Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA. Phone 0171 627 0599
Return to Workers' Weekly Index Page
The Significance of the Working Time Directive
Actions against Anti-Social Offensive in Education
Study Group Studies Anti-Social Offensive
Liberalism and social democracy: saviours of the old and outdated
Summit of 21 nations denounces US Helms-Burton Law
UN vote demands end to US embargo of Cuba
ON NOVEMBER 12, the European Court of Justice gave its final ruling that Britain must implement the EU's Working Time Directive which imposes a maximum average 48-hour working week for most employees and a minimum entitlement to four weeks' paid annual leave. The Major government gave a prepared response and the Prime Minister said that "he would not accept what has been determined by the courts today", and that they wanted the ruling revoked and that "we will require changes in European law to reinforce Britain's protection from such legislation", and that "we shall insist upon these changes before we can conclude any new agreements at the intergovernmental conference next year".
The controversy in the EU over the Working Time Directive has its basis in the unequal stage of the anti-social offensive against the working class in the different countries of Europe. What John Major's position reflects is that large sections of the bourgeoisie in Britain want to continue to keep their advantage in creating a climate for maximum exploitation of the workers so as to attract finance capital to Britain by not agreeing to the Working Time Directive, or any other social policy which limits this exploitation in any way. At the same time, this is at the expense of a number of the EU member states which still have more national legislation covering working hours, minimum holidays and compulsory rest days. This to some extent still limits the bourgeoisie in those countries and they want these rules extended to Britain for the time being.
In other words, the contradictions that are emerging on the Working Time Directive are contradictions among the ruling class of the EU on how to increase their profits still further at the expense of the workers and of each other. Just as with the "beef crisis", it is not a question of standing up for the interests of the working class and people, for safe food and for better hours and conditions but rather that such rulings stem from the rivalry among the different European monopolies and states in order to secure maximum profits.
In this situation what significance should the working class put on the Working Time Directive? The significance is this. If the workers are to defend their interests they must fight against the attempts of the bourgeoisie to lengthen the working day, lengthen the working week or other measures which increase the exploitation of their labour. They must take advantage of such contradictions among the bourgeoisie that are being created by the Working Time Directive. Workers are right to force the government to adopt legislation which limits the length of the working week and so on, even though the bourgeoisie can sabotage such legislation and reverse it once it is enacted. This is shown by the fact that at various times the working class has fought for legislation to reduce the working week only to find that at the first opportunity the bourgeoisie lengthens it again, or uses it to justify increased exploitation. At the same time, the capitalists may also seek to cut back on the length of the working day so as to squeeze more productivity out of the workers and cut their wages. The overall interest of the capitalists is to wring the maximum amount of surplus value out of the workers by whatever means possible.
This underlines that the most important question is that the working class must set its own agenda based on its aim to transform society from capitalism to socialism. It must mobilise itself and all other progressive sections of the people around a political programme that replaces the power of Parliament and the power of the EU in Brussels with the sovereign power of the peoples of Britain. Only in this way can the working class make its own history and create a society where it is the people of each country which decide such matters as the length of the working week, free from capitalist exploitation.
ON NOVEMBER 19 AND 20, students, lecturers, workers and other staff at higher educational institutions throughout Britain will be organising strikes, demonstrations and other protests against the effects of the cuts in education which are being carried out as part of the anti-social offensive.
Teaching staff and workers at universities and colleges are striking on Tuesday, November 19, against the low pay offers of 1.5% and 2.5% respectively. The following day, students are showing their opposition by demonstrating against the cutbacks being imposed on them. Further actions are planned by teaching staff and workers including a work to rule. On their part it is reported that the National Union of Students is organising mass meetings in support of the workers and teaching staff.
Whilst the immediate demand of all is usually summed up as "pay and conditions problems" and against the education cutbacks, the underlying struggle is the opposition to the anti-social trend which is causing havoc to the lives of the workers and broad masses of the people.
The anti-social offensive is the response of the bourgeoisie and their governments to the crisis of the capitalist system, whereby the so-called "free-market" principle is being applied with greater intensity, and privatisation is being carried out in health, education and other areas of welfare in the society. In other words, welfare, including education, is turned over to the big capitalists for their maximisation of profit. As the Director General of the Confederation of British Industry declared at the beginning of 1995, "We have seen an appetite in the private sector to invest in other elements of the nation's superstructure." Education is one such target.
The actions by the students, lecturers and workers in higher education on November 19 and 20 demonstrates that people will not accept this offensive lying down. In waging their struggle it would be futile to spend time arguing around alternative funding and begging the capitalists and their governments for "leniency". No, the issue is how to develop the struggle for a pro-social trend in the society and to open up the path of progress for the society.
The fact that students, lecturers, workers and others are taking, for all intents and purposes, what appears to be joint action on November 19 and 20 is a stand against marginalisation of the various collectives in the society. Most importantly, education in Britain needs rejuvenation. This cannot occur without the working people and youth and others waging a conscious battle to make education serve advancement of the society as a whole, for a genuine social and public education. This must become part and parcel of the struggle to develop the concrete programme of the broad masses of the people, headed by the working class, for a pro-social trend.
The South London Branch of RCPB(ML) has organised a Study Group on the subject of the anti-social offensive. The first of a series of three monthly discussions was held last Sunday, November 10. The Branch invited a number of activists from around the London Region to participate, and 14 people attended the meeting.
In welcoming everyone, a representative of the South London Branch raised the issue that in pushing through its anti-social offensive, the bourgeoisie is accompanying it with an ideological offensive in order to prevent the working class and people from fighting it effectively and finding a way out of the crisis. It is important to study both the objective situation and be ideologically armed against all the bourgeoisie's "justifications" for the cutting of social programmes so that a pro-social programme can be developed.
The discussions began with three prepared presentations. The first dealt with dispelling the myths about the welfare state, refuting the notion that its implementation represented a humanitarian policy of the Labour Party. It pointed out that the Beveridge Report, on which the post-war programme of National Insurance, the National Health Service and other measures had been based, had been commissioned during World War II by the coalition national government. The presentation placed the development of the welfare state in the context of the needs of the bourgeoisie at that time. The second presentation dealt with some aspects of the objective developments of the capitalist system in Britain since the second world war.
The third presentation went in some detail into the present crisis and the ideology behind the anti-social offensive. It showed how, after the welfare state went into crisis during the 1970s, and the bourgeoisie sought to unload the burden onto the working class and people, a programme of privatisation was embarked upon by the Thatcher government. Now this programme is itself in crisis and the bourgeoisie needs new sources of capital and areas for investment. The anti-social offensive is geared to fulfilling this need. The presentation pointed out that the state guarantees no rights for the people. It recognises only the claims of the financial oligarchy on society. New Labour presents no alternative to this situation, the speaker said. Its "stakeholder economy" is an attempt to line up the workers behind the aims of their exploiters, and head off the working class from going for socialism. The presentation concluded by emphasising the necessity of finding a way out of the crisis by developing a pro-social programme, and elaborated some of the features of such a programme.
Discussion continued for some further ninety minutes, highlighting a number of issues raised in the presentations. The next meeting of the Study Group will focus on the anti-social offensive and its ideological basis as it is affecting the health care of the people.
TODAY Conservatism stands discredited after 17 years of Tory rule and the times once again cry out for fundamental change. But as on so many occasions in the past, the financial oligarchy has made preparations to bring forward liberalism and its modern version social democracy – in the form of Tony Blair and New Labour – to rescue its rule. As over centuries, liberalism and social democracy stand poised once again to act as saviours of the old, of an outdated social system which has long since had its day.
Going right back to the time of the English Civil War, conservatism was the defender of the old. At the time, it lost, and Charles I was beheaded. After the elimination of Cromwell's influence, the conservative forces attempted to restore the old institutions. But the attempts were compromised as James II was linked with foreign powers and was against the English national sentiment of the time. Liberalism came to the rescue. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 brought about renewal of the institutions, but only in the sense of making some changes to the old, not destroying it. From then on for two centuries liberalism held sway over conservatism. It made adjustments to the old but refused to build the new. With the rise of industrial capitalism and laissez faire politics, the liberal constituency shifted to the working class. The Liberals became the champions of reform, they claimed to be the defenders of the downtrodden, they were the builders of roads and great public works. Working class leaders appeared on Liberal platforms. However, with the work of the Chartists, and then of Marx, the demand came from the working class to have its own party. The Labour Party was formed by the trade unions. The Liberals lost their constituency and fell. At the same time, Conservatism came back to the forefront against the threat of the working class, against communism.
With the Second World War imminent, the Conservatives nurtured and supported the rise of fascism. But they suffered a debacle. Inter-imperialist contradictions forced them to go to war with fascism. With the Soviet Union in the forefront fascism was defeated. The times cried out for fundamental change. The Labour Party was swept to power in 1945. It was faced with a choice: to take the road of liberalism in the form of social democracy or to overthrow the old institutions and go for socialism. It took the road of liberalism, made adjustments to the old institutions and established the social welfare state.
With the 1970s and the oil crisis came a crisis of the social welfare state. It could no longer be financed. Again the times cried out to go forward to socialism, to destroy the old and build the new. Margaret Thatcher, not surprisingly, took one step backwards. Her government began to dismantle the welfare state. John Major has carried this on. The result has been only deeper crisis.
Now again there is a choice: to go forward to socialism or to take a step even further backwards. The times demand fundamental change, the destruction of the old and the building of the new. But with a Labour government imminent, Tony Blair has other ideas. He speaks of the Labour Party becoming a great party of reform, of a new age of achievement, of building a "new welfare state for the 21st century". Like a 19th century Liberal he speaks of equal opportunity "to get on". He speaks of bosses and workers in the big monopolies uniting in one team to compete in the global market, of Britain "taking on the world and winning". This is the talk of a fool, but foolishness which hides the greatest dangers. For Britain to attempt to win in the global market is not only doomed but can only be preparation for war and the redivision of the world. Liberalism was dead and buried at the turn of the century, while talk of a modified "welfare state of the 21st century", without even the features of that which could not be sustained before, is a sham. There are no prospects now for liberalism or social democracy. However, social democracy is standing opposed to modern communism and the progress of society.
The anti-social offensive unleashed on the people by the financial oligarchy to preserve its profits and its system can have only two possible results: socialism or fascism. The workers must not be fooled by liberalism and social democracy.
Leaders from Latin America, Spain and Portugal condemned the US Helms-Burton Law on November 11. The final declaration of the annual Ibero-American Summit urged the United States to reconsider the Helms-Burton law enacted in March because it "ignores the fundamental principle of respect for the sovereignty of states".
The extra-territorial US law attempts to discourage non-US companies and other countries from developing business relations with Cuba. The law is in addition to the embargo that US imperialism has imposed on the island state for over thirty years.
Cuban Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina praised the final declaration stating, "This document is the fruit of all the work we've done." Cuban President Fidel Castro had personally urged the delegates to unite in opposition to the illegal and provocative actions of the US. The international media said that President Castro "livened up the meeting with an impassioned speech attacking free market economics, big capital and the US mass media".
The final declaration of the summit held in Santiago, Chile unanimously denounced the Helms-Burton measure for violating international law and the UN Charter. The law punishes companies that do business with Cuba by denying executives visas to the United States and allowing lawsuits by US citizens, including Cuban exiles, against companies and individuals involved in economic relations with Cuba. The measure has already sparked retaliatory legislation by the European Union and other governments.
"We urge the government of the United States to reconsider the putting into practice of this law, which strikes a blow against the principles of international co-existence," the final declaration said. In a further stance against the anti-Cuban policies of US imperialism, the statement also revealed that the Ibero-American summit in 1999 will be held in Cuba.
On Tuesday November 12, for the fifth year in a row, a resolution was passed in the General Assembly of the United Nations calling for an end to the three-decade-old US trade embargo against Cuba. Every year the number of countries voting against the resolution and abstaining has decreased. This year the number in favour of the resolution increased to 137 from 117, the number abstaining dropped from 38 to 25, with the same three voting in opposition: the United States, Israel and Uzbekistan.
Speaker after speaker said they backed the draft resolution because they regard the embargo as a violation of their own sovereignty by subjecting them to the effects of US imperialism's own laws and regulations and interfering with their participation in international affairs. The 15-nation European Union, three of whose members – Britain, Germany and the Netherlands – abstained last year, this time voted solidly in favour of the resolution. Other countries that switched to a yes vote from an abstention last year included the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Turkey.
Those who voted for the resolution included Russia, China, Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Canada and many others. Some of those which abstained included Japan, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, and the three Baltic nations Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.
Worldwide criticism of US policy has sharpened because of the latest embargo legislation, the Helms-Burton Act. It allows American citizens who were Cuban nationals before the 1959 revolution to sue in US courts those foreign companies or individuals who "traffic" in property expropriated by the Cuban government. The law also allows US visas to be denied to shareholders and officers of foreign firms operating these properties in Cuba. During the 1960s, Cuba came to an agreement with all expropriated property owners except those from the US, who refused any negotiations, organising instead to attempt the overthrow of the Cuban government.
Speaking before the vote, a vice-president of Cuba's Council of State, Carlos Lage Davila, said: "We believe the time has come for a new US policy toward Cuba."
Ambassador Victor Marrero of the United States said that the United States, like every other country, had the right to "choose with whom it trades, to protect the property rights of its own citizens, and to pursue its national interests". The embargo, he added, provides an "important leverage to promote peaceful change in Cuba."
Ambassador John Campbell of Ireland, speaking on behalf of the European Union, which recently decided to make it illegal for its members to comply with the Helms-Burton Act, reiterated EU opposition to "attempts by the United States to coerce other countries into complying with the commercial measures it has adopted unilaterally against Cuba".