Labour, Agency and Resistance in an Era of Global Capital

Andy Cumbers

Geography Department and Centre for Public Policy for Regions, University of Glasgow

Paper presented at Global Production Networks Seminar, University of Manchester

25-26th January 2007

"We too have worked with a concept that puts capitalist development first, and workers second. This is a mistake. And now we have to turn the problem on its head, reverse the polarity and start again from the beginning: and the beginning is the class struggle." (Tronti, M. 1979 Lenin in England. In Red Notes Working Class Autonomy and the Crisis. )

Introduction I

• Labour under-theorised in accounts of global capitalism and GPNs

• Resurgent labour geographies – emphasis upon empirics and “policy orientation”

• Theoretical gap – key omissions• Labour ontologically taken as a given category• Deeper theorisation of trade unions in relation to “abstract

labour”

• Paper engages with Autonomous Marxist literature to develop critical thinking about labour and trade unions

Introduction II

• Part of broader ESRC project on Global Justice Movement – sustainability of international solidarity networks– Trade union case study = ICEM and affiliates (France,

Norway, Germany, UK)– Conceptually, engagement with Anti-Capitalist

discourses (Hardt and Negri, Holloway)• Rethinking revolutionary and class politics• Rooted firmly in Marxist tradition of autonomism – placing

labour and class struggle at centre of understanding of capitalist dynamics

Introduction III

• Paper outline:

– Capitalism through the lens of capital

– Using AM to develop a more critical sense of labour agency

– Interpreting global union action through an AM perspective

– Focus on ICEM and its global strategies and what these reveal about contemporary relations and tensions within labour movement

– Conclusions

Capitalism through the lens of capital

• Dominant accounts of economic globalisation capital or state-centric– Struggles between capital and state actors across multiple

scales– Assumed hegemony of capital– Labour problem – localised control regimes

• Marxist accounts – mainstream and neo-Marxists – also privilege capital and state– Surplus value, circulation of capital, relations between

production and money capital, spatial fixes– Role of state in regulating and sustaining capital

accumulation– Harvey “New Imperialism”

• Class struggle under-theorised, emergent global justice networks seen as disconnected movements:"The effect of all these movements has been to shift the terrain of political organization away from traditional political parties and labour organizing into a less focused political dynamic of social action across the whole spectrum of civil society. .....It drew its strength from embeddedness in the nitty-gritty of daily life and struggle, but in so doing often found it hard to extract itself from the local and the particular to understand the macro-politics of what neoliberal accumulation by dispossession was and is all about. The variety of struggles was and is simply stunning. It is hard to even imagine connections between them." (Harvey 2006, 156).

• 1990s upsurge of resistance to global capital = pleasant but unexpected surprise for many on the Left

• spontaneous class rebellions – resistance to capital going beyond traditional industrial working class (e.g. indig. peoples, peasants, environments)

• eliding over agency of labour and processes through which class struggles happen

"The defining feature of Marxist economics is the idea that capitalism can be understood in terms of certain regularities [laws of motion]. These [..] refer to the regular (but contradictory) pattern of the reproduction of capital [....] and Marxist economics focuses on the study of capital and its contradictory reproduction. [.....] Class struggle does not play any direct part in the analysis of capitalism. It is generally assumed that the role of Marxist economics is to explain the framework within which struggle takes place. Class struggle is interstitial: it fills in the gaps left by economic analysis, does not not determine the reproduction or crisis of capitalism, but affects the conditions under which the reproduction and crisis take place." (Holloway 2005, 134).

• Irony of many accounts: capitalist reproduction assumes primacy over class struggle

• Politically as well as conceptually problematic – class struggle “relegated to the future” (ibid, 137)

Autonomous Marxism, class struggle and the problem of labour

• AM inverts traditional approach– Understanding capital in relation to labour– Labour is source of value, not capital– Capital restructuring rooted in class struggle– Resistance and labour starting point

"We begin with counter-insurgency for the same reason that Marx gives, in the preface to the first volume of Capital, for discussing wealth before discussing labor, its source. His book opens with capital and the world of commodities: this is the logical entry point because this is how we first experience capitalist society. From here Marx develops the dynamics of capitalist production and labor, even though capital and commodities are the results of labor - both materially since they are the products of labour, and politically, since capital must constantly respond to the threats and developments of labor." (emphasis added) (Hardt and Negri 2006, 64).

• Neoliberalism as class struggle – counterinsurgency against growing resistance of, and

gains made by, labour in post-war era– Post-1980 “flight from labour”– 1990s – new revolts against neoliberalism and

globalising capital• Key point: capital can never fully escape labour

"Capital is dependent on labour in a way in which labour is not dependent upon capital. Capital without labour, ceases to exist: labour, without capital, becomes practical creativity, creative practice,

humanity" (Holloway 2005, 182). Multinational companies can escape one group of workersand relocate elsewhere but will need to subjugate another

group of workers.

• Key to understanding labour not just about exploitation, but alienation and dehumanising – separation of labour from “doing”

• Resistance to capital subjugation – labour in broad sense – all social life subjected to commodification under global capitalism

– spawns diverse range of resistance

– resistance is omnipresent

• “Multitude” (H&N) evokes diverse resistances to commodification and unifies sense of struggle while maintaining social identity

• Important insight for theorising class and labour:

“We do not struggle as working class, we struggle against being working class [….] Our struggle is not the struggle of labour: it is the struggle against labour. It is [..] the unity of capital accumulation that gives unity to our struggle, not our unity as members of a common class. Thus for example it is the significance of the Zapatista struggle against [capitalist accumulation] that gives it importance for class struggle, not the question of whether [they] are members of the working class. Struggle arises not from the fact that we are working class but from the fact that we-are-and-are-not working class; that they try to order and command us but we do not want to be ordered and commanded, that they try to separate us from our product and our producing and our humanity and our selves and we do not want to be separated from all that. [….] working class identity should be seen as a non-identity; the communion of struggle to be not working class. (Holloway 2005, 144).

• Class more fluid concept than traditional left position– Emerges out of changing conditions of production

– Labour and capital intertwined, not external to each other – internal dialectic

– Entangled relations of domination and resistance (Sharp et al 2000)“we take part in class struggle on both sides [..] "We exist against-in-and-beyond capital, and against-in-and-beyond ourselves. Humanity, as it exists, is schizoid, volcanic: everyone is torn apart by the class antagonism." (Holloway

2005, 144, 145)

Labour, agency and trade union relations with global capital

• Differentiation between “abstract labour” and trade unions

• Trade unions – particular and contingent organisational form internal to capitalism

– Conventional understandings = tied to industrial working class – late 19th C/early 20th US/European industrial capitalism

– Different forms of trade unionism emerging in global south – social movements (e.g. Brazil, South Africa)

• Trade unions as contested forms of labour organisation

• site of internal antagonisms, “schizoid” relations at all scales

• varied relations with state and capital

• actors who both reinforce accumulation and offer possibilities for resistance

• Example of Norwegian LO and affiliates– Arguing for/lobbying for “privatisation” of Statoil to

allow it to compete globally

– Active promotion of independent trans-national workplace networks

– Sponsoring independent local union movements in Global South

Unions still powerful actors and at multiple scales • entangled in key relations with state and capital rather than

separate from – Links to national SD/Labour Parties– Continuing national collective bargaining– Representation on company boards

• Become involved/ ‘co-opted’? in global governance agendas – part response to global resistance– Global Compact, WTO, WEF– Embeddedness within MNCs

• increasing number of Global Frame Agreements (42 by end of 2006)

• growth of trans-national works councils • independent union networks within MNCs

ICEM (International Chemical Energy, Mine and General Workers Federation) as a site of contestation and struggle• Global Union Federation represents 400 unions and 20

million members in 125 countries;• Verticalist organisational structure with power held in

national affiliates + hq in Brussels• Dates to 1907 but current organisation result of 1995

merger – ICEF and MIF• Key fault-lines between social democratic (German )

politics and internationalist/syndicalist politics• Since merger, tensions in global strategy between

dialogue-partnership v independent workplace centred approach

• Reflect different tactical positions in dealing with capital and state

“New Left” leadership in 1990s

• Gen. Sec. Vic Thorpe– International Socialist background– Involved in movement for workers control/producer

cooperatives in 1970s• Shift from ‘ “top-down” strategy towards an international

solidarity network of decentralised decision-making and ‘locally “owned” labour action’ (ICEM 1996, 56).

• Enunciating a more oppositional politics to deal with MNCs

• Forging independent trans-national labour networks centred on workplace

• Rescaling of global union organisation away from national and state-centric politics

“For me the issue has always been to try to get the international more widelynetworked, to break away from the dominance of the major unions…. Tobring together people at plant level operating in different companies. Thedifficulty was, they always had somebody from national office – a mindersitting alongside them.

….the union movement is not actually structured to deal with multinationalissues. It is too wed to its own national politics and relationships and hasn’tfollowed the economic logic over the last thirty years as it should have doneand therefore it’s losing out”

Key strategy: increase membership levy for international company networks,to:

“escape from the resource squeeze of the international and spend time andour efforts in developing these [plant level global networks] as pools ofpower in their own right, but every time the idea of the levy was raised therewas a scream because people knew exactly what was going on. The nationalofficers knew that we were trying to float these things away from theirgrasping hands and it was always a tension and we never got the policythrough.”

(Vic Thorpe, ex-Gen Sec, ICEM, Interview, March 2005)

“It’s the very fact of close political liaison. In the UK, approaching election time, you would always have some trade union idiot standing up and saying: “the only way to solve our problems is to re-elect a real socialist Labour Government.” And, we’ve heard that argument time and time again, and the unions put their back in to electing a Labour Government and every time they have been sold down the river so my view has been largely “forget about the politics and get on with the industrial logic and the politics will take care of itself. Because the politics follows power and power at the moment is entirely in the hands of the multinational bankers and economists and that’s why whatever government is in power, it can’t deliver. And unless [organised] labour can find a means of confronting and dealing with power at the real level of its operation there’s no way it will really survive in the long term. Or at least, won’t be able to do the things it wants to do. So, that’s the argument.”

(Interview, VT, 2005)

Exporting social democracy or internationalism-lite?

• New leadership post 1999 – Thorpe resigned, undermined by German affiliates

• Focus shifted to building global partnerships with employers

– Codes of practice (e.g. labour standards, Global Compact)

– Central strategy – pursuing Global Frame Agreements – agree baseline employment standards within MNCs (10 signed by 2005, covering 580,000 workers)

Global Frame Agreements signed by ICEM and affiliates

Company Employees* Country Sector Year

Statoil 16,000 Norway Oil Industry 1998

Freudenberg 27,500 Germany Chemical Industry 2000

Endesa 13,600 Spain Power Industry 2002

Norske Skog 11,000 Norway Paper 2002

AngloGold 64,900 South Africa Mining 2002

Eni 70,000 Italy Energy 2002

SCA 46,000 Sweden Paper Industry 2004

Lukoil 150,000 Russia Energy / Oil 2004

Electricité de France (EDF) 167,000 France Energy Sector 2005

Rhodia 20,000 France Chemical Industry 2005

• Common criticisms of GFAs– Voluntary codes - difficult to enforce across global

operations– Reliance on company patronage, employer networks,

‘tourist visits’ – Difficulties of sustaining trans-local labour networks (EWC

experience)– Reflects dominance of European social partnership model –

effectiveness in other global regions?

• Alternatively, space of opportunity and struggle for independent labour action– Contingent on process through which GUF operates and

power relations running through it– Whether grassroots taking ownership of GFAs?

• Emerging tensions between ICEM leadership and more progressive affiliates:

"We asked about the Norske Skog agreement through the research in Brazil and the local unionists were a bit frustrated... not the fact that they didn't have the agreement ...because they love it, but they were frustrated that they were not drawn in on the consultation when they were making the Global Agreement. When I asked the shop steward in Norway, "why didn't you involve them?" He said "To be honest, I wasn't very involved either.” The project was between Mr Fred Higgs [General Secretary] and the company with some representation from the union in Norway. But it was very much a Brussels based deal.”

[International Officer, LO, Norway, Interview August 2005]

• Subsequently, new agreement established by-passing ICEM, using existing Norwegian based works council"the global works council agreement was different because that was actually worked out between the shop stewards in Norway and the company.....and Higgs came in later....and they felt more happy about that. It was their deal..and when I was in a meeting in Bonn last year and I met one of the comrades from ICEM and I told everybody about the new Agreement with Norske Skog, she was very upset, because she said, "That's not the principle of the ICEM, we shouldn't have global agreements through works councils, we don't believe in that. So, how can you sign something like that. In the end she calmed down because the comrades from Norske Skog here said "Well, we will just resign. We don't want to be part of ICEM anymore if that's a problem for them. So it was sorted out in the end. But, there is a problem around the process of Global Agreements.“

[International Officer, LO, Norway, Interview August 2005]

• Additionally, growing realisation that GFAs can only be policed effectively through shop stewards and workplace networks

“We don’t have the resources to go around to every factory in every country that is operating from Norway. We’re totally dependent on our local shop stewards who are able to carry out overseas visits on company time”. (Vice President, Norwegian affiliate, commenting on their GFA, interview August 2005)

Imperative to devolve power and autonomy to lower levelsemerging but running against established hierarchies and powerbases at national and global levels

Conclusions

• What do emerging tensions tell us about trade union politics and broader issues of labour resistance?

• What is the value of an AM perspective in providing new insights?

Tensions within GUFs reflect variations in how: “class antagonism traverses us, differences in the degree to which it is possible for us to suppress that antagonism. For those who benefit materially from the process of accumulation it is relatively easy to repress anything that points beyond [commodity] fetishism. It is those who are most brutally subjugated whether through the endless repetition in meaningless jobs or through poverty that excludes anything but the fight for survival in whom the tension is most tightly coiled..” (Holloway 2005, 145)

• “Schizoid” tensions running through unions in seeking global partnership and sustaining accumulation and developing workplace renewal/independent labour networks

• Global strength and renewal needs to emanate from a politics of production and knowledge of labour process in workplace – relating to experiences of alienation and dehumanisation

• Alternative workplace networks of labour action beginning to emerge within and outside mainstream unions to confront capital

• Decline of a particular and contingent form of unionism wedded to social democracy and partnership as nature of class struggle changes through neoliberalism and globalisation of capital?