> I don't buy this at all. I think it's exactly the opposite of the truth. Is
> Hall saying the interests of the working class really were opposed to those
> of "the nation"? Or is he saying the contrast drawn between the two was
> spurious, in which case why did Thatcher succeed?
>
> I think the real problem is that the trade unions in fact accepted, more or
> less, this distinction between "their" interests and "the nation's"
> interests. The results were disastrous. This essay argues that there was
> another way. I especially endorse the last sentence:
>
> http://www.hegemonics.co.uk/docs/Incomes-Policy-Hegemony-1970s.pdf
I agree with you on most things, SA, except about Kolakowski, Billy Joel, and now this. Not just that I think you have the wrong end of the stick with Stuart Hall - in fact he is one of the Gramscians Purdy is talking about - but about the place of incomes policies in socialist strategy.
Speaking of learning from history - the Australian Prices and Incomes Accord between the unions and the Labor government in the 1980s is surely an example of exactly the kind of strategy Purdy is talking about. Though it is not hard to see why the strategy appealed to so many on the left at the time, in retrospect it was a disaster, the worst period for real wage growth in postwar history (negative), inflation around 8 per cent, and unemployment persistently above 10 per cent. It was launched with all the rhetoric about democratising the economy and so on, and had the support of the Communist Party of Australia.
Back to the UK - absolutely, the unions were doomed to a backlash if they would not or could not _politically_ win some control over investment, and a lot of people were saying this from the very beginning of the 1970s. But an incomes policy is not that. It's all too easy to get conned into wage restraint with impeccable macroeconomic arguments and a promise to start the 'democratisation of investment', only to have the wage restraint come first, because it's _just so urgent_, and have the rest of the deal reneged upon. My view is that if the labour movement is ever in such a strong economic position again, there ought to be some serious expropriation underway before incomes policies take effect.
Mike Beggs