Trade unions and social movements
Content
Trade unions and social movements
Professor Marjorie Mayo
Marjorie Mayo is Emeritus Professor of Community Development at Goldsmiths, University of London. Professor
Mayo has published widely on community development and social movements. She is the author of Global
Citizens: Social Movements and the Challenge of Globalization (Zed Books, 2005).
Introduction:
defining the terms ‘social movements and ‘civil society’ more generally and their theoretical
underpinnings
Like so many concepts in popular usage, ‘social movements’ and ‘civil society’ are both
contested terms, depending upon the theoretical perspectives of those applying them. In
the US radical tradition, for instance, social movements have been defined in terms of the
mobilisations that take place when ordinary people ‘try to exert power by contentious
means against national states or opponents’ (Tarrow, 2011.6). Examples of such
mobilisations would include the American Civil Rights movement, the peace and
environmental movements and feminist movements, revolts against authoritarianism and
the rise of new Islamist movements (an important reminder that social movements are by
no means necessarily progressive). For other writers, however, the definitions have been
far looser, with greater emphasis upon informal networks and identity politics.
European theorists such as Melucci and Lyyra (1998), for example, have placed more
emphasis upon the differences between varying types of social movements, ‘old’ and
‘new’. The new mobilisations were not ignited by wages struggles that had been
characteristic of old left politics, including trade union politics it was argued. Rather they
were concerned with issues of identity, culture and lifestyle (Habermas, 1987). Ultra
left/anarcho syndicalist and reformist approaches (along with some of the versions of
these that emerged within Marxism Today, for example) highlighted the inherent conflicts
between the old social movements and the newer varieties, contrasts and conflicts that
have been challenged in their turn.
For Castells, for instance, social movements were the equivalents of trade unions, but
Trade unions and social movements 1
concerned with the sphere of collective consumption, rather than the sphere of
production, organising at the workplace. In contrast to trade unions focussing upon the
world of work, urban social movements were concerned to mobilise around issues such as
social welfare, including social housing and urban redevelopment. They were not
specifically class based mobilisations, per se (although activists might be expected to be
mainly working class, radical intellectuals and others might also be involved). In Castells
view, (in parallel with Lenin’s views on trade unions) social movements were campaigning
and negotiating within the framework of existing social relations, rather than strategizing
to overthrow these, as part of wider agendas for fundamental social change. But both
types of social movement were key to such wider struggles for the future.
There would seem to be some parallels here with competing definitions of civil society
more widely. Civil society has been defined by mainstream sociologists and political
scientists in terms of its separation from the state – and from the market. Each has been
portrayed as a separate sphere, with civil society key in terms of holding the balance,
safeguarding citizens from potentially over-powerful states, with rather less emphasis, in
the past, on the need for citizens to be protected from the pressures of increasing
marketization. For Gramsci (who has frequently been misrepresented and misquoted in
this regard) these relationships between civil society, the state and the market were linked
and overlapping. Rather than representing a separate sphere then, civil society affected,
and was in turn affected by, the market as well as the state. So, for example, education
could – and did – perform functions for both the state and the market, in terms of
reproducing labour power within the framework of existing social relations. But education
was also providing a key service for the working class and its allies. Given the extent of
marketization within the voluntary and community sector, in the current context, this
reading of Gramsci makes so much more sense.
Challenges and dilemmas for Marxists involved in union alliance building in the current context
The implications of these types of analyses for Marxists have been clearly enunciated in
relation to their role within the trade union movement. Trade union struggles were
necessary but by themselves insufficient as contributions to the longer term struggle for
socialism. These trade union struggles were essential to defend the interests of the
working class in the sphere of production, and even to win immediate gains (such as a
shorter working week, health and safety regulations and most importantly to raise wages).
Engaging in such struggles could also contribute to processes of politicisation, providing
Marxists with opportunities to unpack the underlying causes of workers’ problems, raising
questions about alternatives for the future. Marxists would, in addition, draw out the
common threads between different struggles, building unity and solidarity rather than
competition and conflict between different sections of the working class.
There are parallel arguments to be made about the role of Marxists in relation to social
movement struggles around issues of collective consumption. Here again, the point was to
keep Marxists’ focus upon the longer term goal, whilst building consciousness and
solidarity through activism in defence of current interests and/ or in the pursuit of actual
gains. So, for example, tenants’ struggles over rents and poor housing conditions in the
past were also linked to campaigns for public investment in social housing along with
security of tenure and rights for all tenants. There were gains to be made here too, just as
there had been gains for the trade union movement in parallel, in the post World War 2
period for example.
2 Trade unions and social movements
Traditionally, there had been close links between workplace struggles and community
struggles in working class communities in mining areas, for example. There are potent
myths here about the strength and solidarities that existed in such occupational
communities. In practice of course, there was also a history of divisions within the working
class. In London’s docklands for instance, there were episodes of solidarity in struggle. But
there were also divisions – between dockers and those involved in the furniture and
clothing trades, just as there were divisions between both of these and those working in
public services (whether as manual or as white collar staff). But there had been significant
opportunities for building solidarity. As a result there had been some scope for presenting
alternative (if social democratic, rather than socialist) scenarios for the redevelopment of
the docklands area. Real gains were being fought for here, if not specifically socialist gains.
And Marxists played key roles, bringing sectional interests together and drawing out the
wider political lessons, concerned with taking forward the interests of the class as a whole,
for the future.
The scope for building alliances and solidarity had been significant then, if limited. But
this was further undermined in the Thatcher years. There was increasing fragmentation
within the labour movement, as a result of her attacks, as well as increasing fragmentation
as a result her assaults on public services e.g. via the Right to Buy social housing). These
processes of fragmentation were further re-enforced as a result of Thatcher’s increasingly
market driven approach to urban regeneration (impacting upon the class composition of
these areas via gentrification and dispersal). Recent attempts to promote trade union
community organising can be seen as responses to these attacks and their impacts,
together with the impacts of more recent attacks under both previous New Labour
governments and under the current Coalition government.
Building alliances and solidarity was never been straightforward. But this is arguably more
problematic - and more necessary – than ever in the current context. There are, in
addition, particular challenges here, including the challenges posed by the very different
ways in which trade unions and community based organisations organise themselves, with
very different concepts of democratic forms of accountability. Trade unions tend to be
perceived by community organisations as being mainly concerned with recruiting
members, it has been argued (whether or not this is actually the case) with little evidence
of pursuing wider strategic goals (Sim, Holgate and Heery, 2013). And conversely, as
Holgate’s study of London Citizens and the Campaign for a Living Wage (Holgate, 2009)
demonstrates, community –based organisations have criticised trade unions for being
bureaucratic and slow. Meanwhile the trade unions were in many cases sceptical about
annual assemblies as a genuinely representative approach to democratic accountability. In
addition, on a more anecdotal level, both types of organisation tend to attract particular
types of activists to leadership positions. Dedication, determination and single mindedness
are key qualities for leaders who are going to make a difference. But these are also
qualities that don’t necessarily enhance the scope for alliance building and solidarity based
upon mutual respect.
Having raised these challenges however, it is important to remember the successes that
have been achieved, nevertheless. Chris Wright’s study, ‘Swords of Justice and Civic Pillars’,
offers a range of such examples (TUC, 2010).
Trade unions and social movements 3
Possible pointers forward
In conclusion, Marxists have key roles to play BOTH as trade unionists AND as community
activists.
l The challenge of building alliances and solidarity would seem greater than ever. This is
why their insights (including their insights into the nature of the differences and the
varying approaches to organising and struggle) are so vital.
l And most importantly, as Marxists have demonstrated in the past, their task is to play
leading roles in the struggles of the here and now, defending past gains and advancing
gains wherever possible for the future
l WHILST holding onto alternative agendas for the longer term, building alliances and
solidarity, rooted in increasing political consciousness amongst the working class and its
allies.
References
Gramsci, A. (1968) The Modern Prince and Other Writings, New York: International
Publishers
Habermas, J. (19870 The Theory of Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press
Holgate, J. (2009) ‘London Citizens and the Campaign for a Living Wage’ in eds. J.
McBride and I. Greenwood, Community Unions: a comparative analysis of concepts and
contexts, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Melucci , A. and Lyyra, T. (1998) ‘Collective Action: Change and Democracy’ in eds. M.
Giugni, D. McAdam and C. Tilly, From Contention to Democracy, Oxford: Rowan and
Littlefield
Simms, M., Holgate, J. and Heery, E. (2013) Union voices, London: ILR Press
Tarrow, S. (2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Polity Press
TUC (2008) Swords of Justice and Civic Pillars, London, TUC
4 Trade unions and social movements
Trade unions and social movements 5
6 Trade unions and social movements
Trade unions and social movements 7
8 Trade unions and social movements
Professor Marjorie Mayo
Marjorie Mayo is Emeritus Professor of Community Development at Goldsmiths, University of London. Professor
Mayo has published widely on community development and social movements. She is the author of Global
Citizens: Social Movements and the Challenge of Globalization (Zed Books, 2005).
Introduction:
defining the terms ‘social movements and ‘civil society’ more generally and their theoretical
underpinnings
Like so many concepts in popular usage, ‘social movements’ and ‘civil society’ are both
contested terms, depending upon the theoretical perspectives of those applying them. In
the US radical tradition, for instance, social movements have been defined in terms of the
mobilisations that take place when ordinary people ‘try to exert power by contentious
means against national states or opponents’ (Tarrow, 2011.6). Examples of such
mobilisations would include the American Civil Rights movement, the peace and
environmental movements and feminist movements, revolts against authoritarianism and
the rise of new Islamist movements (an important reminder that social movements are by
no means necessarily progressive). For other writers, however, the definitions have been
far looser, with greater emphasis upon informal networks and identity politics.
European theorists such as Melucci and Lyyra (1998), for example, have placed more
emphasis upon the differences between varying types of social movements, ‘old’ and
‘new’. The new mobilisations were not ignited by wages struggles that had been
characteristic of old left politics, including trade union politics it was argued. Rather they
were concerned with issues of identity, culture and lifestyle (Habermas, 1987). Ultra
left/anarcho syndicalist and reformist approaches (along with some of the versions of
these that emerged within Marxism Today, for example) highlighted the inherent conflicts
between the old social movements and the newer varieties, contrasts and conflicts that
have been challenged in their turn.
For Castells, for instance, social movements were the equivalents of trade unions, but
Trade unions and social movements 1
concerned with the sphere of collective consumption, rather than the sphere of
production, organising at the workplace. In contrast to trade unions focussing upon the
world of work, urban social movements were concerned to mobilise around issues such as
social welfare, including social housing and urban redevelopment. They were not
specifically class based mobilisations, per se (although activists might be expected to be
mainly working class, radical intellectuals and others might also be involved). In Castells
view, (in parallel with Lenin’s views on trade unions) social movements were campaigning
and negotiating within the framework of existing social relations, rather than strategizing
to overthrow these, as part of wider agendas for fundamental social change. But both
types of social movement were key to such wider struggles for the future.
There would seem to be some parallels here with competing definitions of civil society
more widely. Civil society has been defined by mainstream sociologists and political
scientists in terms of its separation from the state – and from the market. Each has been
portrayed as a separate sphere, with civil society key in terms of holding the balance,
safeguarding citizens from potentially over-powerful states, with rather less emphasis, in
the past, on the need for citizens to be protected from the pressures of increasing
marketization. For Gramsci (who has frequently been misrepresented and misquoted in
this regard) these relationships between civil society, the state and the market were linked
and overlapping. Rather than representing a separate sphere then, civil society affected,
and was in turn affected by, the market as well as the state. So, for example, education
could – and did – perform functions for both the state and the market, in terms of
reproducing labour power within the framework of existing social relations. But education
was also providing a key service for the working class and its allies. Given the extent of
marketization within the voluntary and community sector, in the current context, this
reading of Gramsci makes so much more sense.
Challenges and dilemmas for Marxists involved in union alliance building in the current context
The implications of these types of analyses for Marxists have been clearly enunciated in
relation to their role within the trade union movement. Trade union struggles were
necessary but by themselves insufficient as contributions to the longer term struggle for
socialism. These trade union struggles were essential to defend the interests of the
working class in the sphere of production, and even to win immediate gains (such as a
shorter working week, health and safety regulations and most importantly to raise wages).
Engaging in such struggles could also contribute to processes of politicisation, providing
Marxists with opportunities to unpack the underlying causes of workers’ problems, raising
questions about alternatives for the future. Marxists would, in addition, draw out the
common threads between different struggles, building unity and solidarity rather than
competition and conflict between different sections of the working class.
There are parallel arguments to be made about the role of Marxists in relation to social
movement struggles around issues of collective consumption. Here again, the point was to
keep Marxists’ focus upon the longer term goal, whilst building consciousness and
solidarity through activism in defence of current interests and/ or in the pursuit of actual
gains. So, for example, tenants’ struggles over rents and poor housing conditions in the
past were also linked to campaigns for public investment in social housing along with
security of tenure and rights for all tenants. There were gains to be made here too, just as
there had been gains for the trade union movement in parallel, in the post World War 2
period for example.
2 Trade unions and social movements
Traditionally, there had been close links between workplace struggles and community
struggles in working class communities in mining areas, for example. There are potent
myths here about the strength and solidarities that existed in such occupational
communities. In practice of course, there was also a history of divisions within the working
class. In London’s docklands for instance, there were episodes of solidarity in struggle. But
there were also divisions – between dockers and those involved in the furniture and
clothing trades, just as there were divisions between both of these and those working in
public services (whether as manual or as white collar staff). But there had been significant
opportunities for building solidarity. As a result there had been some scope for presenting
alternative (if social democratic, rather than socialist) scenarios for the redevelopment of
the docklands area. Real gains were being fought for here, if not specifically socialist gains.
And Marxists played key roles, bringing sectional interests together and drawing out the
wider political lessons, concerned with taking forward the interests of the class as a whole,
for the future.
The scope for building alliances and solidarity had been significant then, if limited. But
this was further undermined in the Thatcher years. There was increasing fragmentation
within the labour movement, as a result of her attacks, as well as increasing fragmentation
as a result her assaults on public services e.g. via the Right to Buy social housing). These
processes of fragmentation were further re-enforced as a result of Thatcher’s increasingly
market driven approach to urban regeneration (impacting upon the class composition of
these areas via gentrification and dispersal). Recent attempts to promote trade union
community organising can be seen as responses to these attacks and their impacts,
together with the impacts of more recent attacks under both previous New Labour
governments and under the current Coalition government.
Building alliances and solidarity was never been straightforward. But this is arguably more
problematic - and more necessary – than ever in the current context. There are, in
addition, particular challenges here, including the challenges posed by the very different
ways in which trade unions and community based organisations organise themselves, with
very different concepts of democratic forms of accountability. Trade unions tend to be
perceived by community organisations as being mainly concerned with recruiting
members, it has been argued (whether or not this is actually the case) with little evidence
of pursuing wider strategic goals (Sim, Holgate and Heery, 2013). And conversely, as
Holgate’s study of London Citizens and the Campaign for a Living Wage (Holgate, 2009)
demonstrates, community –based organisations have criticised trade unions for being
bureaucratic and slow. Meanwhile the trade unions were in many cases sceptical about
annual assemblies as a genuinely representative approach to democratic accountability. In
addition, on a more anecdotal level, both types of organisation tend to attract particular
types of activists to leadership positions. Dedication, determination and single mindedness
are key qualities for leaders who are going to make a difference. But these are also
qualities that don’t necessarily enhance the scope for alliance building and solidarity based
upon mutual respect.
Having raised these challenges however, it is important to remember the successes that
have been achieved, nevertheless. Chris Wright’s study, ‘Swords of Justice and Civic Pillars’,
offers a range of such examples (TUC, 2010).
Trade unions and social movements 3
Possible pointers forward
In conclusion, Marxists have key roles to play BOTH as trade unionists AND as community
activists.
l The challenge of building alliances and solidarity would seem greater than ever. This is
why their insights (including their insights into the nature of the differences and the
varying approaches to organising and struggle) are so vital.
l And most importantly, as Marxists have demonstrated in the past, their task is to play
leading roles in the struggles of the here and now, defending past gains and advancing
gains wherever possible for the future
l WHILST holding onto alternative agendas for the longer term, building alliances and
solidarity, rooted in increasing political consciousness amongst the working class and its
allies.
References
Gramsci, A. (1968) The Modern Prince and Other Writings, New York: International
Publishers
Habermas, J. (19870 The Theory of Communicative Action, Cambridge: Polity Press
Holgate, J. (2009) ‘London Citizens and the Campaign for a Living Wage’ in eds. J.
McBride and I. Greenwood, Community Unions: a comparative analysis of concepts and
contexts, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Melucci , A. and Lyyra, T. (1998) ‘Collective Action: Change and Democracy’ in eds. M.
Giugni, D. McAdam and C. Tilly, From Contention to Democracy, Oxford: Rowan and
Littlefield
Simms, M., Holgate, J. and Heery, E. (2013) Union voices, London: ILR Press
Tarrow, S. (2005) The New Transnational Activism, Cambridge: Polity Press
TUC (2008) Swords of Justice and Civic Pillars, London, TUC
4 Trade unions and social movements
Trade unions and social movements 5
6 Trade unions and social movements
Trade unions and social movements 7
8 Trade unions and social movements
