Back to Miners Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
DEFEAT AND "NEW REALISM"
Most trade union leaders in 1984 have inherited the historical tradition of acting for the class as a whole. They take it very seriously. The mantle of the socialist pioneers and Tolpuddle Martyrs sits heavily upon their shoulders, and they are not slow to remind their members of its weight. The problem for this generation of union leaders is that they have no results to show for their tenure in office. All they can point to are defeats and humiliations. The election of two Thatcher Governments and three lots of trade union legislation; the decimation of the engineering industry, which had formed the backbone of the working class's power since the second world war; and the Government's apparent indifference to the effects of its monetary policy on manufacturing. Not only has union membership fallen with the contraction of industry, there has also been the shrinking of union power on the shop-floor, ushered in by the sacking of Derek Robinson at Longbridge in 1979.
It might be assumed that after suffering such signal setbacks, there would be a serious examination by union leaders of why they had been losing. Not a bit of it. We were told with great pomp and circumstance in 1983 that the new method of selecting the TUC General Council marked the beginning of a new approach. The New Realism would enable the movement once again to move forward because the goals would be more moderate and therefore they would be easier to win.
The New Realists, and Alistair Graham [fn] in particular have turned out to be sheep in wolves' clothing. Having said they were going to fight "left-wing extremism" and "mindless militancy", they have not even dared to come out of their corner. They have been carried, meek as lambs, to the slaughter by Arthur Scargill in his determined pursuit of the Class War. So much for the New Realists: they have proved to be mere opportunists who bent towards the winds of moderation when they seemed to be blowing; they have now leaned backwards the other way under pressure from the NUM President.
[fn] In 1984 Alistair Graham was General Secretary of the Civil and Pubic Services Association. 'New realism' was a policy approach of co-operation with management and with the government proposed and adopted at the TUC in September 1983.
ARTHUR SCARGILL'S VIEW OF THE WORLD
Scargill operates with a view of British society and the trade union movement which is totally out of joint with what actually exists. He has been able not only to hold that view intact, but also to rise inside the NUM to its highest office, because of the peculiar nature of the NCB. This peculiarity is dealt with in the second Appendix to this pamphlet. It is sufficient here to say that the NCB and the NUM co-operated informally to run the mines without the normal conventions of the economic struggle. The NCB did not behave like a normal employer constrained by market forces, nor did the NUM behave like a normal union out to get the best possible deal for its members. The NCB forswore the use of managerial prerogative over the NUM and the NUM forbore to use its power to attack the NCB. Arthur Scargill, therefore, had no experience of tbe normal ground-rules of collective bargaining. Being exceptionally strong-willed, he followed his own inclinations and ignored the previous habits of the industry since nationalisation.
Mr, Scargill operates with a view of the world which is more appropriate to the 1820's and 30's, if it ever applied in Britain at all. He evidently arrived at it when still a tender age, whilst in the Young Communist League under James Klugmann's tutelage. It has, since he became President of the NUM, been reinforced by diverse and unlikely figures, including the Times Labour Editor and Euro-Communist feminists. He holds that no compromise or accommodation is possible between the two classes in Britain in 1984, because Britain is still capitalist and the employers still exploit workers. Until socialism has been won, there must be unremitting war waged by the working class against its exploiters. Therefore, until socialism has dawned, the class war is the dominant factor in society: workers are either true to their class or traitors. Traitors must be expelled, and if possible neutralised on the sidelines whilst the class struggle continues.
It is tempting to dismiss the above description of Scargill and entourage as Tory propaganda, and denounce the caricature as yet another red herring, worthy of the Zinoviev letter in 1924 or the smear in 1931 that a Labour Chancellor would seize everyone's Post Office Savings for his own use. Alas, the above description is no caricature or red herring. Millions of trade unionists have watched Mr. Scargill saying exactly these things on the television over the last nine months.