Labour Comment Editorial:—November 2007

Corporatism And Trade Unionism

"A UNION chief has rejected suggestions that the new Social Partnership wage agreement is modelled on 1930's Italian fascism" (Irish Independent, 24.5.2003).

"SIPTU Vice-President Jack O'Connor told the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) conference that he 'totally objected' to any comparison being made with Italian fascism. He was responding to criticism of the Sustaining Progress Social Agreement (signed last month) by economist Colm McCarthy.

"In a discussion on competitiveness and Social Partnership, Mr. McCarthy had said that sustaining progress 'had a strong whiff of Mediterranean corporatism from the 1930s'. Later he said he was thinking more of Salazar's Portugal, rather than Mussolini's Italy."

"This involved agreements on incomes between government, employers and trade unions" (Irish Independent, 24.5.2003).

No doubt if Colm McCarthy had been around in 1939, he would probably have had a star role on the Commission on Vocational Organisation, though judging by his remarks to Jack O'Connor on "Mediterranean corporatism" he would have contributed damn little to that debate. On the issue of Corporatism, it only proves that the Right can be just as daft as the Left.

Of course, mention of the word 'Corporatism' in Irish or British labour politics very nearly causes an epileptic political outburst. Corporatism equals Fascism and that's all there is to it!

The word "Corporatism", used frivolously, has had the effect of devaluing all political concepts for the labour movement.

Corporatism is associated with fascism. The fascist experience in Europe has never been subjected to critical understanding in the labour movement. Because, in its Nazi form, it over-reached itself and came to grief, its conditions of existence have never been made a subject of serious research.

Britain discovered in 1945 that it had fought a much better war than it had suspected. The extermination camps were revealed, and that revelation rendered fascism a subject for denunciation rather than investigation. It became obligatory to describe the rise of fascism as if its central purpose had been the extermination camps and the liquidation of the Jews. To think otherwise was wicked.

But to think thus was to cover a large tract of European experience in the twentieth century with a mental blur. And it made the word fascism an increasingly meaningless term in labour politics in these islands.

Historical Background

Historically, the ideology of the corporate state harks back to ideas developed by 19th century Christian conservatives in reaction to what they considered the excessive individualism of French revolutionary ideology. To the allegedly mechanistic notions of the Industrial Revolution they would oppose the organic concepts of what they maintained was the corporate character of medieval society. These ideas found authoritative expression in an encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum (1891), and were reaffirmed in Quadragesimo Anno (1931) by Pius XI.

It deserves attention, however, that much of this thought was radically at variance with actual Fascist practice because of the latter's bureaucratic centralism: medieval corporativism was built upon the autonomy of the constituent corporate bodies. It constructed a multicentred organic whole in terms of the self-sufficiency of the constituent groups. Thus, the medieval town was seen by its latter-day admirers and theorists as a co-operative union of Guilds, whereas the Fascist corporate state entailed the total eclipse of such autonomy by the radical extension of governmental control and direction to all spheres of social life and activity.

Haughey was the man!

"Haughey became interested in forging a new, more structured, social contract between the Government, unions and employers during his brief terms as Taoiseach in the early 1980s. During this period he came into contact with EU leaders who had corporatist systems for dealing with industrial relations problems. In an interview in early 2001, Haughey recalled being particularly impressed by the German Chancellor and SPD leader Helmut Schmidt, whom he questioned at length about the German model of industrial relations." (Saving the Future, How Social Partnership Shaped Ireland's Economic Success, Hastings, Sheehan and Yeates, Blackhall Publishing, 20007, €20).

So at the end of the day, Social Partnership "is a Corporatist system for dealing with industrial relations problem"?

Charles Haughey went out into the highways and byways in an endeavour to find a formula that would get the economy off its knees and up and running. If it worked, its ideological connotations mattered not a whit!

As Jack O'Connor, General President of SIPTU put it, the Programme for National Recovery, 1988 "…would not have occurred without Haughey. Full Stop. He and Bertie Ahern understood the subtlety of Irish politics" (The Irish Times, 6.10.2007).

"When the PNR was debated in the Dail in 1987, the main opposition parties were hostile to the agreement negotiated by Charles Haughey's minority Fianna Fail administration. This hostility was not confined to criticism of the nuts and bolts of the agreement. It was also attacked on the grounds of being either 'just a pay deal' or on the alleged basis that it was some form of 'capitulation' to interest groups" ("Saving the Future", p54-55).

"Such attacks on any major initiative by the government of the day are not unusual. What was evident in 1987, however, and again to a more limited extent in regard to the PESP in 1990, was the fact that the agreements were seen by some to be a threat to the democratic system itself. They were regarded by a number of critics as being too corporatist, a criticism not unconnected to the personality of the Taoiseach [Haughey], and were seen as somehow relegating the role of the parliamentary opposition to playing second fiddle to the social partners" (ibid).

"John Carroll, former ITGWU President, recalls his reaction to the attack on the PNR by Labour Party leader, Dick Spring: 'I made a fierce attack on the Labour Party and what appeared to be their negative attitude to the trade union movement.' Carroll himself was and still is a member of the Labour Party. He said that later Labour, Fine Gael and the PDs all accepted the aims and objectives of the PNR" (p54-55).

"Other opponents argue forcibly that a malign dynamic has been increasingly at play, namely that social partnership tends towards a negation of our democracy, by reducing the sovereignty of parliament and increasing social partner regulation in areas hitherto the preserve of independent decision making. Supporters of partnership argue, however, that the involvement by a greater range of groups within social partnership enhances its accountability to the wider society, and helps society arrive at consensus based solutions and strategies. These arguments have emerged over the past decade without really getting the sort of sustained or considered airing they deserve in the media and in the Oireachtas" ("Saving the Future", p107).

"Social partnership has taken much of the economics out of Irish politics, while globalisation and EU membership have removed most of the rest" (Niamh Puirseil, a lecturer in the School of History and Archives, UCD. Her book, The Irish Labour Party, 1922-73, was published by UCD Press earlier this year, Irish Times, 6.10.2007)

"Social partnership is a unique version of corporatism in Europe for many reasons, not least the involvement of the community and voluntary sectors in national agreements. One reason for this is probably the comparatively large role that such organisations play in Irish society, providing services normally supplied by the State in other countries" (Saving the Future, p145).

"The Irish model of social partnership is not really a model at all. Academics have tried in vain to place it within a European framework, to shoehorn it in somewhere between Berlin and Stockholm. But it won't fit. It contains some elements of models from other countries, but perhaps what it has most in common with European experience is that, at the outset, it was a response to an economic and social crisis. In this respect, the parallel lies more with how other countries responded to their post-World War II devastation than with any other so-called corporatist style model. The crisis of the 1980s was so all-pervasive that it undermined the political system, seeming to shatter any confidence that Ireland could save itself, never mind build a future. Social partnership was a pragmatic response to finding a way out of that trough, helping—as the title of this book suggests—to 'save the future'" (Saving the Future, p173).

So it was just plucked out of the sky? The term pragmatic keeps coming up in relation to the Irish social partnership model but if it is based on mere pragmatism and nothing else, its future will not be saved!

Class Divisions

"In the Ireland of the 1980s, there were few of the ideological class divisions that existed elsewhere, especially in Britain, from whom we inherited our industrial relations system. The lack of a clear left-right divide has often been blamed for holding back our development. The catch-all nature of the larger parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael (themselves a result of a division dating back to the civil war), seemed to many observers to put a break on 'real politics'. In 1978, however, this perceived ideological weakness turned into a strength, enabling the main social partners, with their broad political support, to establish a system or model that remains at the centre of decision-making to this day. Just two years later, the Berlin Wall was to come down, further signalling the end of old and distinct left-right divides in mainland Europe" (Saving the Future, p174).

We may have inherited many aspects of our 'industrial relations system' from Britain but ironically, the central institution of our labour relations, the Labour Court established in 1946, was probably the one and only body that owed its existence to the Commission on Vocational Organisation.

"The most striking feature of all these initiatives was that most of them were minor and all of them were peripheral to the commission's major proposals. The Industrial Relations Act 1946 was the most significant and it improved the system of industrial conciliation in Ireland by establishing a Labour Court but this Act, helpful as it was, did not set up the vocational structure as recommended by the commission" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, Don O'Leary, Irish Academic Press, 2000, p153).

In Ireland in the 1930s a strong sentiment existed in favour of Corporatism—or Vocationalism, as it was called in Ireland, based on papal social teaching. This was reflected by the inclusion of Vocationalist provisions in the 1937 Irish Constitution. A Commission was established by the Government to report on how a change to Corporatism might be effected.

The Commission on Vocational Organisation was established in 1939 by Eamon de Valera and concluded its work in 1944. The Commission on Vocational Organisation Report was published that year.

"An indication of the scope, variety and complexity of the commission's task is provided by the fact that the analytical table of contents, which preceded the 539 page report, extended to over 40 pages" (Vocationalism & Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, Don O'Leary, Irish Academic Press, 2000).

It was a task that was taken deadly serious.

The Chairman was Dr. Michael Browne (Bishop of Galway); other members included Professor Alfred O'Rahilly, U.C.C. and Professor Michael Tierney, UCD.

The Labour members were: Louie Bennett, General Secretary of the Irish Women Workers' Union; Senator Sean Campbell, Treasurer of the Dublin Typographical Society; Senator Thomas Foran, President of the ITGWU who in 1939 was replaced by Luke Duffy, Secretary of the Labour Party and Jim Larkin, Senior, General President of the Workers' Union of Ireland.

The Commission consisted of 25 members.

The Commission made a critical investigation of continental Corporatism. The home of Corporatism was Italy. But they were of the opinion that Corporatism in Italy was more an ideology than an actual form of social life. The Italian state was too powerful to allow the Corporatist system to develop properly. (Many members of the Commission would not have disapproved of the power of the Fascist state in Italy. By and large, they approved of Mussolini as a necessary dictator, but argued that political necessity prevented Corporatism from developing its full potential.).

Corporatism or Vocationalism, was the organising of society into autonomous corporations, or vocational bodies. Each trade or profession would be a corporate body and as such it would be a constituent segment of both the economy and the body politic. Each corporation would supply society with something which was necessary to its existence and well-being. It would be internally uniform—workers and employers in the building trade, for example, both being in the Builders' Corporation. And each corporation would be autonomous to a very considerable extent.

The corporate organisation of society would erode the basis of class conflict. The system of class-based political parties engaged in perpetual conflict—whether, in a parliamentary system, for the control of government or, when the parliamentary system broke down, as it was bound to do, for dictatorial state power—was an intolerable disruption of the orderly life of society. The corporate system, by establishing a basic harmony in the component parts of society would minimise the functions of the state. Representatives of the various corporations would meet to co-ordinate their activities. With class conflict and party conflict eliminated, the adversarial routine of Parliament would wither away, and the representatives of the corporations would easily make sensible arrangements for common affairs.

And, of course, the requirements of the individual would be seen to by his corporation, and not by the state.

The Religious Medium

Such was the ideal of the Corporate state, which was the social ideal of a substantial section of the new Irish state from the 1930s until the early 1960s. It had echoes of Guild Socialism, and of Syndicalism. But there is a further element, which was lacking from Guild Socialism and Syndicalism: the ideological cement of a universally operating Church. The corporations would exist in the medium of a uniform and authoritative religion. The Catholic Church would be universally active in the life of the Corporate state, as it was in the life of Europe in the 13th century.

Since the Catholic Church in Ireland steadily increased its influence after Independence, a democratic transition to the Corporate state was conceivable. It was not attempted because the Corporatist development of Europe was largely destroyed by the victory of the Allies in 1945. The Report of the Vocational Commission was published towards the end of the war. It was not implemented because Ireland did not have the moral courage to embark on a Corporatist development at a moment when Corporatism was in disgrace in Europe.

The Corporatist ideal was passively retained until the early 1960s. Then it collapsed, when the Vatican, which had succeeded in dominating social life nowhere but in Ireland, made an accommodation with the liberal state and its individualist social welfare arrangements.

"You may have been worried of much talk of changes to come. Allow me to reassure you. No change will worry the tranquility of your Christian lives." (Dr. John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin, preaching in Dublin on his return from the Second Vatican Council, 10.12.1965).

However, within the state, there were clear divisions both political and religious regarding the proposed new Corporatist social order. Led by Archbishop John Charles McQuaid, a substantial body of Church leaders couldn't understand the necessity for this new social order in a state where a near Catholic 'utopia' prevailed—whatever about the teachings of Papal Encyclicals or otherwise.

At the political level, De Valera did indeed set up the Commission on Vocational Organisation but in the end that body foundered when it failed to generate Fianna Fail support. The concept of a new social order found little appeal from a party whom a decade prior, had fought a revolution and a civil war, then clawed its way to power in the new state. Fianna Fail, like the parish priests were none too enthusiastic to hand over their new found power.

"Archbishop John Charles McQuaid had successfully frustrated attempts in the 1930s to form a council of education on a vocational basis. His lack of enthusiasm for Vocationalism is further indicated by the exclusion of Muintir na Tire from the archdiocese of Dublin from 1940 (the year he became Archbishop). Muintir na Tire was not prepared to go where it was not welcomed. A disappointed Canon Hayes may have had McQuaid in mind when he quipped 'It is bad enough to be kicked by the Devil, but it is the divil and all to be kicked by angels and archangels'" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, p165).

"The Republic of Ireland was over 90% Catholic and there were few exponents of communism, liberalism or democratic socialism. A movement, which was motivated by Catholic social principles, should have met with little resistance—especially when the vocationalist principle was expressed in the 1937 constitution. Yet the resistance was overwhelming. The majority of Irish Catholic bishops and priests either opposed or failed to support the vocationalist cause. Fr. John Hayes, founder of Muinter na Tire, did more than any other vocationalist to translate theory into practice. His efforts to give practical effect to Catholic social teaching met with '…stone walls of clerical opposition… There was a resistance to Catholic social work in Ireland by the older priests only to be compared with the resistance to Russian communism.' A minority of young priests regarded the guilds of Muinter na Tire as mere forums for discussion. Others believed 'the movement was fraught with dangers: the laity getting too much control… interference in church affairs and, worst of all, the mingling of Catholics and Protestants.' …Conservative bishops and priests were quite capable of suppressing vocationalist inspired schemes without any assistance from politicians and civil servants" (ibid, p165).

"Even if widespread agreement had been secured there was no strong Catholic social movement to bring it into effect. Furthermore, the Catholic bishops, as stated earlier, did not wish to reform a system that served them so well" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, p35).

Fianna Fail

"The priority given to party political interests indicates that De Valera had little regard for vocationalism" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, p184).

"The government was in no mood to appease the vocationalists. When Bishop John Dignan's term as chairman of the National Health Insurance Society came to an end in August 1945 it was not renewed. Sean MacEntee, despite his condemnation of bureaucratic centralism, replaced the bishop with a civil servant. Furthermore, it seems that The Irish Press … became the instrument of the government's public criticism of the report. On 11 August, Frank Pakenham's scathing analysis was published in the national newspaper" (ibid, p144).

"James Ryan, however, seemed determined to deflate the last remnants of vocationalist aspirations. When, as Minister for Agriculture, he presided at the opening of the Catholic Social Week on 30 October, 1944 the overall thrust of his speech had been defensive and conciliatory. Thirteen months later, this time addressing the Fianna Fail faithful in the Mansion House, Dublin, he was far more dismissive of the commissioner's recommendations. In his speech of 20 November, 1945, (this was one of a number of lectures which had been organised by the National Executive of Fianna Fail), Ryan declared:

"“I am not objecting to the merits of the Commission's scheme of organisation but I think it is impracticable and could only, if at all, be achieved by gigantic efforts. The position aimed at is not so substantially different from the status quo as to warrant the vast amount of organisation and work that will be required.”

"He assured his audience that the dangers to society, which were present in the 1930s, were now no more. The capitalists could no longer exploit the community at will. Unbridled capitalism was in sharp decline and squalid living conditions were being eliminated. His remarks implied that Quadragesimo Anno and vocationalism were obsolete" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, p148).

"The confrontation between the vocationalists and the government was at its most intense in March, 1945. Sean MacEntee engaged in a bitter public debate with Bishop John Dignan while Lemass and [Bishop] Browne publicised their grievances. Lemass and MacEntee were not overawed by the invocation of the papal encyclicals to bolster vocationalist contentions and they maintained a hard-line attitude towards the vocationalist lobby. In the editorial of the Irish Times (10 March, 1945) it was argued that the perception of southern Ireland as a state ruled by the Catholic bishops was now difficult to sustain. The notion, expressed particularly in Northern Ireland, of Eire as a 'priest-ridden community', could be refuted with greater confidence because two government ministers were clearly rejecting proposals advocated by two Catholic bishops" (ibid, p135).

Social Partnership:
The Future?


"The new neo-corporatism has been based on economic planning and is not preoccupied with justice. Trade unions and employers are manipulated for the purpose of stability. In Ireland it has consisted of rationalising the pressure group process rather than reforming the socio-economic order" (Vocationalism and Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland, p182).

At the Killarney conference mentioned in our introduction, Jack O'Connor told the conference—

"he was not there to defend partnership, 'not because I don't believe in it, but because what we have had for the past 15 years is not true partnership. There has been a disproportionate benefit to business and the positive outcome for workers had not nearly been as great as those for employers'" (Irish Independent, 24.5.2003).

Through sheer pragmatism and working class common sense, the Irish Trade Union movement avoided the ideological pitfalls of British labour. The Irish movement had some instinctive sense of a productive conception of socialism while British labour floundered amidst a conception of socialism which was based on little more than restrictive practice—"We won't rule ourselves, but neither will anyone else".

The challenge now for the Trade Union movement is to conceive a position whereby workers gain a participatory role in the output of production. Mere pragmatism won't ensure this! It will require a political will. We cannot stand still—for already, the Colm McCarthys of this world have decided that the role of organised labour is no longer essential in the most globalised economy in Europe.

We can continue to examine Corporatism; the Bullock Report is essential reading, the more so, since it was ultimately sabotaged by the nascent Blairites in the 1970s but above all it is surely time to revisit the writings of James Connolly, particularly The Workers' Republic in the period 1915 right up to Easter 1916 which is packed with material on Germany and productive socialism and its interweaving with private industry.

* "Vocationalism & Social Catholicism in Twentieth Century Ireland", Don O'Leary, Irish Academic Press, 2000.


LABOUR KNOWS BEST?

"The trend seems to be towards outsourcing where possible within government and private industry," said Mr Spring. "It is a matter of efficiencies. Not every small business needs its own processing unit. This can be done more efficiently by outsourcing, allowing companies to concentrate on their core elements of their business, the things they are best at" (Dick Spring, former Labour Party leader; Executive Vice-Chairman of FEXCO, Irish Examiner, 5.10.2007).

Go To Secure Sales Area

ATHOL BOOKS HOMEPAGE

Past Labour Comment Editorials