Chapter 59 Chapter 10 Social Revolution 1945-1990 3

3 The working class, unlike the college students who roamed suburban or urban campuses, did not undergo any significant changes.It was not until the 1980s that the number of workers began to decline significantly.However, even as early as the 1950s, people have been talking about how human beings will enter a "post-industrial society".In this post-industrial society, the transformation of revolutionary technology will not only enable production to reach a new economic scale, but also completely eliminate the need for manual operation.All these unfavorable predictions for the working class naturally caused the political parties and political movements that started with the support of the working masses to panic after the 1970s.But in fact, the widespread impression that the working class is dying is a statistical error, at least globally.

Although the number of people engaged in manufacturing in the United States began to decline since 1965, the decline became more and more obvious after 1970.But apart from the United States, throughout the golden age, the working class in all parts of the world was actually quite stable, even in the old industrial countries.On average, it accounts for about one-third of the total employed population.In fact, the number of workers in eight of the 21 countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—the superclub of the eight most advanced countries—continued to grow between 1960 and 1980.In the emerging non-communist European industrial countries, workers naturally increased even more, and it was not until 1980 that they reached a stable state.Japan grew even more rapidly, starting to maintain fairly flat numbers into the 1970s and 1980s.As for the communist countries that were industrializing at full speed, especially in Eastern Europe, the number of working classes exploded at an unprecedented multiple.This situation naturally also occurs in the third world countries that are fully pursuing industrialization-Brazil, Mexico, India, South Korea and so on.Simply put, by the end of the golden age, not only had the number of workers in the world increased enormously, but a much higher proportion of the world's population was manufactured than before.With few exceptions—Britain, Belgium, and the United States—the share of workers in total employment was higher in 1970 than it was in the 1890s, when proletarian consciousness proliferated and socialist parties proliferated.It was only in the 1980s and 1990s that the numbers of the working class began to shrink substantially.

Until then, the world has had the false impression that the working class is disintegrating.More because of changes within the working class and in the production process than because of any real reduction in the number of workers.The decline of the old industries of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, which at that time represented the synthesis of all industrial activity, was so impressive that its decline was all the more pronounced.Coal miners, for example, once claimed to number in the hundreds of thousands, and in Britain millions, are now even rarer than the number of college students.The number of U.S. steel workers is even smaller than the number of employees of the McDonald's fast food chain.And even if some traditional industries have not disappeared, they have moved from old industrial centers to emerging industrial countries——textile, garment, shoemaking and other industries have all experienced a large number of relocations.In West Germany, the number of workers in the textile and garment industry fell by more than half between 1960 and 1984.By the early 1980s, for every 100 German workers employed by the German garment industry, 34 were employed abroad, but in 1966, just 14 years earlier, there were fewer than 3 for every 100.As for the steel and shipbuilding industries, they simply disappeared from the land of the early industrial countries, shifted their sites one after another, and popped up in countries such as Brazil, South Korea, Spain, Poland, and Romania.The old industrial belts have now become "rust belts" - this term was first invented in the United States in 1970 - while most of the old industrial countries that were originally integrated with the old industries, such as the UK, have left On the road to industrial disintegration, the old factory site has either become a living museum that speaks from its own experience, or it is about to die, recording a past that has disappeared. In South Wales, at the beginning of World War II, 130,000 people used to mine coal for a living. When the last coal mine disappeared here, the only remaining old coal miners began to act as tour guides, taking tourists down the pit to see the darkness of their work. abyss.

As a result, Xinxing Gongxing replaced the old industry, and the appearance of the two is completely different; not only the places where they appear are often different, but also the structure is often very different. Popular terms in the 1980s, such as "post-Ford era", have revealed the mystery.Mass-producing automated factories linked by production lines; entire cities or regions dedicated to a single industry (such as the auto industry in Detroit and Turin); working classes living together and working together as a cohesive force—above All these seem to be characteristic of classical industry.Although not quite correct, the real meaning is not limited to symbolic meaning.In the 20th century, wherever the recovery of old industrial structures was active, such as the emerging third world countries and socialist economies, when they intentionally pursued the "Ford-style operation" of the industrial ancestors, the period between the two World Wars, or even 1914 The similarities with the pre-Western industrial world are often striking—similarities also include labor organizations centered on workers in automobiles (such as São Paulo, Brazil) or shipbuilding (such as Gdansk, Poland), in the centers of industrial cities. Rise and grow—just as the rise of the United Auto Workers and Steel Workers unions in the United States was initiated by the 1937 general strike.So the old industry continued to survive in the 1990s, but now it has all been automated and there are other changes.On the contrary, the new industry is completely different from the old industry.In the standard "post-Ford" industrial belts - such as Veneto, Emilia-Romagna, Tuscany and other places in northern and central Italy - there are no large industrial cities unique to the old industry. A factory on one side, or traces of a huge factory.These new industrial areas are often composed of manufacturers scattered in villages and towns, and their networks range from workshops in the suburbs to factories that look very inconspicuous (but high-tech).One of the largest companies in Europe once asked the mayor of Bologna if he would consider letting a major factory of the company enter the city.For this suggestion, the mayor was very polite, but flatly thanked him for his insensitivity.He said that his Bologna, which is prosperous and progressive—it also happens to be under the rule of the Communist Party—knows how to take care of its society and economy, which is dominated by agricultural industries: Let the big cities like Turin and Milan worry about their industries There must be problems in big cities.

As a result, workers have finally become victims of new technology—especially in the 1980s—men and women workers who lack special skills and semi-skills on the production line are even more difficult to escape this fate; automated machine production can easily replace them.As the great global boom of the 1950s and 1960s came to an end, the 1970s and 1980s became a period of general depression for the world.Looking back at the heyday, although production operations became more and more labor-saving, the number of workers continued to expand (see Chapter 14), and now the good times are no longer. The economic crisis in the early 1980s brought back massive unemployment that had not been seen for 40 years, at least in Europe.

For some short-sighted countries, an industrial carnage began. In just five years from 1980 to 1984, the British manufacturing industry lost 25%.From 1973 to the late 1980s, the population engaged in manufacturing in the six old European industrial countries decreased by 7 million, almost a quarter; half of them disappeared between 1979 and 1983.By the end of the 1980s, the working class in the old industrial countries was shrinking, but the new industrial countries were rising day by day.At that time, only one-fourth of the civilian employed population in western developed countries was engaged in manufacturing; the loss in the United States was even heavier, less than 20% (Bairoch 1988).It turns out that according to Marxists, with the development of industry, the population will inevitably become increasingly working-class, so that most of them will become (manual labor) workers.This kind of conjecture is far from the development and changes of the facts!In fact, with the notable exception of Great Britain, the working class engaged in industry has always been the minority of the working population in all countries.By this time, however, a crisis had emerged for the working class and the labor movement, especially in the old industrial world.Its failures appeared long before its problems became serious and globalized.

This crisis is not a crisis of class itself, but a crisis of class consciousness.In the developed countries towards the end of the nineteenth century (see Chapter 5 of The Age of Empires), the working masses of all walks of life, after selling their strength to earn a living, discovered that all could form a working class.They also found that this fact can be regarded as the most important thing in their struggle for survival in society as human beings—at least, a considerable number of them came to this conclusion, and they stood up to support the idea of ​​working as a worker. The main parties and movements (the intentions and purposes of these parties and movements can be clearly seen from their names - such as the Labor Party, etc.), within a few years, they have become powerful and important political forces.The workers are not only combined under a pair of dirty hands and meager wages, but the vast majority of them belong to the poor masses who have no sense of economic security.Although the key figures of the labor movement were not so poor that they could not stand on a cone, their requirements for life were simple and far from the needs of the middle class.In fact, before 1914, the working class around the world had no access to durable consumer goods. Even in the interwar years, only workers in North America, Australia, and New Zealand enjoyed this blessing.A member of the British Communist Party was sent to inspect the arsenal in Coventry during the war.I saw that Coventry's arms business was booming and the market was prosperous.After the comrade went back, he opened his mouth wide and said to his friends in London—the author himself was among them—surprised: "Can you imagine it? Even the comrades have cars there!"

The working class is self-contained partly because it is largely isolated from the rest of society.They have a unique way of life, dress, and their opportunities in life are extremely limited.Compared with the white-collar class, although the latter also feel financially constrained, they enjoy greater mobility on the social ladder.The children of workers never wanted to go to university, indeed few did, and once the minimum age of suspension was reached (usually 14), most had no intention of continuing.In the monarchy of the Netherlands, only 4% of the pre-war 10-19 age group continued to enter secondary schools.As for democratic Sweden and Denmark, the ratio is even lower.A worker's life, a worker's home, and a worker's life expectancy are all different from others.In the 1950s, when traces of working-class distinctiveness were still quite evident, one of the first lucky few (British) working-class people who were lucky enough to obtain a university degree from a working-class family had put it this way: There tends to be a pattern of dwellings, . . . they do not own their own houses, but tend to rent them." (Hoggart, 1958, p. 8)

There is another central element in the life of the workers, which is also an important reason for their self-containedness, that is, the collective temperament that can be seen everywhere in their lives, everything is the "we" of the majority, dominating and replacing the individual "I".The reason why the labor movement and parties were able to impress the hearts of the working class lies in the common belief among the workers: if people like them want to change their destiny, there is nothing they can do individually, and only collective action can be effective; The most effective collective way is through organization, whether it is through mutual relief, strikes, or voting.On the contrary, they also believe that because of the large number of laborers and the special situation, collective action is the only way they can master.Workers discover that the opportunity to break free from the snares of their own “class” (or, in the United States, their “class consciousness”) on their own is not unique, but does not quite fit their class-specific self-image.Moreover, the phenomenon of "we" dominating "I" is not only for functional reasons, in fact, the private space of the working class is so narrow that there is no way of escaping from the public at all-especially married women, whose misery Throughout his life, the narrow life scope is confined within the four walls of the family, and he must live a public life with his neighbors in the market, in the streets, and in the park.Because of the lack of space in the home, children had to play in the streets or parks, young men and women had to go out for dancing or dating, and the men's families had to hang out in the public house.It wasn't until the advent of radio broadcasting in the interwar years that revolutionized the lives of working women confined to their homes - but only in a fortunate few countries.Prior to this, all forms of entertainment, except small private gatherings, were public—in some poor countries, even television was placed in public places for public viewing in the early years.Therefore, from football matches, political rallies, to holiday outings, the entertainment in life is often carried out in the form of "jointly participating in the grand event".

From a comprehensive perspective, in countries that have been developed for a long time, the consciousness of working class solidarity reached its peak at the end of World War II.In the golden age, as the various factors that caused the consciousness of the workers were destroyed, it went downhill all the way.The prosperity of the market, the employment of the market, and the advent of a truly mass-consumption society have completely changed the life of the working class in developed countries.And the trend of change has been going on.Judging by the standards of their parents back then—if they were older, even compared with their own memories—they could no longer be considered poor.No matter how you measure it, the improvement in the standard of living can be seen everywhere, which is far beyond the imagination of people outside the United States, Australia, New Zealand and other countries.The advancement of technology and the principles of market operation make living space more and more private.With TV, there is no need to go to the stadium to watch the game; with TV and VCR, there is no need to squeeze into the cinema to watch movies; with the telephone, you can chat with friends without going to the square or market.In the past, members of trade unions or political parties often preferred to attend branch meetings or political rallies, because meetings were a way of life and leisure in addition to discussing business.Nowadays, entertainment methods have become civilian and private. Except for the extremely brave and ruthless, everyone began to transfer their time to other more interesting things (in the past, face-to-face contact with the people was indispensable in election campaigns, but now The effect is no longer outstanding. The reason why this kind of activity continues is only based on tradition and to cheer up the increasingly rare party activists).Poverty and collective life condense the common consciousness of workers, and it disintegrates under the prosperity and privatization of people's livelihood.

The reason for the disintegration is not that the face of the working class is difficult to recognize-in fact, since the late 1950s, the emerging youth culture that will be introduced in the next chapter, its uniqueness, regardless of clothing and music, has been learned from the working class ( See Chapter 11, Section 2).The real reason is that being rich is now within the reach of most people.Speaking of it, owning a "Beetle" Volkswagen sedan is compared with owning a Mercedes-Benz sedan. The difference between the owners of the two cars is obviously far greater than the distinction between having a car and not having a car-not to mention that even expensive cars are theoretically less important. It can be purchased in installments.Today's workers, especially when they enter married life, must spend all their expenses on daily necessities. In the last single stage before they are single, they can also spend money on luxury goods.Faced with this phenomenon, the fashion and beauty products industry that emerged in the 1960s responded immediately and firmly grasped this trend.Thus in the newly developed market of high-tech luxury goods, the distance from the highest price point to the lowest price point is only a difference of degree-the most expensive Hasselblad camera, and the cheapest Olympia camera. Between an Olympus or a Nikon camera, both of which can make pictures, the difference is only a status symbol.In short, since the pioneering of television, personal items and services that were only available to millionaires in the past can now be found in the homes of ordinary people.Simply put, the impact of full employment and a substantially mass consumer society has raised the standard of living of the working class in the old developed countries, at least in some respects, far beyond what their parents had to struggle to make ends meet. The upper limit of living - the income of the older generation is mainly used for basic living needs. What's more, there were several other developments at the time that further widened the gap between different sectors of the working class.However, these phenomena did not become apparent until the end of the golden age of full employment, during the economic crises of the 1970s and 1980s, when neoliberalism put pressure on welfare policies and "corporatist" systems.The formerly weaker section of the working class has been largely sheltered by the aid of welfare policies.Once the economic downturn, the uppermost layer of the working class—that is, skilled workers and foreman management—often adapts more easily to modern, high-tech production.Their position, in fact, can also help them obtain real benefits from the liberalization of the market-although another group of brothers who are less fortunate have been frustrated since then.So in Britain under Mrs Thatcher, if you compare the life of the bottom fifth of workers with other workers, the difference is even more serious than it was a century ago.Although the British example is extreme, it can also be seen that it has changed.Workers in the top decile earn three times as much as the bottom decile.These working-class people at the top, complacent about their own prosperity, gradually began to have an idea: as national and local taxpayers, they are tantamount to subsidizing the "underclass" (underclass) who depend on social welfare for their livelihood.The malicious term "lower class" appeared in the 1980s, and these people who were born entirely on the public welfare system became a thorn in the eyes of the former; in addition to the necessary relief for temporary urgent care, long-term subsidies must be Want to get rid of it and then quickly.The old Victorian notion that being poor equaled being "uncharacteristic" has revived, and the barriers are clearly far greater than before.Because in the good old days when the world was booming, full employment took care of the material needs of the vast majority of workers, and the amount of benefits also increased.Today, when the number of people relying on relief has increased significantly, compared with the "residue" of the untouchables in the Victorian era, this large group of "shameless people" supported by "welfare" has a very different level of comfort than before.In the eyes of other taxpayers who work hard, this kind of comfortable life is not the treatment that these people who get something for nothing deserve. As a result, those with skills and "respectable personalities" found their political positions—and perhaps for the first time ever—turned to the right.What's more, traditional labor and socialist groups, given the rising number of people in desperate need of public assistance, are now more committed to the redistribution of wealth and social welfare, so they are more likely to fuel the rightward deviation of upper-level workers.The success of Margaret Thatcher's government in the UK was mainly due to the separation of skilled workers from the working class.The cohesive force of the working class is increasingly separated, which may be seen as a change in the form of workers' union, which has further contributed to the disintegration of the working class.As a result, people with skills and the ability to climb the ranks have moved out of the inner city of the city one after another. This is also encouraged by the relocation of companies, large and small enterprises to the suburbs and rural areas. The city was once dominated by worker households. The hardcore old neighborhoods, or the so-called "red belts", are either settled down as settlements for specific groups of people, or refurbished and refurbished to become new residences for the middle class.In the new satellite towns and green suburbs, the degree of concentration of a single class is far inferior to the situation in the previous cities.The civilian houses left in the inner city of the city were originally built for the solid core of the working class, and most of the tenants were tenants who were able to pay the rent regularly; but now they have become the marginalized, problematic people, and parasitic on welfare. place of emigration. At the same time, the massive flow of immigration brought with it a phenomenon that had been confined to the United States, and to some extent France, at least since the Habsburg Empire, namely the racial pluralism of the working class. and the consequences and conflicts of diversity.But the crux of the problem is not all racial diversity itself, but the immigration of people with different skin colors (or the same skin color, but it is hard to be divided into different situations, such as North Africans in France), often makes people's hearts hidden. Vicious racism has been aroused; even countries that have always been considered immune to racism, such as Italy and Sweden, are no exception.The decline of the power of the traditional socialist labor movement has made racism more prominent; because the former has always been fiercely opposed to such discrimination and often tried its best to prevent anti-social speech with a racist mentality from appearing within its masses.However, aside from the purely racist element.Traditionally—even in the nineteenth century—indigenous labor immigration seldom caused direct conflict between different ethnic groups within the working class.Because each specific immigrant group has its own specific professional industry in the whole economy, they further expand their power in their own field of activity, and even have the tendency to dominate.Most of the Jewish immigrants in Western countries were employed in large numbers in the garment industry, but never in, say, the automobile industry.Taking Indian cuisine, which spreads all over the world, as an example, it is even rarer that its practitioners are concentrated in a special way.Most of the staff in Indian restaurants in London and New York, as well as around the world, are hired from Sylhet, an immigrant circle in a certain area of ​​Bangladesh; this phenomenon has not declined even in the 1990s.Even if a monopoly situation has not been formed, immigrant groups often live in a certain area, or concentrate on working in a certain factory workshop or industry, and do not involve other areas and industries.Therefore, in such a "segregated labor market" (to use a fashionable jargon), a strong sense of solidarity spontaneously arises among workers of individual ethnic groups and can be maintained for a long time.Since there is no competition between ethnic groups, with very few exceptions, it is difficult to attribute the good or bad of one's own situation to other groups. However, times have changed, under the influence of many factors, and the immigration policies of Western Europe after the war were mostly government-led to meet the needs of labor shortages. Same working rights.However, there are exceptions. For example, the government deliberately separates foreign workers from domestic workers, making the former a class of their own, as short-term and low-status "guest-workers."But no matter which way you deal with it, the pressure will increase accordingly.Migrant workers, men and women, whose legal rights were inferior to those of others, naturally viewed their interests very differently from those enjoying a preferential status.Conversely, native workers in Britain and France, on the one hand, did not mind working side by side with Moroccan, West Indies, Portuguese, and Turkish workers under the same conditions.But on the other hand, they are absolutely unwilling to see these gringos—especially those who have always been considered collectively inherently inferior nationalities—upgrade their salaries and climb to command on their own heads.Similarly, similar tensions exist between different immigrant groups, although they all share a hatred of the attitude of immigrants in the host country. In short, going back to the days when labor parties and movements of a traditional nature took shape, workers in all walks of life (unless divided by insurmountable ethnic or religious factors) could assume that the same policies, tactics, and institutional changes would make them Benefit; this doesn't happen automatically anymore these days.Coupled with changes in the mode of production, the emergence of the so-called "two-thirds of society", and the increasingly blurred distinction between "labor" and "non-labor" jobs, the previously clearly visible contours of the proletarian masses are loosening. Erosion.