Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
Previous
THE REALISM OF THE 'RIGHT'
There have been elements within the working class who have understood the fact that the conscious political position the class is taking is a conservative, oppositionist one. Consistently within the General Council, there have been TU leaders arguing for participating in the Government's Freeze (in the talks about the Green Paper, nominating members of the Pay and Prices Board). These leaders have argued from a pragmatic position: that the Freeze is a fact and should be recognised as such and the working class interests maintained within it.
The unspoken warning behind this is that if the trade unions do not defend the working class in the changed reality, then the working class will see that the unions are not necessary to defend their interests and the unions will atrophy because they are no longer needed by the class in the changed situation. These leaders have argued for TU participation because they are interested in developing the working class' consciousness of the changes and the working class' ability to force greater changes in its own interests. They are the 'right' and they have been resoundingly defeated inside the TUC.
The 'left' trade union leaders' defeat of the 'right' has been on the basis that the new institutions will disappear when the working class defeats the Freeze and at the latest when the next Labour Government is returned. Therefore, there is no need to accommodate and work within them. The unspoken reasoning behind this position is also pragmatic. It arises from the certain knowledge of Jack Jones and Hugh Scanlon that if the trade unions do start participating in the conscious regulation of wages, there will be much disquiet and uncertainty in the working class. The disquiet and uncertainty will arise because the class will be coming to terms with the changed economic reality and the fact that its old consciousness and organisations are not adequate to defend and further its interests. There will be disquiet and uncertainty until a new consciousness and new organisations are developed (or the old organisations are changed). It will seem as if the class is defenseless until its consciousness understands how to defend the class in the changed situation and organisation is evolved to undertake that new defence. There will also be a whole new area of reality which the working class has never confronted before consciously. That area is the question of what should be produced with "public money", what labour is productive labour and how the production process should be organised to develop the productive forces within a national economy and how the wages of the working class as a whole should be divided amongst it.
Confronting a new area of reality with the knowledge that the working class can determine that reality consciously, indeed must determine that reality consciously if its interests are to be defended and furthered, will cause fear, uncertainty and disquiet until the reality has been analysed and understood and reflected in the working class' consciousness. It is a fear and disquiet and uncertainty of the magnitude experienced by the working class when it was displaced from artisan and small commodity production into factories and industrial production in the last half of the 18th-early 19th centuries.
Like that experience, it is a new aspect of reality for the class because it is a result of the further development of the productive forces which has meant that the working class must face the change because its place in the production process has changed.
Jones and Scanlon know that once the trade unions begin accommodating and adapting to this changed reality, disquiet and fear will develop; and unless there is some element within the working class capable of explaining and analysing the change, they know that the working class will force its leaders back into the old ways because the class believe it is still the only way of defense. Thus, they are attempting to avoid the certainty of a very great confrontation between the working class and leaders who have changed their ways (accepting the Freeze) and not explaining or being able to explain why (as the 'right' certainly cannot) by militant conservatism.
In this situation, the Economist's and FT's predictions that if a confrontation between TUs and Government did arise, it would be the 'right' who would benefit makes sense. Because the 'right' are reacting to reality by acknowledging it and attempting to further the working class' interests within it and the 'left' are insisting that the reality does not in fact exist and the bourgeoisie are acting from avarice and arrogance.
JOE GORMLEY - GETTING SERIOUS
There has been another element in the working class who have reacted to this situation on the basis of a highly developed political consciousness, determined by the political forms in Britain. This element was expressed by Joe Gormley:
"The time for huffing and puffing is over. The unions have done their stint of shouting slogans, organising demonstrations and one-day stoppages. Now is the moment to put their feet where their mouth is. The choice is simple. If you can't abide the Government's policies and you can't change those policies, then you must change the Government. And that must mean the TUC calling a General Strike. But if you shrink from such action, then you must have the courage to admit you can't defeat the Government. And that must mean accepting the Phase 2 restrictions on wages with individual union leaders doing the best they can for their members ... The unions have told the Government what must be done to make its present economic policy fair and just. Postpone rent rises, control food prices and the rest. All have been turned down by Mr Heath ... So what can be done? In its entire history the TUC has never challenged the Government by calling for a General Strike in order to bring it down. But there is always a first time. If you do, it isn't enough to force a General Election. To achieve your objective you also have to win it ... It's the so-called militants always shouting their mouths off who are now shrinking from decisive action ... The question stares us in the face. Do the mass of workers want to get rid of the Government as the only way of ridding us of its policies? And if they do, are they willing to steel themselves to take the necessary action? Let us make up our minds one way or the other and then face up to the realities of whatever choice we make." (News of the World, 1.2.1973)
This reflects the undoubted fact that in Britain the working class has the recognised political power to enforce the alternative to a Government with which it disagrees. It also reflects the weapons of the bourgeoisie in Britain: Gormley replied in kind to the question posed by Maurice Macmillan when he was interviewed on Radio 4 after the 8 o.clock news soon after the TUC had decided on total opposition: "If the trade unions disagree with us, let them come forward with their own suggestions." The bourgeoisie and Heath do not expect the Freeze to be obeyed because it is law. They do "expect" that if it is opposed the working class should put forward an alternative. Gormley shows that he understands the working class' alternative must be equally conscious and organised as Heath's, and that it must be enforced with the force of the whole class on the society, using a General Strike if necessary. Gormley does not see the "failure" of the discussions to gain the TU's stated aims as excusing the TUC or the working class from enforcing what they believe to be right and in their interests.
The 'left''s response to Gormley was highly instructive. He was accused of "splitting" the movement and disloyalty and treachery. Why? Because it was clear, said the 'left', that the Government's mind would not be changed and that the working class could do nothing more than resist the Government. To suggest that the working class could do more than oppose, was leading it up the garden path. The only possibility was to insist that everything should go on as before. Gormley was a traitor because what he was suggesting might divide the working class: i.e. the platform of the Labour Party would have to be discussed and worked out and supported by the class before it would have the will and make the effort to put the Labour Party into Government (i.e. it couldn't just be any old General Election. The working class would have to make sure its interests were reflected in the voting in that election).
Similarly, the TUC Report quoted above was published as a definite alternative to the Government's Freeze (as was the joint TUC/Labour document which is practically the same). It was publicly sent to the Government with a formal letter stating that the TUC viewed it as an alternative to the Government's Freeze. The Report was unanimously approved without debate or discussion by the Special TUC Congress in which the 'left' upheld the working class' interests by forcing debate on methods of opposing the Government.
When the General Council considered the Report, one TU leader suggested as a matter of course that the Report should be put to monster mass meetings convened by the TUC in every industrial city and town; that not only trade unionists, but their wives whose household money the Freeze was affecting, should be invited; and that the meetings should consider, discuss and adopt the Report as the working class' alternative. The response to this suggestion from the General Council was humorous embarrassment. It was not treated as a serious, practical suggestion and was therefore not even debated, but just bypassed.
Now, if the General Council had treated the Report as a serious alternative to the Government's Freeze, they would have taken this suggestion very seriously and implemented it. The men of the General Council know very well that if their demands on behalf of the trade union movement are to be taken seriously by the Government, they must be backed by the active and organised force of the working class. In Britain that force is deployed by
(l) arguing the case for the demand inside the working class and winning the class for it
(2) by then showing the determination and force of the working class to implement that demand (demonstrations, meetings, lobbies of Parliament, strikes). This is exactly what the General Council did when the Industrial Relations Act was introduced and passed through Parliament. The TUC case against the Act was written and distributed free to literally every trade unionist in the country; meetings and schools about the Act were held in every industrial city and town; a petition was organised, there were many lobbies of parliament (a TUC one and then individual unions and Constituency Labour Parties lobbies); there was a monster demonstration: and the 'left' was successful in organising a series of one day unofficial general strikes. Finally, there was the unofficial general strike tacitly sanctioned by the TUC when the 5 dockers were arrested. The result is that the Industrial Relations Act is now inoperable and openly acknowledged by the society as being such.
The fact that the General Council refused to consider this course of action when it had been put to it by one of its respected and powerful members shows that it did not take the Report seriously as the alternative of the working class.The 'left', whose intelligence about what happens at General Council meetings is extremely good, has not revealed this fact to the working class as being worth the working class' notice. Nor has the 'left' argued that the Report should be adopted by the working class as its alternative, and enforced by the working class with its organised force. The Special Congress was prevented by the 'left' from discussing that Report because it was felt more important to organise militant conservative opposition instead. Indeed, the 'left' has been totally unconcerned with formulating an alternative to the Government because it has been unwilling to admit that there is a need for an alternative. The 'left' is concerned with preserving the "status quo", thus alternatives are of no relevance.
There is, of course, "socialism". That, it might be timidly suggested, is an alternative. But the 'left' reply that the working class is not ready for that yet, it would not support socialism and therefore we cannot dare to hope for it or put it forward as a real alternative (except as a clarion call to rally the 'left' faithful). The struggle is for now and socialism is for later. The TUC felt constrained to produce their Report and send it to the Government for the same reasons they felt constrained to attend the Tripartite Talks in the first place. The Government had reality on its side in insisting that there was a problem and that something had to be done about it. It also insisted that the working class as the working class should have a part in determining that solution. The Government had to so insist because in Britain since 1867 the working class has been an acknowledged political power and the Government would ignore this fact at their peril. But, because the TUC and the 'left' have refused to explain to the working class why the Tripartite Talks were taking place and put to the working class the question of what demands, what alternative, the working class should have in this new situation, the Government has had to act unilaterally and to legislate taking into account the TUC's objections but without the active assertion of the working class' interests by the TUC.