Back to Labour Values index
Back to Dock Strike index
Back to article index
Previous
THE CONCLUSIONS FOR THE RULING CLASS
The ruling class encounters trouble economically when each section of the working class asserts itself in open struggle and they are forced, not to grant the demands of some sections, but of the class as a whole (e.g. the widespread knowledge that despite the miners being an extra 'special case', all other sections of the working class could lay claim to being 'special cases'). At a certain point the quantitative instances become a qualitative change. Previous articles in The Communist have argued that this point was reached in the early 60s and that since then the ruling class has been prepared to risk open conflict in order to stop making concessions. The Industrial Relations Act has undoubtedly made open conflict more serious for the ruling class. If it is invoked it becomes a conflict not only against the employer or even the Government, but the rule of law. This is why the large bourgeoisie have not used it and this is also why the ruling class got the dockers off the hook when small employers and workers took the law at its word. Edward Heath recently stated that the Act "had done a great amount of good in bringing into the open various aspects of industrial relations that had been hidden from view for too long." (FT, 16.6.72) But this openness means that the ruling class are forced to enter into the class struggle on grounds not of their own choosing.
When thus forced, the ruling class makes concessions. The concessions now made for this rash of events, the ruling class is getting down to pursuing its longterm aim. The TUC and CBI have had their first formal discussions after two years. They are talking about a new conciliation service which will be so good that no one will have to use the Industrial Relations Act because all problems will be solved in advance. This in itself is useful to the ruling class; but the significance of the talks is that everyone knows but no-one is saying so yet, except the FT's "it is known that" they will lead to some kind of agreement about wages. As noted earlier in the article, the CBI does not expect the trade unions to discipline their members: it understands the economic struggle in Britain too well for that. It is possible that some kind of threshold agreement will be reached as in France where wage increases are linked retrospectively to increases in the cost of living. On the basis of this agreement that no one knows about, the CBI expects to be able to convince its members to continue their voluntary price restraint due to cease in August. This will at least give the ruling class a breathing space from their immediate economic and political problems and enable them to concentrate on creating a new '1 nation' climate.
Their longterm problem remains that the working class will not make concessions without real counter concessions - that British capitalism can only be modernised at a price which is at the moment too dear for the bourgeoisie to pay. The new climate could help the bourgeoisie over the long term problem by making the political process of bargaining and consent easier. If a new climate means jettisoning parliamentary democracy because it has become too identified with the ruling class by the working class (i.e. it is no longer functioning as a bargaining mechanism), the ruling class are quite prepared to do so. "Yet we still attempt to canalise all our political impulses finally through the great political parties ... Never has more been asked from democratic politicians. By comparison, the role of Winston Churchill in a still hierarchical society and sustained by the challenge of war, was easy." (Ronald Butt, Sunday Times, 18.6.72). David Watt depicts Heath as "toying with the idea of a great campaign on the 'quality of life' - life in the city, satisfaction at the job, protection in the shops. I am trying to avoid the word 'participation' and overtones of the dreaded Wedgwood Benn." (FT, 23.6.72)
THE CONCLUSIONS FOR THE WORKING CLASS
Firstly, no Communist can support the attempts of one section of the working class to win out against another through using working class solidarity against it. If the ruling class had not intervened to regulate the market, it is very possible that we would have seen workers struggling against one another at Chobham Farm. The FT of 23.6.72 reports: "a closure (of Chobham Farm) could also lead to the blacking of docks by some TGWU road haulage workers. Their earnings are already being hit by the dockers blacking campaign and they feel that their jobs may also be in jeopardy." It is to be expected that such struggle will become more and more usual due (l) to the increasing swiftness of modernisation in British capitalism and (2) to the sectionalism of the British working class which derives from the source of consciousness and organisation in the economic struggle remaining at the shop floor. This is a source of strength to the class, but limits it in its ability to struggle as a class against capitalism as a system.
It would be equally incorrect for Communists to condemn the dockers for their action. Given their political consciousness, they could not have been expected to act otherwise. However, it is apparent that Communists must explain the reason why such struggles must take place until the working class unites to overthrow the labour market and also exactly what effect such struggles have on the working class - that they force them to organise and fight against each other instead of against the ruling class. At Chobham Farm, the ruling class watched until one section of the working class had emerged stronger and rewarded that section, in the name of the national interest. It is necessary to record that Socialist Worker also sided with the victorious section of the working class - to the point of calling the container workers class enemies for not acknowledging that the dockers had a right to special conditions won by dint of hard struggle. We would ask Socialist Worker to explain how this statement helps the working class to understand how capitalism works and how it can be defeated.
The logical implication of Socialist Worker's statement is that workers must go and take what they can get from the economic struggle and pay no attention to any other aspect of reality. It is commonplace that political struggle against capitalism by the working class does not replace its economic struggle to defend and extend its subsistence level and lower the rate of its exploitation. However, it should be clearly understood that the economic struggle leads to the struggle of one section of workers against another. Only by developing the political struggle can this be overcome. Explaining this is the first step towards enabling the working class to move against it.
Secondly, there is an important lesson to be learned in the relation between rank and file and leadership. The 'left' groups take that part of the working class consciousness 'trade union leaders always sell you out' and reply 'Yes what you want is to force the leaders to do what you want and institute workers control.' This statement is meaningless as that is already the exact relation between rank and file and trade union leadership. It is necessary to explain this to the working class so that instead of it being 'a sell out' when the trade union leader does not deliver all the goods or overthrow the Tory Government, it is understood that he is doing all that is in fact being asked of him. To alter this situation, it will be necessary for the working class to be able to make political demands of their trade union leaders. The 'left' explains the process by which the leader comes back with less than asked but all that could be expected by 'the system of bureaucracy'. This is incorrect. In practice the working class understand this or else we would have seen a radical change in trade union structure such as is now occurring in Italy where the trade union leaders were in fact delivering no goods at all. (The 'left''s response is to make this response into a dogma). The other side of the 'sell-out' element is the defense and loyalty to the leaders (i.e. the reason why the ruling class will avoid making martyrs with the Industrial Relations Act). Both these elements reflect the relation but neither explain it or enable the working class to use that relation to force political change or indeed a changed attitude towards the economic struggle.
Thirdly, the result of the defensive aspects of the economic struggle is that technical change which increases the productivity of labour and develops the productive forces is very effectively resisted. The working class can have no interest in opposing such development. The purpose of such defensive resistance is to maintain the favourable conditions and wage levels of the working class. Its effect is reactionary and of no service to the working class. This must also be explained to the working class so that the economic struggle can be fought to maintain and extend conditions and wages under new technical conditions. In this way the working class can extend its hold over the organisation of production and its consciousness of functioning over production. Fourthly, the analysis of the relation of the state to the ruling class and the working class analysed above is not understood by the working class. Again, it is reflected in its consciousness and in its practice. The reflection in its consciousness takes the form of seeing the Miners Strike as a struggle against the Government and the Tories. At Chobham Farm, the dockers on the picket line did not see themselves as struggling against other workers, but against the Industrial Relations Act and the Government. And the working class is equally willing to struggle against a Labour Government (which the left dogma describes as converting the Labour Party to socialism by force of class action).
But because this relation is not understood, the working class cannot use it to wrest control of the means of production from the bourgeoisie. Because, they see their grievances always redressed by the state, they can see no reason to alter their part in the bargaining process. It must be understood that how much the state can offer the working class is based on (l) the working class' demands and their organisation in putting the demand (2) how far the ruling class is prepared to give (3) that the state is merely the instrument for working out this bargaining process, that it is the ruling class themselves that must be opposed and struggled against - not a Tory or Labour Government.
The position and needs of the ruling class must be seen not merely as their negotiating position in Parliament, but arising out of their need to keep control of the means of production. Communists must show the working class that an event like the rail dispute means more than just 'a victory against the Government'. They must show that the victory was the inevitable result of the balance of class forces at present and that if more than defensive and sectional gains are to be won, the working class must organise itself to overthrow capitalism - not merely to redress a balance or tilt it.