Part 3. Further (theoretical) issues:
3.1 Workers’ radical
consciousness:
3.2 Choices of strategy:
alliances, the state etc.
3.3 the labour movement
and radical politics: who best represents the workers’ interests? Marxism and
Socialism.
3.4 “the 57 varieties of
Marxism.”
3.5
Theoretical issues concerning the labour movement as a “social movement”.
3.5.1 It is open to discussion as to whether the
labour movement is a typical social movement or not.
3.5.2 The end of the workers’ movement in theory.
3.5.3. The labour movement and social class
3.5.4 Ideological viewpoints and theories concerning
social movements
3.5.5 “Old”
and” new” social movements:
3.1 Workers’ radical
consciousness:
The point about
choice of beliefs raises a number of interesting questions, a key one being:
how do workers’ develop revolutionary
consciousness?
(a) I have
already touched on the question, raised as a result of Marxist formulations, as
to whether the distinction between economic (i.e. reformist) and political
(reformist or revolutionary) demands is a watertight one (1.2 above). There are
further heated arguments as whether it is true that workers’ consciousness needs to be raised, by the influence of
others, from mere protest to demanding revolutionary change, and how
exactly this might happen. For Marx, it would seem, once he had demonstrated
that capitalism was internally contradictory, it was almost inevitable that workers would come to realise the true
situation – though if workers failed to head the call to revolution and
socialism they would be left with “barbarism” (incidentally, this was the
original name of the group that became Solidarity, of which more shortly!). Marx’s law of the Tendency of the Rate of Profit to Fall (TRPF for short!) meant that
capitalism could not survive, but would crash in a final crisis as workers
became poorer and capitalists were no longer able to increase their profits.
However, not only is the TRPF highly controversial (see my review of Callinicos:
Resources of Critique), it has been rejected as deterministic: in other words, it leaves workers as passive cogs in
a machine that is driving on to socialism whatever they do. If this is an accurate
picture of the way capitalism works, it seems hardly likely to inspire workers
to revolution! Add to this the fact that the economic theory behind the TRPF is
pretty abstruse and complex – how is that going to inspire a revolutionary
movement?
One answer to
this dilemma was found by Lenin. He (in the same spirit as Engels, as we have
seen above) argued that left to themselves workers would only achieve what he
called “trade union consciousness” (see my Postface, with A.A. Raskolnikov, to
Andy Brown’s pamphlet on Lenin, published by Solidarity. See: http://www.fondation-besnard.org/article.php3?id_article=208
). Hence the need for a “vanguard”, which the Bolshevik Party, together with
radicalised middle-class intellectuals who understood Marxist theory, was to
provide.
I would add that
economic determinism seems to be inevitably, logically, accompanied by
vanguardism… This is one reason why writers such as Castoriadis ended up
rejecting an economistic interpretation of Marxism (and even Marxism itself).
Critics of
Leninism (and vanguardism) argue that there is a danger that the vanguard will
cease to represent the interests of the workers in order to promote their own
interests – thus paving the way for rule by an elite or even an individual
dictator acting in the name of the Party. Rosa Luxembourg, for example, warned
that the Party would substitute itself
for the movement, the Central Committee for the Party, and then one man for the
Central Committee (see the Postface cited above). This was a pretty shrewd
observation as we now know from the history of Stalinism, and I would go
further and say that the roots of Stalinist personal dictatorship could be seen
in the early stages of the 1917 revolution (see Notes on the
Russian Revolution), when grass-roots workers’ organisations were taken
over by the Bolsheviks.
3.2 Choices of strategy:
alliances, the state etc.
A central point I
am making is that the workers’ movement, and within it the radical strand, was divided over beliefs and strategy.
Anarchists
opposed the Leninist emphasis on a vanguard party, and argued that the state (as an instrument through which
the ruling class exerted its power) must be abolished. Lenin and his followers believed the state should be captured, by the working class, and
that it could then be used to remove any remaining class divisions and to begin
to manage a socialist economy.
This dispute can
be expressed in other terms as well: it was an opposition between centralisation (which critics argue
leads to bureaucracy, and technocracy – rule by experts) and decentralisation. One of the most
bitter disputes, especially in
As is predictable
in politics, there was also the question of who it would be safe to form alliances with. At times, communists –
for example – have argued for a “broad front” strategy, i.e. working with
non-revolutionaries or even non-socialists. At other times (e.g. during the
Second World War) the non-revolutionary socialists have become the enemy!
Gramsci wrote about these issues (see notes on Marxism) and
coined the phrase “historic bloc”
for alliances that might be necessary to bring about historical change. Later,
again especially in the Soviet Union, there were disputes over nationalism or internationalism – for communists argued that the change from
capitalism would happen on a world scale; however, once communists had taken
over in one country they became anxious to preserve their position and change
their own economy without having to wait for other countries to “catch up” by
having their own revolutions. Stalin’s slogan “socialism in one country” was
necessary to stress this line.
These issues may
seem remote from the day-to-day concerns of workers, but once the workers’
movement developed a political outlook (and it is my belief that social
movements will not achieve much unless they do this) disputes over such issues
became widespread in the movement.
3.3 the labour movement
and radical politics: who best represents the workers’ interests? Marxism and
Socialism.
As further
evidence on this point, here is a brief review of the main radical viewpoints
that influenced the workers’ movement. This is not intended to be a thorough
account. Please look elsewhere in my notes for more detail on specific views.
Marxism and socialism:
There is a
tendency to regard socialism and
Marxism (see links given above) as synonymous with the labour movement and the
working class, but as we have noted, the demands made by trades unions are not
necessarily, nor always, socialist or even radical. As noted, Lenin was to make
much of this, criticising the workers for their lack of radical goals, and
arguing that workers’ understanding needed to be taken further (by the
Bolshevik Party) before they became conscious of the need for socialism, that
is for a change of economic system.
On the other
hand, the belief that workers are exploited, (because they do not control their
work) is clearly more a socialist (or anarchist – see Political Philosophy
Part 2: Anarchism) idea than it is a conservative one! (Though it might be
worth noting that fascism, and especially Nazism, claimed to hold to the
‘dignity of labour’ and often argued that workers are exploited by (mainly
Jewish) capitalists: however, such economic ideas as they do have are not, in
my view, opposed to capitalism as such, but to ‘monopolies’ and ‘big business’
– and in favour of the small businessman. There were also ‘big’ capitalists
such as Krupps who supported Nazism).
So, it is important
to note that there were other political currents amongst workers: for example, anarchism, which stands for the
abolition of government, and for control over life to be had by citizens and
workers directly. Anarchism is to my mind best understood as originating in the
labour movement. In
Marxism as a
theory has of course played an important part in analysing the labour movement, and as a practice it has been very influential within the movement. My point
still stands, however: the labour movement is broad (like all social
movements) and Marxism represents only one strand within it. However,
this is heresy as far as Marxists are concerned, since their analysis leads
them to conclude that only the organised working class, conscious supporters of
Marxist theory and practice, can bring about a change of system to a socialist
society.
3.4 “the 57 varieties of
Marxism.”
Which
political tendency best represents the "workers' movement"? A quick
guide to some of the 57 varieties of Socialism/Marxism.
Risking the ire
of Marxists further, and on the other hand putting myself in danger of being
seen as an “anorak” by non-Marxists, I have compiled a “guide for the
perplexed” to the variety of left-wing groups (my thanks to Solidarity – and
see my Biographical
Background for more on all this!).
It has long been
a source of fascination to me how much fragmentation and factionalism exists on
the left, and how some groups spend more time arguing with each other than with
the opposition!
[(*) The “57 varieties”
refers to an old advertisement which referred to the variety of Heinz products
(soups, baked beans etc) – Solidarity used to add as a comment on the
ideological varieties: “none fit for human consumption!”… ]
This is by no
means an exhaustive list, and it probably needs continual updating, but I hope
it gives an idea of the main issues and positions taken up.
(a) "The Third
International" – the biggest grouping of Marxists, originally
followers of Lenin and the Communist Party of the
The various national Communist
Parties (CPs) that adhere to the main grouping are, however, divided still
further, as a result of (i) different reactions to Khruschev's revelations in
1953 about Stalin’s abuse of power and his “personality cult” (ii) the belief
that communists must adapt their strategy to suit different national,
historical or political situations. The main split, originating in the 1950s,
was between:
- Eurocommunist parties (e.g.
Italian CP) – these parties participate in elections and are non-Stalinist
- Stalinist parties (Albania
etc) or "ideological hardliners".
(b) "Revolutionary Marxism" - since many CPs tend to take part
in Parliamentary elections etc, Marxists who stress the revolutionary nature of
Marxism have set up separate groupings. Substantial theoretical differences
obviously exist between these groups and the CPs, e.g. revolutionary Marxists
stress the international nature of the movement, against the “national”
organisations of the Third International – hence the International Marxist Group, International
Socialists etc. But they also have what to them are substantial differences
with each other (e.g. in the
Examples of these parties: (
(c) "Trotskyism" - an early split from the
CP/Third International, in fact formed the Fourth International, when Trotsky
was exiled from the
Example: Workers' Revolutionary
Party (now defunct, and split into many fragments).
(d) "Maoists" - Mao's main alteration
to/development of Marxism was to give a role to the peasantry, in alliance with
the CP of course; this has been welcomed by some in less developed countries
(strong in
(e) Western Marxism/philosophical Marxists – seen by some (see Marxism) as
a product of the failure of revolutionary Marxism in the "west". In
other words, despite the common view after the 1917 Russian Revolution that
other countries in
“Western Marxists” have also
been very much concerned with how to link theory and practice, especially given
that the working class had become so inactive. They particularly stressed the
role of ideas and culture in permitting the ruling class to mislead the workers
(Gramsci’s concept of “hegemony” was important here). Some were influenced by
other contemporary schools of philosophy such as phenomenology and
existentialism. As a consequence, perhaps, they were less concerned with such
aspects of Marxism as the “economic laws of motion of capitalism”, or the right
strategy for class struggle, nor were they much concerned with a close
understanding of the workings of the bourgeois state.
Some examples of “western
Marxism”:
- Critical Theory (Adorno and
others): after the second world war, and before that the extraordinary growth
of fascism (which seemed to have an appeal to workers and was a threat to
Marxism because of this) theorists argued that fascism needed to be better
understood. As with Gramsci, the focus shifted to “ideology” – which Marx had
“unmasked” by using a “critical” approach.
Remember Marx’s dictum: “the ruling ideas of any period are the ideas of
the ruling class!” If we critically examine the “ruling ideas” of the time, and
add to this some understanding of psychology, so we can explain how people
react to these ideas, it might then be possible to answer questions such as:
why was it that such a rag-bag of ideas as fascism had such an appeal? For
critical theorists the answer lay in an understanding of the “authoritarian
personality” – i.e. people had been brought up to either try to control others
or to need controlling (by “authority figures”). Instead of adults developing
as autonomous individuals (see: Recommencing
Revolution: Introduction to Castoriadis) they either became dependent on
others, or they attempted to control others. Fascism was then reassuring to
such people as it clearly divided everyone into leaders and led. Wilhelm Reich
is linked to this idea, but his emphasis was on how sexual repression led to
authoritarianism
- another, later, figure who
drew on Freudian psychology to re-examine social conflict, and whose work was
influential (it could be argued) on the student movement of the 1960s, was
Herbert Marcuse. He developed the notion of “repressive tolerance” to explain
how in modern societies protest could be undermined by the apparent tolerance
shown by the “system”. For example, when the media make fun of protest
movements, turn them into “spectacles” and emphasise their odd or peculiar
aspects, rather than trying to counter the arguments being put forward, this
(to me) all contributes to the phenomenon of repressive tolerance. You only
have to consider how “ban the bombers”, hippies, student protesters, feminists
and greens have been portrayed in the media as, respectively: hopeless
idealists, sandal-wearing long-haired dropouts, doped-up middle class would-be
intellectuals, dungaree-wearing harridans, “swampy” types…. It is very easy, especially when, as Marcuse
said, “the medium (i.e. TV especially)
is the massage” (not, as is often
said, “message”) to shape the ideas of the general public
- the "New Left"
broadened this approach, taking into account how history had been written (E.P.
Thompson, Christopher Hill), or how culture and literature influence the
general political climate of ideas (Raymond Williams). In the case of the former, it is crucial,
they argued, to remember that history is written by the victors. Radical
writers on culture, on the other hand, showed some of the mechanisms by which a
ruling class could influence the content of newspapers, TV programmes etc. –
since it is clearly not enough to demonstrate that the ruling ideas are those
of the ruling class: this might be pure coincidence, or simply because those
ideas are right! What has to be shown is (i) that these ideas operate in the
interests of the ruling class and (ii) that the ruling class has means whereby
it can get these ideas accepted by those who run the media.
- it would be going too far in
terms of this section, to deal with the ideas of others, e..g. Althusser, who
might be called Western Marxists (but see links above)
(f) there are also Marxists who have “combined”
Marxism and religion, especially Christianity. This is not as bizarre an idea
as at first it might seem, given that a strong case can be made for Christ and
the early Christians having been “communist” in the sense of advocating the
abolition of private property, and equal sharing of goods. (See my notes on Socialism
before and besides Marx) Christian socialism has played an important part
in
3.5
Theoretical issues concerning the labour movement as a “social movement”, and
whether it is still worth studying.
3.5.1 It is open to discussion as to whether the
labour movement is a typical social movement or not.
If a social
movement is defined (see social
movements: theory) as:
"a collective endeavour to promote or resist
change in the society of which it forms part"
(Bottomore, 1979).
or “a
collective body distinguished by a high level of commitment and political
activism, but often lacking a clear
organisation” (Heywood, 1997)
or “a collective attempt to further a common
interest, or secure a common goal, through collective action outside the
sphere of established institutions" (Giddens, 1989 ch 19)
… then we might argue that the labour movement is too
self-interested to count as a social movement. That is, social movements are
concerned
with promoting
social change, whereas workers – especially in trade unions – are primarily
interested in defending their own interests. It is this kind of thinking that
has led some radicals to criticise or even dismiss trade unions as agents of
social change, and to see them as more akin to interest-groups or pressure
groups.
On the other
hand, I have argued that trade unions are only a part of the movement, and that they themselves are often internally
divided, with some (many?) members having radical, political goals. Moreover,
even unions have at times pushed for political change - so it seemed during the
General Strike for example. If unions were purely self-interested there would
surely be less pressure from some sections of the media, and from government,
for them to restrict the scope of their demands. It is also revealing that when
the unions, in the 1970s, were criticised for having or wanting “too much
power”, this criticism was often directed at their having broader social goals
– yet these goals included caring about the plight of pensioners… and why
should unions not be concerned about these wider social issues? Presumably it
is in the interests of right-wing commentators that the trade union movement
sticks to narrow self-interested goals, acting as a pressure group rather than
a social movement – and that it is not too successful in achieving these
either!
Similarly, when, under
the Wilson government, unions were seen as part of the decision-making process
(with the “social contract”, and “beer and sandwiches at Downing Street”!)
there was criticism from some quarters that this was “corporatism” (the unions
being incorporated into the state apparatus), and as such, similar to what had
been adopted in fascist and communist regimes. Again, this kind of criticism
surely reveals that there is an expectation that trade unions keep out of
politics.
To clarify the
point at issue: if unions do stay out of politics, they seem to have two
options:
- to pursue narrow self-interested economic goals, in
which case they are acting more like pressure groups than a social movement
- to pursue wider political goals, outside established
channels and institutions; then, from Giddens’s point of view, they are social
movements because
they are "a
collective attempt to further a common interest, or secure a common goal,
through collective action outside the sphere of established institutions" (my emphasis) (Giddens, 1989 ch 19).
However it is worth stressing, again, that strikes and
other forms of action are not always or only aimed at economic ends. Industrial
action is not just instrumental (to gain a particular objective), but may be
designed to reinforce a sense of solidarity amongst workers. (For some workers,
and in some situations, they are a first step on the road to worker-power!).
Again, I would argue that the distinction between economic and political is not
a clear one. Thompson (1963) also applies this point to class, which he sees as
not simply an economic category (see below): we should not use the word in such
a narrow restrictive way as to lose sight of the fact that class is also about
identity, ethics and collective fellow-feeling.
Trade unions, on the other hand, seem much less
comparable to social movements if we stress Bottomore’s point that social
movements, if successful, "establish
preconditions for changes of policy or regime, by bringing into question the
legitimacy of the existing political system (in part or in whole), creating a
different climate of opinion, and proposing alternatives." It is obvious that so long as trade unions - or any
other collective workers’ organisations - only pursue self-interested goals,
they will simply serve to prolong the life of capitalism (“reformed”
capitalism, as MacIvor put it, - or not!), and are not acting as a social movement, to change society.
Yet it seems to
me that the labour movement as a whole
generally does act to change society – fundamentally by seeking a
redistribution of power between workers on the one hand and employers/owners of
industry on the other.
In conclusion: it seems to me that
labour movement is a social movement –
although at times, and in places, it acts more like a pressure-group. Trade unions on the whole are less radical.
When the movement adopts radical political aims it clearly has the potential to
change society, since workers play such a crucial role in the structure of any
modern society.
In
The Marxist view that the labour
movement is inevitably a
revolutionary social movement seems to me an over-simplification, and we need
to take more account of the variety of social and cultural circumstances in
which the movement has found itself before trying to predict how it will
behave.
The last point
takes us onto other – more theoretical – issues, such as the question of the
relationship of social movements, and the labour movement in particular, to
social class (see below).
3.5.2 The end of the
workers’ movement in theory:
In “academic”
circles, there is still ongoing discussion about theoretical issues, and
strategic questions for the labour movement, and the labour movement is of
continuing interest as an example of a
social movement(regardless of when it is alleged to have disappeared in
practice) . The study of the labour movement has been therefore, and still is, very
fruitful in terms of understanding social movements in general, the way that
society is continually changing, and the part played by various “social actors”
in these changes.
To give just two
examples of the kind of ongoing theoretical discussion about the labour
movement and social change:
(i) della Porta
(1999) says: the social changes after the Second World War led to a questioning
amongst sociologists of the “centrality of the capital-labour conflict”. In
other words, with the welfare state and consequent improvements in workers’
health and safety; with the provision of free education for all, including the
working class; with the growth of “public ownership” of industry
(nationalisation); even, one could argue, with the increased role of “managers”
rather than “owners” in industry (the so-called “separation of ownership and
control”); and above all with the dramatic improvement in the pay and living
conditions of the working class – how could anyone still argue that the central
feature of society is class conflict?
All this before John Major’s claim that “we are all middle class now”!!
(ii) there is an
ongoing argument between Marxists, who still see the working class as promoting
a unique kind of social and political
movement (the labour movement as the means by which radical social change will
be brought about), and non-Marxists who argue that other social groupings
(women, ethnic groups etc) can form movements that have as significant an
impact on society. So, for example,
(Boggs 1986) argues that new social movements have a momentum of their own, and
are not secondary to class analysis or expressions of an assumed "primary
contradiction" as in Marxist theory.
3.5.3. The labour movement and
social class:
I think we should
argue that a social movement is
broad and diffuse, but with fairly precise or narrow goals; and that a social class is a different kind of entity,
defined by its position in society (see social
movements: theory, section 2 (b)). Social movements – and even the labour
movement -therefore cut across classes.
Social movement theory is a new way of looking at social change,
especially in relation to Marxism which is a “class theory” (i.e. the most
important and basic component of society is class).
Perhaps Marxists
should see social movement theory as a dangerous diversion, since from a Marxist
point of view, the labour movement must be the (most active - vanguard? - part
of) the working class. From a social movement theory point of view, the labour
movement will certainly contain predominantly members of the working class but
we have seen how it also attracts intellectuals and others from non
working-class backgrounds.
Alternatively,
some “post-marxists” see all social movements as indications of or part of
class action. (see Pakulski 1991).
Other non-Marxist sociologists use the word class in a different way to
Marxists. For example, Seymour Lipset 1959 (as described in Pakulski 1991)
argued that all social movements spring from, or are part of, class action. But
his use of the word “class” is much looser than the traditional Marxist one, and
he seems to be referring to such things as “interests, sentiments and styles”
(Pakulski op cit p 16). Parkin, also,
uses the word in a distinct way (1991).
Lipset tried to
link different kinds of political ideologies and social movements with different
“classes”, and he differentiated between “extremist” and “democratic” political
expressions within each. Thus:
- the extreme
left-wing elements of the working class, he said, produced both communism and
Peronism;
- similar (but
“centrist”) elements in the middle classes (e.g. small entrepreneurs, including
those in agriculture) were hostile to both class enemies, i.e. hostile to both
the upper or capitalist class, and to the working class, represented by
communists, and therefore produced fascism;
- whilst
right-wing upper class extremism took the form of “traditional
authoritarianism”.
For Lipset, mass social movements were in a sense
“pathological”: they represented different forms of extremism, which would be supported by the uneducated and insecure
categories of each class. Only such uneducated elements would be vulnerable to
the kind of charismatic leaders who encourage extremism. In his view, such
movements arose when a society faced conditions of threat and/or of
displacement, especially the instability produced by rapid modernisation.
Lipset was particularly influenced by the mass movements of the 1930s (in
For some ex- or
post-Marxists, such as
3.5.4 Ideological
viewpoints and theories concerning social movements:
As I have argued
right from the start of these notes, political allegiances affect how different
people see the labour movement. The
academic world thinks of itself as free from bias and ideology, but I wonder if
this can be so? When we get an overview of different theories
of social movements we certainly see evaluation taking place and not pure
objective observation (if there can be such a thing!).
I have already
mentioned (3.2.1) Lipset’s views that social movements are pathological: they are
seen as extreme reactions to feelings of frustration, exclusion, anxiety and
stress that are produced by society. This suggests that although such feelings
may be inevitable or natural, for society to function well we all need to be
able to react to them in a balanced and proportionate way. Lipset’s views are described as part of the
“collective behaviour” theory, and clearly come from a conservative
perspective. They are similar to “functionalist” views, that all societies
manage to produce, naturally, whatever structures and components they need to
“function” in a balanced and “normal” way.
On the other
hand, the “resource mobilisation” perspective sees social movements as a
rational way of responding to social pressures. However, because of this perspective’s
emphasis on the “normal” political process, presumably it would regard radical
demands as somehow unacceptable?
For further
discussion of these theories see the pages on social movement theory.
3.5.5 “Old” and” new” social movements:
It has been
argued, frequently, (see: Touraine, Offe etc in Pakulski 1991 p 27, Scott 1990
p 16 ff, Lyman 1995 pp 116-7), that there is a distinction between “new” and
“old” social movements. The labour movement is seen as an example of the
latter, since its aims were political
– seeking changes in state or state policy – not social. That is, they were
acting within industrial society
rather than trying to change it. Thus the labour movement, it is said, sought:
an extension of the franchise, workers’ rights, a recognition of the legitimacy
of trades unions etc. Putting this another way, it focussed on concepts such as
citizenship and representation, both of which are concepts belonging to industrial society – whereas (as
Others have
argued that new social movements are located within civil society, and are little concerned to challenge the
state directly – they may in fact want to defend civil society from what is
seen as an encroaching technocratic state. (see also Melucci 1984) For these
writers, capitalism (the old society) has been replaced by technocracy.
However, if as I
have argued, the labour movement is closely associated with socialism, then
this distinction is not so clear. After all, by definition, socialism is about
changing our view of the social. It can be seen that a lot depends on what your
view of socialism is… Some would argue that the green movement has replaced the
workers’ movement in its “totalising” approach – the workers’ movement having
narrowed its aims and outlook.
Scott (1990)
argues that old and new social movements are differently organised: old
movements are organised in formal, hierarchical way, whilst new social
movements rely on networks and grassroots action. Yet, as argued already,
workers’ councils and strike committees were grassroots organisations, often
networked or federated together…. Scott suggests that the methods used differ also:
old social movements use political mobilisation, whilst new movements use
direct action, cultural innovation etc. Again, part of the labour movement –
especially on the anarchist wing! – believed in direct action, and the
socialist movement has always contained those who believed in the importance of
the cultural sphere, such as William Morris.