Insisting on an alternative: meeting the challenge of the cuts

by Mike Marqusee
CONTENDING FOR THE LIVING
Red Pepper, August-September 2010
In Act IV Scene i of King Lear, the blinded, humbled, suicidal Earl of Glouceste
r hands his purse to the naked madman, ‘Poor Tom’ (actually Gloucester’s ill-used son,
Edgar) and as he does so observes, “So distribution should undo excess, / And eac
h man have enough.”
Shakespeare’s 400 year old wisdom has proved far too advanced for the Conservative
-Lib Dem Coalition, whose plans for the next five years involve a redistribution
of wealth from the have-littles to the have-more-than-enoughs of historic propo
rtions. The new government’s first budget slashed spending on benefits for the une
mployed, the disabled, childcare and housing, froze public sector workers’ pay for
two years, raised regressive VAT to 20% – while cutting corporation tax by 4% and
reducing employers’ national insurance contributions.
At one and the same time, the government plans to force hundreds of thousands of
f benefits, eliminate 500,000-700,000 public sector jobs, sacrifice another 600,
000 private sector jobs dependent on public spending, and curtail the expansion
of university places. Inevitable result: a much-enlarged reserve army of the une
mployed which will undermine wages, conditions and security across the board. On
top of that, the public services on which both employed and unemployed rely wil
l deteriorate in quantity and quality. Poverty, however measured, will increase
and will become harder to escape or ameliorate. The inequality which already bli
ghts British society will intensify. The lives of the majority will grow more pr
ecarious. Overall, there will be a drastic reduction in the social wage without
which paid wages and benefits do not amount to a livelihood.
This is necessary, we’re told, so that the deficit can be paid down. Yet, in the a
bsence of substantial economic growth spurred by private sector investment (sinc
e the state has withdrawn from that function), the costs of unemployment will ca
ncel out reductions in the deficit. All that pain will have been for nothing – tho
ugh not for the rich, who will see their rates of profit protected and their sha
re of national income increased. The pain is not being shared. In fact, the rece
ssion is being exploited by the government to alter the balance of wealth and po
wer in British society in favour of the elite.
In resisting this sweeping attack, we will have to confront and overcome the leg
acy of more than thirty years of relentless propaganda for the primacy of indivi
dual self-interest. Working class people have internalised the measuring rod of
neo-liberalism, the shame of “failure” and the worship of “success”. To respond effectiv
ely to the coming onslaught, we will have to engage with a deep crisis of workin
g class confidence. To do so requires not only vigorous, unapologetic counter-pr
opaganda, but collective action, which remains the most salutary antidote to the
sense of powerlessness.
Being a “coalition” makes it easier for the government to claim it’s acting in “the nati
onal interest”. The presence of the Lib Dems, even their reversals on VAT and the
like, strengthens the pretence that there is no alternative: the cuts are necess
itated by the state of the country’s finances. On the other hand, a coalition is o
bviously more unstable and more vulnerable to popular protest. If, as seems like
ly, the government’s economic package pushes the economy back into recession, the
coalition could unravel and the government could be toppled or forced to change
course. But that will only happen if, in the meantime, we have built a movement
that insists on an alternative.
Our campaign against the cuts has first and last to contest their “necessity”. This
involves a challenge to the dictatorship of “the markets”, which we need to identify
as a modern form of despotism. We have to strip the mask from the financial eli
te, whose self-interest is dressed up as the public interest, who disguise self-
serving policies as mere obedience to impersonal economic “laws”. In this consumer s
ociety we are offered “choice” in everything but what matters most: the determinatio
n of our common priorities and the disposition of our common resources. When it
comes to taxing and spending, we are told there is no choice. So the struggle ag
ainst the cuts is also a struggle for democracy and should be framed that way.
Extreme wealth exercises an undemocratic sway over our economy. Redistributing t
hat wealth is not a luxury, but the only means of building a sustainable recover
y. The public sector is our most precious long-term investment, not an optional
extra or a burdensome debt to be disposed of. It’s the necessary basis for economi
c activity and social development. The fight against the cuts is a fight against
waste: waste of resources, skills, labour power. It is a contest over fundament
al social values, not a dispute between expert economists.
The case for the cuts rests not on arithmetic but on ideology, a series of linke
d assumptions that can only be sustained because they are protected from scrutin
y. It’s time for everyone to become an economist, to apply their own moral sense t
o public priorities, and to bear in mind that those who publicly pontificate abo
ut the need for cuts belong largely to the minority who will benefit from that p
olicy. Commentators who preach austerity with the same air of scientific sagacit
y with which they once endorsed the financial sector’s speculative shenanigans sho
uld be treated not with respect but with mockery and derision.
In the 80s, Thatcher made a virtue of not turning back. That boast became a self
-fulfilling prophecy largely thanks to concessions made by her opponents. If we
repeat the mistakes of the 80s, we will lose the coming battle. Back then, the l
abour movement succumbed to division; there was a failure of solidarity and a fa
ilure of vision from the movement’s leadership. The intelligentsia endowed every s
etback and justified every compromise with the weight of historical inevitabilit
y. Those who weren’t cowed or seduced were isolated.
We have to be alert to and staunch in opposing attempts to create divisions betw
een deserving and undeserving poor, private and public sector, productive and un
productive workers, the poor and not so poor. We have to appropriate the governm
ent’s slogan – “we’re all in this together” – and use it to consolidate a movement of the m
jority. Our campaign has to foster interchange between workforces and service us
ers. We have to organise locally, nationally and internationally, drawing streng
th from the struggles against cuts already underway elsewhere. We have to employ
a wide variety of tactics, including cultural interventions. The London Olympic
s may well be held amidst social turmoil and we should prepare now for the oppor
tunities it offers.
In the end, wide-scale industrial action will be necessary. For the trade unions
, the next few years are do or die. Either they re-establish themselves as effec
tive champions of working class people or sink into marginal irrelevance. At the
moment, the rhetoric from the leadership is militant but there’s not much evidenc
e of strategic planning. In the meantime, momentum has to be supplied by communi
ty campaigns. These have emerged in some localities but need to become ubiquitou
s. They are indispensable vehicles for disseminating the arguments and recruitin
g activists.
Unity and solidarity are the watchwords. They have to be not just lofty sentimen
ts but constant practise. The movement as a whole, trade unions and local campai
gns, needs to rally to every flashpoint, widening (not isolating) local or secto
ral struggles as they emerge. The more confident people are that they will recei
ve support, the more likely they are to take action. The key here is that the go
vernment will only retreat if we do not. In the 80s, every tactical retreat, eve
ry concession, left Thatcher et al hungry for more.
It’s time we returned to Shakespeare’s wisdom, and perhaps even further back to the
first century Rabbi Hillel, whose ethical catechism should be pondered by all pu
blic sector workers and service users: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me
? If I am for myself alone, what am I? If not now, when?”