More articles in English are listed here | Home page of AKP
The international economy is continually degenerating. One way of shedding light on this process is taking a look at the slowing growth of the formal economy of the OECD countries:
| Growth of GDP in OECD | |
|---|---|
|
Annual average growth rate of Real GDP |
|
| 1960-73 | 4,9 % |
| 1973-79 | 3,0 % |
| 1979-89 | 2,8 % |
| 1989-99 | 2,4 % |
| Source: Historical Statistics, OECD, 1997 and 2000 | |
As the capitalistic (profit maximising) part of the international economy expands, taking over economic areas that formerly were feudal, self-subsistence economy, unpaid work in the households, public sector services and so on, the general economic growth recedes. The world is irreversibly heading toward recession. Time will show what forms this tendency will take.
The high growth of the US-economy the last years gave some people the idea that capitalism is experiencing a new heyday. But the high growth mainly reflects the relative strengthening of US-imperialism in the last decade. It is also noteworthy that the so-called "new economy", pushed forward by the new technological revolution, has not brought the world economy out of stagnation. The slowing up of growth in the US this spring and summer, has wiped the grin off the face of capitalism's optimists.
For Norway we find the following figures:
| Growth of GNP in Norway | |
|---|---|
| Years | Average annual growth |
| 1946-60 | 4,7 % |
| 1960-73 | 4,3 % |
| 1973-87 |
3,9 % |
| 1987-99 | 2,8 % |
So even though the economic growth is stronger in Norway than in OECD generally, because of the oil production, the tendency is clear here too.
This stagnation is an undercurrent in the economy, expressing itself in various ways: Overproduction, structural mass unemployment, monopolisation, attempts from the bourgeoisie at increased exploitation, surplus of capital that cannot find "productive" (in the capitalist sense of the word) investment.
The centralisation and monopolisation of capital lead to a new situation in the 1980s. The largest companies in Norway were now much more internationally oriented and dependent. To put it simply: the role of the state was no longer first and foremost to secure an internal market and internal support for the companies. The role of the state came to include support for the biggest companies in their internationalisation. The main problem for these big companies is the costs of production: wages, taxes, infrastructure and so on. The markets to grow in and to invest in are primarily outside Norway, so the main aim is to make Norway an attractive place for this internationally oriented capital.
In Norway the bourgeoisie gave up Keynesian economic policy around 1978. But the consequences of the change toward monetarist, or "supply side" economic politics were offset by the large investments in the petroleum sector. It was not before the oil price fell in the winter of 1986/87 that the full force of the new economic policies was felt. The government introduced wage freezes and mass unemployment shot up in to new post-war highs. In 1992 the leading political parties, the main employers' organisations and top union leaders supported a policy given the name: The Solidarity Alternative. The main content of this policy was that the development of the wages in Norway must be lower than Norway's most important trading partners. Of course this alternative meant lower wage growth for the part of the population that is dependent on collective agreements. The other part of the population, the capitalists, the business leaders, the politicians and so on were not bound by this policy.
This policy has naturally lead to increased class differences, but also to increased resistance. Against the will of the TUC leadership, the opposition has demanded higher wage growth. In 1998 the left opposition in the TUC managed to attain a decision that the wage bargaining was not to be centralised to the TUC level, but to the national occupational/branch union level. There were many well-planned negotiations and strikes from the unions' side leading to a general increase in wages for the period 1998 to 1999 of over 6.5 %, while inflation was under 3 %. The bourgeoisie was quite unhappy with the unruly working class. The bourgeoisie was especially upset when the oil prices plummeted later on in 1998 and the interest rates went up. In December 1998 a meeting was held in the Contact Committee of the government, where the top leaders of the organisations of the employers and trade unions meet. It was decided to once again try to get a moderating grip on the economy. Four working committees were set down. The immediate effect was positive for the bourgeoisie. In the spring of 1999 the wage development was moderate, around 4,5 %. The next big question was the main collective negotiations of spring 2000. The TUC-leadership managed to secure a decision stating that it would go for a moderate settlement, including an expanded holiday. The centralised negotiations with the employers for the hundreds of thousands of TUC members went as planned: moderate wage increases, 4 more days of holiday that the employer could decide when they should be taken by each individual, increased flexibility for work time and an expanded length of the collective agreement from 2 to 3 years. But there was one problem for the bougoisie - the settlement had to go to a referendum among the members. And they didn't like the moderate deal, and voted it down. In the beginning of May 87,000 TUC members went out on strike. A strike the TUC leadership had done all it could to avoid. The broad opposition in the unions brought forward new demands, and the result of the strike was a higher wage increase, a two-year period and the 4 days of holidays being introduced a year earlier. The wage development in 2001 will on the other hand be moderate, but already now there is a feeling among various segments of the workers that 2002 must mean more than crumbs.
In 1992 the parliament introduced a tax reform that lead to more taxes on the ordinary wage earners and less on the capitalists. The annual adjustments of the public pensions and economic support for disabled have been lower than for the normal wage earner. This has lead to an increased amount of poverty. The 10 % poorest have a lower real income today than 15 years ago.
As a part of the new policies introduced after 1987, there have been two major attempts at undermining union rights. In 1996 the Labour Disputes Committee, which consisted of the leaders of the largest employers' organisation (NHO) and the largest Norwegian TUC (LO) put forward a paper where they suggested that only trade union congresses with centralised rules and with at least 100,000 active members are to have the right to real negotiations and strikes. Independent unions are to accept the collective agreements negotiated by these huge trade union congresses. In the public sector rules to centralise bargaining and strikes were also suggested.
These suggestions lead to an intense and strong opposition. And were put aside by the new minority government in 1997. But with the attempts at tightening the grip in December 1998, a new committee was formed to look at new ways to undermine union rights. Because of the critique of the narrow composition of the former committee, the new committee had a broader representation. This committee was closely monitored by democratic elements in the union movement. It put forward its suggestions on April 2nd, 2001. The majority of the committee have put forward suggestions to undermine trade-union rights by strengthening the authority of the state-appointed mediator. But there is a significant minority on the committee that is against these suggestions. The employers' organisations are sour. The democratic tendencies in the unions are too strong for all the trade union representatives to suggest new clearly anti-democratic proposals. But the representatives from the biggest TUC in Norway (LO) sided with the employers on the most anti-democratic suggestion: that the mediator is to have the right to "link" votes over suggested collective bargaining. The ILO has condemned "linking", but the majority on the committee want linking anyhow. The employers' representatives are already saying to the union bosses that won't support "linking": You agree on a moderate wage development, but you aren't willing to put in place instruments that will secure this development. On January 23rd, 2001 the leader of the largest employers' organisation demanded that the unions drop having referendums over suggested collective agreements. His outburst was met with a shrug. One of the leaders of the labour party went public at the end of January stating that there must be a limit to negotiation rights, but when asked how this limit is to be imposed, he took a step back and pointed to the committee that was going to put forward suggestions on April 2nd.
The legislation suggested by the majority of the committee must be put before parliament. The next central wage negotiations are in April 2002. The committee suggests that its amendments are treated by parliament before these negotiations. The parliamentary elections are in September 2001. The main parties will try to avoid that this issue becomes an "election issue". The parties have as of yet not signalled their positions on the committee's proposals.
In 1988 a handful of women stood outside the congress of the Norwegian TUC. They demanded that the TUC must fight for higher wages for women. This was the start of a broad movement. Today there are annual conferences in four of the major cities where strategies to forward the women workers' interests are discussed.
The background for this movement is the changed social status of women, which again is connected to women's increased participation in the workforce.
Women have always been in majority in the working class. But capitalism has developed and needs an increasing number of workers to produce surplus value, as actual work is the only thing that produces surplus value. Women have now entered the "labour market" and families are increasingly dependent on two wages to get ends to meet. This new position of the women in the working class has strengthened their self-esteem and their organisation both as workers and as oppressed women. This has again strengthened the working class as a whole.
Capitalism produces the class that ultimately will destroy it. The chart below indicates changes that lead to the following conclusions:
|
Persons aged 16-74 years by sex, marital status and socio-economic group. Annual average. Thousands |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Socio-economic group | 1981 | 1995 | ||||||
| Total | Males | Females | Total | Males | Females | |||
| Total | Married | Total | Married | |||||
| Total, including unspecified | 2.909 | 1.458 | 1.451 | 955 | 3.140 | 1.579 | 1.561 | 1.016 |
| Workers | 660 | 520 | 140 | 101 | 571 | 444 | 127 | 86 |
| Unskilled | 459 | 334 | 126 | 91 | 398 | 286 | 112 | 76 |
| Skilled | 201 | 186 | 14 | 10 | 173 | 157 | 15 | 10 |
| Salaried employees | 980 | 417 | 563 | 381 | 1.310 | 542 | 768 | 552 |
| Lower level | 379 | 55 | 324 | 215 | 343 | 58 | 285 | 194 |
| Mean level | 480 | 269 | 212 | 148 | 768 | 364 | 404 | 299 |
| Higher level | 120 | 93 | 27 | 19 | 199 | 120 | 79 | 59 |
| Farmers and fishermen | 84 | 76 | 9 | 7 | 67 | 54 | 13 | 12 |
| Other self-employed | 163 | 98 | 66 | 56 | 122 | 78 | 43 | 34 |
| Pupils/students | 221 | 114 | 107 | 12 | 283 | 140 | 144 | 26 |
| Home workers | 427 | 19 | 407 | 334 | 137 | 3 | 134 | 113 |
| Pensioners, disabled and sick | 298 | 167 | 131 | 51 | 493 | 229 | 264 | 150 |
| Others | 28 | 18 | 10 | 2 | 148 | 82 | 66 | 42 |
| Source: The Central Bureau of Statistics, Norway | ||||||||
Even though this chart only covers are short period of time (14 years), its tendency is the same as the 15 years before and the years since. It gives us a good idea of the general tendencies.
Salaried employees lower level are f ex: assistant nurses, cashiers in shops and restaurants, typists, salesmen in shops, telephone central clerks, cashiers in banks, railway conductors, chefs and so on.
Salaried employees mean level are f ex: normal teachers, normal nurses, advertising technicians, journalists, secretaries for administration, salesmen, machine chiefs, captains on boats, social workers, accountants, travel bureau clerks, pilots, airplane engineers, kindergarten teachers (generally people with 3- 4 years higher education).
Salaried employees higher level are f ex: doctors, higher engineers, teachers in higher education, lawyers, architects, dentists, professors, priests and so on. (Generally people with 6-7 years higher education).
Some other conclusions from the chart:
The unions have grown simultaneously with the working class. 53 % of the workforce are members of a union. Women are now in majority in Norway's largest TUC (LO).
The immigration from 3rd world countries has given the working class in Norway a broader and closer contact with the international class struggle.
The general development of capitalism has lead to (i.e.):
These developments have lead the capitalists to increase their struggle for the workers to subject themselves more entirely to the needs of the firms. The firms need now more than ever: flexible workers that work intensely during work hours. It is paramount for the bourgeoisie in each country to be able to:
Today the interests of the capitalists are not in lengthening the working day in general for everybody. With structural unemployment, the main thing is to utilise the work force with more intensity and with less concern taken to the social needs of the workers. The main aim of the bourgeoisie is therefore to break down the normal working day. Getting rid of overtime compensation and other forms of compensation that have their base in the normal working day. With an annualisation of working time and flexibility of daily, weekly and seasonal working hours, it can be in the interests of the bourgeoisie to have what formally could be called a 35-hour week.
In Norway the working class has on the whole managed to defend the normal working day in the collective agreements and therefore also overtime pay, shift compensation, extra pay for working on weekends and on holidays. Today the normal working day is 7.5 hours, five days a week. If one works shift, one has a shorter working week and shift compensation. But these agreements are under attack. The leadership in Norway's largest TUC is now preparing to introduce as a demand from the unions, what is already under way in France, Italy and other parts of Europe: the 35 hour week based on annualisation and flexibilisation.
Today, it is no longer the common cold that is the most common reason for absence from work in Britain, now it's stress related illnesses that have taken the fore.
The opposition in the unions and the women's movement have raised the following parole for the last couple of decades: Six hours normal working day with full wage compensation. The opposition will fight to make the next shortening of working hours a step towards this goal, turning 7.5 hours as the normal daily working time into 7 hours and without introducing increased flexibility.
For the last 4 decades the Norwegian bourgeoisie has tried to make Norway a member of the EU. It has not succeeded.
As the monopoly capitalists in Norway have become bigger and more internationalised, they have become the main driving force in selling out Norwegian independence and democracy. The working class is now the main defender of national independence and democracy.
Through a coup-like manoeuvre in the beginning of the 1990s, the parliament introduced Norway into the internal market of the EU by ratifying the treaty on the European Economic Space (EES). Through this agreement the EU rules in the economic area are forced onto Norway. The struggle to fight against this agreement and to join with workers in Europe against the EU and against EU policies is paramount for winning issues in the day-to-day struggle in Norway, for example in the struggle to defend the welfare state and the struggle against privatisation. The EU-issue is central in all politics in Norway. This can be illustrated by the fact that today, in a lull period concerning the membership question; one of the biggest political mass movements in Norway is the organisation No to EU with approx. 30,000 members. In 1994, during the last referendum this progressive mass organisation had over 130,000 members. The bourgeoisie is very dissatisfied with not being a EU-member, and is now preparing the ground for a new attempt at luring the population to vote yes within five years, trying to tie up the discussion to the question of the expansion of the EU eastward.
The contradictions in capitalist society are sharpening. Capitalism is having more and more trouble functioning. The increased exploitation leads to discontent and growing resistance from the working class, which is now bigger and stronger than ever before, with the women playing an increasingly central role in the struggle. The question of national independence plays a central role in the class struggle.
More articles in English are listed here | Home page of AKP
