Skip to main content

sslct031

<?xml version="1.0"?>

<!DOCTYPE TEI.2 SYSTEM "base.dtd">

<TEI.2><teiHeader>

<fileDesc>

<titleStmt>

<title>The labour movement and 'new' social movements</title></titleStmt>

<publicationStmt><distributor>BASE and Oxford Text Archive</distributor>

<idno>sslct031</idno>

<availability><p>The British Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading, under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Centre for English Language Teacher Education, Warwick) and Paul Thompson

(Department of Applied Linguistics, Reading), with funding from BALEAP,

EURALEX, the British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The

original recordings are held at the Universities of Warwick and Reading, and

at the Oxford Text Archive and may be consulted by bona fide researchers

upon written application to any of the holding bodies.

The BASE corpus is freely available to researchers who agree to the

following conditions:</p>

<p>1. The recordings and transcriptions should not be modified in any

way</p>

<p>2. The recordings and transcriptions should be used for research purposes

only; they should not be reproduced in teaching materials</p>

<p>3. The recordings and transcriptions should not be reproduced in full for

a wider audience/readership, although researchers are free to quote short

passages of text (up to 200 running words from any given speech event)</p>

<p>4. The corpus developers should be informed of all presentations or

publications arising from analysis of the corpus</p><p>

Researchers should acknowledge their use of the corpus using the following

form of words:

The recordings and transcriptions used in this study come from the British

Academic Spoken English (BASE) corpus, which was developed at the

Universities of Warwick and Reading under the directorship of Hilary Nesi

(Warwick) and Paul Thompson (Reading). Corpus development was assisted by

funding from the Universities of Warwick and Reading, BALEAP, EURALEX, the

British Academy and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. </p></availability>

</publicationStmt>

<sourceDesc>

<recordingStmt>

<recording dur="00:58:11" n="7356">

<date>25/11/1998</date><equipment><p>video</p></equipment>

<respStmt><name>BASE team</name>

</respStmt></recording></recordingStmt></sourceDesc></fileDesc>

<profileDesc>

<langUsage><language id="en">English</language>

</langUsage>

<particDesc>

<person id="nm1123" role="main speaker" n="n" sex="m"><p>nm1123, main speaker, non-student, male</p></person>

<person id="sf1124" role="participant" n="s" sex="f"><p>sf1124, participant, student, female</p></person>

<person id="sm1125" role="participant" n="s" sex="m"><p>sm1125, participant, student, male</p></person>

<person id="su1126" role="participant" n="s" sex="u"><p>su1126, participant, student, unknown sex</p></person>

<personGrp id="ss" role="audience" size="m"><p>ss, audience, medium group </p></personGrp>

<personGrp id="sl" role="all" size="m"><p>sl, all, medium group</p></personGrp>

<personGrp role="speakers" size="6"><p>number of speakers: 6</p></personGrp>

</particDesc>

<textClass>

<keywords>

<list>

<item n="speechevent">Lecture</item>

<item n="acaddept">Sociology</item>

<item n="acaddiv">ss</item>

<item n="partlevel">UG</item>

<item n="module">"State, Society and Work"</item>

</list></keywords>

</textClass>

</profileDesc></teiHeader>

<text><body>

<u who="nm1123"><kinesic desc="overhead projector is on showing transparency" iterated="n"/> over the last two weeks we've been talking about <pause dur="1.0"/> democracy <pause dur="0.5"/> we've been talking about the state <pause dur="0.3"/> as part of a series of lectures <pause dur="0.4"/> on <pause dur="0.6"/> the politics of modern society <pause dur="1.2"/> now we move to a # # # # an aspect of politics which is not directly involved in the state <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> but <trunc>w</trunc> is seeking to <pause dur="0.3"/> influence the state <pause dur="0.8"/> with what are called social movements <pause dur="2.4"/> it's perhaps best just to <pause dur="0.2"/> to give you some names to illustrate <pause dur="0.2"/> what we're talking about <pause dur="0.4"/> we're talking about <pause dur="0.3"/> the peace movement we're talking about the woman's women's movement <pause dur="0.2"/> we're talking about the socialist movement <pause dur="0.3"/> the movement for civil rights <pause dur="0.2"/> the movement for animal rights <pause dur="1.5"/> now <pause dur="0.6"/> there's enormous variation <pause dur="0.3"/> in the form of social movements <pause dur="0.5"/> those of you who <pause dur="0.4"/> might be members of a trade union <pause dur="0.2"/> or a political party <pause dur="0.6"/><event desc="student enters room" iterated="n" n="sf1124"/> do you want to pick one of those up </u><u who="sf1124" trans="latching"> sorry </u><u who="nm1123" trans="overlap"><vocal desc="sniff" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> will # <pause dur="0.3"/> will know <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> they can take an extremely bureaucratic form in which <pause dur="0.3"/> the powers of committees and whatnot are <pause dur="0.3"/> closely defined <pause dur="1.3"/> alternatively <pause dur="0.3"/> if you've engaged in

# <pause dur="0.2"/> in direct action <pause dur="0.3"/> # to stop # calves being exported <pause dur="0.3"/> # alive to the continent or something like that <pause dur="0.3"/> then you'll know <pause dur="0.3"/> that # <pause dur="0.4"/> the form of organization <pause dur="0.2"/> is extremely loose and network based <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/> so there's a great debate about how we define social movements <pause dur="0.8"/> if you look in the the the textbook that we use in this course <pause dur="0.4"/> one of the more disappointing chapters there <pause dur="0.3"/> is on social movements i don't particularly recommend that <pause dur="0.4"/> because it seems to me to become <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> convoluted into a debate about <pause dur="0.2"/> how we define a social movement <pause dur="0.8"/> so to cut through all of that i use a nice straightforward definition which we've got here <pause dur="1.6"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> <reading>forms of <trunc>po</trunc> popular organization <pause dur="0.4"/> which have their basis outside the political system <pause dur="0.5"/> but which seek to influence the political system in the direction of their cause</reading> <pause dur="1.2"/> so we've got <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea of popular organization a basis outside the political system <pause dur="0.8"/> we've got secondly the idea of seeking to influence politics rather than join politics <pause dur="0.5"/> and we've

got <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> thirdly the idea of a cause <pause dur="0.6"/> of seeking <trunc>d</trunc> a a movement for something <pause dur="0.6"/> sometimes a movement against something <pause dur="2.8"/> now <pause dur="2.1"/> until <pause dur="0.2"/> fairly recently it seemed that <pause dur="0.3"/> one particular <trunc>so</trunc> social movement <pause dur="0.4"/> the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> seemed to have some <pause dur="0.2"/> pre-eminence <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> in # among social movements <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of size and scale <pause dur="0.3"/> # degree of organization <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the the labour movement made up of trade unions cooperative parties <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> political parties and all sorts of <pause dur="0.2"/> of other <pause dur="0.2"/> associated # <pause dur="0.5"/> # groupings <pause dur="0.2"/> seemed to have <pause dur="0.2"/> a pre-eminence <pause dur="1.5"/> and so i'll start my lecture by <pause dur="0.3"/> talking about a theory of the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> and then <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> a sort of lock lack of of confidence about the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> which set in <pause dur="0.3"/> # during the nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.5"/> so i'll outline a theory and then i'll <pause dur="0.2"/> outline some <pause dur="0.3"/> # scepticism from within <pause dur="0.4"/> # the labour movement about that theory <pause dur="0.8"/> and then <pause dur="0.3"/> to conclude the lecture we'll move on to a different kind of theory <pause dur="0.3"/> the theory of so-called new social movements <pause dur="0.4"/> which claims <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> either

the pre-eminence of the labour movement has now declined and there it's just one amongst many <pause dur="0.4"/> or a more radical version of the theory <pause dur="0.3"/> is that the labour movement is now <pause dur="0.3"/> # an anachronism <pause dur="0.2"/> and has been overtaken by <pause dur="0.2"/> new social movements <pause dur="2.0"/> okay <pause dur="0.4"/> so let's start then with the classic theory of the labour movement <pause dur="1.6"/> the source that i'm <trunc>i</trunc> going to use here <pause dur="0.3"/> is # <pause dur="0.2"/> # the accessible <trunc>sourc</trunc> source that # i've <pause dur="0.2"/> introduced you to already <pause dur="0.4"/> # Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto <pause dur="0.7"/> this is a <pause dur="0.2"/> a nice neat statement of the theory of the labour movement <pause dur="0.4"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> what i want to stress is that this is not a particularly Marxist theory this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> a theory shared <pause dur="0.2"/> well beyond Marxism <pause dur="0.2"/> within <pause dur="0.2"/> other branches <pause dur="0.2"/> of of the labour movement <pause dur="1.9"/> so let's # just state the theory <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> the first point to state about it is the idea of historical inevitability <pause dur="0.6"/> the inevitability <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> A <pause dur="0.3"/> some kind of movement generated within modern societies <pause dur="0.9"/> which will lead B <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.3"/> the demise of the the current forms of society <pause dur="0.2"/> and the

movement on to a new <pause dur="0.2"/> and different and better kind of society <pause dur="0.7"/> within Marxism <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea of a shift from <pause dur="0.4"/> capitalism to communism <pause dur="0.4"/> and that <pause dur="0.2"/> being linked not just to <pause dur="0.3"/> something which was <pause dur="0.3"/> good about communism <pause dur="0.2"/> but also the <pause dur="0.2"/> the workings the mechanisms <pause dur="0.2"/> of capitalist society <pause dur="0.3"/> in Marx's famous phrase <pause dur="0.3"/> would generate <pause dur="0.2"/> the gravediggers of the capitalist system <pause dur="1.2"/> the labour movement is precisely that gravedigger <pause dur="0.5"/> that out of capitalism <pause dur="0.2"/> would come a mechanism of change <pause dur="0.2"/> which would lead on to a different kind of society <pause dur="2.7"/> secondly let's talk about <pause dur="0.2"/> the process <pause dur="0.2"/> of labour movement growth <pause dur="0.8"/> the idea is <pause dur="0.4"/> that the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> grows out of the everyday experience of people in modern society <pause dur="0.4"/> the everyday experience of the deprivations of work poverty <pause dur="0.3"/> problems with housing dah-di-dah-di-dah <pause dur="1.8"/> but that that would grow in three different ways <pause dur="1.4"/> first of all spatially <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> it would grow from <pause dur="0.7"/> groups of workers coming together in a workplace and thinking <pause dur="0.2"/> we're being done here we're being <pause dur="0.2"/> # exploited

here and they got together <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>t</trunc> # at the workplace level <pause dur="0.3"/> and and tried to do something about it <pause dur="0.4"/> but it moved from that level <pause dur="0.2"/> spatially <pause dur="0.3"/> to the idea of the regional trade union and then the national trade union <pause dur="0.2"/> and then international workers <pause dur="0.4"/> so the idea is <pause dur="0.2"/> that spatially <pause dur="0.3"/> the labour movement grows from everyday experience <pause dur="0.2"/> of problems in in <pause dur="0.2"/> capitalist society <pause dur="0.5"/> into <pause dur="0.2"/> a <pause dur="0.3"/> national and indeed international movement <pause dur="1.6"/> secondly <pause dur="0.3"/> the idea of # <pause dur="0.8"/> of organizational expansion <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> again the idea is that # <pause dur="0.3"/> everyday experience <pause dur="0.2"/> would lead to the <pause dur="0.2"/> the formation of <pause dur="0.3"/> trade unions <pause dur="0.2"/> trade unions would grow into a national movement <pause dur="0.2"/> they would then grow into a political movement or merge with a political movement <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> that would lead to # <pause dur="0.2"/> # a mechanism for change <pause dur="0.6"/> so organizationally there's that idea <pause dur="0.2"/> of expansion <pause dur="0.2"/> out of everyday experience <pause dur="1.2"/> and then thirdly at the level of the individual <pause dur="0.7"/> the idea is that <pause dur="0.3"/> people's moans and groans <pause dur="0.3"/> would # <pause dur="0.4"/> <trunc>m</trunc> # move on from moaning and groaning about your

particular boss or your particular supervisor <pause dur="0.4"/> # to thinking <pause dur="0.2"/> well it's not just me that has this problem <pause dur="0.6"/> i'm in the same boat as other people <pause dur="0.9"/> we all form part of <pause dur="0.4"/> first of all the trade <pause dur="0.8"/> or the industry <pause dur="0.4"/> and then the penny drops in <pause dur="0.4"/> according to the theory <pause dur="0.2"/> we're all <pause dur="0.4"/> part of a class <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> # and the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> # is based upon the idea of class solidarity <pause dur="2.2"/> so that's the second aspect of the theory <pause dur="0.8"/> that # <pause dur="0.3"/> out of everyday experience in these different ways <pause dur="0.3"/> a movement would be generated <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # which was large-scale <pause dur="0.5"/> # in terms of space <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of organization <pause dur="0.3"/> and in terms of aspiration of individuals <pause dur="0.3"/> from just <pause dur="0.2"/> solving everyday problems <pause dur="0.2"/> to looking forward <pause dur="0.3"/> to a new form of society <pause dur="2.2"/> and then the third thing about the theory <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> is its politics <pause dur="1.8"/> the claim is that the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> is confrontational <pause dur="0.6"/> it is not just a movement which seeks to enter politics on the same terms <pause dur="0.2"/> of as what are called bourgeois parties <pause dur="0.7"/> rather <pause dur="0.3"/> it is a <pause dur="0.5"/> # a political movement that seeks to enter the

political arena <pause dur="0.2"/> to confront that political arena <pause dur="0.3"/> and move beyond it <pause dur="0.3"/> to a different kind of society <pause dur="0.9"/> the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # has an aspiration to <trunc>m</trunc> to # <pause dur="0.2"/> to change society <pause dur="0.2"/> in fundamental ways <pause dur="2.4"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="10"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> is <pause dur="0.4"/> or those are the <pause dur="0.4"/> main <pause dur="0.3"/> elements of the theory <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> we'll see if i can get this <pause dur="2.8"/> lined up <pause dur="1.6"/> so <pause dur="0.6"/> that's the theory then what about the experience <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>th</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # <trunc>th</trunc> the labour movement and its history <pause dur="1.9"/> well prior to the First World War prior to nineteen-fourteen <pause dur="0.6"/> that's that theory seemed to be working out very well <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> if we take a <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> the <trunc>ec</trunc> <trunc>ec</trunc> example of <pause dur="0.2"/> both the United States and Europe <pause dur="0.7"/> then <pause dur="0.6"/> workers' movements did seem to be <pause dur="0.2"/> developing <pause dur="0.2"/> spatially <pause dur="0.2"/> organizationally and in terms of class consciousness <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> trade union movements had grown had become united as movements <pause dur="0.3"/> and had <pause dur="0.2"/> linked up with <pause dur="0.2"/> socialist movements <pause dur="0.2"/> and formed political parties <pause dur="0.3"/> which were entering the political arena <pause dur="0.3"/> in Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> # for example in the <pause dur="0.2"/> Social

Democratic Party <pause dur="0.6"/> on a specific platform <pause dur="0.5"/> that we are not here to collaborate with you our oppressors <pause dur="0.2"/> we are here to get rid of you <pause dur="2.8"/> so <pause dur="0.2"/> up until nineteen-fourteen the <trunc>the</trunc> the the theory seemed to be working <pause dur="0.9"/> but from <pause dur="0.5"/> the First World War <pause dur="0.4"/> the theory went wrong <pause dur="0.8"/> experience departed from <pause dur="0.2"/> the theory <pause dur="1.4"/> it went wrong in two different ways <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> first of all <pause dur="0.8"/> there was a divergence <pause dur="0.4"/> in the <trunc>i</trunc> in <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> in the form of the labour movement <pause dur="1.3"/> the labour movement took two <pause dur="0.2"/> different routes <pause dur="0.9"/> the first route <pause dur="0.4"/> exemplified by <pause dur="0.3"/> the nineteen-seventeen revolution and the formation of the Soviet Union <pause dur="0.6"/> was the Communist Party route <pause dur="1.0"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> route <pause dur="0.5"/> # saw confrontational politics <pause dur="0.2"/> as based upon <pause dur="0.2"/> a <trunc>c</trunc> a violent confrontation with the state <pause dur="0.3"/> violent revolution <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> the taking <pause dur="0.3"/> power <pause dur="0.3"/> taking of power <pause dur="0.4"/> through the state <pause dur="0.3"/> and the imposition of a social blueprint <pause dur="0.3"/> of a communist society <pause dur="1.5"/> so that was one route forward <pause dur="0.3"/> that actually happened <pause dur="2.0"/> but secondly <pause dur="0.4"/> there is a second route forward again which actually happened <pause dur="0.8"/> what

i'll call the social democratic route <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.6"/><event desc="turn over notes" iterated="n" n="ss"/> everyone turned the page <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> within <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> Western Europe <pause dur="0.9"/> violent revolution did not occur <pause dur="0.5"/> but by the <trunc>exp</trunc> <trunc>ex</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> expansion of the franchise <pause dur="0.4"/> and the formation of social democratic parties <pause dur="0.2"/> such as the Labour Party in Britain <pause dur="0.3"/> Social Democratic Party in Germany <pause dur="0.4"/> # <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> not <pause dur="0.2"/> not so clear in in France but similarly in in Sweden <trunc>a</trunc> again the Social Democratic Party <pause dur="0.7"/> what one had <pause dur="0.3"/> was # a route forward <pause dur="0.2"/> a route forward for the labour movement <pause dur="0.4"/> not based upon overthrow of the state <pause dur="0.3"/> but the use of <pause dur="0.4"/> # electoral power <pause dur="0.4"/> to gain access to the state <pause dur="0.3"/> and the <pause dur="0.2"/> and the <pause dur="0.3"/> proclamation <pause dur="0.2"/> that that access could use <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> parliamentary strength <pause dur="0.3"/> political strength <pause dur="0.3"/> to fundamentally change <pause dur="0.2"/> capitalist societies <pause dur="1.8"/> so that was the first thing that went wrong the theory didn't predict some kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> divergence along these two <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> very different paths <pause dur="1.5"/> then the second thing that went wrong with the theory <pause dur="0.8"/> was that in each of these two different cases <pause dur="1.5"/> the more that <pause dur="1.2"/>

either <pause dur="1.0"/> form of political expression <pause dur="0.9"/> became successful <pause dur="0.7"/> in inverted commas <pause dur="0.6"/> the more it seemed to depart <pause dur="0.2"/> from the ideals of socialism <pause dur="1.6"/> so in the Soviet Union <pause dur="1.3"/> the longer the experience of the # of the Soviet system <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> went on <pause dur="0.8"/> the more it seemed <pause dur="0.3"/> that the Soviet Union became an <trunc>increa</trunc> increasingly <pause dur="0.2"/> bureaucratized <pause dur="0.3"/> increasingly <pause dur="0.3"/> totalitarian <pause dur="0.3"/> increasingly <pause dur="0.3"/> # militaristic society <pause dur="0.5"/> in which the experience of workers <pause dur="0.2"/> seemed to be <pause dur="0.2"/> little different <pause dur="0.2"/> to the experience of workers under capitalism <pause dur="1.8"/> so <pause dur="1.5"/> the greater the power <pause dur="0.2"/> of the the Communist Party in the Soviet Union <pause dur="0.2"/> the greater <pause dur="0.2"/> seemed to be the disillusionment in terms of the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>c</trunc> the criterion of achieving a socialist society <pause dur="1.3"/> similarly if we look at the second road <pause dur="0.5"/> sometimes called the parliamentary road to # <pause dur="0.3"/> to socialism <pause dur="0.7"/> via social democratic parties <pause dur="0.7"/> again the more successful these parties <pause dur="0.2"/> became <pause dur="0.4"/> the more <pause dur="0.3"/> they seemed to depart from socialism <pause dur="0.5"/> in this particular case what we're talking about is <pause dur="0.3"/> the more

that social democratic parties <pause dur="0.5"/> # gained <pause dur="0.4"/> political power and used political power <pause dur="0.4"/> the more they seemed to be <pause dur="0.2"/> not <pause dur="0.3"/> doing away with so <trunc>w</trunc> with capitalism <pause dur="0.4"/> but depending upon capitalism <pause dur="0.8"/> the classic case i suppose will be Sweden <pause dur="0.9"/> in which from the nineteen-thirties through to the nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.3"/> you had a <pause dur="0.3"/> # a permanent # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # social democratic government <pause dur="0.5"/> and yet <pause dur="0.3"/> # the great <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> capitalist firms of # of Sweden Volvo <pause dur="0.2"/> Ericsson <pause dur="0.5"/> # there's one other <pause dur="0.8"/> make they make # <pause dur="0.2"/> hoovers and and </u><pause dur="0.8"/> <u who="sm1125" trans="pause"> Electrolux </u><u who="nm1123" trans="overlap"> Electrolux <vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> those three # <pause dur="0.3"/> # international firms <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> seem to be # <pause dur="0.2"/> # strengthened under Swedish # <pause dur="0.2"/> socialism <pause dur="0.2"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>rather <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/> than <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>un</trunc> <trunc>bu</trunc> rather than overthrown by a socialist government <pause dur="1.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.7"/> so <pause dur="0.4"/> we have this # <pause dur="0.3"/> dilemma then <pause dur="0.6"/> the theory seemed to work <pause dur="0.7"/> up until <pause dur="0.3"/> it actually seemed to be coming to # <pause dur="0.2"/> to success <pause dur="0.2"/> in which <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.2"/> political parties from the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> put it into practice this theory <pause dur="0.2"/> actually came into power <pause dur="0.3"/> then it all seemed to go wrong <pause dur="0.2"/> whichever of

these two routes we looked at <pause dur="1.7"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> why <pause dur="2.7"/> well just as a <pause dur="0.3"/> as a # a little introduction to this <pause dur="0.5"/> this theory of the labour movement that i've been putting forward <pause dur="0.3"/> has been criticized <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>i</trunc> in many ways <pause dur="1.1"/> right from the start it's been criticized by <pause dur="0.5"/> without the labour movement from <trunc>wou</trunc> outside the labour movement by what are often <pause dur="0.2"/> referred to from within <pause dur="0.3"/> as <pause dur="0.2"/> bourgeois theories <pause dur="0.9"/> some of you will be becoming aware of the work of Max Weber <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> Max Weber <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # Max Weber's work has often been # <trunc>desc</trunc> <trunc>d</trunc> <trunc>des</trunc> described as <pause dur="0.3"/> a debate with the ghost of Marx a putting forward of an alternative theory of society <pause dur="0.3"/> to that <pause dur="0.2"/> developed by Marxism <pause dur="1.2"/><event desc="student enters room" iterated="n" n="su1126"/> pick up one of those <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.4"/> another example will be Karl Popper <pause dur="0.3"/> # well known <pause dur="0.5"/> # well <pause dur="0.2"/> Austrian by origin but # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>f</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> for many years British based # <pause dur="0.2"/> philosopher <pause dur="0.4"/> who wrote a book <pause dur="0.4"/> # called The Poverty of Historicism <pause dur="0.3"/> being a critique of Marxism <pause dur="0.7"/> another example is Hayek's book <pause dur="0.3"/> The # <pause dur="0.2"/> Roads to Freedom <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> now these are <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> critiques of # <pause dur="0.3"/> this theory of the labour

movement <pause dur="0.2"/> from outside the labour movement <pause dur="1.3"/> and secondly there've been <pause dur="0.4"/> debates within the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> what i put down here <pause dur="0.3"/> debates within these assumptions of the labour movement about quite <pause dur="0.2"/> how to # <pause dur="0.2"/> # how to advance the the # <pause dur="0.4"/> interests of the movement <pause dur="1.1"/> but from <pause dur="0.9"/> around nineteen-seventy <pause dur="2.2"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="3"/> what started to emerge <pause dur="1.5"/> were critiques of the labour movement <pause dur="0.7"/> so to speak <pause dur="0.2"/> from within <pause dur="0.3"/> looking at those <pause dur="1.0"/> basic propositions that i outlined at the beginning of the talk <pause dur="0.4"/> and saying <pause dur="0.3"/> well <pause dur="0.3"/> there's something wrong with them <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> and what i'll do now is now to # <pause dur="0.3"/> is to look at <pause dur="0.2"/> three examples <pause dur="0.2"/> of such critiques of the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> which were generated from within that labour movement <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> i think all three authors <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> are <pause dur="0.4"/> politically associated with the left <pause dur="0.7"/> # Eric Hobsbawm <pause dur="0.3"/> until at least very recently maintained his membership of the Communist Party of Great Britain <pause dur="0.5"/> # André Gorz <pause dur="0.3"/> was a member of the French

Communist Party <pause dur="0.3"/> # to i'm not sure about Adam Przeworski's # <pause dur="0.2"/> political allegiances but the <pause dur="0.3"/> his book is clearly <pause dur="0.2"/> from the left <pause dur="0.4"/> but these <pause dur="0.7"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> left wing <trunc>or</trunc> <trunc>or</trunc> oriented authors <pause dur="0.8"/> # mounted <pause dur="0.2"/> critiques of this theory of the labour movement <pause dur="1.0"/> so let me try to <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.5"/> take you through the basic ideas in these critiques <pause dur="1.8"/> Hobsbawm's # <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> paper <pause dur="0.4"/> The Forward March of Labour Halted <pause dur="0.5"/> question mark <pause dur="0.4"/> has the forward <trunc>m</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> march of labour halted <pause dur="0.6"/> was # <pause dur="0.4"/> first published in nineteen-seventy-eight <pause dur="0.8"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> it # <pause dur="1.0"/> was offered <pause dur="0.2"/> as # <pause dur="0.4"/> the Marx memorial lecture <pause dur="0.6"/> first of all <pause dur="0.4"/> so that it very much <pause dur="0.2"/> epitomized this idea <pause dur="0.3"/> of # a critique from within <pause dur="1.4"/> it puts forward two basic propositions <pause dur="1.5"/> first of all <pause dur="0.6"/> it puts forward the idea <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> that up until <pause dur="0.4"/> around nineteen-fifty <pause dur="1.0"/> the trend of development <pause dur="0.3"/> of the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> was toward <pause dur="0.3"/> the greater <pause dur="0.5"/> # homogeneity <pause dur="0.2"/> of the working class <pause dur="1.5"/> in terms of <pause dur="0.5"/> work experience in terms of lifestyle <pause dur="0.3"/> in terms of <pause dur="0.2"/> political awareness <pause dur="0.6"/> the proposition is fut <pause dur="0.2"/> put

forward by # <pause dur="0.4"/> by <pause dur="0.5"/> Hobsbawm <pause dur="0.3"/> that there was an increasing what he called proletarianization <pause dur="0.3"/> of working class life <pause dur="2.0"/> in support of that he <trunc>m</trunc> he makes the point <pause dur="0.4"/> that most <pause dur="0.4"/> most workers <pause dur="0.2"/> up to that time <pause dur="0.2"/> were increasingly <pause dur="0.2"/> male <pause dur="1.1"/> increasingly <pause dur="0.3"/> manual <pause dur="3.6"/> mm <pause dur="0.2"/> there's another characteristic and i can't just think <pause dur="0.2"/> we'll just leave it at male and manual <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/> ah white <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>is the other criterion <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.2"/> most <pause dur="0.4"/> most <pause dur="0.3"/> workers were white <pause dur="0.4"/> male and manual workers <pause dur="1.9"/> and based upon that <pause dur="0.2"/> the experience of work and of their of these <pause dur="0.3"/> these people's families <pause dur="1.4"/> Hobsbawm claims that there was a <pause dur="0.2"/> a trend towards <pause dur="0.2"/> what he calls <pause dur="0.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> # this proletarianization of life a common experience of life <pause dur="2.2"/> now from around nineteen-fifty <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> he claims that that common experience <pause dur="0.4"/> has <pause dur="0.4"/> changed direction <pause dur="0.6"/> towards a greater <pause dur="0.2"/> heterogeneity <pause dur="0.2"/> of experience <pause dur="1.6"/> and he puts forward <pause dur="0.3"/> the claim that the workforce has become <trunc>inclease</trunc> increasingly differentiated <pause dur="0.3"/> rather than <pause dur="0.2"/> focused upon <pause dur="0.2"/> white <pause dur="0.3"/> male <pause dur="0.2"/> manual workers <pause dur="0.6"/> we have <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> # in European countries <pause dur="0.3"/>

# the growth of a discriminated minority <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> ethnic minority workers <pause dur="0.5"/> we have the growth <pause dur="0.3"/> during this period <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> female workers <pause dur="0.6"/> and we have the growth <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # white-collar workers <pause dur="1.5"/> and Hobsbawm claims <pause dur="0.3"/> that that <pause dur="0.2"/> has <pause dur="0.2"/> # broken away from this trend towards <pause dur="0.5"/> # a common experience towards a differentiation of experience <pause dur="3.2"/> his second idea <pause dur="0.5"/> is about <pause dur="0.5"/> labour labour movement leadership <pause dur="1.4"/> now there have always been <pause dur="0.2"/> differences <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> conflicts within the labour movement <pause dur="0.6"/> for example <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> # throughout the nineteenth century and throughout the first half of the twentieth century <pause dur="0.5"/> the division between skilled workers and unskilled workers <pause dur="0.2"/> has been a fundamental source of <pause dur="0.3"/> of # of tension <pause dur="0.2"/> within the labour movement <pause dur="0.5"/> with # <pause dur="0.2"/> skilled workers in particular <pause dur="0.2"/> attempting to defend their privileges <pause dur="0.2"/> as much against unskilled workers <pause dur="0.2"/> as against their employers <pause dur="1.2"/> however <pause dur="0.7"/> Hobsbawm wants to argue <pause dur="0.2"/> that although there were these tensions and these differences <pause dur="1.2"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> skilled elite of the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> up until

around nineteen-fifty if you like the privileged # <pause dur="0.2"/> sections of the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> did provide <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a political leadership for the <pause dur="0.3"/> for the movement as a whole <pause dur="1.2"/> we could take for example <pause dur="0.3"/> the issue of pensions pensions for old people <pause dur="1.8"/> during the nineteenth century up until <pause dur="0.3"/> # nineteen-o-nine <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> privileged skilled workers <pause dur="0.2"/> developed a form of pension provision for themselves their friendly societies <pause dur="0.4"/> whereby <pause dur="0.2"/> they put subscriptions in during their working life and then were entitled to take <pause dur="0.3"/> # benefits out when they are retired <pause dur="2.0"/> now this was very much a privilege of skilled workers a great advantage <pause dur="0.4"/> but it did not stop <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the same skilled workers <pause dur="0.2"/> being at the # <pause dur="0.2"/> in the vanguard <pause dur="0.3"/> of a movement to for <pause dur="0.2"/> for the state to intervene with a some kind of national scheme of pension provision for the elderly <pause dur="1.5"/> so that <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.1"/> indicates the the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.9"/> prior to nineteen-fifty <pause dur="0.5"/> in Hobsbawm's view <pause dur="0.3"/> a labour elite provided <pause dur="0.3"/> a <pause dur="0.2"/> class leadership for <pause dur="0.2"/> the working class as a whole <pause dur="2.1"/> again

his claim is that <pause dur="0.4"/> after that time <pause dur="0.2"/> he's not <pause dur="0.3"/> precise you can't <pause dur="0.6"/> put <trunc>d</trunc> this down to a particular date October the fourteenth nineteen-forty-nine or something <pause dur="0.3"/> but from around that sort of time <pause dur="0.6"/> he sees <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/> privileged sections <pause dur="0.2"/> of the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> not as providing leadership <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> but as entering into <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> an internal competition with other groups in the labour movement particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> over wages <pause dur="1.0"/> so the privileged groups of the period from nineteen-fifty <trunc>t</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> through to the nineteen-seventies <pause dur="0.5"/> in particular mine workers <pause dur="0.5"/> # car workers <pause dur="0.6"/> transport workers <pause dur="0.4"/> # those three groups in particular <pause dur="1.0"/> Hobsbawm sees <pause dur="0.2"/> as not providing <pause dur="0.3"/> leadership <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>h</trunc> he sees them as entering into a sectional competition <pause dur="0.3"/> to keep ahead in the wages league <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.8"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> this is <pause dur="0.3"/> Hobsbawm's analysis <pause dur="0.5"/> that until <pause dur="0.5"/> up until <pause dur="0.4"/> the period just after the <pause dur="0.3"/> Second World War <pause dur="0.6"/> this trend towards <pause dur="0.3"/> homogeneity this trend towards <pause dur="0.3"/> forward movement led by the privileged section of the working class <pause dur="0.3"/> switches into <pause dur="0.5"/> a trend towards

heterogeneity of the working class <pause dur="0.3"/> and secondly <pause dur="0.2"/> sectional competition within it <pause dur="1.0"/> that was <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> Hobsbawm's analysis <pause dur="0.2"/> which clearly <pause dur="0.3"/> means <pause dur="0.2"/> that the labour movement is not going to be this <pause dur="0.2"/> force for # <pause dur="0.3"/> political change <pause dur="0.3"/> # that # the theory <pause dur="0.4"/> # # <pause dur="0.2"/> claimed <pause dur="3.1"/> <trunc>m</trunc> moving on to my my second example of this kind of theory <pause dur="0.3"/> # André Gorz's book <pause dur="0.3"/> Farewell to the Working Class <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> again the title <pause dur="0.3"/> gives the game away <pause dur="0.3"/> this is say this is Gorz <pause dur="0.5"/> as i said earlier a member of the French Communist Party <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> saying <pause dur="0.3"/> the working class <pause dur="0.3"/> thing of the past <pause dur="0.3"/> bye bye <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.0"/> his analysis is based upon again <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> an analysis of the <pause dur="0.2"/> trend of development <pause dur="0.2"/> of the post-war working class <pause dur="0.7"/> and he sees the the working class as marked by <pause dur="0.2"/> a basic division <pause dur="1.1"/> the division goes along these lines <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.3"/> on the one hand we have those workers who had become <pause dur="0.3"/> locked into <pause dur="0.3"/> the large work organization <pause dur="0.5"/> the large private company <pause dur="0.2"/> the large public company <pause dur="0.9"/> or <trunc>pub</trunc> public organization <pause dur="1.1"/> a bank would be a nice example <pause dur="0.8"/> large employer <pause dur="0.5"/> lots of # <pause dur="0.2"/> # in many

ways proletarianized workers <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.4"/> each of those workers <pause dur="0.3"/> is becomes a cog <pause dur="0.3"/> in a complex bureaucratic system <pause dur="2.5"/> now <pause dur="0.3"/> at this point <pause dur="1.5"/> # Gorz introduces a contrast between <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> such <pause dur="0.2"/> cogs in a bureaucratic machine <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> the skilled craftworker <pause dur="0.8"/> his idea is that <pause dur="0.3"/> if you work in a bank or a hospital <pause dur="0.2"/> or a large <pause dur="0.4"/> # private company <pause dur="0.4"/> then you become <pause dur="0.2"/> extremely skilled <pause dur="0.8"/> but what you become skilled in <pause dur="0.3"/> is operating in that kind of environment <pause dur="0.5"/> it's as if we take <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> say a <trunc>radiogra</trunc> radiographer <pause dur="0.2"/> in a hospital <pause dur="0.7"/> a very skilled job <pause dur="0.6"/> but a radiographer <pause dur="0.4"/> needs <pause dur="0.2"/> skills in operating a particular machinery the X-may X-ray machines <pause dur="0.2"/> but also <pause dur="0.2"/> in coordinating <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.2"/> all kinds of departments of a hospital <pause dur="0.2"/> and other <pause dur="0.3"/> # professionals and semi-professionals in the hospital <pause dur="1.3"/> skill does not mean <pause dur="0.2"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> you can start from <pause dur="0.2"/> some basic raw materials <pause dur="0.2"/> and finish up with some <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> finished <pause dur="0.4"/> # product <pause dur="0.6"/> now this is the # the contrast with the the craftworker <pause dur="0.6"/> the idea was <pause dur="0.3"/> in the past <pause dur="0.3"/> let's say a carpenter <pause dur="0.3"/> could start

with some pieces of wood <pause dur="0.3"/> and finish up with <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> a # <pause dur="0.4"/> # # a beautiful object of furniture <pause dur="2.2"/> now <pause dur="1.1"/> Gorz claims that if you're a craftworker <pause dur="0.5"/> you can see all the processes of production <pause dur="0.7"/> and you can also see how it's possible <pause dur="0.3"/> to do it all yourself or in collaboration with other workers <pause dur="0.8"/> in other words it's possible to do it outside the organization <pause dur="0.2"/> and outside <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> the control of capital <pause dur="2.9"/> his idea is that if you're a radiographer <pause dur="0.6"/> how can you possibly <pause dur="0.2"/> do that job <pause dur="0.2"/> outside of the hospital <pause dur="0.9"/> or if you are are a # <pause dur="0.4"/> # some <pause dur="0.2"/> kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> of skilled operator within a car plant let's say operating <pause dur="0.3"/> # one of these hugely expensive # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>ro</trunc> <pause dur="0.8"/> automated machines <pause dur="0.3"/> how can you possibly do that outside <pause dur="0.3"/> the the the the organization of the # of the car plant <pause dur="0.8"/> so the idea is that these <pause dur="0.4"/> these # <pause dur="0.2"/> this half of the working class is locked into <pause dur="0.5"/> a form of organization <pause dur="0.2"/> in which in a sense <pause dur="0.3"/> they're in a rut and they can't see out of the edge of the rut <pause dur="0.5"/> there's no perspective <pause dur="0.3"/> onto alternative forms <pause dur="0.3"/> of organization <pause dur="3.7"/>

so that's one half of # of Gorz's analysis <pause dur="0.3"/> the other half is about the other half of the working class <pause dur="0.5"/> who <pause dur="1.5"/> Gorz calls the non-class of non-workers <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> the people here he's referring to here <pause dur="0.3"/> are people who hold <pause dur="0.3"/> temporary jobs <pause dur="0.4"/> people who are <pause dur="0.3"/> at the margins of the labour market in terms of <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> frequent experiences of unemployment and then short term employment <pause dur="0.5"/> people who are <pause dur="0.3"/> # depend for <pause dur="0.2"/> much of their working life upon benefits <pause dur="1.3"/> he claims that <pause dur="0.4"/> the working class has been split between # organizational workers <pause dur="0.4"/> that i talked about a moment ago <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> these <pause dur="0.3"/> non-class of non-workers <pause dur="0.6"/> what does he mean by non-workers <pause dur="0.6"/> he means they're non-workers in the sense that <pause dur="0.4"/> work does not become part of individual identity <pause dur="0.7"/> people <trunc>d</trunc> don't become <pause dur="0.3"/> miners <pause dur="0.6"/> or <pause dur="0.2"/> carpenters or radiographers <pause dur="0.6"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> one year they might be picking fruit <pause dur="0.3"/> # # during the summer <pause dur="0.4"/> # that then the next summer <pause dur="0.2"/> they might be # <pause dur="0.3"/> # working as a coach hostess <pause dur="0.2"/> on Harry Shaw's trips to the # <pause dur="0.3"/> # to the Mediterranean <pause dur="0.6"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> and that's <pause dur="0.2"/>

taken from a particular <pause dur="0.2"/> interview i had with # <pause dur="0.3"/> <vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> with <pause dur="0.3"/> a a a non-worker who was flitted from one kind of work to another so <pause dur="0.3"/> that notion of occupational identity who i am in work terms <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't develop <pause dur="0.7"/> and secondly <pause dur="0.3"/> this is a non-class of non-workers <pause dur="0.5"/> because <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> conditions of employment of such workers are so competitive <pause dur="0.3"/> that each worker has to look out for his or herself <pause dur="0.4"/> there's no sense <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # a common <pause dur="0.3"/> class identity and class solidarity <pause dur="1.7"/> so for Gorz <pause dur="0.3"/> again <pause dur="0.3"/> the structure of the working class has been restructured in the recent period <pause dur="0.5"/> dividing the working class along these lines <pause dur="0.2"/> and in each case <pause dur="0.2"/> moving it away from <pause dur="0.2"/> some <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # association <pause dur="0.3"/> with <pause dur="0.4"/> a movement beyond capitalism to another society <pause dur="0.5"/> for our <pause dur="0.8"/> workers who are locked into large organizations <pause dur="0.4"/> their skills seem to be dependent upon that kind of organization <pause dur="0.7"/> for those <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> on the the more fringes of the labour market <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> there's no <pause dur="0.2"/> sense of the centrality of work experience <pause dur="0.2"/> and no sense of # a common

experience <pause dur="0.3"/> which <pause dur="0.2"/> moves <pause dur="0.3"/> everyone forward <pause dur="13.1"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="9"/> my third example is taken from a book by Adam Przeworski <pause dur="0.6"/> i'm not sure if i pronounced that <pause dur="0.3"/> <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>right <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/>but it it does <pause dur="0.2"/> it <pause dur="0.4"/> it's a Polish name and to me it sounds <pause dur="0.2"/> sort of Polish like that so <pause dur="0.3"/> if any of you <pause dur="0.3"/> # speak Polish or have Polish ancestry <pause dur="0.3"/> my apologies if i have made a complete <pause dur="0.5"/> arse of how to <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>pronounce <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="indicates point on screen" iterated="n"/> this <pause dur="0.7"/> Polish word <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/> but i will call him Przeworski <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.6"/> this is a theory about <pause dur="0.5"/> not the <pause dur="0.4"/> changing structure of the working class <pause dur="0.5"/> but about <pause dur="0.2"/> social democratic parties <pause dur="0.4"/> those parties which took that second route <pause dur="0.3"/> that i mentioned earlier <pause dur="0.4"/> # along the parliamentary road <pause dur="0.3"/> based upon the increasing <pause dur="0.2"/> electoral presence <pause dur="0.3"/> of the working class <pause dur="0.4"/> forming political parties <pause dur="0.2"/> on a mass basis <pause dur="0.3"/> entering the <pause dur="0.2"/> the the the realm of representative <pause dur="0.3"/> # democracy <pause dur="1.3"/> Przeworski's <pause dur="0.3"/> # question is <pause dur="0.7"/> why hasn't <pause dur="0.2"/> haven't those parties <pause dur="0.2"/> implemented <pause dur="0.3"/> the socialist <pause dur="0.2"/> ideal <pause dur="0.2"/> of creating a socialist society <pause dur="0.4"/> rather than <pause dur="0.3"/> a a <pause dur="0.2"/> a a

capitalist society <pause dur="2.8"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.7"/> that # <pause dur="0.3"/> yeah <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="1.4"/> now i just want to include a point there that i haven't got got <kinesic desc="indicates point on transparency" iterated="n"/> here <pause dur="2.1"/> Przeworski points out that <pause dur="0.6"/> from the nineteen-twenties <pause dur="0.2"/> right through to the <pause dur="0.2"/> current period <pause dur="0.5"/> where # <pause dur="0.3"/> as you possibly know <pause dur="0.3"/> virtually all of Europe is now <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> # governed by <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> parties <pause dur="0.3"/> supposedly on the left of the political spectrum <pause dur="0.6"/> over all that period <pause dur="0.8"/> there doesn't seem to have been any <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> undermining <pause dur="0.2"/> of capitalism <pause dur="0.8"/> social democratic parties <pause dur="0.3"/> seem to have come into power <pause dur="0.3"/> held power for long periods of time <pause dur="0.3"/> but # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> don't seem to have <pause dur="0.4"/> # done the business in terms of delivering something called socialism <pause dur="0.2"/> as opposed to capitalism <pause dur="1.0"/> a nice example that Przeworski uses is that <pause dur="0.3"/> in Germany <pause dur="0.3"/> in France and in Britain <pause dur="0.2"/> in the interwar period <pause dur="1.0"/> social democratic parties did hold political power <pause dur="0.3"/> at # for some <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> crucial points in time <pause dur="0.9"/> and yet with the exception of a small <pause dur="0.4"/> part of the French armaments industry <pause dur="0.7"/> not one industry was nationalized during the interwar period <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> so

he he throws up the the <trunc>prob</trunc> problem well <pause dur="0.8"/> why <pause dur="0.2"/> why don't social democratic parties deliver <pause dur="0.5"/> something called socialism <pause dur="1.0"/> and his answer has three component parts <pause dur="1.4"/> first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> about the working class and the electorate <pause dur="2.2"/> this <pause dur="0.4"/> particular <pause dur="0.2"/> path toward a socialist society <pause dur="0.6"/> depended upon the idea <pause dur="0.7"/> that <pause dur="0.6"/> as the electorate grew <pause dur="0.6"/> as the franchise was extended to <pause dur="0.2"/> the working class and to women <pause dur="0.9"/> then <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.0"/> the working class would become the majority <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.4"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> electorate <pause dur="0.4"/> and through from that majority position <pause dur="0.4"/> they would be in a position to take political power <pause dur="1.5"/> now this <pause dur="0.4"/> depends upon how you define the working class <pause dur="0.9"/> but most labour movements were based upon <pause dur="0.3"/> # a core <pause dur="0.7"/> of <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.7"/> <trunc>o</trunc> # # # of <trunc>m</trunc> of of membership and allegiance <pause dur="0.3"/> from <pause dur="0.3"/> manual workers <pause dur="3.0"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> from about nineteen-fourteen <pause dur="0.5"/> whilst the electorate grew <pause dur="1.4"/> the <pause dur="0.5"/> place of manual workers <pause dur="0.2"/> in the overall <pause dur="0.3"/> electorate <pause dur="0.4"/> gradually declined <pause dur="2.0"/> what one had <pause dur="0.2"/> was <pause dur="0.6"/> a decline in the manual workforce <pause dur="0.7"/> and on either flank of the manual workforce <pause dur="0.4"/> what you

had was a growth <pause dur="0.3"/> of two different kind of constituencies <pause dur="0.4"/> on the one hand the poor <pause dur="0.6"/> the people who are not <pause dur="0.3"/> # locked into the labour market <pause dur="0.3"/> either because they were children or old people or they were disabled <pause dur="0.3"/> or they're unemployed <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> multiple <pause dur="0.2"/> reasons for <pause dur="0.3"/> for for poverty <pause dur="0.4"/> but that became <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> a <trunc>s</trunc> a section of the electorate <pause dur="0.2"/> who were not well integrated into the labour movement <pause dur="1.1"/> on the other flank of the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> are <pause dur="0.7"/> what we might broadly call the <trunc>wor</trunc> the the middle class <pause dur="0.8"/> white-collar workers <pause dur="0.3"/> # # <trunc>i</trunc> in particular <pause dur="1.5"/> and so <pause dur="0.7"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> social democratic parties had to do <pause dur="0.4"/> was to broaden their electoral appeal <pause dur="0.2"/> beyond their natural basic constituency <pause dur="0.3"/> of the the <pause dur="0.5"/> unionized <pause dur="0.2"/> # manual workforce <pause dur="0.3"/> they had to appeal <pause dur="0.2"/> to the poor <pause dur="0.2"/> on the one hand <pause dur="0.4"/> and <pause dur="0.4"/> the middle classes on the other <pause dur="0.9"/> so that <pause dur="0.2"/> nice simple idea <pause dur="0.3"/> that as the electorate grew <pause dur="0.2"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> the the the the proportion of manual workers in the electorate <pause dur="0.2"/> would grow <pause dur="0.3"/> # was not <pause dur="0.5"/> borne out by experience <pause dur="0.6"/> so just as the <trunc>l</trunc> <pause dur="0.3"/> the

Labour Party and New Labour today <pause dur="0.2"/> have to appeal <pause dur="0.3"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> what was called Middle England <pause dur="0.4"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteen-twenties and thirties <pause dur="0.4"/> # social democratic parties <pause dur="0.2"/> had to <pause dur="0.3"/> appeal electorally to a constituency <pause dur="0.2"/> wider than <pause dur="0.2"/> if you like their organizational class base <pause dur="0.4"/> this is not a new phenomenon <pause dur="0.3"/> # of the nineteen-<pause dur="0.3"/>eighties and nineties <pause dur="0.3"/> this is a <pause dur="0.3"/> # in Przeworski's view <pause dur="0.2"/> a recurrent feature of social democratic parties <pause dur="2.2"/> the second reason he offers <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.1"/> for <pause dur="0.8"/> social democratic parties not delivering socialism <pause dur="0.4"/> is that when they came into power <pause dur="0.5"/> they didn't know what to do <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.5"/> the idea here is that socialism <pause dur="0.2"/> was a motivating vision <pause dur="1.1"/> but <pause dur="0.9"/> had very little in the way of practical policies as to how to move from that motivating vision <pause dur="0.4"/> to <pause dur="0.6"/> how actually to implement <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> socialism <pause dur="1.4"/> in this sense they are very different from # <pause dur="0.4"/> from the the Communist Party in the Soviet Union <pause dur="0.4"/> where <pause dur="0.4"/> the # <pause dur="0.3"/> # the the Bolsheviks as a as a small <pause dur="0.3"/> if you like professional elite of revolutionaries <pause dur="0.3"/> had <trunc>w</trunc> worked

out <pause dur="0.2"/> in considerable detail what they would do <pause dur="0.3"/> once they took power <pause dur="0.6"/> in a sense they didn't expect to take power so they could spend all their time working it out <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="laugh" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> but # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> when the Communist Party grasped power in # in Tzarist Russia <pause dur="0.8"/> then <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> there was a blueprint as to what to do <pause dur="0.4"/> in terms of setting up Soviets in terms of # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # coordinating industry all of this <pause dur="1.1"/> and the social democratic equivalent <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> wasn't there <pause dur="2.0"/> so <pause dur="1.4"/> this leads us into the third point <pause dur="0.9"/> that what was there was something that looked like a possible alternative <pause dur="0.8"/> what <pause dur="0.3"/> people called <pause dur="0.2"/> Keynesianism <pause dur="1.1"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> this is from # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>s</trunc> the economic and political theories <pause dur="0.3"/> of John <trunc>mar</trunc> Maynard Keynes <pause dur="0.6"/> and in the nineteen-thirties Keynes had been <pause dur="0.3"/> # putting forward <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> a theory of how the <pause dur="0.2"/> a capitalist economy <pause dur="0.2"/> could work <pause dur="0.4"/> so long as certain things happened <pause dur="1.1"/> this was in response to the crisis of capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> of # of the Great Depression <pause dur="0.5"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> Keynes had developed <pause dur="0.2"/> an alternative way <pause dur="0.3"/> of # of how <pause dur="0.2"/> the modern

economy <pause dur="0.3"/> could work <pause dur="1.0"/> what these <trunc>depen</trunc> depended upon you don't have to know the details of <pause dur="0.2"/> of Keynes' economic theories <pause dur="1.2"/> the key ideas <pause dur="0.5"/> was <pause dur="0.7"/> the key ideas were <pause dur="0.9"/> A <pause dur="1.1"/> that for a modern economy to work <pause dur="0.5"/> the state had to adopt <pause dur="0.3"/> an interventionist role <pause dur="2.0"/> a free market would lead to the disaster of the Great Depression <pause dur="1.0"/> states had to intervene in the workings of the economy <pause dur="1.1"/> and the key idea <pause dur="0.3"/> was that they had <pause dur="0.2"/> this is the second key idea <pause dur="0.3"/> was that states had the responsibility <pause dur="0.3"/> of maintaining overall demand in the economy <pause dur="1.7"/> now what this actually meant when you worked it through <pause dur="0.6"/> was that <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.4"/> Keynesianism <pause dur="0.3"/> meant that <pause dur="0.3"/> the state <pause dur="0.3"/> had to engage in some degree of redistribution of wealth and resources in the economy <pause dur="1.4"/> so in order to maintain demand for example <pause dur="0.2"/> you had to have <pause dur="0.3"/> # <trunc>sta</trunc> state benefit systems <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> which would give some <trunc>dema</trunc> some <pause dur="0.2"/> purchasing power to the poor <pause dur="0.7"/> to maintain overall demand <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.8"/> what it involved <pause dur="0.2"/> was # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>mai</trunc> <trunc>mai</trunc> <pause dur="0.4"/> intervening to some extent in the workings of

the labour market <pause dur="0.3"/> through # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> labour exchanges and # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>u</trunc> unemployment benefit <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.5"/> making sure that people were <pause dur="0.2"/> were <pause dur="0.2"/> # mobile within <pause dur="0.2"/> within the labour market <pause dur="0.9"/> what it meant <pause dur="0.2"/> thirdly <pause dur="0.2"/> was some degree <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> state intervention <pause dur="0.4"/> to # to generate <pause dur="0.2"/> social goods social goods # such as <pause dur="0.3"/> # education or health <pause dur="1.3"/> in # to <pause dur="0.2"/> maintain overall demand <pause dur="0.2"/> and to # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>red</trunc> redistribute <pause dur="0.2"/> wealth <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>i</trunc> in these kind of ways <pause dur="0.9"/> now from the perspective of social democratic parties <pause dur="1.5"/> that didn't really know what to do <pause dur="0.5"/> to move to socialism <pause dur="0.7"/> this seemed a very attractive option <pause dur="0.9"/> it involved <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> some <pause dur="0.3"/> very <pause dur="0.2"/> concrete policies that would be of # <pause dur="0.2"/> of use <pause dur="0.6"/> in to the the constituency <pause dur="0.3"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> social democratic <pause dur="0.2"/> parties were <pause dur="0.2"/> appealing to <pause dur="0.3"/> to the poor <pause dur="0.2"/> to the working class <pause dur="0.5"/> a national health service for example <pause dur="1.9"/> it formed a basis for <pause dur="0.2"/> bringing together this these three different constituencies <pause dur="0.8"/> of the poor <pause dur="0.7"/> the organized working class <pause dur="0.2"/> and the middle class <pause dur="0.7"/> so the <pause dur="0.4"/> investment in in # <pause dur="0.2"/> in an education for example <pause dur="0.6"/> an education

system <pause dur="0.3"/> gave <pause dur="0.5"/> some educational opportunities to the children of the poor to the children of the working class <pause dur="0.3"/> and at the same time <pause dur="0.2"/> it gave <pause dur="0.3"/> professional advantages to this <pause dur="0.2"/> growing army <pause dur="0.2"/> of teachers and educationalists <pause dur="0.3"/> # and university <shift feature="voice" new="laugh"/>lecturers <shift feature="voice" new="normal"/><pause dur="0.3"/> as well <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> who would benefit from the growth of a state system of education <pause dur="0.7"/> so <pause dur="0.3"/> hunky-dory <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> the problems of social democratic # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> parties <pause dur="0.3"/> about on the one hand first of all <pause dur="0.2"/> appealing to a broad electorate <pause dur="0.3"/> and secondly <pause dur="0.3"/> # knowing what to do <pause dur="0.2"/> seemed to be answered by Keynesianism <pause dur="2.6"/> there was only one problem <pause dur="1.3"/> Keynesianism <pause dur="0.2"/> was not a route <pause dur="0.2"/> out of capitalism <pause dur="1.4"/> the whole system was set up <pause dur="0.4"/> in order <pause dur="0.2"/> to <pause dur="0.2"/> regenerate <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.2"/> ensure the continued <pause dur="0.2"/> health <pause dur="0.4"/> of a capitalist economy <pause dur="1.5"/> so what <pause dur="0.3"/> social democratic parties became <pause dur="0.3"/> # locked into <pause dur="0.5"/> was not moving beyond capitalism <pause dur="0.5"/> but managing capitalism <pause dur="0.2"/> and making sure that some of the messes of capitalism <pause dur="0.3"/> # were <pause dur="0.2"/> were at least ameliorated <pause dur="5.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.7"/> so that's Przeworski's <pause dur="0.2"/> again <trunc>int</trunc> internal <pause dur="0.2"/>

critique of the theory of the labour market <pause dur="0.2"/> looking at social democratic parties <pause dur="0.3"/> and how they become <pause dur="0.3"/> # embroiled within <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> capitalist societies <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="9"/> rather than <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> working for their change <pause dur="3.1"/> now for the third part of the lecture <pause dur="1.5"/> i want to move from <pause dur="0.6"/> a focus upon the labour movement and its dilemmas and problems <pause dur="0.3"/> on to a different kind of theory <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> it's # often called the theory of new social movements <pause dur="1.2"/> on the # <pause dur="0.2"/> on the reading list that you've got <pause dur="0.3"/> # a nice example of this is by <pause dur="0.3"/> two <pause dur="0.2"/> people called <pause dur="0.2"/> Eyerman and Jamieson <pause dur="0.9"/> # <pause dur="10.9"/> <kinesic desc="writes on board" iterated="y" dur="9"/> just so you can locate it in terms of the reading oof dear <pause dur="0.5"/><event desc="moves away from overhead projector light" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.7"/> right <pause dur="1.2"/> now <pause dur="2.7"/> if we go back to the historical experience <pause dur="0.3"/> of social movements <pause dur="1.1"/> whilst the # <pause dur="0.6"/> the labour movement in the post-war period might have been <pause dur="0.3"/> experiencing all these dilemmas and quandaries that i've been

talking about <pause dur="1.6"/> other social movements seem to be flourishing <pause dur="1.2"/> in the nineteen-fifties we have <pause dur="0.3"/> the peace movement with the first <pause dur="0.2"/> version of C-N-D the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament <pause dur="0.8"/> in # in in Britain <pause dur="0.3"/> in the United States we have the beginnings of the civil rights movements particularly for <pause dur="0.2"/> # black people in the United States <pause dur="0.8"/> as we move into the nineteen-sixties <pause dur="0.5"/><vocal desc="cough" iterated="n"/> we have the beginnings <pause dur="0.4"/> of # <pause dur="0.4"/> # # of of of a a new <pause dur="0.2"/> pacifist movement particularly stimulated by <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> the Vietnam War <pause dur="0.2"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> opposition to the Vietnam War <pause dur="0.4"/> and toward the end of the sixties we have <pause dur="0.2"/> the rebirth of a feminist movements for women's <trunc>li</trunc> rights <pause dur="0.9"/> as we get into the seventies this moves out into <trunc>ac</trunc> increasing concern with <pause dur="0.3"/> problems with the environment <pause dur="0.2"/> so we have <pause dur="0.3"/> # Greenpeace Friends of the Earth <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> all sorts of activist # movements on behalf of the environment for animals and dah-di-dah <pause dur="1.6"/> so <pause dur="1.3"/> # <pause dur="0.6"/> the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> took hold <pause dur="0.3"/> with people thinking about these # <trunc>the</trunc> these kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> of experiences these kind of <pause dur="0.2"/> of

social movements <pause dur="0.8"/> that <pause dur="0.5"/> something different was happening <pause dur="1.0"/> that <pause dur="0.2"/> these were new social movements <pause dur="0.4"/> and there <trunc>w</trunc> there was a contrast between <pause dur="0.3"/> these new movements <pause dur="0.3"/> and <pause dur="0.3"/> the <pause dur="0.2"/> old <pause dur="0.9"/> social movements <pause dur="0.4"/> particularly <pause dur="0.2"/> the labour movement <pause dur="0.7"/> so the theory first of all claims that there is such a division <pause dur="0.8"/> there are old movements <pause dur="0.2"/> particularly epitomized by the labour movement <pause dur="0.4"/> and there are new movements <pause dur="0.3"/> epitomized by <pause dur="0.2"/> the kind of # <pause dur="0.3"/> of issue issue led <pause dur="0.3"/> campaigns that i've just been <trunc>mean</trunc> mentioning <pause dur="1.1"/> have i missed anyone out peace movements nuclear anti-nuclear <pause dur="0.3"/> environmental<pause dur="0.4"/>ism feminism civil rights <pause dur="3.0"/> so <pause dur="0.5"/> a contrast between <pause dur="0.2"/> new and old <pause dur="1.3"/> secondly <pause dur="0.8"/> was <pause dur="0.9"/> a claim <pause dur="1.0"/> that the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> had become <pause dur="0.8"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> had played its part <pause dur="0.4"/> in the development of the modern world <pause dur="2.2"/> the labour movement had <trunc>pa</trunc> been part of the growth of <pause dur="0.4"/> # shaping the modern state <pause dur="1.0"/> if we take the idea of the modern state as having reforming responsibilities <pause dur="1.1"/> that if we need something done then we try to get the state to do

something about it <pause dur="0.9"/> the labour movement had shaped the state <pause dur="0.2"/> in that respect <pause dur="0.4"/> seeing the state as not just a <pause dur="0.4"/> # what we might call <pause dur="0.3"/> the # <pause dur="0.2"/> sometimes call the police state not in a sense of # <pause dur="0.2"/> Pinochet kind of <trunc>s</trunc> police states but police in the sense <pause dur="0.2"/> of a minimalist role for the state <pause dur="0.3"/> to maintain <pause dur="0.2"/> law and order <pause dur="0.2"/> within <pause dur="0.4"/> and to maintain good relations without <pause dur="1.2"/> the state had become <pause dur="0.2"/> an interventionist state for reform <pause dur="0.3"/> and the labour movement had <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> become # had <trunc>b</trunc> played its part in shaping the modern state <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.1"/> the labour movement had <pause dur="0.3"/> played its part <pause dur="0.2"/> in defining <pause dur="0.2"/> # voluntary <pause dur="0.3"/> # institutions like trade unions like political parties <pause dur="0.2"/> how they operated <pause dur="0.3"/> # was very much <pause dur="0.3"/> # # # # # # a a a result <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> the labour movement's efforts over several decades <pause dur="1.6"/> and the labour movement had also <pause dur="0.3"/> # finally <pause dur="0.6"/> been associated <pause dur="0.3"/> with the <pause dur="0.2"/> # modernist <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> underlying belief <pause dur="0.4"/> that science can save us <pause dur="0.8"/> that from scientific knowledge <pause dur="0.2"/> we can solve all our problems <pause dur="0.5"/> whether they be problems about our

health <pause dur="0.3"/> our environment <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> how we <pause dur="0.3"/> # teach people <pause dur="0.2"/> how we bring up children <pause dur="0.2"/> science is the <pause dur="0.2"/> # root of all knowledge <pause dur="1.7"/> you might # <pause dur="0.3"/> # be aware that Marx and Engels called their <pause dur="0.2"/> their <pause dur="0.3"/> # form of socialism scientific socialism <pause dur="1.5"/> it was also the case that in the <pause dur="0.2"/> the British Labour Party <pause dur="0.3"/> in the nineteen-forties that <pause dur="0.2"/> implemented a whole raft of nationalizations of industry <pause dur="0.5"/> the justification for that <pause dur="0.3"/> was was was not in terms so much in terms of socialism <pause dur="0.4"/> as in terms <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/> national efficiency <pause dur="0.8"/> approaching the <trunc>pro</trunc> the the the the question of how you dig <trunc>ma</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> coal out of the ground <pause dur="0.4"/> scientifically <pause dur="2.4"/> so the <pause dur="0.3"/> the labour movement had <trunc>be</trunc> had taken upon <pause dur="0.2"/> # the the <pause dur="0.3"/> taken upon itself the rhetoric <pause dur="0.3"/> of # <pause dur="0.3"/> of a scientific basis for society <pause dur="1.2"/> so in <kinesic desc="indicates transparency" iterated="n"/> these three different ways <pause dur="0.7"/> from the point of view of this theory <pause dur="0.7"/> the labour movement is associated with <pause dur="0.3"/> basic <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> institutions and cultures of the modern world <pause dur="2.4"/> that leads onto the third <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> part of the theory <pause dur="1.2"/> from the perspective of new social

movements <pause dur="1.2"/> what this means is that the labour movement <pause dur="0.2"/> is not <pause dur="0.9"/> against the modern world <pause dur="0.9"/> it is part of the problem <pause dur="0.5"/> of the modern world <pause dur="1.9"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> so <pause dur="1.7"/> whether we look at <pause dur="0.2"/> say <pause dur="0.4"/> trade unions whose members work within the nuclear industry <pause dur="0.9"/> whether we look at social <sic corr="democratic">democramic</sic> <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>gratic</trunc> parties <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> that that <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> # are are responsible for <pause dur="0.3"/> welfare systems that discriminate against women <pause dur="1.1"/> then <pause dur="0.8"/> what <pause dur="1.5"/> the labour movement looked like <pause dur="0.2"/> from the point of view on one hand of anti-nuclear <pause dur="0.4"/> demonstrators or on the other hand <pause dur="0.3"/> of of feminist <trunc>de</trunc> demonstrators <pause dur="0.3"/> was # that that <pause dur="1.2"/> the labour movement was <pause dur="0.4"/> part of the opposition <pause dur="0.8"/> to <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> what they were seeking to achieve <pause dur="1.7"/> and so <pause dur="0.4"/> the idea is that <pause dur="1.1"/> these new social movements <pause dur="0.2"/> are not just <pause dur="0.3"/> new in a sort of temporal sense that they <pause dur="0.3"/> emerged in the <pause dur="0.3"/> the nineteen-sixties and seveties <pause dur="0.3"/> # as latecomers to the social movement scene <pause dur="0.4"/> they're also new in that they <pause dur="0.4"/> develop <pause dur="0.4"/> forms of politics <pause dur="0.2"/> which are <pause dur="0.5"/> <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> entirely different to <pause dur="0.3"/> old social movements <pause dur="2.4"/> the three <pause dur="0.3"/>

points that we can bring in here are A B and C <pause dur="0.9"/> let me <pause dur="0.5"/> first of all just <pause dur="0.3"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="5"/> use an illustration <pause dur="1.6"/> can you see this photograph <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> this is a photograph of the Greenham Common women <pause dur="0.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> who # <pause dur="0.9"/> as you can see associated themselves with the C-N-D <pause dur="0.3"/> but also with the feminist movement <pause dur="0.4"/> this was a photograph taken in the nineteen # <pause dur="0.6"/> # <trunc>n</trunc> in nineteen-eighty-three <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> it's a sit-down protest outside the Greenham Common <pause dur="0.3"/> # American Air Base <pause dur="0.4"/> # a confrontation with the police force <pause dur="0.5"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/> this seemed to me to be a nice illustration <pause dur="0.3"/> of several of the points that i'll make <pause dur="0.3"/> # about <pause dur="0.3"/> # about <pause dur="0.2"/> new social movements <pause dur="1.1"/> # <pause dur="2.2"/> the first is <pause dur="0.6"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> new social movements <pause dur="0.3"/> do not seek political power <pause dur="0.4"/> they seek to <pause dur="0.2"/> influence <pause dur="0.3"/> those who hold power <pause dur="0.6"/> so <kinesic desc="indicates screen" iterated="n"/> these women here <pause dur="0.5"/> are not # <pause dur="0.3"/> attempting to get themselves elected <pause dur="0.4"/> they are attempting to influence public opinion <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> in the <pause dur="0.3"/> in the direction <pause dur="0.2"/> of the dangers <pause dur="0.2"/> of # of nuclear weapons <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> located <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> in Britain <pause dur="1.9"/> secondly <pause dur="1.2"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="1.7"/> that kind of political influence <pause dur="0.2"/> is not so

much in terms of well let's <trunc>sep</trunc> set up an Act of Parliament <pause dur="0.5"/> to regulate nuclear power <pause dur="0.6"/> it's rather to try to <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> shift <pause dur="0.3"/> public opinion <pause dur="0.2"/> in terms of lifestyles <pause dur="1.0"/> to get people to think well <pause dur="0.9"/> eating meat <pause dur="0.2"/> is not what a civilized person does <pause dur="2.5"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.9"/> smoking cigarettes in public is not acceptable <pause dur="0.2"/> in <pause dur="0.3"/> a <pause dur="0.2"/> civilized society <pause dur="0.3"/> driving motorcars and polluting the atmosphere <pause dur="0.4"/> is something that we ought to feel <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>fu</trunc> fundamentally guilty about <pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.5"/> locating <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> nuclear missiles <pause dur="0.3"/> in the English countryside <pause dur="0.2"/> is not publicly accessible <pause dur="0.7"/> the idea was that through such forms of direct action <pause dur="0.5"/> the <pause dur="0.3"/> agenda of politics would be shifted <pause dur="0.4"/> # in terms of popular perceptions <pause dur="0.2"/> of what's acceptable <pause dur="0.3"/> and what's not <trunc>sa</trunc> not acceptable <pause dur="0.7"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> a nice example would be # <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the <trunc>w</trunc> the way in which we # <pause dur="0.4"/> we # <pause dur="0.3"/> # stereotypically can <pause dur="0.3"/> present women <pause dur="0.3"/> # in public <pause dur="0.3"/> # in the in the present period <pause dur="0.5"/> to # <pause dur="0.2"/> represent women as either <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # the housewife <pause dur="0.2"/> or the bimbo <pause dur="0.3"/> is generally speaking <pause dur="0.2"/> not acceptable <pause dur="0.4"/> there are of course limits to that <pause dur="0.3"/> #

if you read the Sun <trunc>news</trunc> newspaper or whatever <pause dur="0.3"/> but <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> the the fate of the Miss World competition is a nice example where it became <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.3"/> # unacceptable <pause dur="0.2"/> to parade women <pause dur="0.2"/> in a beauty contest <pause dur="0.2"/> on # <pause dur="0.2"/> <trunc>main</trunc> mainstream television <pause dur="0.6"/> so it's that kind of <pause dur="0.3"/> of political influence that new social movements are are attempting to shift the agenda of politics <pause dur="1.4"/> and the third <pause dur="1.2"/> aspect of new social movements in according to the theory <pause dur="0.6"/> is that they reject bureaucracy <pause dur="0.3"/> and representative <pause dur="0.3"/> politics <pause dur="0.3"/> in favour of a loose <pause dur="0.2"/> participatory <pause dur="0.2"/> network of organization <pause dur="0.5"/> none of these women <pause dur="0.2"/> were members of some # <pause dur="0.3"/> of some organization <pause dur="0.3"/> they didn't pay subscriptions they didn't have a secretary or a treasurer or a chairperson <pause dur="0.4"/> # they <pause dur="0.4"/> were members of a loose network of people who were concerned about this <pause dur="0.3"/> and who came together <pause dur="0.3"/> # for their stint <pause dur="0.2"/> at Greenham Common <pause dur="0.2"/> on # <pause dur="0.2"/> an informal basis <pause dur="1.8"/><event desc="takes off transparency" iterated="n"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.6"/> finally let me offer some # <pause dur="1.0"/> critical thoughts <event desc="puts on transparency backing paper" iterated="n"/> on the theory <event desc="takes off transparency backing paper" iterated="n"/>oops

wrong bit <pause dur="4.4"/><kinesic desc="puts on transparency" iterated="n"/> on the the theory of <trunc>neo</trunc> new social movements <pause dur="2.4"/> the first <pause dur="2.0"/> criticism takes objection to the # <pause dur="0.4"/> to the description new social movements <pause dur="1.1"/> the concerns <pause dur="0.6"/> of <pause dur="1.0"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> feminism <pause dur="0.2"/> environmentalism <pause dur="0.8"/> # the civil rights movement <pause dur="0.4"/> # anti-war movements <pause dur="0.2"/> these are not new <pause dur="0.4"/> neither are social movements concerned with these issues <pause dur="1.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="2.2"/> clearly <pause dur="1.1"/> in the late nineteenth century the first wave of feminism <pause dur="0.2"/> was a major social movement <pause dur="1.2"/> prior to the First World War <pause dur="0.2"/> there was a considerable <pause dur="0.2"/> pacifist movement within Europe <pause dur="0.3"/> as the build-up to the First World War took place over a <pause dur="0.2"/> about a twenty year period <pause dur="0.6"/> a nice example is environmentalism <pause dur="0.9"/> throughout the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> there was a concern about <pause dur="0.3"/> the pollution of the environment <pause dur="0.3"/> by <pause dur="0.3"/> # industry and particularly by the city <pause dur="1.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> and all sorts of # of # <pause dur="0.2"/> of movements to preserve the countryside <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <trunc>d</trunc> were were were developed <pause dur="1.1"/> that led to the # <pause dur="0.3"/> the the idea of town

planning <pause dur="0.9"/> now just because town planning became in a sense part of <pause dur="0.4"/> # the modern system of bureaucratic regulation <pause dur="0.3"/> doesn't mean to say <pause dur="0.3"/> that environmentalism is a new issue <pause dur="0.6"/> the garden city movement of the nineteenth century <pause dur="0.3"/> was just as much a <pause dur="0.2"/> an active concern with the <pause dur="0.3"/> with the environment <pause dur="0.2"/> as the <pause dur="0.2"/> the modern concern <pause dur="0.3"/> about industrial pollution <pause dur="0.5"/> so none of these movements are new <pause dur="1.3"/> they are <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="1.0"/> new <pause dur="0.6"/> editions if you like of old movements <pause dur="1.3"/> the second point is that this characterization <pause dur="0.4"/> of the political role of new social movements <pause dur="0.3"/> is idealized and # <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.2"/> and <trunc>a</trunc> and doesn't correspond with the facts <pause dur="1.2"/> lots of feminists <pause dur="0.3"/> lots of civil rights activists do become involved in <pause dur="0.2"/> organized politics <pause dur="1.3"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> indeed when i was looking out at my <pause dur="0.3"/> my <pause dur="0.5"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="4"/> pictures today <pause dur="1.1"/> a frequent picture <pause dur="0.4"/> # which occurred in my on my <pause dur="0.6"/> computer screen <pause dur="0.5"/> # as i was hunting through for feminism and civil rights and things like this <pause dur="0.4"/><kinesic desc="changes transparency" iterated="y" dur="2"/> was the face of Ellen Wilkinson <pause dur="1.0"/> many of you <pause dur="0.7"/> perhaps haven't

heard of Ellen Wilkinson <pause dur="0.4"/> Ellen Wilkinson was a # <pause dur="0.2"/> is the <pause dur="0.3"/> the the the one woman who is responsible for <pause dur="0.2"/> what we now call child benefits what used to be called family allowances <pause dur="0.5"/> she was the person in the nineteen-thirties and the forties <pause dur="0.2"/> who worked for <pause dur="0.4"/> the idea <pause dur="0.3"/> of <pause dur="0.2"/><vocal desc="laughter" iterated="y" dur="1"/><pause dur="0.3"/> wages for women <pause dur="0.8"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.6"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="0.9"/> # a <trunc>f</trunc> a <trunc>f</trunc> a feminist ideal <pause dur="0.3"/> which Ellen Wilkinson <pause dur="0.3"/> # <pause dur="0.5"/> worked <pause dur="0.2"/> for through the labour movement and through the Labour Party <pause dur="0.6"/> so <pause dur="0.8"/> # similarly we've had recent # <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>m</trunc> many examples of people associated with the feminist movement becoming involved in electoral politics <pause dur="0.3"/> many people involved with the civil rights movement <pause dur="0.3"/> # in America for example <pause dur="0.2"/> becoming part of the Democratic Party <pause dur="0.3"/> # the Reverend <trunc>je</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> # Jesse Jackson is perhaps the best known example <pause dur="0.4"/> so this idea that <pause dur="0.3"/> new social movements are detached from politics is # <pause dur="0.2"/> is one particular <pause dur="0.4"/> # political expression <pause dur="0.2"/> there are many other political expressions <pause dur="0.2"/> of <pause dur="0.3"/> # concerns

with these <pause dur="0.2"/> this <trunc>e</trunc> <pause dur="0.2"/> these issues <pause dur="1.9"/> and thirdly <pause dur="0.9"/> the <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/> the third critique of # of this # <trunc>i</trunc> <trunc>i</trunc> of this theory is that <pause dur="0.5"/> in many cases <pause dur="0.3"/> in the past <pause dur="1.1"/> these <pause dur="0.6"/> supposedly new issues have been articulated through the labour movement <pause dur="0.7"/> so for example <pause dur="0.2"/> prior to the First World War <pause dur="0.3"/> to be a socialist <pause dur="0.2"/> meant you were also <pause dur="0.4"/> a <pause dur="0.4"/> pacifist <pause dur="0.2"/> the two almost went together <pause dur="0.7"/> similarly <pause dur="0.6"/> the issue of women's rights has been debated in the labour movement ever since the time of Chartism in the eighteen-thirties and forties <pause dur="0.3"/> whether the charter should <pause dur="0.3"/> should appeal for <pause dur="0.3"/> <trunc>u</trunc> <trunc>u</trunc> a universal franchise or simply <pause dur="0.3"/> an adult male franchise <pause dur="0.4"/> and this has been a issue within the labour movement <pause dur="0.3"/> for at least <pause dur="0.2"/> a hundred-and-fifty years <pause dur="0.8"/> now what has happened <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.3"/> in the # <pause dur="0.2"/> in the recent past <pause dur="0.3"/> is the <pause dur="0.2"/> detachment <pause dur="0.2"/> of some of

these issues <pause dur="0.4"/> from <pause dur="0.4"/> that involvement with the labour movement <pause dur="0.6"/> so that <pause dur="0.3"/> labour movement <pause dur="0.5"/> # environmental movement feminist movement have been <pause dur="0.4"/> to some degree detached <pause dur="0.5"/> but this does not mean <pause dur="0.4"/> in my view <pause dur="0.4"/> that <pause dur="0.4"/> # <pause dur="0.8"/> <trunc>i</trunc> either these issues <pause dur="0.6"/> either that these issues are new <pause dur="0.3"/> nor that they have nothing to do with the labour movement <pause dur="0.4"/><vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/><pause dur="0.2"/> so i think <pause dur="0.2"/> basically <pause dur="0.2"/> there are fundamental flaws in this idea <pause dur="0.4"/> that the the labour movement is now an old movement which has been surpassed by <pause dur="0.3"/> new social movements <pause dur="1.4"/> okay <pause dur="0.2"/> that's just about done it in the time <pause dur="0.4"/> so # <pause dur="0.7"/> # i think we'll draw to a close now <pause dur="0.3"/> and # <pause dur="0.2"/> i'll see you next week <vocal desc="clears throat" iterated="n"/>

</u></body>

</text></TEI.2>