Back to Labour Values index
Back to tripartite talks index
Back to article index
Previous
THE PRACTICE OF THE WORKING CLASS: HAVE THEY FOLLOWED THEIR LEADERS?
How effective has the TUC's leadership been in opposing the Freeze? The TUC Report stated that the Government's policy would fail, was doomed as a result of its own internal contradictions. This can only mean that the TUC expect that the working class using its organised power will make the law, the statutory regulation of wages, inoperable. When that happens and the old system of collective bargaining carries on, the Freeze will be irrelevant. This has also been the 'left''s position: the working class should use its organised power to force wage increases of more than the £l + 4% as and when the vicissitudes of the economic struggle produce a fight. The difference between the TUC and the 'left' has been one of function: the 'left' have been urging more militant, more determined action from the working class than usual, while the TUC have simply waited for the 'left' to produce that militant and determined action before the TUC formally support it. At the one day TUC Special Congress, the trade unions acknowledged that a militant position should be taken by the working class. The one day general strike would be formally sponsored by the TUC as the legitimate representative of the working class as a whole. The TUC would leave it to the 'left' to actively organise the working class in support of that protest.
This means that to the extent that the 'left''s arguments in favour of determined, open opposition were successful within the working class, the one day strike would have the actual support of the working class in practice. Similarly with TUC support for the sectors of the class on strike: they would be supported by the TUC formally and in practice to the extent that the 'left' succeeded in marshalling its proletarian troops.
The 'left' now have a clear field in which to act. Their call to action and solidarity and struggle is opposed by no one, indeed it is formally supported by all the institutions of the working class (the TUC, the Labour Party). The only forces opposing the 'left' in its bid to lead the working class are the changed economic reality and the developments in politics and consciousness (he Freeze and the Conservative and CB1 explanation of it) which reflect that change.
At the time of writing, the action of the working class has shown that the fact of there being changes in the economy which necessitate the conscious regulation of wages has been accepted, and in default of the 'left''s developing the working class consciousness of these changes, the explanations offered by Heath, the CBI and the Daily Mirror are all the working class has to go on. It should be noted that none of these are
(l) attempting to render impotent or integrate into bourgeois organisations the organisation of the working class
(2) flaunting the demands of the working class insofar as those demands do not conflict with economic reality
(3) attempting to develop the consciousness and organisation of the working class to enable it to replace capitalism (i.e. they are not pointing out to the working class the two issues referred to above - why different wage rates are paid to different sections of the working class and why non-productive labour remains socially necessary labour in the production process - and the fact that the working class has the ability to do something about each of these). However, they have raised the two issues, of
(l) the continuing existence of Britain as a national economy capable of continuing to accumulate enough capital and produce means of production and skilled labour capable of maintaining Britain as a national economy
(2) that the capital accumulation undertaken by the state or with "public money" should be subject to the conscious regulation of society as a whole rather than the state apparatus (either through Parliament or the Tripartite economic management which Heath offered). These have been raised from the point of view of the continuing existence of the bourgeoisie and on the basis of the existing division of labour (both have been assumed).
If there is no other element of the society besides Heath, the CBI and the Daily Mirror to offer explanations of reality which make sense, the trade unions and the present system of collective bargaining will remain unchanged. The only change will occur in the conscious regulation of the global figure for wages. This will mean that the trade unions and 'left' will be forced to deal with the other questions when they are thrown up by the vicissitudes of the economic struggle (e.g. the summer '72 dock strike). And they will be forced to deal within the terms of the consciousness of the working class which has emerged from the experience of industrialisation up to the application of Keynesian solutions and its consciousness developed since then by the bourgeoisie.
The fact that there has not been active, organised support for the gasworkers or the teachers or the hospital workers and the fact that the Ford workers did not follow the 'left' stewards' unanimous exhortations to strike shows that the working class has accepted the £l + 4% limit as being necessary. The 'left' has had all the access to the ear of the working class which they could desire (the TGWU and AUEW in no way interfered with the Ford shop stewards committee taking the decision to strike or the stewards conveying that decision to their members). If the 'left' have failed to mobilise the working class, it is due to the working class taking a more realistic view of the economic situation than the 'left'. The practice of the working class has been a more accurate reflection of reality than has the politics of its leaders or of the 'left'.