Posts Tagged ‘Single Party States’

Fabian Pamphlet on Workers’ Control in Yugoslavia: Part 2

November 7, 2017

Continued from Part 1.

The Role of the Trade Unions

It is usually assumed that in a capitalist economy the Trade Union movement fulfills a different and essentially more democratic role than the unions in a country such as Yugoslavia. It is said that by remaining independent of management and government the unions provide the essential element in any democracy, that of opposition. This has always been one of the stumbling blocks which any advocate of workers’ control must encounter. An understanding of the role of our own trade union movement is a necessary first step towards working out a programme for democratising industry which does not fall foul of this traditional objection. This understanding may be furthered by an appreciation of the position of trade unions in other countries where social systems are different. In Britain it may well be that the trade unions become more and more committed to the status quo in industry, so their opposition function is weakened. The respect for national collective agreements, the support of the leadership for the current productivity drive, the discouragement of unofficial strike action, the rejection of co-ordinated industrial action to break the pay pause, and finally the decision to join the NEDC suggest that the unions are moving towards the position of partners in a managerial society.

The simple distinction between free trade unionism in a capitalist society, and trade unions in a communist state which become organs for the implementation of state policy, becomes increasingly blurred. We should think instead of a spectrum of relative degrees of independence from the state, ranging from the Russian trade unions at one extreme, through Yugoslav, Scandinavian and Dutch, to the British and American movements at the other, with perhaps the Communist Unions of France and Italy as the least committed to the state. The recognition of this trend does not imply advocacy of a general strike mentality over the pay pause, for example, but we need a more honest recognition of what is taking place. We should admit first that it is inevitable that the trade unions will move in the direction of close co-operation with government, and towards a ‘national interest’ point of view. As this trend continues, the worker is faced with the growing prospect of an alliance between government, employers and unions. In this situation union leaders no longer express the independent sectional and industrial aspirations of their members. Partly because of this, the role of the voluntary rank and file element in trade union government appears to be diminishing and its functions are being superseded by paid officials. The unions are becoming agencies run for their members and not by them.

With the weakening of the elements of opposition and participation there is a need to seek alternative means by which employees can express themselves in the government of industry. This need arises not only from a consideration of industrial democracy, but also of industrial efficiency. Appeals for increased industrial production, such as British Productivity Year, evoke slight response because they are based on an assumption of team spirit and equal partnership which is excluded by the very nature of social relationships in a private enterprise economy. Yugoslav experience strongly suggests that increased productivity is one of the results of their form of industrial democracy. However if democratisation in industry is advocated solely on grounds of higher productivity, it will be received with suspicion. The question would not be how much power and control can we give to democratic forms of management, but rather how small a concession will be necessary in the interests of productivity. Such a path would reproduce the history of progressive disillusion which has befallen Joint Consultation. Thus the idealist exponent of workers’ control may claim to solve must fully the economic problem of incentive.

In Britain, advocates of workers’ control have traditionally thought in terms of Trade Union management of industry. Efforts in this direction have always ended in a blind alley, since the objection that this involves a dual loyalty for the union is a valid one. As we have seen, the Yugoslav system does not involve Trade Unions in the direct management of the Enterprise. It suggests not only a new role for the Unions, but also the practical constitutional forms for the management of the firm by its employees.

The role of the unions in such a system is that of a mass social institution representing the wider national interests of the workers and tackling problems such as the overall levels of incomes and income structure, labour productivity etc. As we have suggested, there is already a tendency for British unions to assume such a role, and the doubts which we have raised about the desirability of this trend would be dispelled if the unions were operating within the framework of an industrial democracy. If workers had legally guaranteed rights of management then the need for the union to be an instrument of opposition is weakened. However, unions could still continue to protect the interests of their members by taking up grievances on behalf of groups and individuals who are in dispute with the elected management bodies. They should certainly seek to influence the decisions and activities of management bodies, but should not be tied to them in an institutional sense.

Workers Democracy in Britain

In considering the relevance of the Yugoslav model to British conditions, two objections may arise. The First concerns the compatibility of Industrial democracy and the private ownership of industry. Does it not challenge the very origins of power which are possessed by the managers of private enterprise firms? Is it not desirable for the Labour movement to give much closer attention to the possibility of introducing experimental forms of workers’ control within existing nationalised industry. This would demonstrate the practicability of the method and point a way to the fully democratic society at which the socialist movement aims.

The second objection is more difficult to counter. Yugoslavia is a one party state. is it likely that in a multi-party state, industrial democracy could be introduced with any guarantee of its permanence? Would not the anti-socialist forces exert such pressure that the system was undermined whilst it was being introduced, and abolished at the first opportunity presented by the return of a Conservative government? It is probably true in Yugoslavia that the permission of opposition views and organisations could generate counter-revolutionary forces which would seriously retard the evolution of the system. The government and the Party clearly fear this. Thus after flirting with Djilas’ heresies, which included the advocacy of a second – though socialist – party, the leadership decided against taking the risk. This is the point at which Yugoslav experience ceases to be helpful to us.

We should not therefore assume that the introduction of industrial democracy in the British context is impracticable. There are signs that unease concerning status at work has penetrated through to the political arena. Liberal party references to ‘syndicalism’ and the long-awaited Conservative Industrial Charter are manifestations of this. These schemes relate to the improvement of the position of workers within the present hierarchical framework, and do not tackle the root of the problem. We would expect that the early demonstration of the viability of a system of democratic control within the nationalised industries would generate enthusiasm for the idea and lead to demands for its extension. The British political system certainly restricts the speed of change, but a change which has become truly popular is difficult to reverse (e.g. The National Health Service). We believe that the Labour Party could, by taking the first steps towards democracy within nationalised industry, transform what has been an electoral embarrassment and a millstone into its biggest asset.

See Part 3 for my own conclusions.

Advertisements

Philip Hammond Urges Economic Sabotage to Stop Labour Coming to Power

October 7, 2017

On Thursday Mike put up another article, which also shows the Tories’ massive contempt for British parliamentary democracy. Paul Mason of the Politico website revealed that Hammond had told an assembled audience of CEOs and other industrialists at a £400 a head dinner that they should

“back the Tories. “I know you don’t engage in party political activity but I expect you to face up to when the principles that undermine our economic structure and your business are placed at risk,” Hammond said. “You have to decide to combat this menace or collaborate with it and let it get into power.”

Mr. Mason goes on to state that in private, Hammond’s language is even more extreme, presenting Labour under Jeremy Corbyn as a threat to capitalism. As Mike points out, it isn’t. It’s a Social Democratic party. This means it promotes a mixed economy along with a welfare state and government spending in the economy as a means of stimulating economic growth and development. It has not advocated total nationalization since the Second World War. And in the governments it formed before then, in practice its economic policies were entirely orthodox. This undoubtedly contributed to the party’s defeat as voters were disappointed by its failure to pursue a more radical programme to tackle poverty and unemployment.

Mason makes the point that Hammond risks being sacked for ‘unparliamentary conduct’, as his speech has urged captains of industry to break their bond of fiduciary trust. This is notion that they will act for the benefit of their companies and shareholders, regardless of their own personal politics.

Mike makes the point that it’s moot whether the issue of fiduciary trust has ever carried much weight amongst business management. Certainly sections of industry, particularly the financial sector, have been hostile to Labour and sought to undermine Labour governments.

Mr. Mason and Mike also point out that historically the economy has always benefited under Labour. Mason states that Labour will stabilize and re-invigorate the private sector. And Mike says, quite rightly, that the Labour government of 1945-51 led to over three decades of economic growth and prosperity in the UK. A period that only came to an end when Thatcher became PM in 1979.

And Mason also warns that Hammond may have made even more extreme claims in private to MI5.

http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2017/10/05/now-philip-hammond-is-bidding-to-be-sacked-for-unparliamentary-behaviour/

You therefore start to wonder if Hammond is a serious, democratic politician, or a barking mad Fascist sympathizer, who’s read too much Ayn Rand. He clearly thinks of himself as John Galt, the hero of her novel, Atlas Shrugs, who joins a strike by senior management to bring down a despotic socialist government. By implication, this also shows Hammond’s complete support for the poor and those on welfare. For Ayn Rand, only business leaders, artists and intellectuals matters. Ordinary working people, including and especially those supported by welfare, were just ‘moochers’ and ‘takers’. Which is ironic, because Rand was one of them. She spent some time living on social security.

As for Hammon, he has the same attitude as the industrialists and upper classes of the various South American and other developing nations, who as soon as a vaguely left-wing government came to power immediately yelled ‘Communism!’ as fast and as hard as they could, and then started plotting how they could overthrow it. This included backing military coups, supported by the Americans.

And you can guess the kind of extremism he may have been preaching to MI5 and the security services by reading Ken Livingstone’s book, Livingstone’s Labour, and Francis Wheen’s book on the 1970s, Strange Days. During the crisis hit period of the Labour minority government of 1975-6, various businessmen, and even the Times, were urging the army to organize a coup to overthrow the government. Livingstone describes how there were plans in place to intern left-wing activists, including journos, in political camps in places like the Hebrides.

It also shows the Tories’ own immense hypocrisy. They and their lickspittles in the press have been the first to denounce working class unrest as a threat to democracy, including strike action by trade unionists. You can find a video on YouTube by one person, who clearly takes John McDonnell’s demand for coordinated strike action and protests as a literal threat to democracy. McDonnell states that this type of activism has previously been called ‘insurrection’, a term he prefers. Which for that YouTuber makes McDonnell and Corbyn members of the revolutionary left.

McDonnell’s language is extreme, but it isn’t quite the language of revolution. He has not called for people to take up arms against their government. And when you think how this government is treating the poor, the unemployed and the ordinary working people of this country, you can see McDonnell’s point, even if you don’t agree with it.

And right-wing organisations have done their best to stamp out trade unions and bar the members from proper employment as true subversives. Way back in the 1990s there was a documentary uncovering the sordid history and activities of the Economic League. This was an organization that compiled and circulated blacklists of trade union members and those of left-wing organisations to employers. It’s full name was the ‘Economic League against Industrial Subversion’. It was started in the 1930s or so. It suffered a crisis after it was exposed, and found itself fending off awkward questions by people asking if they were on its lists after they were repeatedly turned down for work. In the 1990s it was succeeded by another bunch, Hakluyt, who, along with their predecessor, appeared in Lobster.

This shows very clearly the hypocrisy of the Tories and the businessmen, who support them. When it’s the left and trade unionists planning strikes and protests against them, it’s a horrendous plot to overthrow capitalism and little short of treason. But it’s fine and dandy when they’re planning to subvert democracy by overthrowing an elected social democratic government.

Hammond’s a danger to democracy. His ideal would be for Britain to be a banana republic, in which the peons have no rights, and the government is either dominated by a single party, or at best the political system as a number, none of which represents real hope or radical change for its working people.

He should not be in government. Get him out.