The strike has long been labour's most powerful weapon. Strikes put pressure on the employer - which needs the employees' labour to run the business - to agree to employees' demands for fair wages and working conditions. Strikes are also a public form of expression. Seeing picket lines in front of a workplace sends a message to the employer, to the public and to the workers themselves. It says that the workers stand together to fight for decent working conditions and that their dispute with the employer is so important that they are willing to lose pay to fight for a fair workplace. It tells the public and other workers that they might not want to patronise, or work for, the employer unless changes are made. Strikes build solidarity among the workers and help them maintain their resolve under the severe pressure of losing income while on strike. Strikes are also an expression of control by the workers, who may feel that the employer treats them as if they were nothing more than a live form of raw materials - human resource.
But against the power of capitalism, strikes by the trades unions are no longer the potent weapon they once were and the political futility of the Labour Party is obvious to all. It could not act (and cannot act) otherwise as a representative of capitalism. The result is that during the last decades the condition of workers has grown steadily worse.
A great deal has been talked about political and industrial action but the differences are merely relative. As capitalism develops, strikes become both bigger and more generalised. They become bigger due to the fact that the single employer lays down the conditions for more workers. These bigger and more “general” strikes lead to government interference, against the strikers. This State intervention makes it clear to the working class that its fight is not against the employer as employer but against all the employers operating through their executive committee of governmental power. All great strikes prove that the government is under the control of corporate capital and that the politicians are subservient to their capitalist masters.
It becomes apparent not only that the government is the class power of the bourgeoisie and the idea of class increasingly becomes to the fore and at the same time the class struggle centres around the State and its control. The net result is that the strike acquires political significance, and the workers, here as elsewhere, will use it more and more for political ends. This is the definite merger of industrial in political action. The distinction between political and industrial action is false; they are complementary parts of the same movement. The trade unionist needs to learn that it is essential for the workers to conquer political power.
The necessity for political action is imperative. Whenever the power of the governing class asserts itself, then the workers must fight. The State being the political expression of the capitalist class, and since that dominant class uses the machinery of the State—law, justice, police — to maintain its own privileges and to impose its will, the workers contest their claims by political action. When a worker strikes they move against this or that particular employer or group of employers. When a worker votes for a Socialist Party candidate he or she votes against the whole of the capitalist class; they vote for their own class without regard to sectional divisions.
As the development of capitalism brings greater pressure to bear upon the workers, in the not distant future, it will finally ensue which will force the workers to rid themselves of capitalism for ever. One day the proletariat will arise. The Socialist Party’s task is to supplement the instinct of revolt with a sound knowledge of socialism.
It is only upon occasions of general economic prosperity, and the consequent demand for labour-power, that the everyday struggle of the unions over the terms of the sale of this labour-power, may temporarily bear meagre fruit. Reforms may be fought bitterly, but there is scope for reform without shaking the whole system apart. No such occasion exists at the present. The workers now endure a great recession, and there is less demand for the workers’ labour-power, and, in these conditions, it is vain to hope for an improvements by the methods of the everyday struggle.
In its normal state, capitalism has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but most continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. So there is no real possibility of replacing the system and attempts to do so degenerate into futile reformism and/or terrorism, whatever the “revolutionary socialist” rhetoric.
In crisis conditions all this is reversed. The cake is shrinking and the fight is over the size of slices and who is to bear the loss. Among capitalists the fight is over who is to survive and who is to swallowed up. Between capitalists and workers there is no room for compromise. Reforms become impossible and even past achievements are rolled back. “We can’t afford these luxuries any more”. Unfortunately, within the working class too, there is less unity as people find themselves in “hard times” where it is “everyone for themselves” and the search of scape-goats.
But in the very fact that the economic struggle may no longer produce benefits that provides an opportunity for the Socialist Party. The conditions are now ripe for the workers to pass beyond the narrow confines of the everyday trade-union struggle to the broader battle-field of revolutionary political action for socialism and the permanent emancipation of the working class. During periods of economic crisis, the contradiction of capitalism sharpen and the possibility of actually getting rid of capitalism arises. A substantial proportion of the population is drawn into active political struggle as they confront questions of what society is to do to get out of its impasse. There is no crisis that the ruling class could not resolve if it was allowed to, but with the working class politically active, the possibility arises of the ruling class not being allowed to, and of people taking things into their own hands.
A true socialist community will not be brought into being by legislative manipulation. It must be built by men and women in voluntary association. The work of changing peoples’ values and attitudes and the summoning up of aspirations to further change by means of critiques of existing society, remains as much a duty of socialists as the conquest and maintenance of working-class power. We need to put forward new ideas for discussion about what we might do to start building socialism. Consistent refusal to do so risks valid criticism that we do not present a viable alternative and “no blueprints” is often seen as an excuse for “no ideas”.
But against the power of capitalism, strikes by the trades unions are no longer the potent weapon they once were and the political futility of the Labour Party is obvious to all. It could not act (and cannot act) otherwise as a representative of capitalism. The result is that during the last decades the condition of workers has grown steadily worse.
A great deal has been talked about political and industrial action but the differences are merely relative. As capitalism develops, strikes become both bigger and more generalised. They become bigger due to the fact that the single employer lays down the conditions for more workers. These bigger and more “general” strikes lead to government interference, against the strikers. This State intervention makes it clear to the working class that its fight is not against the employer as employer but against all the employers operating through their executive committee of governmental power. All great strikes prove that the government is under the control of corporate capital and that the politicians are subservient to their capitalist masters.
It becomes apparent not only that the government is the class power of the bourgeoisie and the idea of class increasingly becomes to the fore and at the same time the class struggle centres around the State and its control. The net result is that the strike acquires political significance, and the workers, here as elsewhere, will use it more and more for political ends. This is the definite merger of industrial in political action. The distinction between political and industrial action is false; they are complementary parts of the same movement. The trade unionist needs to learn that it is essential for the workers to conquer political power.
The necessity for political action is imperative. Whenever the power of the governing class asserts itself, then the workers must fight. The State being the political expression of the capitalist class, and since that dominant class uses the machinery of the State—law, justice, police — to maintain its own privileges and to impose its will, the workers contest their claims by political action. When a worker strikes they move against this or that particular employer or group of employers. When a worker votes for a Socialist Party candidate he or she votes against the whole of the capitalist class; they vote for their own class without regard to sectional divisions.
As the development of capitalism brings greater pressure to bear upon the workers, in the not distant future, it will finally ensue which will force the workers to rid themselves of capitalism for ever. One day the proletariat will arise. The Socialist Party’s task is to supplement the instinct of revolt with a sound knowledge of socialism.
It is only upon occasions of general economic prosperity, and the consequent demand for labour-power, that the everyday struggle of the unions over the terms of the sale of this labour-power, may temporarily bear meagre fruit. Reforms may be fought bitterly, but there is scope for reform without shaking the whole system apart. No such occasion exists at the present. The workers now endure a great recession, and there is less demand for the workers’ labour-power, and, in these conditions, it is vain to hope for an improvements by the methods of the everyday struggle.
In its normal state, capitalism has become an obsolete oppressive system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but most continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. So there is no real possibility of replacing the system and attempts to do so degenerate into futile reformism and/or terrorism, whatever the “revolutionary socialist” rhetoric.
In crisis conditions all this is reversed. The cake is shrinking and the fight is over the size of slices and who is to bear the loss. Among capitalists the fight is over who is to survive and who is to swallowed up. Between capitalists and workers there is no room for compromise. Reforms become impossible and even past achievements are rolled back. “We can’t afford these luxuries any more”. Unfortunately, within the working class too, there is less unity as people find themselves in “hard times” where it is “everyone for themselves” and the search of scape-goats.
But in the very fact that the economic struggle may no longer produce benefits that provides an opportunity for the Socialist Party. The conditions are now ripe for the workers to pass beyond the narrow confines of the everyday trade-union struggle to the broader battle-field of revolutionary political action for socialism and the permanent emancipation of the working class. During periods of economic crisis, the contradiction of capitalism sharpen and the possibility of actually getting rid of capitalism arises. A substantial proportion of the population is drawn into active political struggle as they confront questions of what society is to do to get out of its impasse. There is no crisis that the ruling class could not resolve if it was allowed to, but with the working class politically active, the possibility arises of the ruling class not being allowed to, and of people taking things into their own hands.
A true socialist community will not be brought into being by legislative manipulation. It must be built by men and women in voluntary association. The work of changing peoples’ values and attitudes and the summoning up of aspirations to further change by means of critiques of existing society, remains as much a duty of socialists as the conquest and maintenance of working-class power. We need to put forward new ideas for discussion about what we might do to start building socialism. Consistent refusal to do so risks valid criticism that we do not present a viable alternative and “no blueprints” is often seen as an excuse for “no ideas”.
No comments:
Post a Comment