| From Unity, 29 April 2006 |
The enemy still fears our potentialby John Molloy |
| During the recent strikes in defence of future pension rights, as predictably as night follows day the bloated mouthpieces of the ruling classes from the CBI and Institute of Directors quickly dusted off their Ladybird Book of Industrial Relations clichés and contacted their equally infantile propagandist allies in the media to lambaste those taking part. This dispute was “trade unionism at its worst,” the strikers were “holding the country to ransom,” etc., etc.
While the power of this onslaught cannot be underestimated—attempting to pollute the true discourse on these issues and fuel suspicion, prejudice and hostility in those who may be potential allies of those in dispute—the scale of it can backfire. That is, the vehemence of the opposition to workers’ “demands” contrasts dramatically with the relative modesty of what is at the centre of any dispute and illuminates the hypocrisy, insecurity and vested interests of the enemies of progress. This occurred spectacularly in relation to the pensions issue, as a general population who were not directly involved spotted the hypocrisy of employers lecturing their staff that they hadn’t contributed enough—this from employers who had taken pension “holidays,” avoided their obligations, and profited to such an extent that among the directors of the FTSE 100 companies, 43 had pension pay-outs of more than £400,000 a year, and the combined pension outlay for 360 of these directors equalled £1 billion. Any observer of the dispute, therefore, saw very clearly the offensiveness of the attempt to force low-paid workers to work until they dropped, rather than enjoy a few years’ retirement on a very modest pension. The same capitalist apologists were also at work during the recent postal dispute. So why are the rich and powerful sufficiently agitated to mount such attacks, and what is the basis of their insecurity? Have we not been told that the unions have been defeated? Are we not, after the “end of history,” in an unchallenged capitalist age? Clearly not! The root of this insecurity lies in an area of discussion that is taboo in the mass media: the material basis of capitalist society, and the potential challenge to it that organised labour still possesses. There are many examples of how the beneficiaries of neo-liberalism in the modern era have “never had it so good,” with massive swathes of the public sector being swallowed by them, indulgent tax regimes created, and supportive governments facilitating the free movement of capital. This creates the nauseating contrast between the feathernesting by and for capitalists and the neglected societies they attempt to control. For example, a few years ago it was revealed that the then richest man in Britain, the Swedish billionaire Hans Rausing, received more in refunds and grants from the Treasury than he was paying them in taxes. Similarly, the direct rule Minister of Health Shaun Woodward’s recent announcement of a £5.8 million regional investment in primary and community care services in Northern Ireland is put in perspective by the fact (reported by Murdoch’s establishment rag, the Times) that in 1994 he purchased a property for an estimated £8 million, which he subsequently sold for a £15 million profit after “renovation.” In addition, last year Woodward paid £7 million for a holiday home in Long Island, New York. Given these examples of the gross contrast between private wealth and the public squalor over which they preside, little wonder that they are vehement in defence of the political and industrial orthodoxy that has preserved and expanded such excesses. However, the more astute among the bloated capitalist plutocracy still keep a wary eye on those who are aware of and offer a challenge to the manifestation of their plundered treasure. It is this fact, and the ceaseless search for the next profit, that helps to explain why macho management is underwritten in Royal Mail, why a company as rich as Dunne’s still reacted to the display of one shop steward wearing a union badge, and why restrictive labour laws that attempt to hamper and harass trade union activity at all levels remain on the statute book. In this way, even amidst the smug celebration and exorbitant trappings of the British economy being the “fifth largest in the world,” or the bogus patriotism of the Celtic tiger’s “achievements,” there is an awareness that the inherent contradictions of the capitalist system were not solved by the dismantling of the Soviet Union or the temporary arrest of the forward march of labour by a series of right-wing policies being implemented in western Europe. In fact, despite what some cretinous historians and commentators may have preferred to believe—that the world was a finite number of set-piece battles in which capitalism had now emerged triumphant—the residual power of organised labour and of resistance itself, allied to the challenge of newly emerging economic rivals, such as China and India, has led to the contradictions within the capitalist system being heightened rather than reduced. It is this fact that should console and inspire as we prepare for May Day: the capitalist class still fears the potential of our organised strength and the risk to them that is posed by our demands for economic and political accountability. Fresh from the encouragement of the pensions strikes creating the biggest day of action since 1926 and support for the Irish Ferries workers bringing more than 100,000 onto the streets of Dublin, therefore, it is our challenge to reflect on the basis of our organisation and discuss the activity we adopt in the future that will help us develop and realise the potential so feared by our enemies. We can assist this by exploring what might form the basis of an alternative economic strategy at the local and national level and reflect on what we can learn from our international allies who have successfully resisted the attempted imposition of EU-driven neo-liberalism. Inspired by these successes, and maintaining our solidarity with the self-rejuvenating longevity of the Cuban Revolution and other progressive developments in Latin America, the choice remains as clear as ever: “socialism or barbarism.” |
| Home page > Publications > Unity > 2006 > The enemy still fears our potential |
| Baile > Foilseacháin > Unity > 2006 > The enemy still fears our potential |