balance sheet
92 International Marxist Review Strikes, general strikes and demonstrations The year 1979, culminating point of a favourable economic conjuncture, was marked by important struggles in several countries including the big workers' demonstrations in Italy and the steel strike in Britain. The 1980s opened almost symbolically with the strike of 19 million Italian workers against the attacks of the government and bosses. The motives, problems and contradictions of this strike were a precursor of the workers' struggles of the following years both in Italy and elsewhere. In November of the same year, in one of the biggest demonstrations against unemployment ever seen in British history, 150,000 people took to the streets. One month earlier there had again been a major confrontation in Italy: the 35-day long struggle of the Fiat workers' which, despite a very determined mobilization, ended in a harsh defeat. More than 20,000 workers were excluded from the factory, laid-off for years. Among them were many trade-union activists and shop stewards.
The years immediately following did see a slowing down in the pace of struggles, indeed a real downturn as already mentioned. But this was not to be a general and long-lasting tendency. We just have to remember events in Belgium. In January 1981, 100,000 people demonstrated in Brussels at the call of the FGTB and 1982 was marked by the biggest strike wave since the general strike of 1960-61. Forty thousand young people demonstrated against unemployment. In 1983 there was a major strike in the public sector. There was an upturn in Portugal as well, with two general strikes in 1982. In the same year there was also a widely-supported one-day solidarity strike with healthworkers in Britain (a major struggle had also broken out in British Leyland). In 1983 there were public sector strikes in the Netherlands and a steel strike in Luxemburg.
Despite the defeat of the Fiat workers in Italy, there was not really a downturn in struggles and action. Hundreds of thousands of metalworkers took to the streets in 1982. In early 1983 there were many determined actions involving workers of a number of different sectors. On 18 January there were six million on strike. In France, although the arrival of the left in government had created unexpected difficulties, sectoral struggles broke out in the car industry (Renault in 1981, Renault Flins and Citroen in 1982, Talbot in 1983). Very important struggles also took place in 1984-85. Everyone remembers the British miners' strike, a veritable epic of this traditional sector of the proletariat, from March 1984-1985. In Germany, in 1984, the struggle for the 35-hour week took off, while in the Spanish state the upturn was marked by
the exemplary Sagunto struggle. In Italy, more than a million workers demonstrated on 24th March 1984 against the austerity policy and in defence of the sliding scale of wages. This was one of the biggest demonstrations in the
In March 1985 it was Denmark's turn. A strike wave shook the country for two weeks and at its highest point became an almost truly general strike.
Many strikes took place in different countries in 1986-87. These included the demonstrations and strike against change in the pension and social security system in the Spanish state, the new strike wave in Belgium (chemicals, in
Flanders etc, the French railway workers in the winter 1986-87 and the Ruhr steelworkers strike. Finally, 1988 saw the teachers' and railway workers' struggles in Italy, the Ford dispute, the seafarers and healthworkers' strikes in
Britain, the television and healthworkers' strike and other strikes in France
(public sector workers including in the post, education system; Renault, etc)
and a general strike in Portugal, the most significant workers' and popular
Most struggles and above all the important ones recalled above, led to stalemates, very precarious results or undoubted defeats. The potential for fighting back was not used as it could have been. The bureaucratic leaderships of the workers' movement, and in first place the trade unions, bear the entire respon-
The first example is the Fiat workers struggle in Turin in autumn 1980. On the return from the annual holidays, the management announced that it wanted to make 15,000 workers redundant. After a governmental crisis, it decided to delay this until the end of the year. At the same time, the union federations cancelled the 4-hour general strike that they had called for 2 October. One of the reasons for this was a request from the metalworkers federation. This federation had organised a very successful national sectoral strike on 24 September:
80,000 workers had demonstrated in Turin. On 29 September, the Fiat management announced that 24,000 workers would be laid off. The workers responded with a struggle that lasted for over a month and completely blocked the plant. Students expressed their solidarity: 20,000 demonstrated in front of
It was obvious to everybody that Fiat chairman Agnelli was going for a test of strength, the stakes in which were much greater than his company alone. A country's history.
mobilisation since 1975.
The reasons for defeat sibility for this.
the plant on 11 October.
Workers' struggles in the 1980s: a balance sheet 93
Some examples will demonstrate more clearly.
94 International Marxist Review general workers' mobilization was necessary and possible and it could have counted on broad solidarity. The trade-union leaderships contented themselves with proclaiming a purely symbolic 4-hour strike. They then signed an agreement that went clearly against the workers' demands, accepting in practice the lay-offs of 23,000 workers for an indefinite period. They used all sorts of manoeuvres to prevent the workers giving their opinion of the contract they had signed and took no notice of the fact that many factory councils, the general council of the plant, the workers councils, and mass meetings had rejected this contract. They had no hesitation in talking of their success, and it was only several years later that they began to admit that they had suffered a major defeat.'
Still in Italy, as mentioned above, a wave of strikes and demonstrations unfurled in early 1983. These were struggles for the defence of the sliding scale and the renewal of the collective agreements for different categories. Among others, spontaneous strikes broke out in Genova on 4-5 January and street demonstrations followed, the airport was occupied. Strikes also occurred, sometimes with street blockades, in Tuscany, at Bari, at Pozzuoli near Naples, in Gela and Palermo in Sicily, and Terni. In Venice a thousand port workers occupied the bridge linking the town to the mainland and the airport. On 7 January, an assembly of 400 workers' representatives took place in Genova. Fifty thousand people marched in the streets of Milan while 500 shop stewards demonstrated in front of the governmental palace in Rome. On 17 January, still in Genova, it was an almost-general strike: 80,000 in the streets. There were also demonstration in Bologna (20,000 people) and in Florence (15,000 people). An industrial general strike was called for 18 January. The trade-union leaderships wanted to limit the mobilisation: despite this, 100,000 people demonstrated in Rome, 100,000 also in Florence, 10,000 in Bari, 30,000 in Palermo and 200,000 in Milan drawn from the surrounding region.
Even at Fiat, where the 1980 defeat still weighed heavily, 80% of the workers went on strike and demonstrations took place in the biggest shop, Mirafiori. It was in this context that several days later the trade-union leaderships signed an agreement which limited the scope of the sliding scale and the size of the wage rises which could be obtained within the framework of the collective agreements. The term of the agreements was extended. The reductions in the working week were derisory. At the same time, the employers were given the right to employ up to half the workforce without going through the employment agencies (in which the trade unions had a certain role, lay-offs with pay were limited and short-term contracts were allowed on a larger scale.
Workers' struggles in the 1980s: a balance sheet 95 It was therefore just after the social explosions and actions we have mentioned that a "social contract" was imposed on the workers.?
In February 1983, the government of the Spanish state ordered the closing of a section of the High Furnaces of the Mediterranean installation in Sagunto, near Valencia. This decision was only applied in March 1984, after 14 months of bitter struggle by the 4000 workers, supported by twenty general strikes in the region, several marches to Madrid, many many demonstrations, confrontations with the police etc. The factory committee enjoyed a real authority. A well-constructed alternative plan was presented. Despite all this, and although at the beginning of February 1984 there was the biggest workers' mobilization for years in the country (half a million workers in struggle against the government's industrial reconversion plan) the unions signed an agreement implying the application of the measures envisaged by the government: 2200 jobs were lost. In compensation, the government undertook to create 500 new, short-term, jobs.3
Another significant example is that of the public sector strike in Belgium in autumn 1983. For ten days, the whole of the public service was more or less paralysed by the action of 800,000 workers from the railways, postal service, broadcasting services etc. Forms of self-organization emerged in the framework of trade-union and cross-sectoral structures. The conditions existed to consider the possibility of a general strike with the participation of the private sector. None of the union leaderships took any initiative towards this because the bureaucrats knew that this would lead to a confrontation with the Martens government, something they wanted to avoid. One after another, the leaderships of the union confederations signed agreements with the government. The government pulled back slightly but did not change its anti-worker orientation. Once again, enormous potential was wasted.4 But by far the most significant example of a major test of strength is undoubtedly the long strike by the British miners. The Thatcher government had been preparing for this, drawing the lesson from the miners' strike of 1974 which had brought down the Conservative government of Edward Heath. The miners' union was also prepared. But alone this union could not obtain victory. An essential condition for decisive victory in the strike was blocking the movement of coal. A mobilization by the whole of the labour movement was necessary. In September 1984 the annual conference of the Trades Union Congress (TUC) voted a motion of solidarity with the miners, but there was no practical effect of this motion. In particular, the vital solidarity from the power stations was not forthcoming. Finally, in February 1985, Norman Willis, general secretary of the TUC, signed an agreement with the Thatcher
96 International Marxist Review government and the National Coal Board, behind the backs of the miners' union, which agreed to pit closures for economic reasons.
The leader of the Labour Party, Neil Kinnock, claimed that the strike had been decided in an undemocratic way and denounced the pretended acts of violence by miners which he put on the same level as those of the police. On this occasion it would not be an exaggeration to say that the bureaucrats not only did not do what was necessary and possible to ensure that the miners would win a battle vital for the whole of the labour movement, but they deliberately tried to bring about their defeat.S
The struggle for the 35-hour week in Germany is another important chapter of workers' struggles in Europe. Rank-and-file discussions began in May 1984 on the initiative of two of the trade unions, IG Metall (metalworkers) and IG Druck und Papier (printing). Strikes began in metalworking (first in Bade Wurtemberg then in Hesse) that same month. On 28 May, a national demonstration of 200,000 people took place in Bonn. Militant actions by the workers multiplied, for example, at Filter-Knecht (Bade-Wurtemberg) the workers occupied the factory in response to a lock-out by the employers. Overall, the strikes of IG Metall and IG Druck und Papier represented the biggest strike action since the 1950s. At one point, even the president of the DGB union confederation considered calling for a general strike.
As we know, an agreement was made for a 382-hour week, indeed 38 hours in steel. This was thus a compromise which has elicited many different reactions.
But the question we must ask is what could have been obtained if all the forces available had been mobilized in a joint struggle, as was objectively possible. It is precisely this joint fight which was consciously avoided by the union leaderships. This political choice was not inspired by an unfavourable balance of forces but by the desire not to risk an open confrontation with the conservative government.
The discussion on the 35-hour week had already, before the struggle, provoked differences among the German trade unions. A series of federations (banking, commerce, teaching, public services and transport etc) were in favour while others (construction, chemicals, textile and garment) wanted to stay with the 40-hour week, at least until 1987. IG Metall and IG Druck and Papier were not on the same wave length either, as far as the forms of the struggle were concerned. IG Metall quickly called regional strikes while the latter preferred a tactic of harassment. In addition, IG Metall was not well disposed towards rank-and-file mobilization and particularly not to the most radical actions like factory occupations. It never considered an industry-wide
Workers' struggles in the 1980s: a balance sheet 97 general strike. It should be added that the middle-layer bureaucrats in the factory councils — whether members or not of IG Metall - did not support the campaign. Certain councils openly sabotaged it, and sometimes signed agreements intended to reduce the amount of paid holidays by the length of time production was halted during the strike. After the strike, they accepted a massive use of overtime. Finally, neither the SPD nor the Greens did anything to give this conflict its real political dimension.® A few words finally on the French rail strike of the winter 1986-87. This movement was not initiated by the union leaderships, even if union activists played an important role in it. It was an example of a determined and audacious struggle, possible because of the self-organization structures of the workers involved. It did not win the essential demands which had provoked the dispute, but it fired a warning shot across the bows of the wages policy of the government and French Railways. The results could once again have been much more substantial if a unitive dynamic towards extension of the struggle had really taken off. It was completely utopian to envisage this possibility. Unfortunately it was not an all-out strike within the SNCF either and there was not a real unity between the two categories in struggle (train staff and platform staff). No federation called for an all-out strike in the SNCF and no joint union meeting took place during the strike (demonstrations were organized separately). No attempt was made to broaden the movement to other sections of the public and nationalized sector. In these conditions a return to work without victory was inevitable.? In conclusion we reiterate our opinion: There is no general stagnation in workers' struggles, and still less a historic downturn. Workers have gone into action in most countries in important struggles. If the results have been at best modest, if the struggles have often led to stalemates, if serious defeats have been suffered by the workers' movement, the responsibilty falls on the bureaucratic leaderships.
We do not have any reason to think that the willingness of the workers of capitalist Europe to fight has been exhausted. On the contrary, everything indicates that conflicts and mobilizations remain on the agenda. Notes 1. For the struggle in Fiat and its outcome see Inprecor No 86, 87, and 90, 1980. 2. For these events see International Viewpoint (TV) Nos 23 and 25, 1983. 3. For more information on this exemplary struggle see /V No 55, 1984
98 International Marxist Review
4. For a detailed analysis see /V No 39, 1983.
5. On the strike of the British miners see, among others, /V Nos 50, 55, 59, 60, 63
1984 and 67, 70 and 72 1985.
6. See /V No 114, 1987.