Does Trade Union Democracy favour the Moderate over the Militant?

by interested Wed Apr 01, 2009 17:33

Interesting article, it would be interesting to compare with some of the more base unions in Europe. It seems however that those unions and workplaces which had a general meetings type approach to taking strike action around March 30th were the most in favour of it. However this would mean looking at the actual internal democracy, discourse as well as abiltiy and capacity for discussion and communication rather than just the voting on a proposal, that said this wouldn't necessarily contradict your point. I would tend to agree with the below quote

"A libertarian analysis of trade union activity ought to focus upon the activities of workers on the ground. It should prioritise what workers actually do, and what they actually favour rather than taking the easy option of simply blaming the 'leaders'."

and that any liberatarian anlysis and approach should start off with and centre upon the workplace over the trade union and trade union structure, bureaucracy, corruption, etc.

by trade unionist - none Wed Apr 01, 2009 21:15

Sorry but this sounds like a deeply flawed analysis. Union democracy is not "deeper" or better in Ireland than say Korea. What has happened throught things like postal ballots etc has been to remove debate and the ability of workers to hear arguments in a open democractic manner in comparison to getting a leaflet throught the post written by some full time official (warning of the dangers of not supporting the latest centrally negotiated deal.)By this standard the US must have the most "democratic " unions on earth!

Of cousre mass meetings and vibrant debate favour the radical sections of workers movement. But this is not because , as the right argue, that moderate workers will be intimidated at mass meetings but because workers( at certain stages and depending on the circumstances) can get a sence of their own power at mass meetings that they wont get at home as a atomised individual.

Are you really suggesting that , because of mergers (as in SIPTU or Impact) or anti union laws such as Industrial Relations Act ( pioneered by Thatcher and Tebbit) that our unions are MORE democratic than Korea? I could have sworn that Thatcher had another agenda other than making unions more responsive to their members need!
Perhaps a usuful piece of research you could do would be to compare the living standards and access to social services of workers whose unions are as you claim"more" democratic than those workers unfortunate to live with radical unions.
In my experience the more "democratic" the union in your view, the less participation you get. Look at the Impact vote on March 31st. By your critria a fine example of a moderate, democratic union with the result that "only" 65% vote to support the action. Now look at the numbers who actually voted! Is that what a more demorcratic union is about?

by seanohanlon Wed Apr 01, 2009 22:36

The author of this piece takes several hundred words to avoid having to say in an honest and forthright manner that he only believes in democracy when it produces the result he favours, and when it fails to produce such a result, it isn't democracy at all in his opinion. He then postulates structures which might subvert this inconvenient outcome of democracy and replace existing structures with structures which would be more likely to produce the "right" result.

The inconvenient truth (with apologies to Al Gore) is that most TU members are politically moderate and merely see their TU membership as giving them muscle in pursuing their economic interests within the capitalist system. They vote overwhelmingly for FF, FG, and Labour. Irish TU membership is now largely middle-class. An ever increasing proportion are public employees as traditional industries close and the ununionized service-sector becomes dominant. The aspirations of Irish TU members are now largely middle class aspirations of stability with a secure pension and possibly a small seaside holiday-home in retirement. The only time they ever want nationalization of a workplace is when it is their own workplace, and it is threatened with closure. Most would decry widespread nationalization of the industries other people work in. They would see such a policy as economically ruinous and a waste of their taxes.

For most TU members the "democracy" issues are very different ones from the wishful thinking of the author of this piece. They are concerned that an activist minority might corner them into industrial action which would leave them without pay for several weeks - and the threat of indebetedness that might presage. They also worry that their particular and personal interests are becoming diluted in our big amalgamated unions (SIPTU, IMPACT, etc) and that the real power has passed from the members to the permanent officials (In the same way as company power now resides with the board rather than the shareholders). They see the permanent officials as more interested in political powerplay (as social "partners") than doing the job they were employed to do i.e. getting a better pay deal for the people who pay their wages.

by A.R Wed Apr 01, 2009 23:08

Re: Interested

Yes, I think it is a neccessary debate, and an urgent one. The focus should most definitely be on workplace activity rather than the 'bosses' or the 'leaders'. Focusing on activity on the ground will also produce more positive accounts of what trade unionists actually do. I mean, there has been more coverage amongst the left in Ireland on ICTU's leadership than say, waterford crytsal, SR Technics, Dublin bus workers, Stena Line, Visteon car components factory in Belfast, the 100 daily strikes a day in China (going international for a moment) to name but a few. It is simply disempowering to constantly focus upon either the 'leaders' in Trade Unions or the 'Bosses' in the workplace.

Re: Sean O'H

I agree entirely when you say:

"TU members are politically moderate and merely see their TU membership as giving them muscle in pursuing their economic interests within the capitalist system. They vote overwhelmingly for FF, FG, and Labour. Irish TU membership is now largely middle-class. An ever increasing proportion are public employees as traditional industries close and the ununionized service-sector becomes dominant".

This is precisely my point. My further point, however, is that we should start from this honest assesment rather than pretending all workers are militants in disguise who have been fecked over by their 'leaders'. This is unfortunately not the case. You are also completely wrong when you say....." he (me) believes in democracy when it produces the result he favours, and when it fails to produce such a result, it isn't democracy at all in his opinion". At no point in my article did I say I favoured the democratic outcome taht workers have favoured over the past 20 years. I dont. I am simply pushing to start a debate (by using trational factual-truth) that focuses upon workers themselves not their 'leaders' and 'bosses'. I am pushing for a view that goes beyond the presentation of trade union members as docile victims of a capitalist agenda, which is of course complete nonsense.

by Militant trade unionist Thu Apr 02, 2009 20:07

The main article is deeply flawed and is based on many false assumptions. Here is a brief comment.

The majority of the leaders of Irish trade unions ideologically support the capitalist market. They do not believe that there is an alternative to this market. In a letter from Jack O'Connor to SIPTU members on the decision of the ICTU executive to enter new talks on a national agreement it stated: "Only Labour, and the parties of the Left, recognise that the free market has its place, but it must be surbordinated to the interests of the common good....we must try as best we can, through industrial campaigns and negotiations, to moderate the worst affects on working people and their families" 25 March 2009.
Support amongst the leadership of the trade unions in Ireland and internationally is based on the premise that there is no alternative to capitalism and therefore the role of the union leaders as Jack O'Connor said is to "moderate the worst affects" of capitalism.
The current leaders of the Irish unions and their immediate predecessors entered the social partnership process 22 years ago because they decided that it was no longer possible for the working class to fight capitalist governments and win. This was the conclusion they drew from the defeat of the British miners, the printers in the NGA and the air traffic controllers in the USA. Faced with Thatcherism, Reaganism and the Irish equivalent the union leaders decided that it was better to surrender and entered coalition with the right-wing establishment parties and big business. This flawed analysis has led to 22 years of betrayal.
In all of this time there has not been a major force within the trade unions nor in society in general that has been "big" enough to offer a credible political alternative to the social partnership right-wing leaders. Although despite this, on a number of occasions the social partnership deals were nearly defeated.
Along with this lack of an alternative, social partnership and the "boom" have inflicted major damage on the trade unions. Membership of trade unions in Ireland has halved during the lifetime of social partnership. Also the number of trade union activists and good shop stewards has dwindled away to a very thin layer. Social partnership has drained out the internal life of the unions. It is extremely undemocratic as are the majority of trade unions. The premise of the main article that Irish trade unions are democratic is nonsense.
The recent debacle over the national strike due for the 30th March proves this point. Despite all of the propaganda by every major party including Labour that the strike should not go ahead. Despite the shrill cries of treason from the right wing media and the lack of any credible campaign by the union leaders for a yes vote, the overwhelming majority of trade unionists voted yes to go on strike on the 30th March. Then the ICTU leadership completely ignored this democratic decision by the members and called off the strike and rushed back into partnership.
This example proves two things. The lack of democracy in the trade unions and secondly the majority of union members were not moderate but given the choice of fighting wanted to take militant action to defend themselves from the government and the employers attacks.
The unions are dominated by trade union officials most of whom earn more than €100,000 a year plus big expenses. These officials who control the unions with an iron grip are not elected or in the few cases where they are elected it is only once every five years or even more.
Most union officials are overpaid bureaucrats who act as policemen for the bosses and the government of the workers movement. They should only be paid the average wage of the workers they represent. They should also have to stand for election every year and be subject to recall by the members. Union officials should be in their posts, yes to give leadership but also to service the interests of the members. If the members had this type of democratic controlled not too many of the current union officials would be in their posts.
We need to build members based structures, left opposition organisations within the unions to challenge the right wing bureaucracy. But we also need to fight to win leading positions, to take control of union executives, to change the rules regarding election of officials, and go further, union conferences should be every year, and their decisions should be binding on the leadership. Unlike now when more and more unions are moving to monster size branches and bi-annual conferences that are watering down the democracy in the movement.

by sean o hanlon Thu Apr 02, 2009 20:33

Militant TUist writes some wonderful stuff.

The TU bosses are employees of their unions. They would point out that they are entitled to the same rights and protections as any other employees. They might well ask "would You like to have to stand for re-election for your job every year, and if your fellow employees decided they didn't like you, you get sacked"? Ironic sentiments for a self-proclaimed defender of workers' rights, don't you think?

Whether or not a majority of TU members would have supported the one-day strike, only a tiny minority believe in radical change. The vast majority are happy with the socio-economic system, and their interest in action is confined to protecting their own pay and conditions within that context. It has become plain and obvious that the tens of thousands of public sector workers who marched over the pension levy would have shrunk to much smaller numbers in any action to protect the pay and conditions of the private-sector service-sector workers who are at the bottom of the national employment food-chain.

Having attended my fair share of my union AGMs I can truely say that the delegates who are directly elected by their fellow workers (and who do have to stand for election every year) are rather less politically radical than the permanent officials. This is not surprising. In a strike the workers don't get paid - the permanent officials do!

by Gaz B - -(A)- Thu Apr 02, 2009 21:54

The majority of trade union members vote FF or FG, support capitalism and supported social partnership. It's hardy heretical to state that organisations with democratic structures and a conservative membership would inevitably produce conservative policies. That's not to suggest that trade unions are particularly democratic now, and that there shouldn't be moves to democratise them, but it's not a solution in itself.

The easiest thing to do in politics is point the finger at someone else. The Left is great at pointing fingers towards the union leadership while failing to look at itself and it's own inability to engage and relate to people in wider society in any meaningful manner in order to convince them of an alternative. Dour, patronising rhetoric and an adherence to an archaic nomenclature hasn't proved to be an effective means of trying to convince people that trading wage restraint for atrophied public services shouldn't be the modus operandi of trade unions.

Top-down attempts to elect a different set of people to the leadership positions isn't going to change anything, plus they're unlikely to get elected in the first place when unions are composed of a conservative membership. When the SWPs Kieran Allen ran for the leadership of SIPTU, he dropped his opposition to social partnership in a purposeful shift to the right becasue he knew that members were in favour of it - and still failed to get elected.

The basis of union renewal has to start with grassroots members and convincing them of an alternative. While admittedly "the Left" compromises a tiny segment of union membership, it has to look at how ineffective it's been to date and how it can address the problem - otherwise unions will continue to return to partnership/social solidarity pacts like an addict returning to smack.

by Diarmuid - None Fri Apr 03, 2009 13:08

This article by AR is a welcome contribution to a debate that I hope will grow and even shift to face-to-face talking by those who wish to work within trade unions to further the economic and poltical interests of workers. The comments below the article are part of that debate. In recent weeks I have also been saying in comments on articles about the failure of the ICTU to call a strike, for example, that the Left needs to look to itself and what we are doing wrong, rather than blaming the trade union leaders.
Workers are of course not a homogenous mass. They contain very right-wing and very left-wing people, with all kinds of variations within. What is common to all but a small minority is a lack of belief in their own potential power, and that lack of belief is shared by the trade union leaders they elect.
However, we do have to recognise that trade union leaders, although in times of social 'peace' may represent the broad centre of their membership, they also have a more specific vested interest in compromise and even, if really pushed, in total capitulation. Thus, when a section of the workers is militantly engaged, there are many occasions when rather than representing them and pushing forward their interests, they will coerce them into disadvantageous compromise or even complete sell-out.
There are many examples of this but I'll give just one, from Britain (not "the UK", wherever that is). In 1926 the TUC called a general strike to support the miners, who were under concerted and planned attack. The precipitating action was a refusal of the printers in a national paper to print a leading article attacking the miners. Within days, goods and transport only moved in most industrial areas if they had a police escort or an authorisation from the local Trades Union Council. Police were attacked and then the Government called in the army to protect convoys.

At this point the TUC could see where things were heading and frightened, in discussion with the Labour Party, called off the strike. On the day they did so, there were more workers out than at any time since the beginning and more were likely to come out. Such was the TUC's rush to capitulate that they didn't even negotiate no-victimisation clauses for their own union activists, many of whom suffered later as a result. The miners were then left alone to fight for eight months and eventually accepted defeat.
TUC and trade union leaders often get knighted by the Queen and often too become ministers in Labour governments. They feared the possibility or didn't believe in the possibility of the workers to take on the troops and win (many soldiers were disenchanted with their situation after demobilisation in 1919 and there had been a serious mutiny even during the war; a senior Army official had commented then that putting British soldiers in a position where they might be asked to shoot British workers could be a very dangerous situation).

The radical and revolutionary Left were still relatively weak but also failed to take on the Labour Party politically or the Government's armed forces at that critical juncture.

Fast forwarding to the here and now, we seriously need grassroots organisation across workplaces and more activist involvement in workplaces. We cannot support each other sufficiently by solely organising in our workplaces, nor can we have effective organisation across workplaces (and across unions) if such organisation is going to be dominated by any political party or movement. I don't have all the answers to building such a genuine movement but I do have a good understanding, from experience, of what not to do, and I'm willing to combine with others in that effort. Sooner rather than later, we need to sit down and talk face-to-face.

by non-union - no Fri Apr 03, 2009 13:27

Most of the above is accurate comment. A conservative political, social and economic culture will logically replicate itself within trade union membership. However it also must be pointed out cuture is not universal nor is it constant. As the political, social and economic structures change, ideology and culture will change along with it. this is already been seen in an angrier and more militant response by trade unionists and non-tradeunionists alike. In March 1,000 jobs were lost with every working day. Over 100,000 took to the streets, even after vilification by the major part of the mass media. On Tuesday we will see what the budget has to offer. As extreme economic changes hapen this will be reflected in culture and it is likely that class counciousness for the first time in decades will rear its head. Here as previous commenters mentioned a bottom up approach may affect the unions. While it may be true not to just 'blame' the leaderships the truth of the matter is the situation has changed so drastically it is hard to see how the leaderships of the 'partnership era' can remain. This leadership which rubberstamped the crony capitalism of the celtic tiger should not remain in their posts. They as well as the right wing political leadership have been proved to be completely wrong in their entire political and economic program.
We need to see a considered unification of left forces in Ireland. Both inside and outside the unions,

by Union Member Sun Apr 05, 2009 17:10

I disagree with the thrust behind AR's article. He argues that the reason why there are sell-outs, moderations, etc. is the union membership. I think that he does not look beyond academic research and just takes things on face value. To really understand what are the trends and outlooks of working class people then you have to look a bit deeper and ask more questions then what exist in a static academic piece of research. I also find AR's article somehat dismissive of working people and is somewhat pessimistic and defeatist. In workplaces up and down the country there are workers under threat and are open to fighting ideas.

I would not say the membership of TUs are moderate, I would say they tend to take the least line of resistance. This is very understandable. If you have a mortgage, loan repayments, a family, and other general committments it makes sense to fight for good pay and conditions using the methods which would least likely to put things at risk. So yes, partnership sounds like a good idea in this context. This does not mean that working class people are inheritly conservative and moderate. So yes, in academic research that AR is fond of quoting moderate and conservative views can be evident. But ask the same people and they will not be opposed to more militant tactics where necessary. Also it must be remembered that these polls are done at a time of economic boom in Ireland when by just asking nicely you could get some consessions from employers!!

I think Aidan's article can have the effect of letting the TU leaders off the hook. TU leaderships in this country are quite rotten. They get away with a lot due to a lack of democracy in their organisations and they consciously orientate towards more conservative members/activists. On the ground in workplaces there is criticism of the TU leaders voiced everyday of the week. This is the flaw of AR's article. He does not base himself of real experiences in workplaces. In my workplace the calling off of 30 March was met with opposition. People openly questioned the sanity of ICTU! There was no moderation or conservatism.

Another aspect of the article that I fundementally disagree with is the dismissive tone towards the working class. The working class is diverse and varied. There are of course conservative people in unions. Yes, these people will not always be in favour of radical action. But the left should not be downhearted by this! The vast majority of union members are open to new ideas. There is a large openness to left ideas. I feel that AR does not see this. Increasingly the failings of the right-wing TU leaders are being showed up as flawed. The job of left activists is to develop a grass-roots membership that is prepared to get active and take control of their unions.

It's wrong to say the Union membership are middle class. If you had experience in the workplaces over the past year you would see many new union members who are young and generally low paid flocking into the unions. The downturn in the economy has moved people more towards joining unions. A young person in the 2000s would have very little benefit from joining a union. But now that jobs are on the line, there are hikes in tax, reducation in living standards, etc. people are joining unions and are open to fighting back.

Right now, post the 30 March call-off I do feel there is a "stunning effect" in many workplaces. The spectre of unemployment is haunting the country. But look deeper and the trends and outlooks of workers and you will see a different picture which Aidan's one-dimensional analysis does not give.

by eh? Sun Apr 05, 2009 18:07

Eh, I don't think ARs analysis is one dimensional at all, I don't think he's even offering an analysis but is in fact calling for one. He's criticising the one dimensional nature of constantly analysing and criticising the bureaucracy, leadership, etc. when what we really should be looking at and seeking to begin to analyse is the grass roots level of (self-)organisiation, militancy and self activity of workers in the workplace, we need to begin our analysis at this level not regurgitating the typical left cries and criticisms aimed at the "corrupt bureaucracy" etc.. It is from this grass roots level that any pressure for change and calls for action upon the leadership, and the trade unions in general, will come. I think this has been touched upon by someone above mentioning the general meeting approach of some unions and union workplaces led to a higher level of support for the national strike as well as the opposition to it's calling off you mention. We should also be looking at those other self organised struggles taking place in the occupations of Waterford Crystal, Visteon,et al.

In my own opinion, and I don't know if AR shares it, "reforming" the trade unions is a waste of time, because the very level of militancy, (self-)organisation and self activity required to force such reforms would render the reforms themselves redundant, since we’d already be doing the things independently we were lobbying to be allowed to do. We simply need to "ignore" them (within reason) and get on with the bread and butter activity of any self respecting left libertarian and start democratising and organising our workplaces.

by Union Member Sun Apr 05, 2009 20:30

My point about being one dimensional is that AR does not take into consideration the prosects for change that are likely to take place in the coming while.

It is one dimensional to take a photograph of the trade unions as they are today and then draw conclusions that are far reaching (such as your idea of not working in TUs now). We really need to take a video recording not a photograph as things are developing, moving and changing.

I think you've to be flexible. I'm loyal to the working class. Whatever organisation structure that is used and best suits the class is what is needed. At the moment I don't think break away unions are the way forward. Neither is not working in the unions at all. What is needed now is to form left groups of grassroots members that will fight for left policies and practices in the unions. These groups may or may not get majority support at this stage.

There are massive changes in Irish workplaces. That will be reflected in workers taking action (inside and outside unions). I feel that AR's analysis does not take this into consideration. That's what I mean by one dimensional.

by sean o hanlon Sun Apr 05, 2009 21:17

In one sense the TU has been successful beyond its wildest dreams. The average TU member is solidly middle class. The salaries and pensions obtained by unionized employees in the public service and the more established private sector enterprises where TU membership is common place these employees firmly within the middle classes. Many of the most militant are the best paid. I am thinking here of teachers and ESB workers. But even lower paid public servants are thoroughly middle-class in the profile of their aspirations. Private home-ownership rather than radical social or economic change is their Mecca. It is the service-sector "working-poor" and those who are dependant on social payments who are outside this cosy middle-class consensus. They are also the ones who inhabit theTU free zones. The unionized workers and TU bosses have little interest in these people. They certainly don't want them "diluting" the TU movement or moving the agenda away from maintaining the wages and conditions of the existing membership towards social justice.

I don't share the optimism voiced by some that the present economic downturn will lead to any fundamental change. Capitalist democracy has a record of successfully adapting to change - its critics who are often stuck in the language and analysis of the 1890s rather than the present are the ones who cannot adapt. I would assume that what will happen now is that we will all take some pain. Those outside the public service - particularly those at the bottom of the private-sector pile, will take the most. The collapse in asset-values will be born by the private-sector pension funds. We will have some more banking regulation and the tax-havens will be readmitted to the civilized world. Unemployment may even rise to 15% before the upturn. However, any incentive for widespread unrest is nowdays undermined by the social net. Capitalist life will resume in due course.

The question that is begged is whether socialist analysis has anything relevant to say. The people in whose name it is most used overwhelmingly seem to think that it hasn't. Perhaps we should be now looking for social justice in different ways - consumer and environmental rights and via mutualized corporations which respond to the interests of their user-members rather than those whose only interest is that of shareholder for profit.

by A.R Mon Apr 06, 2009 19:01

Re: Eh, Sean O H, Gaz et al

Good to see a bit of discussion around some of the themes in the article. I think some of us agree that what is important (and similar to what Gaz wrote above) is focusing upon activity in our workplaces, and this in itself is a much more useful strategy than empty rhetoric about the leaders and the bosses. So, in this regard focusing on the bottom up is certainly more productive than doing what the left generally does, i.e. blame someone else. But, I dont see reforming unions as a waste of time. I dont see it as a waste of time because I dont think in either-or terms. I wouldnt see being active within TU structures as reformist. If one workplace is heavily unionised (say, Dublin Bus) and historically has high levels of trade union activity it makes sense to focus upon this dimension of workplace activity rather than operating autonomously from everyone else. However, if one is working in the majority non-unionised sector, say in the services industry then it makes sense to organise around the conditions of the workplace. It may make no sense to have an external union rep come down and bargain with the manager, who may happen to be on 1 euro more than the shop-floor staff. In this regard I agree with Sean O H when he says we need to look at issues of social justice in a different way. But I would not exclude the traditional basis of socialist analysis from this (i.e. class). Class matters, what is more important is to develop a more nuanced and accurate analysis of class. For me this requires shaking off 100 years of leftist-analytic-socialist baggage so that we can reinvent class politics to reflect the fundamental restructuring of work as it exists today not as it existed just after the industrial revolution.

But this is the central issue that many amongst the left have failed to accept in Ireland: the workplace has changed dramatically over the past 25 years. In turn, we can expect the politics, preference and conditions of workplace activity to change also. The two biggest driving forces behind this change (in the west) have been a) female labour market participation and b) the shift away from manufacturing industry to consumer driven services. Furthermore, employers across the globe have adopted very successful Human Resource strategies that satisfy many of the needs/ preferences of workers. Take Google Ireland for example, I interviewed a worker from the MNC last week. He absolutely loved his job, and loved his employer. He received extremely flexible working hours, great holidays, free breakfast-dinner everyday, subsidised healthcare, free phone calls to his family in Italy whenever he wanted. He is given (like most workers in the company) 30 per cent 'creative' time, whereby he can pursue whatever project he wants. If it is a success he can drop up to the chief executive and propose it as a core google strategy. This autonomous creative work is now accounting for 50 per cent of his day to day activities. They have flat horizontal lines of managment. Internally they call it a 'matrix' rather than a hierarchy of command and control. Furthermore, he receives a relatively good wage, but stated he would be happy to work for half what he earns, simply becasue the conditions are so good. Now, this certainly not the case for every worker in Ireland, and this is not what I am saying. But, it does highlight how advanced employers have become in satisfying workers needs for creativity, status and so many other things that left wing politics ignores. When I asked him would he join a union, he responded 'for what?', 'we dont need one'. I then asked him about the recent redundancies, and he responded 'we all know our work is flexible, so is life'. This principle is increasingly informing Nordic welfare states i.e. secure the person not the job.

Capitalism has changed but too many of the active left have not. The rhetoric (and belief) that just because finance capitalism is in crisis that we should immediately expect the huge diversity of workers to unite under one banner and demand that the means of production be taken into our hands is light hearted romance. It just aint gona happen like that. The worker in Google knows this, the printer in SNAP knows this, the bus driver knows this, the bank teller in your local credit union knows this, the soliciter kows it, the doctor knows it, the primary school teacher knows it, the nurse knows it and so does your local masseuse. But more importantly, every government and every employer across the globe knows it. The only group who seem to be in denial about it are the far left. So, until the left gets over its post-hoc romanticising of a by gone era the possibility of life beyond capitalism will remain a sub-cultural fetish. But, thankfully, most workers do not need convincing of this, and this is what is important.

by Ed - ISN Tue Apr 07, 2009 23:09

I had my computer with me on a long train journey today so ended up writing a pretty long reply to article and comments above...

There’s a lot of truth in what A.R has written, but I think there’s something missing, which is a view of political developments in the last two or three decades. People on the Left have often had a tendency to see politics as just a reflection of social and economic trends; those trends are very important of course, and you can’t understand what happens in politics without taking account of them, but politics also has a life of its own.

There definitely has been a big change in the structure of the economy and the make-up of the working class in western capitalist states over the last 30 years or so, which A.R sums up well - the growing involvement of women in the workforce, the decline of traditional industries, the growth of employment in services etc. Obviously this was bound to have major implications for the Left: for one thing, many of the traditional industries which have been decimated, like shipbuilding, coal mining or steel production, were bastions of militant trade unionism. The crisis in the car industry today will probably undermine another traditional base of radical working-class politics.

I don’t think it’s true to say that “the Left” as a collective body hasn’t thought about these issues: some groups on the Left haven’t done any fresh thinking in years, it’s true, but others have been engaging with the problems raised by economic change for a long time. The British Marxist historian Eric Hobsbawm wrote a brilliant essay on the subject in the late 70s called “The Forward March of Labour Halted?”:

http://www.amielandmelburn.org.uk/collections/mt/pdf/78...m.pdf

There’s a more recent article about the changing nature of the working class by Phil Hearse here:

http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1516

It’s worth pointing out that the old industries weren’t always bastions of trade union organisation. In the car industry, for example, it took a long time for union organising to make a breakthrough - in the USA, Ford and General Motors did everything they could to block trade union advances, it took a wave of sit-down strikes in Michigan in the 1930s to break through that barrier. In Italy, the massive FIAT plant outside Turin was notoriously anti-union in the 1950s and early 1960s, then after years of failed attempts, a strike was organised successfully, and the FIAT plant became the cutting edge of working-class radicalism until the beginning of the 1980s.

The equivalent in modern terms would be a successful strike in Wal Mart, which is to today’s economy what Ford and General Motors were to the industrial economy of the 1930s, i.e the “classic” model of a capitalist firm. Wal Mart and other firms have gone to extraordinary lengths to prevent unions from organising (even shutting down an entire department when the workers joined a union); even so, they probably wouldn’t have been able to hold the line if it hadn’t been for the exceptionally harsh anti-union climate in the USA since Reagan became president.

This comes back to what I was saying about political developments. People have often explained the crisis of the Left in the industrial world since the 1970s as the inevitable outcome of the economic trends sketched out above. But that leaves out of the picture the political causes of left-wing decline. You could write a whole book about these causes (and many people have), but very briefly, the two dominant trends in left-wing politics during the last century both went into crisis from the 1970s onwards.

Communism lost whatever lingering appeal it still had for people outside the eastern bloc after the invasion of Czechoslovakia, when it became clear that no attempt at democratic reform would be tolerated by the Soviet leadership, even if it was initiated by a ruling Communist Party which went out of its way to avoid provoking Moscow. There was a brief revival of enthusiasm when Gorbachev became the Soviet leader and launched glasnost and perestroika, but he had only been allowed to take power because the system was facing a deep crisis, and trying to reform Soviet Communism just paved the way for its collapse. The fall of the Soviet Union helped promote the idea that there was no alternative to capitalism, and even those on the Left who had always opposed Stalinism suffered as a result.

Meanwhile social democracy went into its own crisis. This was partly related to the fading of the Communist movement - as long as there was a real Communist threat in Europe, there was a strong incentive for capitalism to reform itself and make concessions to social democracy. It was also related to the increasing globalisation of capital, which made it harder to manage national capitalist economies and gave business new ways of applying pressure on governments. I’d say the main reason, though, was that social democracy had totally cut itself off from any form of mass mobilisation and grassroots democracy - the traditional social-democratic parties were completely unable to channel the energies of the social movements that developed in the West after 1968, they just weren’t speaking the same language. According to their ideology, politics was something that could only be done by professional politicians, the rest of the population could vote every four or five years but that was where their engagement with politics had to end.

They were completely unprepared for the right-wing offensive against Keynesianism that began in the mid 70s and were just blown out of the water by their opponents. The crisis of social democracy wasn’t a crisis of electoral support - those parties actually did better in the 80s across Europe than they had ever done before. It was a crisis of strategy - their old way of doing things just wasn’t viable any more.

In historical terms, the demise of Communism and the hollowing out of social democracy happened a very short time ago - a couple of decades is barely the blink of an eyelid in terms of big historical changes (something that social democrats have great trouble seeing, since their horizons never stretch much further than the next election cycle, and often are limited to the next opinion poll). It’s not surprising that alternative currents on the Left are still in the early stages of rebuilding new left-wing movements that can avoid past errors and take account of the big social changes which have taken place. One thing that the best elements on the Newest Left have recognised is that pluralism is going to be essential - we’re well past the stage where the labour movement was the only game in town and could be represented by one or at most two parties. Any force for radical change is going to be a coalition of social movements, with trade unionists working alongside feminists, ecologists, and community activists of all sorts, without anyone claiming a privileged status.

The current economic crisis may accelerate the revival of the Left. It’s not just a crisis of finance capitalism in isolation from the rest of the economy - one of the key features of neo-liberalism has been the increasing importance of finance as a source of profit and a way of solving the contradictions of the system (how can you get people to buy consumer goods when wages are stagnating, as they have done in the USA since the 70s? Cheap credit was a great solution, but it was bound to run out of road sooner or later). This is going to be a long-term, deep-rooted crisis of the whole economy, probably much bigger than the slump of the 70s, so it’s bound to have a huge impact on the ideas people have about politics and society. Unfortunately it also finds the Left in a weaker position to intervene than it has been at any time since the late 19th century - but you can only begin from where you are and do what you can to influence the way events pan out.

I think the political trends that I’ve described are very relevant to Sean O’Hanlon’s arguments about what most workers want. It would be very surprising if the majority, or even a significant minority, of Irish workers wanted to replace capitalism with socialism today after what’s happened in the last couple of decades - for most of them it probably doesn’t even appear to be a relevant choice to make, capitalism is just the way things are. Sean describes the aspirations of most workers as “middle-class”. I think that’s a loaded way of putting things - I’d say the aspiration to have a steady job with a decent salary is just a common-sense aspiration in a modern capitalist society where access to most goods is determined by the market. If you don’t have a decent salary your quality of life is going to be drastically effected. It’s natural for people to want to buy a home and a car in a country where social housing and public transport are so badly provided by the state, and if the combination of cheap air travel and the Irish weather didn’t make people want to take foreign holidays, it would be a miracle.

But people also have other aspirations that can’t be expressed in terms of individual consumerism: there’s often a strong desire for social goods like public transport and free health care that can only be provided through collective action outside the market framework (even in the USA, the heartland of consumer capitalism, the majority of people consistently tell the pollsters that they want free public health care provided by the state). And there’s also a desire for more control and autonomy in the workplace: I’m not saying that the majority of people have a worked-out picture of industrial democracy in their head, but there can’t be many workers who haven’t come home frustrated with the incompetence and self-serving behaviour of their managers (the work practices at Google described by A.R are not typical of the experience of work for most people, either in the private or the public sector). Finally, I think there’s a desire for a political system that is less corrupt, less subservient to big business, and not dominated by people who are clearly milking it for all it’s worth and isolated from the experience of most people they’re supposed to represent. I wouldn’t claim that this last feeling has led to any conscious identification of most people with a left-wing project, but it’s there alright.

So the question is, can all these aspirations be satisfied within the current social system? I’d argue that they can’t, and during a time of economic crisis the most basic aspirations people have are more and more likely to clash with the way society is organised. The question then is whether the Left is able to put foward a project of radical change, in a language that actually expresses what people are thinking instead of relying on stale rhetoric and sloganeering, and win mass support for it. I think that it can, although I also think the initial breakthroughs are much more likely to happen in other European countries than in Ireland, with the historic weakness of the Left in this country weighing us down.

by Northsider Sun Apr 19, 2009 20:44

AR has a very characterised view of what he thinks left activists view class as. Any socialists or left activists I have met would not think that only Fred Dibnah is working class. Most serious lefts view the working class as all workers dependent on their labour to make a living. This includes people that work in offices, workers with degrees, workers not in unions, pensioners, young people, unemployed etc.

PS: If you don't know who Fred Dibnah is do a google search!

by A.R Mon Apr 27, 2009 19:44

Thanks for your comments Ed. I meant to respond earlier in the month but never got around to it. So, here are some thoughts;

You are absolutely correct on the need to contextualise contemporary workers issues in the overall political (historical) developmentsof the past 30 years (and the authors you cite go some way in doing this). But, I would not treat these political developments as having their own internal autonomous logic. This is a mistake in a lot of left wing analysis. It treats its own political development as something that is growing and developing independently. This obviously faciliates a positive appraisal of what has been happening amongst the left (and therefore neccessary) but sometimes it is more aspirational than it is historical.

For example, there has been an increase in what you might call 'libertarian' left wing politics over the past decade. But, arguably, this is a reflection of a wider political economic shift toward horizontal-network market led forms of organisation. There has been an increase in left wing libertarianism but there has also been an explosion of right wing libertarianism. In managment-business studies the language used to describe human action, motivation and desire is remarkably similar to left wing libertarian discourse. The former argues that the market is the instrument to realise libertarian values, and the latter controlled economies. Both share an emphasis upon flat horizontal structures of organisation and individual liberty. In terms of organisational structure they are similar but in terms of the economic exchange mechanism in society they are radically different. So, of course their differences are more important than their similarities.

But it does ask the question: what criteria can left wing political groups use to determine their success or failure. In the state-socialist and the social-democratic tradition it is the decommodification of labour, increased votes, seats and ultimately state-political power. In the non-state (libertarian) left, it is, of course, much harder to measure success. But, overall I think very few would disagree (and hardly controversial) that the left has been in decline.

The political cause of this decline is, as you have argued, directly linked to the collapse of 'real-existing' socialism/ communism in central and eastern europe, and stasis in the social democratic programme of developing a welfare state. A programme that never satisfied its own objectives let alone the wider left. However, I do not think you give enough credence to the first cause (the collapse of state communism). This collapse is not something that the left will simply evolve away from. In my opinion, it has completely delegitimated the very concept of communism to such an extent that any left wing movement using the term is ultimately destined to fail. I have eastern european friends who (despite the fact that they claim to be left wing) would get disgusted at the very mention of 'communism' or 'planned economy'. We should not under estimate the power of language or ideas upon political action.

Thus, one of the main causes of the decline in support for left wing politics is internal to the left itself, and not something that can be blamed on bosses, leaders, sell out bureaucrats and capitalists. In my opinion, the stubborn failure to move beyond a political discourse inherited from nineteeth century industrial society is a primary causal factor in the decline of the left. The failure of the left (from social democrats to anarchists) to reinvent itself has provided a carte blanche for the right to champion the enire political landscape. Now, of course, this is not the only story. It has to be viewed in conjunction with the complete liberalisation of capital market flows across states, and the huge political and economic power of the right. But, the failure to change (and adjust to new political-economic conditions) is central to our failure. New social movement theory may dispute this, but again, as you mention, these political strands (not sure we can even call it a 'movement') are in their infancy and thus it is too difficult to judge their political impact.

I totally agree with you when you say there’s a strong desire for social goods like public transport and free health care that can only be provided through collective action outside the market framework (even in the USA, the heartland of consumer capitalism, the majority of people consistently tell the pollsters that they want free public health care provided by the state). And there’s also a desire for more control and autonomy in the workplace.

The more important question is, how come the left have not mobilised this desire into a political project? I teach a political economy module, and at the beggining of every class I ask the group; how many people here would be willing to bay 50 per cent of their taxes in return for free healthcare, eduction (from pre primary school to teritary education), subsidised housing, free transport etc. Most people in the class look at me as if I have ten heads and then make arguments in favour of increased disposable income etc. However, by the end of the module I ask the same question, and the vast majority respond with an affirmative; YES, where do we sign up. Hence, after a few hours of discussion, deliberation and information sharing they recognise that such a project is realistic, possible and both economically efficient and equitable. But, any mention of 'communism' or the removal of private property is quickly flung into the dustbin. A complete anti-market mentality is as illogical as a complete pro-market for everything logic. I am perfectly happy to have a just productive market for basic things like shoes but not education, healthcare, credit provision etc. Every society needs an exchange mechanism and an administrative capacity to govern itself. By starting out from the premiss that markets cannot be used for anything is quite frankly, irrational. To assume that society will be more just, more democratic and produce more freedom if we simply remove capitalist markets for the exchange of everything is bizzare.

Markets are social constructs. The require politics for their very existence. Our battle is political, and by continuing to espouse a political rhetoric that nobody identifes with erodes further and further the possibility of basic socialist policies and values. The left needs to learn to speak a new language, and allow its policies and values speak for themselves rather than demanding an anti-capitalist rhetoric. I have absolute faith in the rational capacity of people to support socialist policies but not a grand anti-capitalist programme. Thus, I think the left needs to mature beyond a rhetoric of either you are in the system or out of the system. In a country where 80 per cent of the electorate vote for center right parties it is simply naive to think we can have free healthcare without radical reform of the existing system. So, the left needs to stop speaking to itself (i.e. trying to prove who is more libertarian, more socialist, more radical or more democratic) and start communicating to the public.

But, ultimately I think we are in agreement Ed when you say: the question then is whether the Left is able to put foward a project of radical change, in a language that actually expresses what people are thinking instead of relying on stale rhetoric and sloganeering, and win mass support for it. I think that it can.

by Ed - ISN Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:22

Thanks for the reply. Don't have the time to write a long post today but briefly, I agree with you about the need to find a new way of expressing our ideas and ditching terms that remind people of East European-style planned economies (the word "communism" definitely has too much of a stink about it; I always introduce myself as a "democratic socialist" if I'm not speaking to people who are already on the Left).

The radical left in France has taken a few good steps in this direction (for obvious historical reasons, they're in a much stronger position than Irish socialism). The main radical-left group in the last few years has been the Revolutionary Communist League: they've recently dissolved themselves into a broader formation, the New Anti-Capitalist Party. They all recognised that it was necessary to ditch the "Communist" label from their name: it went back to the time when the organisation was founded in the 1960s, when there was still a mass Communist Party in France and people like Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia were arguing for a democratic reform of the Communist system, so it didn't have quite the same meaning to people then that it does now. It's a question of presentation, not substance - the LCR was a democratic socialist party for many years before - but presentation of your ideas is important, of course.

The LCR's best known spokesman Olivier Besancenot has quite a knack for presenting radical ideas in an accessible way. These are a few selections from an interview he did with the New York Times last autumn:

"Given the travesties of the past, from the bureaucratic savagery of Soviet Communism to the chaos of Mao, he said, “revolution needs to be reinvented, for no revolutionary experiment has ever succeeded.” They have only been betrayed, either crushed by an armed elite or destroyed by “bureaucratic counter-revolution,” he said, adding, “We are trying to strike that balance of taking power without being taken by power.” ... asked about the way human fallibility has ruined previous utopias, he said that serious change must come from below, not from a dictatorship of the proletariat, and that he believed in the protective guarantees of legal rights, decentralization of authority, local responsibilities and multiparty democracy. The goal, he said, is “to find a political process that permits a revolutionary process to be controlled by its base — especially to not trust each other’s promises. If we arrived tomorrow, saying that this time we have the guarantee that it won’t be messed up, we should definitely not be believed, even if we were sincere — which we would be, by the way.” His goal, he said, is to try to define a new model for society that somehow avoids a permanent ruling elite. “Until now we’ve had two types of societies, we’ve had the bureaucratic societies in the East and we’ve had capitalist societies, and in both cases it’s a minority of individuals that decide for the majority,” he insisted. “We are for a model where the majority decides for itself.” And how to motivate individuals, the great failure of socialism? “The only answer to motivate the individual in a different economic process would be democracy” in which there are “inalienable liberties,” he said, where the communitarian spirit cannot be violated either by the wealthy or the apparatchiks."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/13/world/europe/13france...d=all

Good stuff, if you ask me.

by Not Left Wing. Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:34

"The word "communism" definitely has too much of a stink about it; I always introduce myself as a "democratic socialist" if I'm not speaking to people who are already on the Left".

What do you say when you ARE "speaking to people who are already on the left."?
.

by Ed Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:14

Just "socialist", normally - I'd take it for granted that they know I'm a socialist who believes in the need for guarantees of free speech, free assembly, multi-party democracy, trial by jury and all the other basic democratic rights. When you're speaking to people who are already on the Left, you can usually take it for granted that they know all about the tradition of democratic socialism that always opposed Soviet-style Communism (including people who were executed or served long prison sentences under Communist regimes). But when you're talking to people who aren't familiar with that history, it's safe to assume that many of them will have absorbed the idea that socialism = the USSR / China / North Korea.

I suppose you were hoping to detect some deception or inconsistency here, but no luck I'm afraid - just common sense.

by liberal Tue Apr 28, 2009 12:50

It could be an interesting, open ended discussion. The expression "on the left" is problematic; so too are the terms 'left' and 'right'. In the pre-1989 days 'people's democracies', 'democratic centralism', 'scientific socialism' and 'scientific analysis' had become problematic over several decades of tortuous and antihuman 'praxis'.
In fact the claims to science in a left wing ideology had become questionable. A former American communist, Max Eastman, had written a book and essays disputing alleged scientific characteristics of political ideology.

There have been 157 concepts of 'socialism' since the early 19th century in Europe. In the 1960s, Alexander Dubcek came to power in communist Czechoslovakia and claimed to be working for 'socialism with a human face' during the short-lived Prague Spring. Several years before that time Eurocommunism had been gaining many adherents among the intelligentsia of the Partido Communista d'Italia, drawing inspiration from some of the esteemed prison cell writings of Antonio Gramsci. There were eurocommunists in France, that hotbed of ideological thought, but they tended to get short shrift from the straight-and-narrow leadership of the PCF.

We had the notorious assertion a few years ago from ex-taoiseach Bertie Ahern that he was a socialist in policy if not in ideological theory. If it comes to a toss-up between brown bag socialism and any other versions on offer naturally indymedia sympathisers are going to choose 'any other' version.

The terms right and left are also applied to people and groups that take strong stances on social-sexual, what ex-senator Brendan Ryan termed 'pelvic issues'. Tabloid hacks (who are often economic conservatives like their employers) denounce anti-abortion and anti-euthanasia campaigners as right-wing, and 'liberal' journalists in the posh broadsheets join in the chorus of terminological scorn. Leftwingers on the Labour and trade union left, as well as those in small parties and groups further to the 'left' automatically take a 'leftwing' stance on pelvic issues. Yet many well-known journalists in British and American conservative media support pro-choice on the same issues. So the pelvic issue demarcation between left and right is also problematic in our time.

What about the workers? is an old question, often used ironically. Social changes brought about by technology and consumer affluence and the benefits of post-WWII welfare statism have created social mobility, some of it upward. This led to the 'embourgeoisement' (lovely french word) of the traditional unskilled and semi-skilled working class. In the 1960s commentators like Herbert Marcuse were saying that working class consciousness had been eroded by consumer affluence, liberal social reforms and what he termed 'repressive tolerance'. In Ireland from the late 1960s Sinn Fein-the Workers Party (SFWP) began to describe 'workers' as all those dependent on salaries.

Terminological exactitude is very problematic in our time. Whatever words may be used by activists and commentators, there are a lot of people living below the 'average industrial wage' of something around 15,000 or more euros. There are, and have been during the recent celtic tiger boom, many families living on household incomes well below 15,000 euro per annum. These people especially should be among the core concerns of activists and terminologists.

by A.R Tue Apr 28, 2009 17:08

I have to admit liberal, I agree with most of what you said.

I am less concerned about the label (anarchist, socialist, social democrat, liberal) I put on my politics than the actual ideas behind my politics. Political discourse (how ideas are conveyed) is hugely important and hugely influential upon political action. But, this also applies to public forums like Indymedia. Certain categories/discourses and definitions are more legitimate than others. Hence you have to use the language of your audience.

Everbody (the electorate, activists, politicians, policymakers etc) operate within the terms of political discourse that are current in the national economy at a given time, and the terms of political discourse generally have a specific configuration that lends representative legitimacy to some social interests more than others, delineates the accepted boundaries of political action, associates contemporary political developments with particular interpretations of national history, and defines the context in which many issues will be understood.

Hence, any mention of communism and anarchism (despite the attraction of their ideas) will be immediately delegitimated because they are alien to the political discourse that the vast majority of people identify with. Capitalists, and successful political movements like Fianna Fail know this better than anyone else.

Equally, The shift from Keynesian macroeconomic policies to Monetarism in the UK, under Thatcher, is a classic case study of this. Her ability to aquire power by influencing the political discourse of the day effectively led to 30 years of Neo Liberalism. They championed political instituions by championing political ideas, through a very successful political discourse.

Cogito; if the creation of a successful political discourse is a key causal factor behind a successful political project, then the reinvention of political discourse ought to be the first strategy of the 'left'. The first political struggle of any social movement is over the terms of reference of politics itself. Communicative action is political action.

Using a stale rhetoric that has been battered and brusied to convey your ideas is like cutting hard bread with a butter knife. It makes sense to save yourself hours of frustration by buying a new sharper knife that is capable of doing the job it is supposed to do. The object is still the same; cutting the bread, it just makes it a whole lot damn easier.

by sean o hanlon Tue Apr 28, 2009 22:55

It is telling that much of the comment here begins by saying that it is necessary to re-examine old presumptions and then reverts to the old presumptions with lip-service to the misconception that the old presumptions just need to be dressed up in more attractive and modern language.

I started with the statement that trade-unionism is largely a middle-class movement in its membership and aspirations. That is no bad thing. Middle-class aspirations and values (or more properly, the values we traditionally associate with the middle-classes) are in no way at odds with aspirations of social justice. Individualism can co-exist with social values. People have the ability to learn from history and not to endlessly repeat their earlier mistakes. The late 1980s brought to an end the idea that the modernist project and the deterministic ideologies of the 19th and early 20th century were the solution to anything. We have now finally come to realise that predatory unregulated capitalism is another dead-end. The future is likely to be far less ideological and far more interesting if we choose to embrace it with open minds.

I hate to use the word "postmodernism", but I can think of no better word. We live in a time where all past and evolving ideas co-exist, and everything can be re-invented. We are not prisoners of our capitalist or marxist/corporativist pasts.

Regulated markets can deliver the material wealth people need and want. Our health can be delivered via mutually owned corporations where all of us can deal with the health-providers as consumers. Certain things are best achieved by the market, others by social-consumerism. Financial services may best be state owned. It is certain that most goods and services are more efficiently provided by private endeavour.

One thing is certain however. If the choice is only between socialism/communism and capitalism, the vast majority will always prefer the latter, and the few who continue to bind themselves to the former will continue to waste their talents and energy in pursuit of an idea whose time has passed. Freedom is the most powerful idea of all, and it is not difficult to see why, when measured by that criterion, people vote as they do.

by liberal Wed Apr 29, 2009 02:09

The Third Way (title of a book by Oxford don Anthony Giddens) was taken up, verbally at any rate, by prime minister Tony Blair at the outset of his 'Cool Britannia days' in office. We know that after a decade in office his chancellor's deregulatory fiscal policies, especially with regard to banks, had not changed the class disparities in British society. In fact the deregulation contributed to the huge build-up of debt personal and corporate that produced toxic bank 'products', leverages and all those things that led globally to the financial meltdown. The middle classes in most countries, Ireland included, forgot the middle class values such as saving for the rainy day and postponing gratification.

Such personal values, I'd agree, are needed by people of high, low and middling incomes. Victorian socialists and liberal reformers on "these islands" as a matter of course supported the temperance movement, friendly savings societies, credit unions and their forerunners and concerns like personal hygiene. Unlike so-called liberals of the western world from the 1960s onwards, they would not have supported a let-everything-go philosophy of personal freedom involving reckless promiscuity in sex and habitual indulgence in boozing and pot smoking - and a laisser faire attitude to speech and writing.

I agree that communism based on state interpretations of marxism has played out as a historical nightmare. Even the Chinese only play lip service to marxian economics, for 'legitimation' purposes, while letting a mixture of free market and state dirigiste policies fuel the GDP boom. (Workers' and farmers' rights and incomes have fallen behind the new middle class incomes of the boom cities.) So the old left/right jargon is useless for present and future discourse. The Irish never bought into marxist discourse, which essentially died in the embers of the Easter Rising. Connolly's self described heirs were, some of them, strong thinkers and lovers of Irish humanity, but remained hopelessly marginal in the aftermath of the civil war that created two opposing conservative political parties that won more than 80 per cent of votes between them in most elections.

There are still class contradictions or sharp class disparities in Irish society - all those families and ageing individuals subsisting on less than 10,000 euros per year. I don't feel that the 'discourse' of FF-FG-Lab + mainstream trade union leadership is aimed at making their lot much better. The marginalised are proportionally in a minority (although thousands of them live daily on an economic and psychological edge) and are deemed to have limited voting clout.

Political radicals still have a role to play in public discourse and social campaigning, but the terminology problem is there.

by sean o hanlon Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:11

It isn't a "terminology" problem. It's an ideology problem where people persist in believing in ideological solutions within some supposed panacea.

Blair's "third way" was a political slogan which foundered on the impossibility of being all things to all men. It ended as a despised shorthand term for empty "spin".

What the future needs is non-ideological approaches to individual challenges, and structures which can react quickly to address the inevitable presures to exploit and subvert for sectoral advantage that is one of the great constants of human behaviour.

by union man Wed Apr 29, 2009 11:59

I agree with Sean O' Hanlon that there is no panacea to solve the problems in the unions but I don't agree with your idea. You wrote in your message "What the future needs is non-ideological approaches to individual challenges, and structures which can react quickly to address the inevitable presures to exploit and subvert for sectoral advantage that is one of the great constants of human behaviour."

Cut out the lingo and I think what you are basically saying is that we need structures in the unions that can organise to deal with the issues that confront our members in the different sectors of the economy.

I agree with that, but there are immediate questions that must be answered when trying to establish such structures.

What are they trying to achieve?
What do they support and what do they oppose?
What do they believe is wrong in the trade union movement?
What do they think of social partnership?
What is the best way to defend the working class and the union members from the impact of the recession?
Why is the recession taking place?
How can the economy be turned around?
What is the alternative to pay cuts, levies, tax increase on workers and public spending cuts?
Etc etc.

To answer these questions and many many more you need to have ideas and answers, you need to have an alternative - you need to have an ideology otherwise you can achieve nothing at all.

by sean o hanlon Wed Apr 29, 2009 21:11

The Trade Union movement is a part of the establishment that represents the sectional interests of the employee middle-classes as distinct from the employer middle-classes. The TUs are almost non-existant at the bottom of our society: i.e those who survive on social benefits, those on the minimum wage, and those in part-time employment. Their only real interest in these untermenschen is that they don't undercut their membership.

The chances of the TU movement actually reforming itself and becoming a force for social reform is about equal to that of the Cardinals throwing aside their baubles and finery and going out to live among the poor.

TUs are probably so set in their ways, and so sectional in their interest, that they are institutionally incapable of being part of the solution to anything. Sentient or innovative thought in the sector calcified in the time of Larkin in much the same way as its terminology is calcified in the time of Lenin.

The chalenges of the future are far too complex and interesting for the TUs. We need to look elsewhere.

by liberal Thu Apr 30, 2009 01:35

Sadly I agree with recent posters who allege that a large section of trade unionism today represents the aspirations of the comfortable salariat - the highly skilled and those whose permanent jobs are paid from public funds. 'How can someone who is warm understand someone who is cold?' was written by Solzhenitsyn somewhere in his short novel Ivan Denisovich, and I feel this applies to many people who are secure. I have felt during the celtic tiger boom years that there were, still are, wide scatterings of people in urban and rural households who were living on the edge in 'quiet desperation'. Symptoms sometimes showed up in the form of drunkness, mental illness, poor behaviour at school and vandalism.

How can the trades unions make themselves more relevant to the needs of those households that subsist on 15,000 or even 10,000 euro per year? (I'm not kidding as I've known individuals whose incomes, from welfare and other sources, were less than 10,000 p.a. I had short periods of life on the dole myself.)

Firstly by trying to answer some questions posed above recently by a union member. Secondly, by looking at how continental unions- Germany, Netherlands and France particularly come to mind - have built up parallel social and economic structures for the benefit of members and their families. Some continental unions have actively started savings schemes that evolved into registered savings banks that could offer services going beyond the praiseworthy services of credit unions. Some unions also established holiday hotels and campsites by the sea and elsewhere where members and families could spend affordable holidays. Some unions became involved in insurance schemes that undercut the premium rates of commercial insurance corporations. And some British and continental unions got involved in setting up small skilled worker-owned and controlled enterprises.

In Ireland and Britain trades unions have seen themselves as defending the rights and work conditions of workers. Fine. They negotiate with employers and sometimes take strike action, often as a last resort. Fine. They don't envisage themselves as offering alternatives to the economic society led and dominated by big business and finance. This lack of vision restricts trade unions to a supplicant, defensive and crumbs-from-the-table seeking role in society.