Towards a new 1968 ?

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

Bruce McQuain wrote :
>
> Adam wrote:
>
> >Because workers produce all the wealth under capitalism, they have the power
> >to overthrow it.
>
>   One has to wonder why they haven't then.  I don't say that flippantly or
> to provoke...I do wonder.  My theory is they have see no reason to do so
> because of the relative comfort they've been able to attain, the 
> "accomodation"
> they enjoy.

Workers in advanced capitalist countries do rebel from time to time on a massive
scale. France, either today or in 1968, proves this. But it is possible to look
more widely at the whole world between 1968 + 1974 ( roughly ) and see the same
trends.

Why did these movements run out of steam ?

I do not think it is because workers had achieved some sort of "relative 
comfort".
I think it was because of the strength of reformist politics, and the weakness 
of
revolutionary politics. [ Of course, the relative strengths of these tendencies
within the workers movement was determined in part by the length and strength of
the post war boom - but that boom has clearly ended now ].

The events of May 1968 in France cannot be explained by the affluence of workers
before 1968, a temporary loss in affluence in the month of May, and a 
reattainment
of their previous affluence sometime around August.

Rather, tensions were building up in French society for a number of years
before 1968. These then burst into the open in May 1968. However, after a while,
the Communist Party and the CP supporting Trade Union Bureaucracy were able to
win control from the revolutionaries ( mainly, but not exclusively, students )
who had started it. So, the movement petered out and De Gualle escaped by the
skin of his teeth.

[ The French government today is in effect being propped up by the Trade
Union Bureaucracy, whose leaders are ( for the moment ) holding back
from a General Strike ].

In the British upturn ( 1970 - 74 ) , the Labour government, aided by the Labour
Left and/or CP in the Trade Union movement, were able to get the workers 
movement
to accept the social contract, the ONLY time since the end of WWII when workers
real incomes in Britain have actually fallen.

There was a similar story in Italy ( and Portugal, Spain, . . . ).

These events marked a rebirth of the revolutionary tradition, particularly in
the advanced Capitalist countries. Unfortunately, however, they were too weak
at the beginning of these upheavals to be able to have a decisive role at the
crucial turning points.


Two things have changed since this period :

i)      The capitalist system obviously isn't going to return to this
        level of prosperity - more the opposite, as France today shows.

ii)     The reformists have been in power and have discredited themselves.
        On the surface, this can manifest itself in cynicism about politics
        as a whole. However, the other side of the coin is that when things
        do move revolutionaries will find it easier and reformists harder
        to get a hearing than last time.


>
> I believe it was Rakesh that quoted the example of the "Ford
> contract" (I believe that's correct).  That accomodation has kept workers
> quietly in check for years.
>

And this concensus is now falling apart - the new leadership in the AFL-CIO
is a reflection of that, isn't it ?

>     Don't forget what you are demanding they do...destroy the institution
> that has helped them attain this comfort zone for something radically 
> different
> that only promises a "superior lifestyle" with nothing to point too as proof.
>
>   My experience tells me that human beings are not creatures that will
> willingly jeopardize what they consider a most adequate lifestyle for
> nebulous promises of
> a more "moral" lifestyle, a "fairer" existance, or "social justice".  Those
> terms
> have little meaning to a people living "comfortably".  The comfort zone has
> to be threatened before they'll take any action.  Look at France right now
> for an example.
>

It cuts two ways. In the mid 80's, there were lots of commentators ( mostly
in the rapidly rightward moving CP, BTW ) saying British workers will never
go on strike because they've all got mortgages. By the late 80's, workers
were being forced to go on strike precisely because of high mortgage
payments.

> >Also, capitalism thrusts ever increasing numbers of workers together,
> >collectivising them whether they like it or not. So Capitalism creates
> >the potential for collective struggle which is neccessary to defeat
> >Capitalism at the workplace.
>
>   With the virtual office becoming more and more common, that's something that
> can't be counted on.  Many more workers will be physically isolated in the
> not to distant future.
>

The "virtual office" isn't becoming more and more common. The opposite is
happenning. More and more jobs are becoming centralised and routinised
as technology is introduced. So, in the UK, Banks used to have many
branches and nice friendly "jobs for life" branch managers. Now the managers
have been sacked, and everything is done by phone + computer from a
district, or even national, office. Decisions which used to made face to
face by a middle class professional are now made by a working class
data input clerk and a computer program.

This is the modern version of "proletarianisation" that Marx talked about.

>
> >Sometimes when particular groups of workers are oppressed, like
> >in Nothern Ireland, it is only at the workplace workers from
> >both sides of the divide can come together and discover their
> >common interest and combined power.
>
>   OK...but how does that translate into action when outside the workplace
> they are divided?  It would seem to me that it would be extremely difficult
> to overcome the rift outside of work in the particular case you cite.
>

Well, part of the impetus behind the peace process was from a strike at the
notoriously Orange Harland + Wolf(f?) factory. The ( mainly protestant )
workers went on strike against threats made against Catholic workers by
the protestant paramilitaries.

There are plenty of other examples.

> >Marx was able to discern these trends in his time. Now, however, it is
> >clearer than ever. There are more workers in South Korea today than there
> >were in the whole world in Marx's time.
>
>   And they are more comfortable/content now than they were 10 years ago.

Speak for yourself.

There's more poverty , alienation and bitterness now than there was even ten 
years ago.
Soon or later this will burst out into the open, as it has in France today.

As in France today, the ruling class has very little room for manoeuvre,
and therefore few crumbs from the table to offer the reformists.
The outcome will be determined by the strength of Marxist ideas, which
put workers organisation and activity, not parliament or cosy negotiations,
at the heart of a strategy for change.

If the left fails, the right is waiting in the wings to cash in on this deep
bitterness. Not recognising the depth, or even the existence, of that
bitterness, is courting disaster.

> What's
> the incentive to rock the boat?

Open your eyes !
Look at the world around you.

For example, in France, people are asking why do the rulers spend millions
on testing nuclear weapons when they won't pay their pensions ?

<cut>
> Why should they trade what they
> perceive as "real"
> gain for what can only be presented as utopia, especially when what is being
> touted
> has been perceived to have failed so miserably in the USSR and eastern
> Europe and as
> oppressive and totalitarian in China?
>

Well, unfortunately, Stalinism distorted the real meaning + tradition of
socialism. We have to overcome that distortion - a task made considerably
easier by the collapse of those regimes.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK











     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------