Part 1 – The Civilising Mission
“Thus the truck system was suppressed, the Ten Hours’ Bill [2] was enacted, and a number of other secondary reforms introduced — much against the spirit of Free Trade and unbridled competition, but quite as much in favour of the giant-capitalist in his competition with his less favoured brother. Moreover, the larger the concern, and with it the number of hands, the greater the loss and inconvenience caused by every conflict between master and men; and thus a new spirit came over the masters, especially the large ones, which taught them to avoid unnecessary squabbles, to acquiesce in the existence and power of Trades’ Unions, and finally even to discover in strikes — at opportune times — a powerful means to serve their own ends. The largest manufacturers, formerly the leaders of the war against the working-class, were now the foremost to preach peace and harmony. And for a very good reason. The fact is that all these concessions to justice and philanthropy were nothing else but means to accelerate the concentration of capital in the hands of the few, for whom the niggardly extra extortions of former years had lost all importance and had become actual nuisances; and to crush all the quicker and all the safer their smaller competitors, who could not make both ends meet without such perquisites.”
(Engels – The Condition of The Working Class in England)
In recent posts, I have challenged the view that, provided the Labour Movement is organised enough, militant enough, it can win concessions from Capital. Its not surprising that sections of the Left hold such a view, because, although, Marx and Engels advised against placing too much importance on the industrial struggle, on the recurring, “guerilla actions”, that has, in reality, been the arena, during periods of upsurge, that the Left has given, almost all of its attention. Given that it is during these times that workers make the greatest economic advance, the Left is bound to see that advance as being, not a product of the economic conditions, but of its own actions. But, are these, really concessions wrung by Labour from Capital, or are they as I would argue merely conveniences for Capital, merely dressed up in the clothes of workers demands, and all the more effective, for that reason, in deluding the workers into a continuing belief that Capitalism can meet their needs, and all they have to do is to negotiate a better bargain.
Living conditions did improve from the middle of the 19th Century onwards, but, in the Grundrisse, Marx explains this as merely being the consequence of the “Civilising Mission of Capital”, that is as Capital Accumulation proceeds, even though the production of Relative Surplus Value relatively reduces the amount of labour required, absolute demand for Labour increases, and this increased demand for Labour Power, by the simple operation of the laws of demand and supply, results in a higher price for Labour Power. A convenient development, because it also coincides with the production of larger, and more extensive numbers of use values, for which Capital needs to find a market. See: Wages, Prices and Profits.
Occasionally, workers faced with the closure of the firm they work for, have been able, by militant action, to prevent it. But, far more frequently they have not. Even when such action has appeared successful, it has only forestalled the closure until some future date when the workers have been weakened. Usually, such success is then accompanied with large scale rationalisation, and job losses, which themselves create those conditions of weakness. Even if the rationalisation and job loss does not occur at a particular plant, where such militant action is seen to have forestalled closure, it happens then at other plants, such that the victory is won at the expense not of Capital, but of other workers.
Under some conditions, Capital. via its State, will be prepared to step in, and nationalise a failing plant or industry, but it is foolish to see such action as being a concession to workers resulting from their militant action. The actions of the Capitalist State in the US and UK to nationalise the Banks, during the financial crisis, had nothing to do with them making concessions to a militant working class, but everything to do with stepping in to look after the interests of Capital, by saving a crucial element of its economic system! The nationalisations of the post-war Labour Government were of the same nature. Almost all of the industries, were basic core industries upon which British industrial capital depended, but almost all of which were suffering from decades of under-investment by their private owners. The capitalist state stepped in to provide that needed capital out of the public purse, and at the same time, and from the same source, paid out huge amounts of compensation to the former owners. At the same time, it carried through huge rationalisations of production, throwing thousands of workers on the dole, in the case of coal, more than even Maggie Thatcher was later to achieve. In those industries, which were capable of making decent profits, such as steel, there was massive opposition to nationalisation, and it was only pressure from within the Labour Party, not the unions, that led Attlee to nationalise it, and once the Tories got back in in 1951, they were quick to denationalise it. See The Lessons Of UCS
The example of the NHS is often cited as a concession won from Capital by concerted working-class pressure, along with other elements of the Welfare State. Yet, the basic elements of that Welfare State were drawn up, not by a Labour, or even a Liberal politician, but by the Tory Neville Chamberlain, in the 1920's.
Moreover, although the Welfare State was only properly introduced after WWII, Chamberlain drew up his proposals in the 1920's, at a time when, rather than the working-class being strong, and able to wring concessions from Capital, it was very weak, having just lost the General Strike, and the consequences of the onset of the Long Wave downturn were beginning to be felt. Although workers benefit from the provision of decent healthcare, the NHS has to be seen in this wider context. They clearly also benefit from the higher living standards that Capitalism has provided them as a result of the accumulation of Capital, of that “Civilising Mission”, but those higher living standards are not concessions that Capital has conceded, but merely a necessary bi-product of its own development. The same is true of the provision of elements of that higher living standard in the form of healthcare and education. Early on, Capital realised the need for workers to have a basic level of Education if they were to be productive workers once production increasingly became more technical. The more technical production, and life within Capitalist society became, the more Education workers were deemed to need, in order to be effective production units. Initially, Capital had workers pay for this education themselves in direct payments, but it soon became apparent that there were problems with this. Workers might decide to keep their money rather than spend it on educating their kids, and so insufficiently educated workers would be produced. Secondly, from 1852, the Co-op had been providing socialist education for its members and their children, and the First International was advocating education free of any class bias.
As workers living standards rose, and it became increasingly capable of the “self-government” and independence from the state that the First International advocated – see Politics and Programme of The First International - the capitalists also recognised the need for them to be in control of this education, precisely in order to use it as a means of indoctrination, and socialisation of workers, and to prevent it being used by workers against them. The clearest example of that was the struggle over independent working-class education waged by the Plebs League.
No comments:
Post a Comment