Back to Miners Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
THE CLASS ACCOMMODATION
The one argument which can be used against Scargill effectively, i.e., in such a way as to gain active popular support against him, is the one argument which Thatcher, Brittan (and McGregor) cannot bring themselves to use. It involves using the example of recent British history, which they are trying hard to forget. The example, which they want to gloss over, is the accommodation between the bourgeoisie and the working class built up as a result of their working together to win the 1939-45 war.
During the war, the capitalist class surrendered its claim to wield sole political and economic power in the land. This concession was made from necessity, but once made could not be undone (as Mrs. Thatcher has been learning). In its turn, the working class accepted that the assumption of some authority in politics and production carried with it some responsibility for both.
The accommodation arrived at during the war has had its disadvantages, but on the whole it has suited both classes. The working class has gained rising real incomes and the welfare state, and no longer has to tolerate an upper crust trying to monopolise the centre of the social stage. They have shed the facility to revolt against the society of which they remain the majority and have now gained the social centre. But then, since revolting is only necessary when there is something to revolt again, it hardly seems a great loss.
The bourgeoisie also gained from the wartime accommodation. They got a quiet life for the first time in a few generations. They no longer had to worry about fighting losing battles against strong and canny Labour and trade union leaders in order to safeguard their sole authority. They surrendered it in a good cause and now could sit back and enjoy life a bit more. They lost authority, but retained their place in production and distribution. They still had a necessary job to do and knew that they would survive because their skills would continue to be required.
THE UNPALATABLE HISTORY
The rub about this bit of history for Mr. Scargill is that his worldview denies that it happened. For Mrs. Thatcher, its catch lies in its end-result: the bourgeoisie can no longer propel the society forward with their will alone, it is now necessary to gain the active consent of the majority of society, i.e. the working class, first. She looks at the undeniable economic problems of the country and feels they could be solved by re-concentrating power back in the hands of entrepreneurs. She has been finding out that this re-concentration is problematic, to say the least, and not even Mr. Scargill's botching of the miners’ strike can convince workers to surrender their social and economic power back into the sole hands of their employers.
[fn] Alas the 'capitalist class' in the form of an irresponsible managerial elite has by now (2017) regained virtually sole political and economic power in the land - PB.
Mr. Kinnock has no substantial objection to the great advances made by the working class in 1939-45, and so skilfully consolidated thereafter. Indeed, Mr. Kinnock's dearest wish is to wield the political power which the working class won then. However, he does not now say so. He is frightened to say so in case he upsets his left flank. He has collapsed before Scargillism, even though he was not afraid to stand up to Bennism before that.
Mr. Kinnock has collapsed like a house of cards, because if he denounced Scargill, he would have to have something positive to put in place of Scargillism and the Holy Class War Crusade. Bennism flourished in the vapid atmosphere of Labour Party Ward Meetings, and it could be deflated with counter rhetoric which had little substance. Scargillism has grown in the blinding glare of television lights and newspaper articles. The working class has learned to understand and detest Scargillism. They could see through any insubstantial condemnation of it for mere papering over of the cracks.
KINNOCK AND THE TUC HAVE NO ANSWERS
When Clem Attlee argued publicly with the dockers on unofficial strike in 1947, he told them that they had no reason for disrupting the economy because their wages, conditions, hours, etc. had advanced immeasurably since before the war. The dockers went back to work after Mr.Attlee had said that to them over the wireless, and they could not deny the truth of what he said.
Mr. Kinnock has nothing so positive to say to the miners. Neither the Labour Party nor the TUC have any answer as to how to get the British economy back on its feet again! If the uneconomic pits are to be closed, then how are the unemployed miners to find alternative work? Mrs. Thatcher has her own answer to that question. She says that if we encourage entrepreneurial spirit enough, then all the unemployed can be employed by the new capitalists.
Neil Kinnock has no answer. He and the TUC argue in favour of spending public money. But public money, on its own, will get us nowhere. It may build us new, badly needed sewers, and electrify the train routes to the North East and Edinburgh. It may even improve the battered motorways and stop the potholes on the roads in towns. But without a class with a will to put that money into productive use, it will not by itself make the economy strong again. It was Marx who taught socialists that the crucial function of money was as a source of credit: it can enable men to mobilise plant, resources and people. But, without the people who know how to get production going, "Public Money" is no better than Outdoor Relief and the Work House.