Hollywood’s release of The Iron Lady at a time when the Conservatives are back in government in Britain, and moreover during an economic crisis, is terribly suspect and suggests yet again an uncomfortably strong link between the ruling class in Britain and powerful media companies. Whether or not the film was intentionally propagandistic, the film has ignited a debate about Thatcher and Tory policies in both Britain and America.
The film perpetuates the myth that Thatcher was a tough but brave leader who made very difficult and unpopular decisions but did what was necessary for the country in difficult times. The implicit class condescension, making difficult but necessary decisions for the people which the latter couldn’t possibly understand, is typical of conservative propaganda. Let’s investigate whether or not there is any basis to it.
In an article on Wikipedia, it is written that in 1979: “After entering 10 Downing Street, Thatcher … emphasised deregulation (particularly of the financial sector), flexible labour markets, the privatisation of state-owned companies, and reducing the power and influence of trade unions.” Let’s analyse the legacy of such policies.
De-regulation of the financial sector generally, and in London in particular, has in the long term contributed to and exacerbated the greatest economic crisis in history. Bankers were encouraged to de-regulate, a policy supposedly based on the neo-liberal economics their bourgeois stooges were conjuring out of their heads at the time. The ‘free market’ (capitalism) was supposed to drive innovation through competition with companies breaking their necks to produce the best services for ‘consumers’. They could only do this if the state didn’t go meddling in ‘their’ affairs. Whether or not they actually believed that these theories had any basis is hard to establish. What is certain, though, is that their policies have been shown to be complete balderdash.
Coming to power at a time of heightened class struggle in a period of economic stagnation, Thatcher inherited a militant working class movement. This in her opinion was one of the most potent factors contributing to Britain’s declining world position and economy. Taking on the working class and defeating the trade unions would reverse the trend. Typically, workers wanting decent working and living conditions were seen as the enemy. Thatcher took on many sectors of the working class, most notably the miners, and won, defeating militant strike movements using police brutality and criminalising many ordinary forms of industrial action; the leaders of the labour movement being reluctant to cross the legal threshold.
Not content with this victory, Thatcher and the Tories shut down a significant proportion of British Industry wholesale. For example, by 1990, 97 out of 174 (56%) state-owned mines had been shut down completely, the remaining 44% being privatised. Eventually 150 suffered the former fate. This devastated the communities in which the miners worked, increasing unemployment in those communities to unprecedented heights. Many, if not all of those communities today are still suffering from these closures.
An infant can understand that this policy’s primary aim was to rid Britain of the most militant section of the working class; “the enemy within” in Thatcher’s own words. But the Tories had the audacity to suggest that Britain didn’t need its own industry. Apparently we could have a prosperous economy based almost entirely on finance and the service sector in ‘The City’. Apparently we would make so much money from these sectors that we could import all of the things we used to produce without any disadvantages. Again this has been shown, in the long term, to be nonsense. Britain’s economy is predicted to grow by only 0.3% this coming year (i.e. by nothing). Thatcher’s policies have caught up with Britain, policies continued under Brown and Blair whilst the conservative party were too unpopular to remain in power.
Having a prosperous society based almost completely on finance capital was a utopian fantasy dreamt up by the conservatives. It was an attempt to solve the problems of Britain on a capitalist basis which is impossible.
As Marx explained it is the contradictions of capitalism which causes economic crises: the continual driving down of wages whilst prices continually rise; the lack of a planned economy in a society with very definite needs; the concentration of capital and the increasing productivity of labour welding the labourer to the machine for longer and longer hours. The policies of Thatcher had no scientific content and were the desperate attempt of a class in terminal decline to resurrect the system which they represented, at any cost.
Today, the coalition government are continuing with the same policies of Thatcher. They have frozen wages and fired workers at a time of depressed demand. They have even refused to regulate The City, to the amazement of Europe, at a time when no-one doubts that this contributed to the crisis. They are attempting to privatise not only the NHS but the education system. In the words of Trotsky, they are “tobogganing to disaster with closed eyes.” Unfortunately, they are not being opposed in any meaningful way by the Labour Party.
Ed Miliband and the reformist Labour Party leaders are not opposing cuts to public services and privatisation in general but are only opposed to the rate at which they happen. They are not supporting workers in struggle but are opposing their industrial action on the grounds of national unity. They too believe that this crisis can be solved on a capitalist basis, but a more ethical and responsible capitalism, yet they fawn before The City and capital in general. They are trying to square the circle!
George Galloway’s recent landslide victory in Bradford is proof that the old argument made by Labour party tops that left wing policies are un-electable is rot. Labour will only gain strong support with a radical socialist program to oppose cuts and build a sustainable economy. There is no alternative. Until that happens, the coalition will stumble from one disaster to another as their heroine did.
