European workers' movement and 1992 In the last few months, the great European event of 31 December 1992 has become a leit motiv within the labour movement. A few examples are enough to give an idea of the problems which have been posed and the perspectives which are sketched out. The most spectacular is that of the last annual conference of the British Trades Union Congress which, radically changing its previous attitude, gave an enthusiastic welcome to Jacques Delors, president of the European Commission. It is true that he was clever enough to emphasize themes to which his audience was bound to respond. He explained that "we must protect and improve the level of social protection already existing in the member states of the European Community, ensure more health and safety protection for workers and employees, introduce new measures at a European level on the question of collective bargaining."
Until recently, the reactions of British trade-unionists would have been inspired rather by fear that their partial gains would be removed or eroded in a European melting pot. But now, after the blows they have suffered under Thatcherite rule, they are hoping that the relationship of force will be more favourable to them within the framework of the Community.
Mathias Hinterscheid, general secretary of the European Trade Union Con-
74 International Marxist Review federation (ETUC), has gone so far as to state that the TUC has been pushed back a century, while the deputy secretary of the MSF (Manufacturing, Scientific and Finances Union) stated explicitly that "the only way to protect the workers is European-wide trade-union cooperation".
There was also a change in attitude at the annual congress of the Danish social democrats which came out for a no vote during the referendum on the Single European Act. But for the next European elections they will run a campaign "saying yes to an open Europe not only within the EEC but also to the countries which are not yet members, yes to European cooperation which should be extended to fields that the fathers of the Treaty of Rome never imagined, such as the struggle against pollution and technological development, and yes to the Ecu as an alternative to the unstable dollar." 1
The European dimension was also raised at the German SPD congress. The motion proposed by the leadership stressed the creation of a real European "social dimension" where the balance between the different regions and workers' and consumers' rights is assured by means of a harmonization of norms at a high level. The European theme was also taken up in the speeches from the floor, including that of Oskar Lafontaine which we will come back to.
Finally, at the national fête of the Italian Communist Party daily newspaper, l'Unità, at the beginning of September, there was an international discussion on perspectives and European values in the light of 1992. The French Socialist Party secretary Pierre Mauroy was one of the main speakers. As we know, the PCI long ago made the choice to support unconditionally the Europe of the EEC. Last April, its weekly review Rinascita published a supplement on European integration which put forward general proposals which confirmed its acceptance of the fundamental framework of capitalist Europe without projecting reforms of any importance. On defence questions, while being in favour of autonomy for Europe, Rinascita warned against any "indecisive" attitude going against the politico-military alliance with the USA. This outlook was repeated in a report presented to the Central Committee by the new party secretary, Achille Occhetto.? What framework and what problems Over and above the specificities of the situation and tactical differences, the arguments advanced by the leaders of the traditional workers' organizations all go in the same direction. They advise the workers to respect the constraining framework of international competition in the hope that in a few years time Europe will experience a new lasting economic upturn, and that everybody
The European workers' movement and 1992 75 will benefit from this. The 1980s have already given a demonstration of the results of this mystification. There is no reason to believe that this will change in the future. But what interests us is to understand in what situation the workers' movement will find itself in the period marked by the Single European Act (SEA), and what problems it will in fact have to take up. The question of whether or not the Common Market will really exist in December 1992, and whether there will be a real move towards doing away with national borders will not be dealt with here. There are just a few general remarks to be made: • The nation state remains, even for the most "cosmopolitan" sectors of the bourgeoisie an irreplaceable instrument on the economic terrain, and particularly on social and political terrain. • As is pointed out in other articles in this issue, there will be no real Common Market without a common currency, a central European bank, a common trade policy. However the polemics of these last few months on these questions and others (for example the common VAT rates) have shown once again that many differences exist between the different governments and that even people who consider themselves strong supporters of Europe are sometimes opposed to certain harmonization measures, as is French prime minister Michel Rocard on VAT. The speech by Margaret Thatcher in Bruges on 20 September 1988 was a clear expression of the divisions which exist within the European bourgeoisie.
• The contradictions and the difficulties mentioned above will not be overcome in the short term and they will undoubtedly influence the whole of the period to come. However, the fundamental tendency will be in the direction of a deepening European economic unity and even an eventual broadening of the EEC (with countries which do not belong at the moment joining or participating in specific ways). More particularly, even the measures which represent compromises in relationship to more systematic projects of reunification, could in the last analysis lead to a growing homogenization.*
In this context, it seems first of all undeniable that the process of European unification will sharpen competition at all levels, including in those fields in which national laws and norms have up until now slowed down or even blocked it (for example for public works or a series of services). It is precisely in such a perspective that there has been a recent acceleration in the concentration of industrial, financial and commercial groups, which is not likely to slow down in the foreseeable future. Moreover, groups from non-European countries (USA, Japan, Canada) will try and participate in different forms, with the goal of not losing ground in the three-cornered struggle which will
76 International Marxist Review Shape the capitalist economic context (EEC, North America, Japan).S
Such an increase in competition will push labour movement bureaucrats to further integrate themselves into the constraining framework of the system, and thus put pressure on the workers to accept, in the name of market needs, the new round of restructuring and rationalization and accept all the new forms of organizing working hours (flexibility, part time etc) which in fact imply an increase in the rate of exploitation. Spokespersons for the reformist proCommunity wing like Jacques Delors, like the trade-union leaders, have not hidden their concern that this situation could produce a phenomenon of "social dumping". The less-expensive workforce of the poorest countries with the highest rate of unemployment could attract a shift in investment, to the detriment of those sectors of the European working class which have previously enjoyed better conditions. In any case there could be a negative effect on wages, whether directly or indirectly.6
This danger is all the more real as the outlook for employment is not very encouraging, despite the temporary increase in the number of jobs available in certain countries. In the short term, nobody predicts any substantial decrease in unemployment rates which, despite the favourable context, will be on average 11% or more in 1989. European Community texts, such as the Cecchini report, even predict an increase in the number of unemployed in 1992, considering that there will be an reverse in the general trend around 1995. There has been talk, for example, of an initial loss of 225,000 jobs and a later increase of between 2 and 5 million (International Herald Tribune, 25 October 1988). But no concrete element is brought forward in support of such a hypothesis. It is simply based on the perspective of a major economic upturn which is suppose to be the result of the implementation of the single market.
In fact, a very sober, if not pessimistic, outlook for employment is suggested for the following reasons:
• As a result of the continued introduction of new technology and the significant increases in productivity which result, it is not very likely that there will be a new generalized growth in industry, particularly in major industry? The decline of certain traditional sectors (for example, steel and shipbuilding) has not been and probably will not be compensated for by growth in other sectors, the new or so-called new sectors often being marked by much more limited use of the labour force. • The speeded-up introduction of new technology and reorganization of work hours, even in the tertiary and service sectors which were a safety valve for a certain period. This is the case for example for the banks, railways and will be the case for chain restaurants.
The European workers' movement and 1992 77
• Except for radical changes in economic orientation, for which there are no indications for the time being, there will be further reductions in the agricultural workforce.
• The governments, particularly those which have to deal with very big budgetary deficits, will tend more and more to reduce the number of government employees (either by direct redundancy or by halting recruitment).
There are other factors which are not completely new but have increased in the last decade, which will have an increasing effect in the period of completion of the Common Market as obstacles and serious difficulties for the labour movement.
In the first place, one of the major effects of the fusions, concentrations and reorganizations of the big industrial groups is their effect on the links which have traditionally existed in sectors of the working class, without this being compensated for by the appearance of other links on an international or crosssectoral level. Second, even within the enterprises or an industrial group, the introduction of norms of flexible working hours, or part-time work on an increasing scale and more generally the employers' efforts to impose an "individualization" of wages bring about increasingly clear differentiations in workers' conditions and make it more difficult to fix common objectives, let alone common struggles. Thirdly, there is the risk of a growing disparity between private sector workers who are more vulnerable to unemployment as a result of restructuring and fusions, and public sector workers who enjoy a greater stability of employment.?
Finally, the implementation of the SEA would not lead to overcoming regional differentiations and inequalities. On the contrary, as the EEC is certainly not going to introduce continent-wide economic planning, there could even be increasing imbalances because of the unequal dynamic of industrial sectors. Not only will the traditionally backward regions not catch up, but regions that were previously prosperous could be ravaged by crisis. This is not a new phenomenon in the history of capitalism and will probably be repeated in the future.
On the political level, greater European integration, and even more, the eventual complete implementation of the SEA, will lead to a shift in the real decision-making centres. For some time the institutions elected by universal suffrage have played a decreasingly important role compared to governments, state and technocratic apparatuses, not to mention the increasing power exerted, and not simply in strictly economic fields, by the big national and international industrial and financial groups. This trend can only become stronger as the number of decisions taken at a Community level increase. It will increas-
78 International Marxist Review ingly be the organisms of the EEC, designated by the governments, and the technocrats who already enjoy considerable power, which will take decisions of greater importance. The idea put forward by radical federalists, and shared by many workers' movement bureaucrats, that the European parliament should become sovereign, is simply an illusion. It is possible that formally there will be a extension of the areas in which the parliament is considered competent. But in any case, its actions will be determined by the decisions taken by the multinationals, the big financial groups, and the technocrats in Brussels.
The bureaucrats of the trade unions and the workers' parties counterpose to such an analysis the fact that the workers' movement is represented in different forms in the Community institutions and that this representation could increase in the years to come. In this way they feed illusions which have still less basis than those they nourish nationally. In fact, the labour bureaucracy will get simply the crumbs from the table and may be structurally strengthened to a certain extent. But the mass of workers will be still further distanced from Community decision-making centres than from national ones. In this sense, there is a new dimension to the conflict between the interests of the bureaucracy and the workers.
We should add that, in the framework of the Europe of the SEA, a government of the workers' parties which makes an effort to implement an economic orientation that is even partially different from those of right-wing governments, will be more exposed to sabotage from the employers and financiers than left governments have been in the past. We can just point out that, with a system allowing free circulation of capital, the bourgeoisie could immediately make totally legal massive capital transfers, without having to use the traditional subterfuges. The conclusion we should draw is obviously not that we should give up attacking the status quo. It means that we should understand that even partial and timorous reformist measures will have less chance of being implemented. The bankruptcy of the bureaucratic leaderships The European workers' organizations are absolutely not equipped to defend the workers' interests against the problems posed by 1992. We are not attributing ideas to them. It is enough to look at what these organizations have done in the last decade and what they are doing today.
First of all, almost all political and trade-union organizations have integrated the fundamental choices of their own bourgeoisies into their own strategic projects, with the pretext that they must at all cost be competitive in the
The European workers' movement and 1992 79 European (and world) market. In the countries where the workers' parties are in government, this is quite obvious. But even where they are in opposition, they are no less inclined to support the project of the SEA, simply demanding some guarantees, for example on the question of a "social dimension", and counting on "democratization" through the European parliament being granted more and more power. This is the case of the Italian Communist Party, of German social democracy, of the French Socialist Party etc. We have mentioned the evolution of the British labour movement as reflected in the last Trades Union Congress (TUC). The French Communist Party continues to be an exception. But its rejection of European unification in the name of "national independence" and "producing French" is no more valid as a perspective. This is proved, moreover, by the fact that the party's orientation is also within the framework of the system and the line of march for the trade-union confederation that it controls is not qualitatively different from the line of other organizations in capitalist Europe favourable to the EEC.1°
The result of the perspectives adopted by the reformist leaderships is absolutely clear. We just have to recall some of the main elements. In the absence of any effort to outline an alternative workers' solution to the problems posed by the economic crisis, bourgeois solutions, usually conservative bourgeois, have been implemented everywhere without any substantial economic upturn resulting. The employers have been able to implement all their plans for restructuring and rationalization, imposing sometimes drastic reductions in the workforce and changing the relationship of forces in the labour market in its favour through mass unemployment. They have introduced "new" forms of exploitation in the workplaces and there has been a big shift in the direction of individually-determined wages rather than collective bargaining. At the same time, the bosses have benefited from direct or indirect state aid to bolster their businesses. As tax payers (and the only ones who cannot cheat on their tax returns), the workers foot the bill for this too, while the benefits they receive from the state have been eaten away.
In some countries the labour bureaucracies have openly identified with the political and ideological campaigns of the government and the bosses, to limit the right to strike in public transport for example, or to encourage the workers to buy shares and or completely to introduce mystified notions of workers' participation in managing enterprises."!
In short, the workers' movement has not only been thrown onto the defensive and lost a lot of ground, but it also finds itself ideologically and politically disarmed even for its defensive battles.
Things have been no better when the workers' parties have been in coalition
80 International Marxist Review governments or have supported them. Italy is a significant example of this. It was when the Communist Party was supporting majority Christian Democrat governments that the austerity offensive started. It was the government of the "socialist" Craxi which some years later led the offensive against the sliding scale of wages. Even where the workers' parties have themselves held the majority in parliament — as in France, the Spanish state and in Greece during the 1980s — their policy was no different. The case of the Spanish state is the most significant. The Gonzalez government, although not threatened by a strong opposition from the bourgeois parties, did not even enjoy a "honeymoon" like that of the first Mitterrand government in 1981. It adopted an economic orientation in perfect harmony with the employers, which in time even led to problems with the trade unions under SP hegemony. Not only did Gonzalez not introduce any serious political reforms, he did not even attack the Francoist state apparatus, thus covering up for brutal and illegal police actions in opposition to less conservative sections of the judicial system. The "socialist" minister of the interior, Barrionuevo, on several occasions played the role of a Spanish Noske.
It can be said that, despite all this, the results of the bourgeois offensive and the periods of retreat and stagnation in workers' struggles have not been major defeats of the working class, nor a catastrophic fall in living standards for the great majority of workers. It is true that while capitalist Europe has experienced very high levels of unemployment in the last ten years and there is widespread pauperization, even in countries like France, the wage reductions have remained generally limited (there have even been some limited upturns) while social security gains have been eaten away but not demolished.
But this is above all due to the fact that the European bourgeoisie, while being affected by the long wave of economic stagnation, has had and still has considerable resources at its disposal. Up to now, it has not been obliged to take absolutely drastic measures as have the bourgeoisies in the semiindustrialized countries of the third world (Mexico being the most spectacular case). It has been able to make that much more use of buffers because its economy has experienced some limited periods of upturn and some sectors have made considerable progress. Moreover, another article in this issue reminds us that there has often been a mass, determined workers' fightback and that the trade unions themselves, despite their weakness, particularly in certain countries, have usually retained their strength. Even conservative govemments have preferred not to push their offensive too far through fear of provoking real social explosions. The working class, we have already said, has found itself politically and ide-
The European workers' movement and 1992 81 ologically disarmed. We should emphasize this important aspect: rarely in its history has the European workers' movement registered such a retreat. In fact, on this terrain, the ruling classes have won much more spectacular successes than in the socio-economic relationship of forces. An overall alternative and goals for the present stage We should not have any illusions: this situation cannot be overcome in the short term, nor with so-called practical answers for each specific problem. The imperative for the working class is to sketch out its own overall alternative for the major questions of our epoch. We should involve ourselves fully in this discussion in order to contribute to it. Here we can only give the major points:
• the starting point has to be a critical analysis of all the increasingly destructive effects - in the strictest sense of the term - of what we call the market economy. In other words, the economy based on the search for profit that the apologists for capitalism glorify more than ever with the warm approval of the workers' bureacracies;
• an alternative on the more strictly economic terrain will also have to take account of the failure of bureaucratically centralized planning as well as the equally negative results of self-management limited to the individual workplace level and in the framework of a non-democratic state, as was introduced in Yugoslavia, and the partial attempts of "market socialism" (Yugoslavia, Hungary and China;
• it is becoming more and more necessary - and objectively possible — to radically reduce working hours, which would mean a qualitative change in life style, this reduction only being really envisageable on an international scale;
• new technology and the cultural level reached by growing sectors of the working class make radical transformations in the structure and functioning of enterprises more possible than in the past;
• complete restructuring of the economy cannot be envisaged without taking into acount the urgent need to put an end to the dramatic deterioration of the environment which is threatening the very survival of human beings on the planet;
• first of all, the energy problem must be resolved, breaking sharply with the practices of the recent past;
• such changes are only possible through the creation of political and social institutions based on the structures and instruments of direct democracy, modern means of communication making it possible to achieve much more in this
82 International Marxist Review field than has been possible in any other historical period.
This must be the angle of attack for revolutionaries in their propaganda on the need to counterpose a European socialist federation to the capitalist Europe of the Common Market and the SEA. It should be added that the European framework itself seems more and more inadequate for tackling the problems we have mentioned. It should only be seen as a transitional stage in the perpsective of a more general framework including first of all the European countries where there are currently bureacratized transitional societies. In this way it will be easier to make the workers of capitalist Europe understand that it is in their interest to have anti-bureaucratic revolutions triumph in the Soviet Union and other East European countries. A more practical content could also be given to the perspective of a reunification of Germany.
The battles of the workers' movement in the present period are - this goes without saying — affected by the national situation and specific conjuncture. Even if we cannot bank on the explosion of pre-revolutionary or revolutionary situations in the new few years, in almost all the EEC countries the socioeconomic tensions which continue will lead to conflictual situations, indeed to struggles. The fighting potential of the working class and other exploited layers, as well as the so-called new movements will express themselves in many forms.
With this outlook, we can summarize as follows the axes and goals for workers' struggles:
1. The 35-hour week without loss of wages and without overtime. The systematic use of overtime reduces or negates the effect of the cut in working hours in terms of job creation, while a cut in wages would make the workers pay directly for the cost of economic restructuring. This is why proposals like that of Oskar Lafontaine at the last SPD congress should be rejected.!? 2. Rejection of all form of reorganizing work and redefinition of wages which lead to increased exploitation. This includes a struggle against the "philosophy" of exploitation (variable hours by management choice, elimination of public holidays, changes of post, department, workplace independent of the wish of the workers, more widespread introduction of short-term contracts, increasing use of part-time particularly for women etc.) as well as against the individualization of contracts. This also means the rejection of all measures supposedly encouraging youth employment which in practice lead to increasing use of a underpaid and temporary workforce.'3 3. Demystification of bosses' propaganda about "co-management" and "worker shareholders". The increased rigidity in the production process, as well as the greater vulnerability of new technology and the new organization
The European workers' movement and 1992 83 of work, forces the bosses to seek new ways to interest the workers in the success of the company and its profits.14 In the most favourable hypothesis, such practices would only give a temporary advantage to a tiny minority of workers, and in any case provoke division. Workers are not responsible if profits diminish or disappear and they should not bear the consequences. If profits rise, this would be a good reason to go into struggle and demand wage rises for everybody. 4. Workers' control — by bodies elected by all the workers, unionized or not — over technological innovation and work reoganization. The workers are not opposed in principle to the introduction of new technology and changes in how work is organized, but they do not want to lose the margins of manoeuvre and the possibility of relative mastery over the work process that they have won through their struggles, through the relationship of forces that they have been able to impose in the work place; workers' control over professional training. 5. Right of veto over redundancies for trade unions and workers' self-management organizations; guaranteed minimum wage and unemployment benefit in no way inferior to this minimum, to continue for as long as unemployment continues; the professional training of their choice for young people who should receive the minimum wage even before their first job. 6. Introduction or reintroduction of a sliding scale mechanism which entirely compensates for buying power lost through inflation.
7. Democratic reorganization, that is to say under the direct control of the workers, of all aspects of social security (illness, retirement etc) so that everyone without exception can benefit. In the discussions which are taking place about a European "social dimension" it has to be clearly stated that the workers interest lies in a "levelling up" of social and economic conditions in the EEC. Therefore Europe-wide struggles have to be envisaged both to wrest new gains as well as to ensure the generalization of the relatively more favourable conditions existing in some countries. This applies to social legislation, to retirement, unemplyment benefit, etc. To the extent to which similar conditions exist everywhere, the dangers of social dumping will be reduced or even disappear.
A "social dimension" in the community deserving the name would have to confront the problems of immigrant workers. Thus the struggle for complete equal rights between immigrants and nationals is an absolute obligation, including for the full and unrestricted right to vote. This is an essential aspect for the fight against racism.
We have never hidden our scepticism about the alternative plans dear to tech-
84 International Marxist Review nocrats and left reformists, which lead either to more "rational" capitalist restructuration or to abstract elaborate theorizing. But this should not make us deny the possibility of laying out partial alternative solutions in specific situations. Let us remember that in the 1985 elections our Belgian comrades put forward a plan for creating 700,000 jobs, stating what they were for and where the resources would be found.! It goes without saying that for us, where such projects — which fly in the face of the economic perspectives of the ruling class and which make it pay — really exist, the target put forward takes on the dynamic of a transitional demand and thus poses in practice the question of political leadership.
Such an approach also makes it possible to tackle two problems to which workers are particularly sensitive in the present situation: the allocation of resources and where they are drawn from. As far as the first is concerned, we must demand that the priority should be for allocations to answer the social needs which exist even in the "welfare states" of capitalist Europe. The second leads, among other things, to the question of taxes. On this we should fight to reverse the stream, that is to say to give the priority to direct taxation which will affect high incomes of the privileged layers, and not to indirect taxation which predominates in most countries and weighs more heavily on more modest incomes.
Alternative solutions in a specific context are all the more important because they make it possible to raise environmental questions. Every day there are articles in the press which alert increasing numbers to the importance and urgency of this question. On this basis - we have already mentioned this in passing — it is perfectly possible to wage an anti-capitalist campaign, denouncing the ravages provoked by the economic choices inspired by the search for profit and affirming the need for really new perspectives. Struggles for alternative partial solutions are perfectly possible and the workers' movement would make a very big mistake if it did not get really involved in them. At the same time, Europe constitutes the necessary framework for joint struggles for the defence of the environment. All purely national action, victorious or not, could only lead to temporary results: pollution does not respect frontiers. Immediate demands should be for guarantees of employment and, provisionally, payments for lay-off periods (temporary unemployment) for workers in environmentally harmful workplaces which are forced to close. At all cost painful conflicts between ecologist and worker militants, such as have taken place in Italy for example, must be avoided. The problems of women's situation, particularly hard hit by the crisis and prolonged economic stagnation, have been discussed many times in our pub-
The European workers' movement and 1992 85 lications and we will not take this up at length here. To complete our set of demands we should add that the workers' movement should support a "social dimension" that introduces equality for women, equality in all fields.!? This includes, among other things, the right to abortion which is far from being a guaranteed right in all the countries of the Community. Norms of "positive discrimination" should be introduced or developed and forms of independent women's organization in all the trade-union and mass organizations as well as their equal participation in leadership bodies encouraged. Europe-wide campaigns could be waged against all forms of violence against women.
The most determined supporters of European unification include among their goals the creation of an independent European military power, while also in being favour of maintaining Nato. It goes without saying that there should be no concession to any such project which might win some support in moderate sections of the anti-war movement. This movement must wage its own struggle, with its own slogans, against any military bloc of capitalist Europe, which would be no less imperialist than the Atlantic alliance as a whole. It should demand the destruction of nuclear weapons, unilateral disarmament, and, where appropriate, withdrawal from Nato.
Finally, the end of the twentieth century is presenting us with an apparent paradox: alongside the SEA and projects for unifying Europe, national questions continue to be posed, sometimes with greater acuteness than in the past (in Ireland, the Spanish state, Britain, Belgium). It is revolutionaries' duty to fight for the European workers' movement to break with a long tradition of opportunism and capitulation to their own bourgeoisie and to come out unambiguously for the rights of all national minorities, for the right to self-determination for those who demand it, and for the elimination of the last vestiges of colonialism (Kanaky, Gibraltar). This is a precondition for a real European unity which could finally eliminate national borders. In a situation where self-determination was in fact exercised, revolutionary Marxists would determine their position in light of each specific case (separation, regional autonomy, federal links, etc.). The tools and the methods It remains to be seen with what instruments and methods of struggle the workers' movement will be equipped to face the challenge of 1992 and launch its counter attack.
Whatever the actual developments and their rhythms in the perspective of the implementation of the Common Market, joint - sectoral or cross-
86 International Marxist Review sectoral — struggles of European workers will be increasingly on the agenda. Thus we have to act with the aim of creating united organizations at Community level. The results at the moment are negligeable, not to say non-existent. Although the union federations in the different countries have the same demands on paper — for example on the question of reducing the working week or a "social dimension" — the ETUC has not lauched any united campaigns or struggles. There have only been sectoral meetings which have not gone further than analysis and exchanging experiences. We should therefore wage a campaign for the ETUC to become a real instrument for coordinating struggles and for trade-union unity. This means that all discrimination must cease and that all the union federations which so desire can participate, regardless of their world affiliation.!
It is more necessary than ever to raise unity in action and organizational unification alongside the problem of democratic functioning of unions and the active and direct participation of the workers in all decisions. This is because even the uneven progress made in this field during the late 1960s and 1970s, was very largely cancelled out by the systematic counter-attacks of the bureaucracy.2
The practical solutions envisaged could be quite different from one country to another, in relation to, for example, the rate of unionization, the specific weight of this or that particular sector, traditions or the immediate situation. But the common theme has to be that of self-organization, whether this takes the form of revitalizing trade-union rank-and-file or intermediate bodies, rank-and-file committees or coordinating committees outside the strict trade-union framework. Recent experience in France and Italy for example, shows that when instruments for the democratic organization of a struggle, even if they are partial, are established, there is broad mobilization and real results can be won, even in the present situation. 21
Another essential aspect should be emphasized. For years, both those who theorize about how Marxism is out of date and how the working class is withering away and most bureaucrats have claimed that workers are increasingly socially differentiated and that it is now impossible to define a common class identitity. But these same people have no hesitation in denouncing the recent movements by rail way workers, nurses or teachers as "corporatist" It is an indisputable fact that the number of wage-earners is constantly rising. Through this very fact, workers are a less homogenous group than forty or fifty years ago. But their — decisive — common denominator remains: they are all wage-earners, exploited in more or less direct fashion by capitalism. The problem posed in an essentially political one: in what perspective
The European workers' movement and 1992 87 and with what means is it possible to overcome these differentiations and to bring about a convergence in united mobilizations and common struggles? The bureacrats in the workers' movement have given up trying to lay out an overall perspective to bourgeois government and the bosses' projects. They have done their best to avoid any unification in struggle and solidarity movements, even in situations where these are absolutely necessary to fight back against the most brutal attacks of the adversary. They have used any subterfuge necessary and any bureaucratic manoeuvre possible to prevent the workers from democratically expressing their wishes. In these conditions we understand why certain sections of the working class concern themselves with defending their immediate interests without worrying about overall objectives. We understand why corporatist tendencies take shape. We understand why sectors in struggle are distrustful not only of the trade-union federations but also of those who talk in the abstract of unifying struggles. For fear that an intervention by the trade-union federations would prevent them from putting forward their own demands, and that eventual unification would be at best symbolic and would in fact take the form of attempts to co-opt their struggle and to do away with the democratic structures born out of the struggle.
The conclusion is clear. Those who really want a recomposition of the working class that moves in the direction of unity must not be content with simple statements. They must make the effort to put forward an overall political perspective, a real alternative. They must understand that the struggle for democracy in the trade unions as well as in all the other mass movement is an unavoidable precondition for escaping the current impasse and relaunching the workers' movement and its fight. This is as true at national as at European level. Notes 1. See the speech by the party vice-chair Birte Weiss, Le Monde, 22 September 1988. 2. See Rinascita No 14, 1988. According to Alfredo Reichlin, one of the PCI leaders most interested in theoretical and programmatic questions, the "European left"
should propose three closely-linked things: "financial redressment; redistribution of incomes and power (in the direction of reducing individual consumption implying a strong demand from abroad and stepping up collective services and investments); a boost to development". For the Occhetto report see Unita 20 July 1988. 3. Thatcher has said among other things that, having succeeded in "pushing back the frontiers of the state" at home she does not want to see them re-emrging at European level with a "European super state" operating from Brussels. She is opposed to a
European central bank which "means that you have to surrender any fundamental econolic decisions to another country. That I will not do." (Financial Times, 28 July
1988) There are also contradictions in relation to supra-national projects within the
North American bourgeoisie: the Canadian liberals are opposed to a free trade agree-
For example, given the difficulties in establishing Community norms, the decision was taken than banks could operate in EEC countries in line with their home nation norms (for example on deposits and interest payments). Banks applying norms which work against them in other countries will inevitably be led to change and thus
A problem which has already come up is that of non-European producers installed in
EEC countries. As we write, the Community authorities have to decide on the case of
Bluebird (a car produced in Britain by the Japanese firm Nissan). According to the norms in force, a product is considered European if its contents are at least 80% European production. According to France the Bluebird is way off this target while Brit-
6. We should not forget that the bourgeoisie could always fall back on workers from under-developed countries if there was an unfavourable change in the labour market.
Such a forecast, which only concers a section of waged work, has obviously nothing to do with elaborate theories on the "post-industrial society" and the disappearance of the working class. Nor does it ignore the fact that at certain momer: there could be an absolute increase in the number of industrial jobs. This was seen in Italy in 1986 and the USA in 1987 (see the New York Times, 16 October 1987).
The apologists for the US economy under Reagan have often taken fast-food as an example of a service sector creating jobs. Although more than 5 million work in this sector, McDonalds plans to to introduce robots and cut down massively on the
9. A spectacular example was the polemic a few months ago in Italy between the metal-
10. The president of the Workers' Commissions in the Spanish state recently denounced
"the Europe of big capitalism". But he also said that one should not stay outside it and added "we are not against the transfer of capital, we are against speculation. We should stay in the EEC, defending every Spanish tomato, grain of wheat and ounce of
The Italian workers' parties and unions supported a law that limited the right to strike in public transport and for national government employees. This law, already passed
In March 1988, Lafontaine proposed a reduction in the workweek accompanied by a cut in wages. This provoked a reaction from the trade unions. He restated this position at the congress and also advocated workers profit-sharing. Within the workers' movement there has been discussion on whether it would not be better to go further and demand a workweek of 32 or 30 hours. In some sectors this would be credible. But
35 hours is still the credible, unifying demand for the EEC as a whole.
13. At the Unità festival in September 1988 there was a sharp argument between European trade-union leaders. Hans Janssen, a leader of IG Metall, criticized the Italians who had accepted flexibility proposed by the bosses. He also insisted that reduction in ment with the USA.
4.
5.-
7.
8.
workforce.
11.
12.
88 International Marxist Review ain argues that the Bluebird is European.
workers and teachers unions.
Spanish steel. " Ambiguous to say the least.
there will be an inevitable movement towards homogenization.
by the senate, will shortly be submitted to the chamber of deputies.
the workweek should not be cancelled out by increases in overtime (see Unità 21
14. It is well known that in highly automated factories a work stoppage by even a tiny number of workers or technicians can cause complete paralysis. It is also known that the quite wide-spread practice of no stocks in the plant causes the bosses serious
15. See the pamphlet "Create 700,000 jobs" September 1985. In this, our Belgian comrades proposed a public jobs plan that would go towards satisfying housing needs. They also analyzed the budgetary and investment problems raised by such a
See for example the articles by Jacqueline Heinen in International Marxist Review
Vol 2 No 2 and International Viewpoint No 94 and the article in this issue.
This means above all equal wages. Women's campaigns against night work should
18. For example, international meetings have been called by car workers unions, with non-European participation as well. In March 1987 a a joint union committee of the
19. There are some important union federations like the French CT and Spanish Work-
20. Italy is the most significant example. Although the renewal of trade-union bodies and development of self-organization had gone furthest here, recently there has been retreat on all these questions. Action by the bureaucracy has marginalized the shop stewards committees, denied the decision-making power of mass meetings, replacing them by referenda which are then challenged when the results are not what they want.
21. The most recent example is that of the nurses in France. Other recent cases are French rail workers, and the teachers and railworkers strikes organized by the COBAS in
September 1988).
plan.
16.
17.
also be supported.
Italy.
problems when there were even localized strikes.
multi-national Caterpillar Europe was created.
ers' Commissions which do not belong to the EFTU.
The European workers' movement and 1992 89
Workers' struggles
To what extent are European workers willing to struggle? It is instructive to look back over the experience of the last ten years in replying to this question.
The prejudiced and superficial judgements of the bourgeois media and trade- union bureaucrats make out that this is a period of stagnation if not of historic
It cannot be denied that the workers' movement has suffered defeats — we will come back to this. The significance of indications such as the considerable reduction, over a period of years, of strike days in countries like France and
Italy, or the fall in the number of trade-union members in Britain and the
Spanish state for example, should not be ignored. The scope of periods of downturn, such as in the Spanish state between 1978 and 1983 should not be
In another article in this issue, we examine the the extent to which the workers' movement was politically and ideologically disarmed by the perspectives and daily actions of its leadership. But one thing must be noted: the mass of the workers did not fall into passivity and were not demobilized when faced with the attacks of the government and bosses. They often hit back strongly and certain sectors of the proletariat waged determined battles which affected
LIVIO MAITAN in the 1980s:
decline.
underestimated.
the overall situation.
----- pull-quotes on this page -----
a