Who said labour would get a better deal?
Is the ICFTU theory back-to-front? Is the so-called New World Order (NWO) in danger of being ‘killed off at birth by casino capitalism’, as the ICFTU maintains? Yes and no.
The ICFTU, in its February 1992 edition of Free Labour World, examines what it sees as the emerging economic results of the NWO, arguing that the consequent socio-economic disparities will not reflect the promises of the NWO proponents. The article is taken from a forthcoming ICFTU report, “Free trade unions for a democratic world order: the role of the ICFTU”, to have been presented at its 1992 World Congress in Caracas beginning March 17.
Unfortunately, the ICFTU may at the outset have misread the NWO assurances promulgated by the US administration under President George Bush, and the blossoming coterie of protagonists in Europe, Asia, and elsewhere. The NWO is exactly what the ICFTU apparently thinks it isn’t. Little more promise was shown than a superior capacity to produce capital in the free market systems (greatly aided by expanding and more accessible pools of low-cost labour), and the resolve to discredit those who would more evenly spread the benefits of capital growth by falsely aligning them as a single force under the banner of the failed authoritarian socialist systems. The NWO has assured us that market forces must and shall prevail and that therein lie opportunities for a knock-on effect that will broadly raise living standards, but it falls well short of any guarantees of benefits for those at the bottom of the financial pyramid.
Workers, ironically, have been asked to believe that economic salvation is now within reach under NWO, while many workers’ organisations have been amongst the first social groups to face attack under emboldened free-market democracies. New Zealand's recently introduced, sweeping anti-union legislation (see ALU No.5) is probably one of the boldest political steps in any western democracy — short of para-military or violent action — to be taken against workers’ organisations this century. It is staggering in terms of both its scope in disabling unions and in the comparative ease with which it was introduced.
Although by no means universally applicable, Western-style democracy has been a stabilising force in many societies by enabling different social sectors to be politically represented or politically empowered, but perhaps one of its most serious weaknesses is its own complacency, and its reluctance to acknowledge that social and economic disparities cannot be resolved simply by changing the labels and slogans under which politics is practised. The last decade has closed the chapter on some grisly authoritarian regimes, and while this has given new hope to many populations, the social and economic grievances which traditionally have given rise to ‘political struggle’—as termed in well-worn leftist phraseology — are still not being resolved. This, regrettably, simply opens the way for a new era of social and political confrontation— only the terminology and scenery will be new.
The ICFTU can be applauded for drawing attention to the expanding gap (in extent, size, and character) between the rich and the poor, but it is arguably questionable that such a large authoritative organisation could have concluded the NWO could bring much else in the first place. New and different political boundaries have been drawn, and that traditional western-style democracy was tailored to operate according to these old boundaries, which suggests just as much need to re-examine the orientation of western democracies as there was to dismantle the political machinery that shaped its traditional foes. The balance between unfettered free-marketeering (‘casino capitalism’) on the one hand, and more evenly apportioned socio-political responsibilities on the other, will yet need considerable adjustment before we can make any bold claims to a new era of social progress. It will be interesting to see where the ICFTU stands in, as it claims, helping to shift the NWO balance between opportunism and responsibility.
A clue possibly lies in its assertion that “Trade unionists were on the frontline in every instance where dictatorships were overthrown, unlike big business, which was happy to trade with the generals and the party leaders.” Big business, it seems, is still content to do business with the generals and the party leaders, but still unknown is where and how the new frontlines will be drawn, and where unions emerge in relation to them.
Contents
NEWS ARTICLES
REGIONAL ROUND-UP
FEATURES
HEALTH & SAFETY
UNION PROFILE
BOOK REVIEWS