it turns out, this was neither plan A nor
plan B. It was plan ‘pie in the sky’." (The Independent) The labour
movement, particularly the trade unions, must absorb the full
implications of all this in the run-up to November 30.
When the ‘experts’ of capitalism speak in this
derisory fashion – and King is just part of an array of growing and
desperate critics – it illustrates how deep is this crisis. By their own
admission, they cannot solve this long-term crisis. Only patchwork
economic solutions are on offer. This is not a conjunctural crisis.
Capitalism, as we have pointed out, faces not one crisis but a series
stretching into the future. Sure enough, the economic curve of
capitalism never develops in an even fashion. In periods of recession
and even depression – particularly an extended period which many now
expect – there can be temporary upswings in production, benefiting even
some sections of the working class. But the basic characteristic is one
of stagnation and decline. Capitalism seems to be stuck in such a blind
alley today. This has serious implications, not to say devastating
consequences if they are not squarely faced up to, for the labour
movement and the working class.
Periods of upswing and ‘social peace’ tend to allow
the economic pie to be shared out relatively amicably between the
classes. But classes, as with nations, often fight ferociously over
diminished portions, leading to war when it is between nations. This is
what is taking place in Britain and the capitalist world as a whole at
the present time. This, in turn, leads to an intensification of the
class struggle. Moreover, the possessing classes, under the cover of the
crisis and with a weakening of working-class power, through mass
unemployment seek to extract more and more concessions from the working
class, taking back gains achieved in struggle in the past.
High-stakes struggle
THIS DOES NOT mean that struggle is futile. Fatalism
has nothing in common with the real fighting history of the labour
movement. On the contrary, even in the teeth of an economic crisis, the
working class, with clear farsighted leadership, can win. This was shown
by the epic struggle of the Poplar councillors in 1921. Despite the
slump, they defeated the coalition government of Lloyd George and won
massive concessions for the working class. Similarly, the crisis in
Liverpool in the 1980s was severe but this was not seen as an excuse to
postpone struggle. Instead, the failures of capitalism and its
governments were utilised to organise a mass movement led by the
magnificent 47 councillors who inflicted a big defeat on Thatcher and
gained significant concessions for the working class in the city.
It is this spirit that should animate the trade
union movement in the run-up to 30 November, on the day itself and in
the period that follows. Moreover, it is not just a question of
explaining the justified case for maintaining and improving the present
pension arrangements. To every working man and woman, to the one million
unemployed 16- to 25-year-olds and others, the colossal wastage of the
capitalist system and the criminality of the bosses who refuse to pay
taxes should be driven home. Capitalism opens up a road of poverty,
unemployment and increased suffering for working people. Democratic
socialism will ensure the full democratic planning and utilisation of
all the resources of society presently left to rot under capitalism
because it pays the bosses to do so.
This is not a ‘normal’ industrial conflict. The
government’s intervention makes it a highly politicised strike and the
stakes for both sides are immense. The ruling class has been foursquare
behind Cameron in his attempt to inflict a big defeat on the working
class by facing down the public-sector unions. Any serious U-turn by the
government would undermine Cameron’s authority. One that is forced on
the government by a strike like this, or the threat of one, would
shatter any remaining confidence in him or Osborne. This would lead, in
all probability, to a huge split in the Tory party and the consequent
downfall of the government. By enormously emboldening the working class,
this could also open the floodgates to the pent-up class anger which has
been accumulating in Britain over decades.
If the union leaderships act like the Grand Old Duke
of York – leading workers to the top of the hill and then down again,
presiding over a retreat or defeat – this anger will be channelled into
the unions against them. There will be a clamour for the election of
new, fighting leaderships. Not just industrially but politically also,
the consequences of the strike will be huge.
Challenging Labour
UNFORTUNATELY, THE STRIKE call highlights the
political weakness of the majority of the trade union leaderships. They
are tied to the completely false notion that Labour is the ‘friend’ of
the working class and the unions. This is despite the fact that, at the
Labour Party conference, Ed Miliband supported Thatcher’s
‘counter-revolution’ of the 1980s: the sell-off of council housing and
brutal anti-trade union laws. He also distanced himself at the TUC from
the 30 November strike. The idea – despite all the evidence of the
previous Labour governments of Blair and Brown – that somehow a Miliband
government would be like the cavalry rushing to the defence of the trade
unions and working class is absurd.
Miliband is not prepared to challenge capitalism.
His attempts to distinguish between ‘predatory’ and ‘productive’
capitalism have been dismissed by the representatives of the system
itself. True, if you were to believe some of the capitalist press, the
roof was about to fall in because Miliband made these mild criticisms.
The Sun newspaper, for instance, protested that the Labour leader was
criticising the "modern capitalist system as a failure". Rupert Murdoch
must have been in hibernation after his dismal performance in the
hacking inquiry in the House of Commons not to have noticed that
capitalism is indeed a failure in the eyes of millions. The consequences
of this attack on Miliband could generate illusions among the broad mass
of working people that he is indeed serious in attacking capitalism.
And, contrary to the views of capitalist commentators, this will not
undermine but strengthen him if it gives the impression that a Miliband-led
government could actually confront capitalism and benefit working
people.
No such notion should be entertained by active trade
unionists, particularly after Miliband’s name was met with derision on
the 30 June demonstrations and mass meetings which followed.
Unfortunately, however, it is the view of the majority of trade union
leaders and a substantial section of the lay officialdom as well. This
means that, while attacking the cuts – particularly those carried out by
Tories and Lib Dems – they avoid criticising Labour, which is acting
like the Tory and Lib-Dem enemy by carrying through brutal cuts in many
councils.
This is not just an omission on their part but leads
consciously to avoiding struggles against cuts or to downplaying them
when Labour councils carry them out, alone or in local coalitions. This
highlights the vital necessity for a new mass party of the working
class. Without such a challenge, Labour will continue, no doubt with
much wringing of hands, to do the dirty work of the government at
national and local level. Scandalously, Ed Balls at the Labour Party
conference stated that, if elected, Labour would not reverse the Con-Dem
cuts.
Organically pessimistic and isolated from the real
views of working people, the majority of trade union leaders are not
convinced that strikes and struggles can force the government onto the
back foot and lead to its capitulation and downfall. They seek therefore
to avoid real and inevitable confrontation instead of mobilising for
victory. They hope that a new Labour government will rescue them from
the ‘ordeal’ of struggle.
Preparing for a great success
THIS IS AT complete variance with the growing anger
and demand for action of the ranks. Not only are there demands that the
full weight of the movement be galvanised for 30 November but there are
also demands for preparations to be made now for action after this if
the government does not give way. This has led to some activists – for
instance, in the University and Colleges Union – to advance the idea of
‘all-out, stay out after 30 November’. They concede that, while it is
"unlikely that this call will become a reality, it is important we start
to argue for significant escalation as quickly as possible after 30
November". This raises the obvious question: why call for something that
is ‘unlikely’? In fact, this demand runs ahead of the existing level of
consciousness of even the more developed trade unionists, let alone the
mass of working people.
It is better to advocate more widespread and longer
action, possibly a 48-hour strike, if the government refuses to budge.
However, what is acceptable to workers in the situation depends upon the
preparations for 30 November and its aftermath. Even a 48-hour strike
may be running ahead of the consciousness of working people. This can
only be tested out through dialogue and discussion within the trade
unions and the workplaces. It is not excluded that the working class and
unions will be more amenable to the idea of another one-day strike as a
further warning to the government but without a long time lapse as
between 26 March and 30 June, with preparation now for new action to be
organised. While Marxists call for decisive action from the labour
movement, what form this should take has to be carefully assessed,
taking into account the traditions of the movement and the stage in the
struggle. We cannot mechanically replicate methods from the past, or
from other countries with different labour movement traditions.
There is no doubt that we are on the eve of great
social convulsions arising from the crisis of capitalism and its attempt
to place the burden of this on the backs of the working class. We give
due warning to the Con-Dem government and the capitalists as a whole
that we will resist on 30 November and in subsequent battles which will
develop. It is incumbent on all in the labour movement to ensure that
this day of mass struggle and strikes is a great success.
