Believeing in syndicalism/radical trade unionism

[Shevek]

Have just been listening to the UK Confidential radio programme on radio 4 which analyses the recently released state secrets of the year. Roy Hattersley was on there talking about the unions and trade union radicalism and militancy in the late 1970's.

I personally from an ideological point of view am firmly in favour of powerful trade unions but then according to Hattersley so were the Labour leadership/cabinet of Callaghan's government including Callaghan himself. In the view of Hattersley some trade unionists betrayed the Labour movement by abusing their power leaving the authorities no option but to consider action against them.

Hattersley used the example of unions deciding which patients were sick enough to go into hospital as an example of the abuse of power which does seem a bit crazy.

Shevek

 

[JHE]

Shrek,

I don't think the 'Winter of Discontent', which is what you're talking about, has much to do with "syndicalism/radical trade unionism".

The Labour government tried to govern through making deals with the trade union movement. The TU movement was better at delivering pay restraint for the government than the government was at delivering employment, lower inflation and better living standards. After years of holding back, many low-paid public sector workers struck for better pay.

Yes, public services were disrupted. Yes, there may (I'm not sure) have been cases of hospital workers effectively operating a triage service to decide who should be treated as an emergency. There were certainly some exaggerations in the reporting and some of the myths have taken flight in the thirty years since. According to some people now, you couldn't move for unburied corpses. The reality was less dramatic.

There was, however, a clear sense of failure and many people felt that if Labour was unable to run the country with the co-operation of the TUs, we'd better have the Tory thugs to put the TUs in their place. For many years before, Tories and some others had been moaning that the unions ran the country. It was bollocks, of course, but the chaos of the WofD clinched the May 79 election for the Tories.

 

[butchersapron]

Why on earth would you just take what Hattersley said at face value?

First off, the labour leadership/cabinet were not in favour of powerful unions influencing (or initiating) political events - they were in favour of strong right wing union bureaucrats delivering them funds and votes as part of their specific social base.

In a wider sense they were supportive of unions as part of the Keynesian post-war deal that saw the w/c integrated/represented within capital by combination of social democracy politically and the unions economically. They were not in favour of unions challenging the conditions of modern capital they were in favour them being powerful enough to be used as disciplinary tools when needed - when attempting to impose incomes policy for example.

The labour leadership were tied at the hip to the right wing ‘labour movement’ bureaucrats - that’s who they owed their allegiance to and if Hattersley mentions being in favour of strong unions this is who and what he means.

Secondly, unions deciding what patients are admitted to hospital - why on earth would you believe this too? At the very best you may have found public sector workers taking people to hospital being on strike or an overtime ban or work to rule operating a system of triage to ensure those most in need received priority assistance.

Thirdly, have you critically questioned Hattersley’s motivations for saying whatever he actually said?

 

[butchersapron]

Wasted my time typing that up with no spelling mistakes,as jhe had made the exact same points already :x

 

[Pickman's model]

shevek

i don't think i'm alone in being extremely confused as to exactly what you think, it seems to change like the sound of the phone.

 

[Shevek]

shevek

i don't think i'm alone in being extremely confused as to exactly what you think, it seems to change like the sound of the phone.

As I said on the other thread my leanings have always been anarchist. Ok I may be leaning towards being a radical liberal rather than an anarchist (which is probably why I saw joining the Lib Dem's as palatable). Both me and my partner (who is a Lib Dem did the political compass survey and both came out as libertarian socialists). I think Chomsky (who I refer to A LOT) has commented that some social-democratic gains by workers differ from anarchism only by degree.

I am impressed by anarchism and my thoughts tend to circulate around anarchist ideas. I have read a few books on the subject (mainly Chomsky). I only really joined the Lib Dems because my partner encouraged me and I tended to still hold quite radical views within that position.

I have not taken the step of joining the AF because for one reason I am a bit frightened of signing up to the aim about violence (even though I agree with it) in case I am branded a terrorist. I am also not sure if on a practical day to day basis I could be an activist marching up and down various highstreets, occupying buildings. I agree with it all but just not sure if I have the bottle to stick my neck on the line and get involved. I am a bit frightened by it all. Also worried about being put on police watch lists and things like that.

Shevek

 

[sihhi]

I personally from an ideological point of view am firmly in favour of powerful trade unions but then according to Hattersley so were the Labour leadership/cabinet of Callaghan's government including Callaghan himself.

As are the Chinese Communist Party and in China so is Wal-Mart as well - look at the content not the external form.

In the view of Hattersley some trade unionists betrayed the Labour movement by abusing their power leaving the authorities no option but to consider action against them.

The Labour Party were the authorities it was their use of the army and the police against the firefighters, against the Grunwicks picketeers etc etc

Hattersley used the example of unions deciding which patients were sick enough to go into hospital as an example of the abuse of power which does seem a bit crazy.

Is this any worse compared to capital deciding who is sick enough to go to hospital?

 

[nightbreed]

As I said on the other thread my leanings have always been anarchist. Ok I may be leaning towards being a radical liberal rather than an anarchist (which is probably why I saw joining the Lib Dem's as palatable). Both me and my partner (who is a Lib Dem did the political compass survey and both came out as libertarian socialists). I think Chomsky (who I refer to A LOT) has commented that some social-democratic gains by workers differ from anarchism only by degree.

I am impressed by anarchism and my thoughts tend to circulate around anarchist ideas. I have read a few books on the subject (mainly Chomsky). I only really joined the Lib Dems because my partner encouraged me and I tended to still hold quite radical views within that position.

I have not taken the step of joining the AF because for one reason I am a bit frightened of signing up to the aim about violence (even though I agree with it) in case I am branded a terrorist. I am also not sure if on a practical day to day basis I could be an activist marching up and down various highstreets, occupying buildings. I agree with it all but just not sure if I have the bottle to stick my neck on the line and get involved. I am a bit frightened by it all. Also worried about being put on police watch lists and things like that.

Shevek

You are not an Anarchist shevek. Dont enterain the idea. You are a Liberal Democrat. A member of an establishment Party just as Tory as the Conservatives and New Labour. You talk anarchist in the same breath as Liberal Democrat, just like changing compartments in a Train. Very confusing.

 

[trevhagl]

You are not an Anarchist shevek. Dont enterain the idea. You are a Liberal Democrat. A member of an establishment Party just as Tory as the Conservatives and New Labour. You talk anarchist in the same breath as Liberal Democrat, just like changing compartments in a Train. Very confusing.

Just got a Lib Dem leaflet through the door playing the race card!! They actually sound like the BNP!!!!

 

[Fedayn]

Just got a Lib Dem leaflet through the door playing the race card!! They actually sound like the BNP!!!!

In the early 90's the Lib Dems in Tower Hamlets played the race card both overtly and covertly to the extent of a leadfing councillor travelling to Bangladesh and declaring that Tower Hamlets was full. The BNP referred to TH lib dems as Londons 2nd racist party.

 

[dennisr]

You are not an Anarchist shevek. Dont enterain the idea. You are a Liberal Democrat. A member of an establishment Party just as Tory as the Conservatives and New Labour. You talk anarchist in the same breath as Liberal Democrat, just like changing compartments in a Train. Very confusing.

Indeed - Shevek's easy twists and turns, the desire to be all things to all people while shouting 'look at me', suit the political approach of the Lib-Dems particularly well

 

[Pickman's model]

As I said on the other thread my leanings have always been anarchist. Ok I may be leaning towards being a radical liberal rather than an anarchist (which is probably why I saw joining the Lib Dem's as palatable). Both me and my partner (who is a Lib Dem did the political compass survey and both came out as libertarian socialists). I think Chomsky (who I refer to A LOT) has commented that some social-democratic gains by workers differ from anarchism only by degree.

I am impressed by anarchism and my thoughts tend to circulate around anarchist ideas. I have read a few books on the subject (mainly Chomsky). I only really joined the Lib Dems because my partner encouraged me and I tended to still hold quite radical views within that position.

I have not taken the step of joining the AF because for one reason I am a bit frightened of signing up to the aim about violence (even though I agree with it) in case I am branded a terrorist. I am also not sure if on a practical day to day basis I could be an activist marching up and down various highstreets, occupying buildings. I agree with it all but just not sure if I have the bottle to stick my neck on the line and get involved. I am a bit frightened by it all. Also worried about being put on police watch lists and things like that.

Shevek

to be honest, if you join the af you're much more likely to be branded a bore than a terrorist.

 

[LLETSA]

Ok I may be leaning towards being a radical liberal rather than an anarchist

No fundamental difference in practice.

 

[PeterTCA]

As one who was a trade union official at the start of the winter of discontent I always feel ill when I read of unburied bodies and shop stewards deciding who should be admitted to hospita.

Yes, there were stewards over in Liverpool who refused to dig graves and there was an isolated incident of patients getting into hospital. It seems these obscure actions in themselves have come to symbolise trade unionism at the end of the seventies.

The reality was very different. I recall men and women trying to keep families together on bread-line wages and a labour government over-concerned with cut-backs and crawling up the arse of the World Bank.

My hospital union branch - rathet than cause discomfort to our patients - instituted a strategy of "imaginative industrial action". Ward occupations, sing-songs in administrative palaces, occupying the reception area of the plush offices of the regional NHS headquarters in Manchester, and so on...

I was one of many trade unionists to end up black-listed, sacked or finding one's career in ruins. One particular "imaginative action" was to see me end up in Crown Court.

Refusing to bury bodies? Bollocks. I look back to those days with pride.

 

[butchersapron]

Good for you, them traditions are going to be back in popular use very sooon....

 

[chazegee]

Worry that it will get eroded by the population jump.

 

[LLETSA]

Good for you, them traditions are going to be back in popular use very sooon....

To nowhere near the same degree, I anticipate.

 

[Shevek]

You are not an Anarchist shevek. Dont enterain the idea. You are a Liberal Democrat. A member of an establishment Party just as Tory as the Conservatives and New Labour. You talk anarchist in the same breath as Liberal Democrat, just like changing compartments in a Train. Very confusing.

I laugh at how people who have never met me can tell me what my political persuasion is.

 

[butchersapron]

They tell you based on your confused posts on here. Laugh away.

 

[Shevek]

They tell you based on your confused posts on here. Laugh away.

But I have explained why I joined the lib dems and what I really believe in. What is the problem? I'm trying to engage with anarchism and anarchists.

 

[butchersapron]

That you and your politics are confused, inconsistent, contradictary and incoherent. That's why this shit keeps coming up.

 

[Shevek]

That you and your politics are confused, inconsistent, contradictary and incoherent. That's why this shit keeps coming up.

I don't understand why If someone is interested in the anarchism you espouse you don't welcome them with open arms. You might need to correct the pereived inconsistencies in their views but why not engage?

Shevek

 

[butchersapron]

Because you're an attention seeking clown (anarchists are allowed to spot them and react accordingly you know) - i gave you friendly advice what to do a year ago, yet we're still here. Stop wasting my time.

 

[Shevek]

Because you're an attention seeking clown (anarchists are allowed to spot them and react accordingly you know) - i gave you friendly advice what to do a year ago, yet we're still here. Stop wasting my time.

god you are precious

 

[butchersapron]

The question isn't whether you describe yourself as an anarchist or not - it's whether you have pro w/c politics or not, whether your politics "increases the confidence, the autonomy, the initiative, the participation, the solidarity, the equalitarian tendencies and the self -activity of the masses" - that doesn’t entail necessarily being an anarchist. It does entail not being a lib-dem or a supporter of their or any other establishment parties politics though.

The things you claim to be concerned with and that you support the lib-dems on can be more effectively and consistently supported from outside. For example there’s tons of groups/people working on civil liberties (if that’s your main bag) who aren’t motivated by the desire to get into power who don’t/won’t change their positions based on this motivation.

Go do it and stop fucking looking at yourself and telling us what you see.

 

[LLETSA]

Quite. It does make you look like an oddball, shevek.

 

[nightbreed]

I laugh at how people who have never met me can tell me what my political persuasion is.

I base it on what you tell me.Just think a bit before you post.

 

[Shevek]

Yeah well I appreciate I have abused the boards and posted up possibly incoherent crap often. I have been struggling with depression the last year or so. So sorry

 

[butchersapron]

Don't make it a pity thing ffs, just work on sorting it it on the lines suggested many times - if you're genuinely interested that is.

 

[Shevek]

Ok. I take the point. Wasn't looking for pity but I get the message. I know I have created this impression of myself by posting nonsense.