Unions, get set for battle

We must join students in a broad strike movement to combat attempts to strangle the welfare state


o Len McCluskey
o guardian.co.uk, Sunday 19 December 2010 21.00 GMT

Britain's students have certainly put the trade union movement on the spot. Their mass protests against the tuition fees increase have refreshed the political parts a hundred debates, conferences and resolutions could not reach.

We know the vast rise in tuition fees is only the down payment on the Con-Dem package of cuts, charges and job losses to make us pay for the bankers' crisis. The magnificent students' movement urgently needs to find a wider echo if the government is to be stopped.

The response of trade unions will now be critical. While it is easy to dismiss "general strike now" rhetoric from the usual quarters, we have to be preparing for battle. It is our responsibility not just to our members but to the wider society that we defend our welfare state and our industrial future against this unprecedented assault.

Early in the new year the TUC will be holding a special meeting to discuss co-ordinated industrial action and to analyse the possibilities and opportunities for a broad strike movement.

The practical and legal hurdles cannot be dismissed. Thatcher's anti-union laws, left in place by New Labour, are on the statute book for just these occasions. But we must not let the law paralyse us. The bigger issue is winning working people to the conviction that the cuts can be stopped. It is vital to rebuild working-class confidence.

Unless people are convinced not just that they are hurting – not hard to do – but also that there is a coherent alternative to the Cameron-Clegg class war austerity, then getting millions into action will remain a pipedream. That alternative needs to be one the whole movement can unite around. A key part must be a rejection of the need for cuts. "What do we want? Fewer cuts later on", is not a slogan to set the blood coursing.

So I hope Ed Miliband is going to continue his welcome course of drawing a line under Labour's Blairite past, in particular by leaving behind the devotion to City orthodoxy, which still finds its echo in some frontbench pronouncements that meet the coalition's cuts programme halfway at the least.

I would argue there is no case for cuts at all: the austerity frenzy has been whipped up for explicitly ideological reasons – to provide the excuse for what the Tories would have loved to do anyway, completing Thatcherism's unfinished business by strangling the welfare state. If the deficit is seen as a problem – it is not high by either historical or contemporary standards – a positive growth and tax-justice programme should be the main means of addressing it.

Trade unions need to reach out, too. Students have to know we are on their side. We must unequivocally condemn the behaviour of the police on the recent demonstrations. Kettling, batoning and mounted charges against teenagers have no place in our society.

It is ironic that young people have been dismissed as apathetic and uninterested in politics – yet as soon as they turn out in numbers they are treated as the "enemy within", in a way instantly familiar to those of us who spent the 1970s and 1980s on picket lines.

And we should work closely with our communities bearing the brunt of the onslaught. That is why Unite has agreed to support the broad Coalition of Resistance established last month, which brings together unions and local anti-cuts campaigns from across the country.

The TUC's demonstration on 26 March will be a critical landmark in developing our resistance, giving trade union members the confidence to take strike action in defence of jobs and services. These are Con-Dem cuts, and this is a capitalist crisis. An attempt to blame Labour local authorities for the problem is a shortcut to splitting our movement and letting the government off the hook.

That doesn't mean Labour councils should get off free. There are, alas, Labour councillors embarking on union-bashing under cover of cuts, something we won't tolerate. Labour needs to understand that any social alternative to the present misery needs strong trade unions. And this is the moment when we have to prove ourselves.

Unions, get set for battle | Len McCluskey | Comment is free | The Guardian

Originally Posted by contracycle

We know the vast rise in tuition fees is only the down payment on the Con-Dem package of cuts, charges and job losses to make us pay for the bankers' crisis.

It'd be better, methinks, to show a non-ideologically driven agenda in order to fight against the supposedly idealogically driven cuts... Bankers' crisis, my ass. Why not call it the regulators' crisis? Or the credit agencies' crisis? Or the Freedy-Fannie Mae lending practices' crisis?

Quote:

Unless people are convinced not just that they are hurting – not hard to do – but also that there is a coherent alternative to the Cameron-Clegg class war austerity...

Oooohhh, do tell...

Quote:

I would argue there is no case for cuts at all. If the deficit is seen as a problem – it is not high by either historical or contemporary standards – a positive growth and tax-justice programme should be the main means of addressing it.

The deficit is high by historical standards but not impossibly so. OTOH, future supposedly hardwired expenses mean ALL western governments are effectively broke. ALL of them, UK included.

As to positive growth, tripe lol. If the OP knows how to generate growth, I would want him to be PM. I mean, I got some ideas of my own and others do too. OTOH, I don't think generating sustainable growth is like "the easiest thing to do, mate"...

And what is, exactly, tax-justice? Details please. And, let's just assume that it is "let's tax the rich some more", how do you know that it is not hurting growth per se? Again, I've got my own ideas on the subject and they are indeed close to "let's tax the rich some more" but I acknowledge that they'd be an experiment in macro-economic adjustment. Not that they're "oh well, the easiest thing to do, mate - if only enough people took to the streets"...

Quote:

As soon as they turn out in numbers they are treated as the "enemy within", in a way instantly familiar to those of us who spent the 1970s and 1980s on picket lines.

Hmmm... Yeah. OTOH, I don't remember the 70s and the early 80s in the US and UK being such a success. Massive inflation, followed by stagflation... Call me a wimp but that sounds pretty painful...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

It'd be better, methinks, to show a non-ideologically driven agenda in order to fight against the supposedly idealogically driven cuts... Bankers' crisis, my ass. Why not call it the regulators' crisis? Or the credit agencies' crisis? Or the Freedy-Fannie Mae lending practices' crisis?

Lol. Of course it's the bankers crisis, what the hell else is it?

Quote:

The deficit is high by historical standards but not impossibly so. OTOH, future supposedly hardwired expenses mean ALL western governments are effectively broke. ALL of them, UK included.

Not particularly high, last I read. High for peace-time, perhaps. And that last argument is of course still just as spurious as ever.

Quote:

And what is, exactly, tax-justice? Details please. And, let's just assume that it is "let's tax the rich some more", how do you know that it is not hurting growth per se?

It's already quite well established that thew wealthy escape with lower propoetional taxes thatn regular workers through PAYE. So that is hardly a novel proposition.

Quote:

Hmmm... Yeah. OTOH, I don't remember the 70s and the early 80s in the US and UK being such a success. Massive inflation, followed by stagflation... Call me a wimp but that sounds pretty painful...

Which is of course why they were on picket lines.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Lol. Of course it's the bankers crisis, what the hell else is it?

What about everyone else involved? They're innocent? And what was the bankers' exact guilt?

Quote:

Not particularly high, last I read. High for peace-time, perhaps. And that last argument is of course still just as spurious as ever.

I love it. So the discounted present value of future obligations doesn't count? "Hey, GM, why did you go bankrupt, baby? You had tons of money on your books, you looked real good, baby. Those future commitments? Ah well, fuck 'em, they're spurious as ever"...

Quote:

It's already quite well established that the wealthy escape with lower propoetional taxes thatn regular workers through PAYE. So that is hardly a novel proposition.

Be that as it may, I'd still want to know, even roughly, how he is proposing to change that. Coz, while I certainly agree that there is a problem, I suspect my proposed solutions would be meaningfully different from his... Agreeing on an issue is really not the major problem. The real problem is agreeing on the solution(s).

Quote:

Which is of course why they were on picket lines.

Yep.... Proposing to making it worst, mostly...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

What about everyone else involved? They're innocent? And what was the bankers' exact guilt?

Do we really have to recap this? Geez, talk about reqriting history...

Quote:

I love it. So the discounted present value of future obligations doesn't count? "Hey, GM, why did you go bankrupt, baby? You had tons of money on your books, you looked real good, baby. Those future commitments? Ah well, fuck 'em, they're spurious as ever"...

As has been pointed out, the extension in life expectancy is mostly applicable to those who are wealthy, and least applicable to those who are likely to be receipt of benefits. This is pure hysteria, I'm afraid, an oportunistic excuse, just as with the coalition, for slashing and burning the welfare state for ideological reasons.

Quote:

Be that as it may, I'd still want to know, even roughly, how he is proposing to change that. Coz, while I certainly agree that there is a problem, I suspect my proposed solutions would be meaningfully different from his... Agreeing on an issue is really not the major problem. The real problem is agreeing on the solution(s).

Maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't; I would expect he is proposing the reduction of loopholes and increased policing of tax evasion. After all tax evasion costs the treasury more than 15 times as much as benefit fraud, but our coalition is not vfery interested in pursuing tax cheaters and very interested in pursuing benefit cheats. Their ideoalogical angle is pretty explicit.

Quote:

Yep.... Proposing to making it worst, mostly...

Shrug. So you might say; they and I would of course disagree.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Do we really have to recap this? Geez, talk about rewriting history...

This is exactly what I thought when I read that sentence... Fredfredson's and Francois' doomers, at least, have the decency to trace it all back to the explosion of private and public debt that started in the 70s-80s...

I remember you protesting the idea of suggesting that the chmucks in the street who took those loans were guilty. "They were just taking the money that was offered". Yeah. Well, so did the bankers. "Here is a nice juicy commission to package that debt. But, hey, you'd ought not to take it, really. So, do you want it or not?" Guess what? They did the same thing as the chmucks in the street... They took the money and decided to worry about it all later...

Quote:

As has been pointed out, the extension in life expectancy is mostly applicable to those who are wealthy, and least applicable to those who are likely to be receipt of benefits.

The systems are still broke by any actuarial calculations you might use. Yes, the US and UK, being capitalist as God intented, may have a greater disparity in life expectancy than others according to class (I posted these stats, iirc) but it doesn't change the basic fact that, unless something changes, we're broke.



The difference between 400% and 600% debt-to-GDP ratio being really immaterial... It's impossible in both cases...

Quote:

Their ideological angle is pretty explicit.

No doubt. They're Conservatives, after all... But, just because they're bad doesn't mean anyone opposing them is correct/good...

Quote:

Shrug. So you might say; they and I would of course disagree.

Dude, even left-wing economists like Krugman agree... You can look up for yourself the terms "wage-price spiral"... Economist's View: "Re-thinking That ?70's Inflation Show"

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

This is exactly what I thought when I read that sentence... Fredfredson's and Francois' doomers, at least, have the decency to trace it all back to the explosion of private and public debt that started in the 70s-80s...

Which is a way of saying nothing. It would be more instructive to say that capital shifted from actuall productive industries into creating and farming debt.

Quote:

" Guess what? They did the same thing as the chmucks in the street... They took the money and decided to worry about it all later...

Yeah the difference being, that the banks committed a sin of commission, having actually invented and then executed the whole repackaging hocus pocus. And so yes, it is the bankers crisis; without their specific agency, it would not have occurred.

Quote:

The systems are still broke by any actuarial calculations you might use. Yes, the US and UK, being capitalist as God intented, may have a greater disparity in life expectancy than others according to class (I posted these stats, iirc) but it doesn't change the basic fact that, unless something changes, we're broke.

Well then, I guess we'll have to start nationalising industries and imposing 80% marginal tax rates. After all there's no alternative.

Quote:

No doubt. They're Conservatives, after all... But, just because they're bad doesn't mean anyone opposing them is correct/good...

Obviously. But if they're wrong, it still has to be shown why they are wrong.

Quote:

Dude, even left-wing economists like Krugman agree...

Lol. Krugman isn't a "left wing economist", he's not just not quite so extremely right wing.

Quote:

You can look up for yourself the terms "wage-price spiral"... Economist's View: "Re-thinking That ?70's Inflation Show"

I'm perfectly familiar with it and suggest that it only confirms the clase-based ands coercive nature of capitalism, the furthest thing from free human economic activity.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Which is a way of saying nothing. It would be more instructive to say that capital shifted from actuall productive industries into creating and farming debt.

If you want. I don't feel that's actually correct given that people did use debt to sustain their lifestyles and buying Chinese goods but whatever.

Quote:

Yeah the difference being, that the banks committed a sin of commission, having actually invented and then executed the whole repackaging hocus pocus. And so yes, it is the bankers crisis; without their specific agency, it would not have occurred.

Sorry mate but that's moronic. Class hatred as you say. The schmucks on the street did actively take and spend the money too. Besides which, the bankers thought, like nearly everyone else, that it'd be OKay. 'Historically', country wide property market collapses were 'impossible'. If you package your debt in a CDO priced on a 2% theoretical default rate, it's no surprise things go severely wrong when the actually default rate turns out to be 20, 50, 90%...

Quote:

Well then, I guess we'll have to start nationalising industries and imposing 80% marginal tax rates. After all there's no alternative.

Arguably, that's one solution. Doesn't seem particularly fair and I thought you didn't like state capitalism as you call the Soviet Communism. Certainly, their examples show that it is a doomed and underachieving system over the long run. I think it's less radical and fairer to cancel the boomers' entitlements. And I am OK with raising marginal rates, although I think it should be done on capital rather than labour...

Quote:

Obviously. But if they're wrong, it still has to be shown why they are wrong.

Indeed. I think I've done that.

Quote:

Lol. Krugman isn't a "left wing economist", he's not just not quite so extremely right wing.

Well, sure, if you define Marx as 'center', then Krugman is on the right. Then again, so will be nearly all economists. As Z and I have argued many times over with you, you don't get to define the right/left axis - Common usage does. And common usage puts Keynesians and neo-keynesians firmly on the left...

Quote:

I'm perfectly familiar with it and suggest that it only confirms the class-based and coercive nature of capitalism, the furthest thing from free human economic activity.

Be that as it may, it proves that unions action in the 70s made things worse. Arguably, the gvts were off their depth and reacted to a supply side shock with the Keynesian recipe that had worked so well over the last 35 years - Increase public spending. And then they were surprised when it didn't work. But unions really fucked things up to a whole new level... Which goes to show that I've demonstrated that opposing the Tories doesn't make you right per se...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Originally Posted by Gilles de Rais

If you want. I don't feel that's actually correct given that people did use debt to sustain their lifestyles and buying Chinese goods but whatever.

That is not sufficient to explain why credit cards in the 60's were symbolic of the elite and by the 90's were near universal. There's no getting away from the fact that banks actively sold us debt.

Quote:

Sorry mate but that's moronic. Class hatred as you say.

Ah so now pointing out culpability is class hatred? Well then, surely I must never criticise my betters for fear of being tarred with this brush, no matter what they do.

Quote:

The schmucks on the street did actively take and spend the money too.

I didn;t say otherwise. But your persist in writing th banks active agency out of the picture, as if they were forced against their will to lend. This is wholly untrue; the banks came up with the scheme for pacakging debt,m and went out farming debt to package. Why can they not be held responsible for their actions?

Quote:

Besides which, the bankers thought, like nearly everyone else, that it'd be OKay. 'Historically', country wide property market collapses were 'impossible'. If you package your debt in a CDO priced on a 2% theoretical default rate, it's no surprise things go severely wrong when the actually default rate turns out to be 20, 50, 90%...

So what? Since when was "It seemed like a good idea at the time" a sufficient defence for anything?

Quote:

Arguably, that's one solution. Doesn't seem particularly fair and I thought you didn't like state capitalism as you call the Soviet Communism.

I don't see why it's not "fair".

Quote:

Certainly, their examples show that it is a doomed and underachieving system over the long run.

You mean like thw way the mortality rate massively spiked when free-market reforms were introduced? I guess it depends on what you mean by "underperforming".

Quote:

I think it's less radical and fairer to cancel the boomers' entitlements. And I am OK with raising marginal rates, although I think it should be done on capital rather than labour...

Oh no not this fallacious boomer schtick again.

Quote:

Indeed. I think I've done that.

No I don't think you have.

Quote:

Well, sure, if you define Marx as 'center', then Krugman is on the right.

Nope. But Krugman doesn;t betray even the slightest of Left Wing analyses. I don;t see how he can possibly be constyrued as a left wing economist, except by people who don;t have any idea what left wing economics is about, and instead apply the label to anyone even remotely unorthodox.

Quote:

Then again, so will be nearly all economists. As Z and I have argued many times over with you, you don't get to define the right/left axis - Common usage does. And common usage puts Keynesians and neo-keynesians firmly on the left...

Nonsense. Frex, common usage treats the word "theory" as just "an idea", and this semantic distortion becomes a plank of certain religious arguments. Lack of clarity makes a mockery of attempting to understand anything. I'm using the terms in the strictly formal sense and I see no reason to stop.

Quote:

Be that as it may, it proves that unions action in the 70s made things worse.

It does no such thing. What it proves is that the one thing Capitalism can't countenance is ordinary people getting better off. That eats into its rate of exploitation, thus confirming the coercive nature of this system of theft.

Quote:

Which goes to show that I've demonstrated that opposing the Tories doesn't make you right per se...

Except of course I don't think you have done that. Indeed, what your argument demonstrates is the futility of thinking that capitalist "growth" will ever be to the benefit of ordinary workers. And thus perversely, in objecting to Union wage demands, you find one sector of society that cannot be allowed, it seems, to pursue its own self-interest. So far from this being a system in which the selfish interests of all are mediated to a better outcome, it explicilty relies on the voluntary self-sacrifice of the many for... well, for what exactly? For another series of crises and collapses?

Originally Posted by contracycle

That is not sufficient to explain why credit cards in the 60's were symbolic of the elite and by the 90's were near universal.

You mean like the fax machines?

Quote:

There's no getting away from the fact that banks actively sold us debt.

And we actively purchased it?

Quote:

I didn;t say otherwise. But your persist in writing th banks active agency out of the picture, as if they were forced against their will to lend. This is wholly untrue; the banks came up with the scheme for pacakging debt,m and went out farming debt to package. Why can they not be held responsible for their actions?

Well, then, i want the regulators, the rating agencies, the politicians, the Fed officials and the borrowers to be all held similarly responsible.

As I said before, the germs of this crisis were planted when we started to move towards a 19C-style capitalism and the lack of salary growth led to rising inequalities... Thereafter, every actor played its role that led to this crisis...

Quote:

So what? Since when was "It seemed like a good idea at the time" a sufficient defence for anything?

Intent usually matters in things like attribution of guilt...

Quote:

I don't see why it's not "fair".

Nationalisation, esp. as I imagine you'd carry it out without indemnisation, is going to be unfair...

Quote:

You mean like thw way the mortality rate massively spiked when free-market reforms were introduced? I guess it depends on what you mean by "underperforming".

Oh c'mon, Contra. Do you think the fact that their system collapsed might have had something to do with it? And are you seriously going to argue that Soviet Russia was efficient at delivering lifestyle advances to its people?

Quote:

Nope. But Krugman doesn;t betray even the slightest of Left Wing analyses. I don;t see how he can possibly be construed as a left wing economist, except by people who don;t have any idea what left wing economics is about, and instead apply the label to anyone even remotely unorthodox.

To be fair, i am marrying something that can be a-political (an economic theory) with a political axis. (and before you say all economic theories are political, I'll remind you that Hitler, just like FDR in the US, used Keynesian policies to drag Germany out of its deflation hoop). But, in general, basing your model on the idea that markets may not clear or do so below optimum is associated with left wing parties with names such as "social democrats", "socialist party" etc.

Quote:

It does no such thing. What it proves is that the one thing Capitalism can't countenance is ordinary people getting better off.

You'll have to explain to me how getting a nasty supply shock crisis converted into a full-fledged stagflation crisis was "ordinary people getting better off"...

Quote:

And thus perversely, in objecting to Union wage demands, you find one sector of society that cannot be allowed, it seems, to pursue its own self-interest.

Actually, I've said it before - I think the lack of present-day power of the unions is a problem. I mean, there is not much they could do about the brutal increase of Labour brought by China (which certainly wouldn't do anything so... liberal... as to allow ANY unions). But I am not blind to their short comings or the mistakes they made previously. You're so in love with them and so blinded by your hatred you say you understand the wage-price spiral issue and STILL can't accept that unions did the wrong thing (Not that they knew it at the time but... who was it who said - "Since when was "It seemed like a good idea at the time" a sufficient defence for anything?"...

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.