Dave Gardner

[The photo above is of Ernest Bevin]

“There’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” (Warren Buffett, investor and capitalist, 2006).

The quote above blurts out a truth which the political establishment and media of this country would like to keep from us. We live in a class society in which owners of big capital and their servants on the one hand and workers who depend on salaries and wages for their existence on the other are the main classes with the capitalist class in a dominant position. These two classes struggle over the appropriation of the fruits of the labour of workers. The state does not stand between them as a neutral arbiter but in the main serves the interests of big capital, as for example when it decides on austerity to reduce public services on which ordinary people depend. When the state acts in the interests of workers by, for example, setting up the NHS, this is the result of successful class struggle by organised workers, who ensured that liberal proposals for health care reform were put into effect. The working class was in a strong position after the Second World War and in a position to ensure that the state acted in their interests.  

Class War and Class Struggle.

A lot of effort goes into pretending that social classes do not exist. Tories, Labour and Liberals do not at all like the idea and frequently claim that social class is obsolete, the term ‘social class’ a hangover from the industrial revolution. Hence the use by mainstream politicians of mealy-mouthed phrases like ‘alarm clock Britain’ ‘strivers’ or ‘hard-working families’ to cover up the uncomfortable reality that the great majority of the working age population and their families depend on the fruits of their daily labour for their livelihood. They are ‘one payslip away from disaster’, a disaster that could lose them their livelihoods, their homes and their families. Working people are as dependent for their livelihood on a ruling capitalist class as serfs were on their lords or slaves on their masters for theirs, unless they organise to represent their own interests. Keir Starmer in proclaiming his working class roots reframes ‘working class’ as aspiration to a more comfortable existence and never mentions the difficulties in achieving this other than through class struggle.

Buffett talks of ‘class war’ but the day-to-day reality is more ordinary. It consists of sundry local battles to improve wages and conditions of work, opposition to sackings and redundancies and campaigns for the recognition of organised labour. This is the reality of everyday class struggle. All this is about the application of force against force but it is not usually all-out warfare. Class struggle concerns the constant tussle between capital and labour for a greater portion of the fruits of the labour of workers and is effective when it is based on organisation.  Capitalists are good at this because they are organised and are capable of capturing the media, the political elite and important elements of the state. In Britain they have been winning the class struggle since 1979. Workers do have local victories but it is fair to say that the whole 45 year period since Thatcher took office has been a long defeat. It is well past time that this defeat should be reversed. 

Trade unionism, that is collective action by workers, is the way in which to conduct the everyday class struggle;  trade unionism in Britain has been in decline for the past 45 years and is particularly weak in the private sector. While this has been happening, the political party that used to represent trade unionism in parliament, the Labour Party, has become a party of big capitalism. It promotes the interests of big capital, weakens the ability of the state to attend to working class interests and has established itself as a caste profiting from the spoils of professional politics: cushy jobs in think tanks and the press, as political advisers and lobbyists for wealthy interests. The needs of working people are far from their concerns except when they can no longer ignore them.

The optimism of the period from 1945 to 1979 has largely disappeared. Organised labour has been demoralised and weakened by damaging setbacks such as a continual flow of anti-trade union legislation which has made working class organisation much less effective and industrial defeats such as the miners’ strike of 1984. Instead of optimism there is now widespread demoralisation, resignation and even despair amongst large sections of the working population. 

Why did this happen?

The bread and butter work of trade unions is the defence of pay, conditions, health and safety, pensions and job security. Without attending to these basic needs, workers will not see them as organisations that act in their most basic interests. But for organised labour to be effective in the long term, at the political as well as the workplace level, more is needed. Trade unions need to adopt a civic and political role as well as an economic one. They need to be involved in social insurance, education and training and in the governance of their firms. British trade unionism has on the whole, not been very good at this, seeing its role as one of fighting off the capitalists and getting the best possible pay deal from them. It has not been interested in developing the workforce or playing an important role in running the organisations in which they work. There have been hugely important exceptions to this. Ernest Bevin of the TGWU was, in the 1930s and 1940s a towering figure who built up the T&G, defended the living standards of its members and turned trade unionism into a political and civic force. He was not afraid of extending the power of trade unionism beyond the day-to-day class struggle, pushing the working class into becoming more of a ruling class in its own right. After his death in 1951, trade unionism continued to grow, but unfortunately without a guiding aim, despite the fact that outstanding trade unionists with a similar vision such as Jack Jones (a successor at the TGWU) continued to be influential. 

By the mid-1960s it became evident that, by and large, concerted trade union action could achieve most of what it demanded in terms of the ‘bread and butter’ issues of pay, conditions, job security. It was so successful that it had begun to disrupt the workings of capitalism, putting a squeeze on profitability and severely limiting the ‘hire and fire’ prerogative of employers. A solution became necessary. The later 1960s saw an attempt by a genuine friend of the working class, Barbara Castle, to put trade union power within an institutional framework, not so much to tame it as to ensure that it was exercised in such a way that it benefitted both the national economy and the working class.

At this point it is necessary to go back to the distinction between class struggle and class war. In a class war the aim of the war is the destruction of the opposing party, in this case the capitalist class. Many in the trade union movement, for example the Communist Party of Great Britain and various Trotskyist groups were ‘class warriors’ in this sense. They were all the more influential within the trade union and broader labour movement (Labour Party, Co-operative Societies etc.) because they used the ‘bread and butter’ of pay issues of pay and conditions as a weapon of class warfare. By stopping capitalism from working they hoped to destroy it and bring about a socialist revolution. They were not interested in promoting the civic and governance aims of trade unionism within the labour movement, but wanted to use the rhetoric of class struggle to promote class war and thus seize power at the point of capitalist collapse.

But class struggle is not at all the same thing as class war. The class warriors on the left wished to destroy capitalism. Capitalist class warriors want to destroy working class organisations and leave individual workers at the mercy of employers, preferably without any fallback. They are prepared to provide minimal levels of social security or unemployment benefit, if only to keep social peace. 

The great majority of working people and of trade unionists are not class warriors, but they are caught up in the class struggle whether they like it or not. Most want a better deal from capitalism, some want to move beyond capitalism to some form of socialism. We count ourselves in this camp, but rather than advocating the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism we wish to build socialism from within the society. How can this be done? In brief we propose to do it by expanding the power of collective action by the working class and, where and when it is possible, engaging with the state and employers to arrive at solutions based on compromise around common interests. This does not mean ‘class collaboration’ but a rational use of working class power to achieve their interests. There are occasions where the interests of employers and employees converge or where a compromise is possible. Class struggle does not mean ‘no compromise ever’. That is a self-destructive approach. 

Not all employers are enemies of the working class and we need support from good employers in the small and medium enterprise sector without compromising on the need for fair and decent pay and working conditions. We need to support co-operative forms of business activity with worker owners and co-operative ownership as well as publicly owned bodies with worker representation. Trade unions also have a role to play in running vocational education, social security and above all in the governance of the companies in which they work, both in the public and private sector. They may well find themselves ‘managing capitalism’ but they have a chance to do so in the interests of workers and their families and dependents and for those who wish to move beyond capitalism here is a chance to show how well workers can run their own affairs.

The attempt to institutionalise trade union activity within a state framework failed by the late 1960s. The next decade of working class militancy led to the search for another solution. The Wilson government of 1974-6 commissioned the Bullock Report on Industrial Democracy which published its findings in 1977. Bullock recommended equal worker and employer representation on the board of directors on all non-publicly owned companies with more than  2,000 employees with a further third selected by the employer and worker representatives. This was known as the ‘2x + y’ formula for company governance. It was thought that by putting workers in the driving seat they would protect their interests and allow those of their companies to flourish at the same time. Some influential trade unionists saw Bullock as an opportunity to consolidate working class power on a permanent basis. These included Jack Jones of the TGWU and Clive Jenkins of the ASTMS, later the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union (MSF).  Employers, not surprisingly, were in the main not keen on the Bullock proposals. Class warriors of the revolutionary variety were contemptuous of such a way of propping up capitalism while, as they saw it, working class action would bring about its downfall within a very short timeframe. Right wing trade unionists who believed in a limited class struggle for pay, conditions, employment protection and health and safety also objected because they thought that this would distract trade unions from their traditional ‘bread and butter’ role within capitalism. Hardly anyone in Britain paid any attention to Germany where, in 1974, the German unions won a great victory by ensuring 50% worker representation on the supervisory boards of companies, as well as a powerful within-plant workers’ council network. 

The Bullock report died through lack of trade union support and it seemed as if the worker-capitalist stalemate would continue. This was not to be however, because by this time the capitalist class had found a champion who would not only advocate for unrestrained capitalist control over the economy but who could also win over large sections of the electorate who were fed up with the disruption caused by the stalemated class struggle. This champion was Margaret Thatcher whose government, elected in 1979, was dedicated to the weakening of the trade union movement. Her task was made easier by the fact that the Labour Party and the trade unions thought that industrial action could bring about her downfall. Although this did not happen in the first five years of her government, some class warriors, notably Arthur Scargill, leader of the miners’ union did not give up, and thought that ‘one more heave’ would see her off. They could not have been more mistaken and the tragedy of the failed miners’ strike of 1984 not only crippled the union but demoralised the wider labour movement. 

It also emboldened Thatcher to start to dismantle the publicly owned industries such as Telecoms, Energy and Water with consequences that we are all too familiar with today. Also tragically and despite these catastrophic setbacks, the leadership of the trade union movement continued to believe in a limited role. There were some exceptions, notably Frances O’Grady when she was TUC General Secretary from 2013 to 2022, who was a staunch advocate of increased workers’ control, but she was unable to have much effect against powerful trade union leaders who had no interest in increasing worker control over the businesses in which their members worked. The Workers’ Party of Britain is unique in drawing the lessons of the last 80 years and has placed workers’ control in its policy statement. 

Persuasion.

Class struggle requires force, sometimes even physical force, but more often the moral force that comes from conviction of the justice of one’s cause is effective in conjunction with the organised withdrawal of labour. It results in collective action by large bodies of men and women. But collective action is only possible if many trade unionists can be persuaded to make the immediate sacrifices that they will need to make if their cause is to prevail. Ernest Bevin’s tireless work and organisational and rhetorical ability built up a mighty and successful union. He persuaded millions of men and women to go the hard way and fight for their rights. But he also saw the importance of the civic role of trade unions, persuading the public of the justice of the cause of organised labour. Under Bevin’s leadership trade unionism came to be seen as an essential feature of working class identity, both by his members and by the public. 

There is no contemporary Bevin, but there are trade union leaders who understand the importance of leading their members through example and persuasion and at the same time understand the importance of putting their case to the broader public who may be temporarily inconvenienced by their action. Mick Lynch, General Secretary of the RMT is such a person. He works for his members not only within the union but in representing the union to a broader public thus not only gaining support for his members but presenting an attractive view of trade unions as organisations that stand for the interests of their members and more broadly for the interests of working people. He does this through the patient and calm way in which he shows the justice of the railwaymen’s cause and by extension, the justice of trade union causes when they respond to threats to the well being of their members. The public who are not involved can understand this when it is put to them in a reasonable way that relies on the facts of the case. The force of persuasion is just as necessary  as the force of withdrawal of labour in successful class struggle.

Where are we now?

Despite effective contemporary trade unionists such as Mick Lynch and Sharon Graham, we are a long way from having the advocates of extensive working class power such as Ernest Bevin and Jack Jones at the forefront of trade unionism. Trade unionism is still in defensive mode. Its political arm, the so-called Labour Party has long ago withered into a professionalised band of office-seekers, claiming to be able to run capitalism for the capitalists better than the Tories can. The differences between them have become cosmetic. Politics is now a career route to personal power and influence rather than a calling to one’s class’s interests.

The nature of the working class has changed since the 1970s.  Many industrial sectors have decreased or disappeared altogether, taking with them manual workers but also the technicians and scientists; large factories have gone but also the Small and Medium Enterprises which supplied them.  The new jobs that have been created are mainly in services, where the workforce is more difficult to organise.  The new workforce contains a much greater percentage of women and immigrants.  

Another factor that has successfully weakened working class power is the rise of identity politics. Working people have never been a homogenous mass with identical views and interests. Nonetheless they have been capable of fighting for a common class cause, be they men or women, black of white, gay or straight.  Working class politics should be able to cater for this diversity without fear or favour. However, seemingly radical movements which seek to divide and demoralise the working class have made great inroads into British politics and particularly on the left, where they have become the fads of middle class activists who have taken over political movements to pursue their narrow interests. The now defunct Communist Party of Great Britain is a horrible warning of how badly left-wing politics can go wrong. By adopting identity politics and framing the class struggle in a very restricted way they ensured their irrelevance to working people and faded away. But the advocates of identity politics have had a very harmful and destructive effect on left wing politics more generally with an agenda that often alienates people concerned about their jobs, their wages and their communities. The Tories pretend to be shocked by this supposed threat to our society but in fact they are partially responsible for its spread and secretly delighted. The weakening of the trade union movement by Thatcher and her successors left an opening for identity politics and its disruptive influence on the left gives the Tories an opportunity to attack the left as ‘woke’ maniacs completely out of touch with working people. Divide and rule is very often a successful strategy. 

Class struggle is always a reality in capitalist society and always will be. It is time that working people started to prove Warren Buffett wrong and to roll back capitalist prerogatives. When it happens, it won’t be all-out class war but it will mean the return of effective collective action and expansion into areas previously neglected by the working class movement in Britain: governance, social welfare and training.