\t\t\t\tThis is the third part in my historical excursion tracing where progressive forces adopted the idea that it was fair and reasonable for individuals who sought income support from the state to contribute to the collective well-being through work if they could. As I noted in Part 1, the series could have easily been sub-titled: How the middle-class Left abandoned the class fundamentals, became obsessed with individualism, and steadily descended into political obscurity, so much so, that the parties they now dominate, are largely unelectable! Somewhere along the way in history, elements of the Left have departed from the collective vision that bound social classes with different interests and education levels into a ‘working class’ force. In this Part, we disabuse readers of the notion that the ‘duty to work’ concept was somehow an artifact of authoritarian regimes like the USSR. In fact, we find well articulated statements in official documents in most Western democracies.
\n<\/p>\n
The earlier parts in this series are:<\/p>\n
1. Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 1<\/a> (August 4, 2020).<\/p>\n 2. Tracing the roots of progressive views on the duty to work – Part 2<\/a> (August 11, 2020).<\/p>\n I thought the responses to my first were very illustrative of the modern state of so-called progressive thinking, which is a separate research program in itself.<\/p>\n Regular readers will know that I have long been interested and researching the question as to how the neoliberal paradigm has dominated for so long and why the progressive position in politics has failed to articulate a powerful and successful challenge to it.<\/p>\n Thomas Fazi and I also articulate our ideas on those questions in our book – Reclaiming the State: A Progressive Vision of Sovereignty for a Post-Neoliberal World<\/a> (Pluto Books, September 2017).<\/p>\n It is clear that the Left side of politics, the traditional social democratic forces, have largely abandoned the contest with conservatives over macroeconomics, and, have instead, sought to differentiate themselves from the conservatives by identifying identity issues, in which they define what they perceive as the modern progressive view.<\/p>\n So questions of ‘right to work’ and the state’s responsibility in ensuring that there are sufficient jobs and the partner expectation, ‘the duty to work’, both of which were the cornerstones of progressive thinking and practice in the Post World War 2, have been abandoned in any meaningful way.<\/p>\n There is no Left commitment to the practicalities of ensuring a ‘right to work’, and, as a consequence of the human damage that has followed the mass unemployment and underemployment that has become the hallmark of the neoliberal period, these politicians get diverted into proposals like basic income guarantees and all sorts of justifications of why we should be relaxed about proposals that allow individuals to receive state income support when they are clearly able to work.<\/p>\n It has become a gospel of progressives that this is somehow a basis for a coherent and connected society. That some people who can work will be able to ‘express themselves’ without having to work but still receive sufficient income, while enjoying the products and services created by others who are working.<\/p>\n The willingness to promote the ‘individual’ over the collective is, of course, another hallmark of the neoliberal era, and progressives, in their willingness to abandon economic class as an vehicle for understanding the social location, have aided that culture of the self over responsibilities to be a societal member.<\/p>\n Further, one of the reasons that this positioning by the traditional progressive political parties have made them largely unelectable (with exceptions) is that the views do not resonate with the mainstream view among workers, who still consider that people who can work should do so.<\/p>\n I am working on a research project at present where we hope to generate the evidence to support that conjecture.<\/p>\n But there is a disjuncture or dislocation between the views found in traditional working class communities and the views that are expressed by educated, urban middle class (I use the term in the social sense) who have largely benefited from globalisation and neoliberalism.<\/p>\n The Brexit vote and the Yellow vest movement are two manifestations of that dislocation.<\/p>\n My earlier parts started with the concept of a duty to work as espoused by Marx in the – Critique of the Gotha Programme 1875<\/a> – which was one of Karl Marx’s last important works.<\/p>\n We then followed the historical train to consider how his views had been implemented and as a result we ended up in the USSR, where the concepts of a ‘right to work’ and a ‘duty to work’ were well articulated.<\/p>\n I found it extraordinary how much angst that exercise caused. All the ‘Reds under the Bed’ paranoia came to the fore.<\/p>\n Apparently, I was portraying the Job Guarantee as a path to socialism – then Stalin gulag-style oppression. These claims were pathetic. Sorry.<\/p>\n The fact is that progressive intellectual history is replete with similar debates about the necessity for the state to ensure there is sufficient work for all, and, in return, the citizens had a responsibility to contribute to society, through work, if they were able to.<\/p>\n Otherwise, citizens who were not able to work, would be supported in a material sense by the state.<\/p>\n That sort of duality defined the progressive Post World War 2 period.<\/p>\n It had nothing to do with being an exclusive ‘socialist’ ideal. It was the core ‘bread-and-butter’ social democratic tradition in Western democracies.<\/p>\n That is how we chose to define good societies and these ideals were found in official documents from most nations – such as the nation-building strategies outlined in the – 1945 White Paper on Full Employment<\/a> – published by the Australian government – and in constitutions of various Western, non-Socialist countries.<\/p>\n The – Preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1946<\/a> – which defined the foundation of the Fourth French Republic (it was the result of a constitutional referendum held on October 13, 1946) is illustrative of Rousseau’s concept of – General Will<\/a>.<\/p>\n If you study the historical period you will appreciate that France was in turmoil at the end of the War and de Gaulle had a task in normalising France after the disgraceful Vichy period.<\/p>\n There was a huge debate about the way in which a return to constituent government could be accomplished.<\/p>\n Those debates are very interesting but tangential to my objective here.<\/p>\n The historical study by Jon Cowans – French Public Opinion and the Founding of the Fourth Republic<\/a> – (published in French Historical Studies<\/em>, Vol 17, No. 1, 62-95 – link is for JSTOR subscribers through your library) – makes it clear that public opinion at the time was definitely in favour of the new constitution.<\/p>\n There was disputes about the role of the presidency etc, but Article 5 reflected the strong public sentiment of the time:<\/p>\n \nChacun a le devoir de travailler et le droit d’obtenir un emploi. Nul ne peut \u00eatre l\u00e9s\u00e9, dans son travail ou son emploi, en raison de ses origines, de ses opinions ou de ses croyances.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Which in English reads:<\/p>\n \nEach person has the duty to work and the right to employment. No person may suffer prejudice in his work or employment by virtue of his origins, opinions or beliefs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The Preamble was subsequently incorporated in the – Constitution fran\u00e7aise du 4 octobre 1958<\/a> – which was adopted on October 4, 1958 and became the Constitution of the Fifth Republic (English version<\/a>)<\/p>\n Further, consistent with the idea that if you were unable to work for any reason, then the state would provide material support, Article 11 reads:<\/p>\n \nElle garantit \u00e0 tous, notamment \u00e0 l’enfant, \u00e0 la m\u00e8re et aux vieux travailleurs, la protection de la sant\u00e9, la s\u00e9curit\u00e9 mat\u00e9rielle, le repos et les loisirs. Tout \u00eatre humain qui, en raison de son \u00e2ge, de son \u00e9tat physique ou mental, de la situation \u00e9conomique, se trouve dans l’incapacit\u00e9 de travailler a le droit d’obtenir de la collectivit\u00e9 des moyens convenables d’existence.<\/p>\n English:<\/p>\n It shall guarantee to all, notably to children, mothers and elderly workers, protection of their health, material security, rest and leisure. All people who, by virtue of their age, physical or mental condition, or economic situation, are incapable of working, shall have to the right to receive suitable means of existence from society.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The progressives did not challenge these aspects of the Constitution.<\/p>\n