The Crisis of Social Democratic Trade Unionism in Western Europe

The Search for Alternatives

Martin Upchurch, Graham Taylor

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• Print ISBN: 9780754670537
• eBook ISBN: 9781317036906
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

There is a developing crisis of social democratic trade unionism in Western Europe; this volume outlines the crisis and examines the emerging alternatives. The authors define 'social democratic trade unionism' and its associated party-union nexus and explain how this traditional model has been threatened by social democracy's accommodation to neo-liberal restructuring and public service reform. Examining the experience of Sweden, Germany, Britain and France, the volume explores the historical rise and fall of social democratic trade unionism in each of these countries and probes the policy and practice of the European Trade Union Confederation. The authors critically examine the possibilities for a revival of social democratic unionism in terms of strategic policy and identity, offering suggestions for an alternative, radicalized political unionism. The research value of the book is highlighted by its focus on contemporary developments and its authors' intimate knowledge of the chosen countries.

Chapter 1
Social Democracy and Trade Unions

Introduction

Our objective in writing this book is to explore the current crisis of social democracy in Western Europe and its resultant impact on the strategic orientations of trade unions. We seek to define a model of social democratic trade unionism, to test its strengths and limitations, and to record evidence of its breakdown and replacement with alternatives. We have chosen four countries to undertake this task (Sweden, Germany, Britain and France) each with a different formulation of party union nexus developed over time. We have supplemented our analysis with evidence from European-wide initiatives such as the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). We begin with a discussion of the crisis of social democracy and attempt to locate this crisis within state and employer strategies of capital accumulation focussed on neo-liberal restructuring.

Most studies of social democracy in the post war period agree that social democracy is not what it once used to be in its ‘Golden Age’. The collected studies in Bornstein et al (1984) point to a very different set of state-labour-capital relationship by the end of the 1970s from their immediate post war equivalents. The changed political economy, marked by the end of the long post war boom and inflationary crises, severely affected the relationship. Both Padgett and Paterson’s A History of Social Democracy in Postwar Europe (1991) and Moschonas’ In the Name of Social Democracy: The Great transformation: 1945 to the Present (2002) confirm this view. Added to the constraining effect of economic recession was a decline in the critical mass of the manual working class within west European societies. This decline in the traditional support base led Social Democratic parties to shift rightwards in an attempt to ‘catch’ a new layer of middle class votes. By the 1990s the debate focussed on social democracy’s alleged accommodation to neoliberal global restructuring through the lens of the Third Way (Blair 1998; Giddens, 1998; Hombach, 2000; Arestis and Sawyer, 2003). Within these shifts we hope to argue that the specific role of organized labour, as a sub-set of ‘social democracy’, has also changed. We begin by defining social democratic trade unionism and proceed to set out a model of union-party relationships that approximate to four case study countries. This is followed by an exploration of the ideology and practice of social democratic trade unionism. We explore the union identity that underpins social democratic trade unionism, and relate this to the development, consolidation and crisis of social democratic ideology across the case study countries. This is followed by an exploration of the practice of social democratic trade unionism which is developed in the context of the development, consolidation and crisis of corporatism. We then explore a range of theoretical issues relating to the limits and possibilities of trade union action in capitalist societies and translate this to the form and function of the capitalist state. Finally, we set out the methodological approach developed in this book and present a resumé of the subsequent chapters.

Social Democratic Trade Unionism

We can discern different formations of social democratic unionism in industrialized Europe. In northern Europe, the pattern of labour movement development was marked by an organic relationship between a dominant socialist or social democratic party and the trade unions. A dominant party union nexus (DPUN) was created. A harmonious and complementary relationship was established based on a division of labour in which the party pursued the politics of state and the unions conducted the politics of civil society (Pelinka, 1983: 99). The reciprocal relationship between the two ‘wings’ of the labour movement provided the basis for the emergence of a particular form of trade unionism. Hence:

Drawing support from the same social strata, oriented towards common objectives, and with an overlapping leadership and membership, a strong party union axis was in the interests of both. Ideologically the unions mirrored the parties, their philosophy of class accommodation matching the social democrats’ reformist parliamentarianism. In short, they were social democratic unions (Padgett and Paterson, 1991: 177; our italics).

Social democratic trade unionism was premised on cohesive and politically homogeneous labour movements with strong and disciplined confederations that mediated party-union relations. The principal objective of social democratic trade unions vis á vis the party was the winning of elections in order to facilitate the development of electoral programmes that would augment the industrial power and influence of the trade unions. Such a reformist outlook was not inevitable for a workers’ party. The ideological conflict within the workers’ movements was hard fought, as socialists with a constitutional and parliamentary orientation of reform battled for workers’ allegiance on the left with revolutionary and Communist alternatives as well as anarchist and syndicalist currents. In northern Europe, social democracy established its domination over other ideologies in the first decades of the twentieth century. In doing so it presented a somewhat contradictory position on workers’ emancipation. The core tenet of social democracy has always been to attempt to merge capitalism with democracy. Contradictions between the essentially undemocratic nature of capitalism and the democratic fashion of decision-making in trade unions were always likely to emerge. Social democracy was progressive in that it based itself upon working class solidarity that went beyond the business or craft interest common to many early trade unions. On the other hand the interests of class solidarity were always contained by party and union leaders and suppressed by the ‘national’ interest of capital over the interests of competing states. Hence any notion of international class solidarity would be eschewed when the majority of social democrats and trade union leaders supported their own country’s war efforts. Furthermore, at the national level, social democratic politicians and their allies in the trade unions fought consistently against workers’ power over capital whenever rights of ownership and control were challenged ‘from below’.

In post war southern Europe, social democratic trade unionism remained undeveloped or developed comparatively late. This was, in part, because of continuing processes of exclusion of labour by the state from the national body politik, and partly a result of politically fractured societies which embraced fascist dictatorships in both Spain and Portugal and a Military Junta in Greece. In societies such as France and Italy, the labour movement fragmented along political and ideological lines and social democracy seemed unable to subjugate the rival ideologies of syndicalism and communism. In this context, rival confederations developed and the most important union-party relationship to develop was between communist parties and the dominant trade union confederation. The strength and form of union-party relations defined both the electoral success of social democratic parties and the extent to which a ‘social partner’ orientation developed amongst trade unions. It is possible to outline four main models of party-union relations (Padgett and Paterson, ibid: 179-85) which correspond to the substantive case studies explored in this book. It is these four models which form the focus of our book, and which enable us to give due consideration to national varieties of social democracy.

The Swedish Model (‘Unparalleled Intimacy’)

Until their formal divorce in 1987, the Swedish Social Democratic and Labour Party (SAP) and the main blue collar train union confederation (LO) enjoyed a relationship of unparalleled intimacy. Prior to the divorce, members of affiliated LO unions were automatically members of the SAP and the unions contributed substantially to SAP funding. There continues to be an important overlapping of LO and SAP leaderships and union branches continue to affiliate to the SAP. The Swedish Model was marked by exceptionally high levels of union density and working class electoral support for the SAP. In this context, the SAP enjoyed unparalleled electoral success and LO was able to exert a considerable influence over the SAP a range of policy areas and deliver the discipline necessary to sustain the centralized solidaristic collective bargaining that marked the Swedish Model of post-war development.

The German Model (‘Informal Alignment’)

In Germany, the trade union confederation (DGB) is supra-partisan and therefore formally independent of the German Social Democratic Party (SPD). The SPD lacks cohesion and authority owing to the jealously guarded autonomy of its constituent unions. German unions neither contribute to the funding of the SPD nor campaign openly for the party in elections. This reflects both legal restrictions on union activity and the importance German unions attach to accommodating non-socialist members. Nevertheless, there are important informal alignments between the SPD and German unions manifested in the participation of union leaders in the party hierarchy and a degree of overlap between union membership and party electorate. This relationship of formal independence with close informal ties has given the SPD a degree of flexibility in policy terms whilst nonetheless providing the party with an important base of support. This was manifested in the axis of trade union barons and SPD elites underpinning the Schmidt Government’s (1974-82) policy of crisis management.

The UK Model (‘Formal Affiliation’)

In the UK, trade unions are formally affiliated to the Labour Party and trade union subscriptions have been an important component of party funding. The affiliated unions are represented at every level of the Labour Party including the National Executive Committee and through the ‘block vote’ at the Party Conference. There is no formal relationship between the TUC and the Labour Party; although the TUC has been unambiguous in its support for the Labour Party and the relationship between the two is mediated by a Liaison Committee. Despite the formal affiliation of the unions to the Labour Party, the relationship lacks cohesion owing to the fragmented and politically diverse nature of the British trade union movement. Consequently, the TUC is a loose-knit confederation that is subordinate to, and weaker than, its constituent unions and is undeveloped as an independent policy forum. The weakness of the TUC and the decentralized nature of collective bargaining undermined the attempts of post-war Labour governments to use the party-union linkage to control wages and Labour governments were unable to deliver growth and employment in return. Indeed, the resulting tensions undermined both the legitimacy of the trade unions and contributed to the poor electoral performance of the Labour Party. This was the context for the institutional distancing of the unions and the Labour Party over the past two decades.

The French Model (‘Fragmentation’)

In France, the labour movement has been, and remains, highly fragmented. Despite its syndicalist roots, the dominant trade union confederation (CGT) became aligned with the Communist Party, while the main non-communist confederation (FO) remained politically non-aligned meaning that the socialist party lacked an organic link with the trade union movement. From the 1970s, there was a gradual ideological convergence between the PS and the recently secularized CFDT and the latter gradually assumed a social democratic identity. This was marked by the gradual abandonment of industrial militancy, the moderation of political demands and electoral support for the Socialist Party followed by a cooperative or accommodating position with regard to the post-1981 Socialist Government. More recently, the CFDT has pursued a non-partisan political orientation, while espousing a perspective close to the ‘Third Way’. Despite these developments, social democratic trade unionism has remained underdeveloped in the French context. The PS has established dominance on the Left and a broad political appeal that has militated against the need for union attachments and the union movement remains highly fragmented and competitive and, moreover, low union density provides an important limit to what the CFDT or the FO could offer the PS. In short, there has been no mutual embrace between party and unions.

Trade Union Identity and Social Democracy

The development of divergent union-party relations reflects the path dependent articulation of divergent union identities. The historical development of trade unionism involved a triple polarization of union identity between a revolutionary or anti-capitalist orientation, an orientation focussed on social integration or social cohesion, and business unionism that involved a narrow orientation around occupational interests (Hyman, 1996a: 65). During the first half of the twentieth century there were bitter and prolonged struggles within and between unions and union confederations on the basis of these rival identities. By the mid-20th century, the conflict over trade union identity in Western Europe had been transcended in practice, although the transformation was to some degree obscured by organizational separation and ideological sloganizing (Hyman, 1994a). Trade unions that had articulated revolutionary or reformist political demands became increasingly focussed on a collective bargaining agenda that rendered political orientations increasingly rhetorical. Simultaneously, the terrain of collective bargaining became increasingly politicized as a result of Keynesian macroeconomic management and the legislative regulation of employment relations and in this context, business unionism also became increasing untenable. In this context, the emergent trade union identity became what Hyman (1996a: 66) has termed ‘political economism’ which combined collective bargaining with employers with a concern to influence the broader political, legal and economic framework of collective bargaining. Political economism was premised on a complex process of institution building associated with ‘political exchange’ or ‘neo-corporatism’ that displayed marked national specificities (Baglioni, 1987; Therborn, 1992a, 1992; Crouch, 1993) alongside functional similarities and involved reciprocity between union restraint and labour friendly or labour neutral government policies. In this book we focus on a particular form of political economism marked by the existence of a dominant party union nexus between a social democratic labour party and trade union confederation(s).

The maturation of social democracy in the post-war ‘Golden Age’ was, however, marked by a high level of ideological diversity and fluidity between national contexts and within national contexts over time (Padgett and Paterson, op cit: 11). Ideological diversity was a product of the changing social composition of party membership and electorate; particularly in the context of changing class composition. Ideological fluidity was a reflection of the rejection of doctrinal dogma and utopian vision by social democratic leaders in favour of a position defined by flexible pragmatism and electoral expediency. Importantly, social democracy’s Cold War ideological orientation against Communism was partly shaped by American power in the form of Marshall Aid and the associated activities of the American Federation of Labor in financing and encouraging ‘social democracy’ to the exclusion of any Communist alternative (Carew, 1987). In the immediate post-war period, social democracy also took a highly programmatic form. Social democratic programmes typically took the form of a preamble spelling out fundamental principles followed by a series of objectives to which the formulation of policy was to be applied. In this period, it was easy for social democrats to equate state-led reconstruction with the social democratic ideal of a socially regulated economy. The ethos of liberal capitalism had been undermined by depression in the 1930s and the exigencies of wartime planning and in the defeated nations of Germany and Italy the legitimacy of capital had been besmirched by its collaboration with fascism. These factors combined to enable programmatic social democracy to emerge as the hegemonic political discourse and practice of the Left across Western Europe. The programmes elaborated three main themes: the socialization of the means of production, state planning and the control of the economy and the security and equality associated with social citizenship (Padgett and Paterson, ibid: 13-19; Lipietz, 1987; Esping-Andersen, 1990). None of these programmatic elements were necessarily dependent on socialist ideology despite the ongoing articulation of socialist rhetoric. In fact, the programmes were essentially technocratic, geared towards the national modernization of capitalism through technology and efficiency. As such any notion of class difference within the workplace was suppressed as a ‘harmony of interests’ was assumed possible through technological progress.

During the 1950s, the tensions and contradictions arising from the ‘electoral dilemma’ of programmatic social democracy became increasingly apparent and, in this context, the axioms of working class socialism were revised and displaced by the more diffuse ideology of managed or welfare capitalism (Przeworski, 1985: 23-9). These tensions and contradictions became manifest in three main ways. First, was the contradiction between the collectivism of labour movement politics and the individualism of liberal democratic politics. The politics of nationalization and social welfare increasingly clashed with individual property rights and the rule of law and this resulted in essentially liberal programmes of reform. Second, was the contradiction between particular interests and general interests. Social democratic political parties seeking election were forced to broaden their appeal beyond the shrinking minority of the manual working class and increasingly jettisoned socialist ideology and rebranded themselves as all-embracing ‘peoples’ parties’. Third, was the contradiction between immediate reforms and ultimate goals. Initially, social democratic parties retained their long-term commitment (albeit rhetorically) to the abolition of capitalist private property alongside systematic planning programmes designed to reform capitalism according to the socialist values of rationality, justice and freedom. During the 1950s, such reformism was increasingly abandoned as the ideology and practice of Keynesianism overcame the tension between immediate reforms and ultimate goals. In the process, socialist goals were replaced by the humanistic goals of individual fulfilment and personal liberty.

Social Democracy’s love affair with Keynesianism had begun during the 1930s when socialist governments in Norway, France and Sweden responded to the depression with anti-cyclical policies that broke with economic orthodoxy. In the work of J.M. Keynes, social democrats found a distinct policy for administering capitalist economies whereby the state could be transformed into an institution by which societies could regulate crises and maintain full employment. Keynesianism was a theory which granted a universal status to the interests of workers. In this context social democrats abandoned the project of nationalization and developed an ideology of the welfare state. Social democracy was redefined as a democratic modification of market forces: nationalization was unnecessary and socialist goals could be achieved by influencing private industry to behave in the national interest. This position was strengthened by a widespread acceptance of the ‘managerial revolution’ (Burnham, 1945), by which capitalism had allegedly been transformed by the separation of ownership and control and the creation of a new breed of technocratic manager more likely to administer capitalism in a socially responsible way. This amounted to a gradual abandonment of reformism. Keynesianism in practice appeared to bring the economy under political control and legitimize the doctrine of equality. Trade union militancy was contained through wage control by an accommodation between trade union and party leaders. It broadened the base of consumption and reconciled the competing claims of capital and labour through the pursuit of a high performance economy (Padgett and Paterson, op cit: 22-3). Welfare capitalism thus enabled the creation of relative surplus value that could (at least temporarily) be diverted into social welfare without affecting economic equilibrium (Ryner 2007). In this context, working class socialism began to appear increasingly anachronistic and the process of ideological revisionism intensified through the 1950s and 1960s.

Ideological revisionism developed in an uneven way in Western Europe which reflected, inter alia, the specificity of the party-union nexus. In Sweden, the shift towards Keynesianism in the 1930s followed a brief period of radicalism in the immediate post-war period. A sophisticated model of Keynesianism was developed based on solidaristic wage bargaining, active labour market policies and universal social welfare (Padgett and Paterson, ibid: 25-6). The process of ideological revision was swift and smooth owing to the pre-war success and legitimacy of Keynesian policies and the close relationship and shared objectives of the SAP and LO. In (West) Germany, the Marxist past of the SPD was rejected unequivocally at the Bad Godesberg Congress of 1959, where the Party adopted a programme premised firmly on a humanist ethos and principles and in the process transformed itself from an Arbeiterpartei to a Volkspartei. The main impetus for these developments was the banning of the German Communist Party (KPD) in 1956 which eliminated electoral competition on the left and poor electoral performance which culminated in a third successive defeat in 1957 (Padgett and Paterson, ibid: 28-9). In the UK, ideological revisionism was fraught with antagonism and conflict despite the fact that the British Labour Party had no meaningful Marxist heritage to jettison. A significant faction of left-wingers and moderates in both the Party and the unions held a deep ideological and emotional attachment to Clause IV of the Party’s Constitution which committed the Party to the socialist objective of the common ownership of the means of production. During the 1950s, the block votes of the unions prevented the abandonment of Clause Four and, whilst Party policy developed in an increasingly reformist and revisionist direction, enduring conflict over the issue obstructed the ‘modernization’ of the Party’s organization and constitution and create significant tensions within and between the trade unions (Padgett and Paterson, ibid: 30-2). In France, the doctrinal commitment of the early French Socialist Party (SFIO) to Marxist socialism was highly resilient despite the poor electoral performance of the Party and the practical involvement of the Party in the politics and government of the Fourth Republic. The Party remained dominated by civil servants and municipal councillors and, in the context of the ongoing competition from the Communist Party and its alignment with the CGT, was unable to generate significant support amongst the working class ele...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Content
• List of Figures and Tables
• About the Authors
• Acknowledgements
• List of Abbreviations
• 1 Social Democracy and Trade Unions
• 2 Sweden – Social Democracy after the Divorce?
• 3 Germany – The Collapse of a Model?
• 4 State, Unions, and Labourism in Britain
• 5 The Persistence of French Exceptionalism?
• 6 The ‘European Social Model’: Towards a Transnational Social Democratic Trade Unionism?
• 7 Alternative Futures?
• Appendices
• References
• Index