BOOK REVIEWS
| Date | 01 July 1976 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.1976.tb00057.x |
| Published date | 01 July 1976 |
British Journal
of
Industrial
Relations
Vol.
XIV
No.
2
BOOK
REVIEWS
Industrial Relations.
A
Marxist Introduction
by Richard Hyman. Macmillan, 1975,
220
pp., f7.96.
THE
aim of the author of this interesting but unconvincing book is to provide an introduc-
tion to
a
Marxist analysis of the system of industrial relations in Britain. The book is in-
teresting because the author has an erudite and sophisticated intelligence and he writes
well; it is unconvincing because he fails to show that Marxism offers either a necessary
or
sufficient basis for an understanding of the dynamics of industrial relations systems.
In his introduction the author states ruefully that there is no simple and clear cut Marx-
ist theory of industrial relations. He therefore seeks to develop an analysis which is firmly
anchored to
a
Marxist perspective, but which stems from ‘one individual’s insights and in-
terpretations at a particular point in time’. After this confession of idiosyncrasy it is
perhaps not surprising that a great deal of this work owes little
or
nothing to Marx. Much
of the book is simply a restatement of the findings, views and propositions of contem-
porary industrial relations specialists most of whom do not proclaim that they are Marx-
ists. In
so
far as the author does provide an alternative analysis to that developed by
Dunlop, Flanders, Clegg and others who have contributed to
a
theoretical understanding
of modern industrial relations it is jejune, sometimes disingenuous and not infrequently
dogmatic.
Following an opening chapter which explains that industrial relations will be defined ‘in
terms of the processes of control over work relations’,
a
definition which owes nothing to
Marx, the author provides a stimulating discussion of the development of British trade
union structure. Apart from
a
quotation from Engels on the significance of collective
bargaining, which could have been written by Nassau Senior, there is no further reference
to Marx
or
Marxism in the entire chapter. Nor is Marxism mentioned,
or
its main
theoretical concepts used, in the next chapter on union policy and union democracy. In
these two chapters-almost
a
half of the book-which are based virtually entirely on the
work of modern students of trade union organisation, the scholar triumphs over the
ideologue. In the next chapter, which is devoted to the effect of capital in industrial
relations, the author draws closer to his objective and scholarship is subordinated to
ideology. He tells
us
that ‘from
a
Marxist perspective, obviously no serious analysis of in-
dustrial relations is possible without a central emphasis on the determining role of capital’.
However, one does not have
to
be
a
Marxist to accept that ‘the structure of contemporary
capitalism has important implications for industrial relations
.
.
.’.
Nor
is it only Marxists
who recognise that the determining impact of capital has been reinforced by the largely
reactive character of trade unions.’ But only
a
naive worshipper of Marx could imply that
it is only capitalist countries that are ‘beset by internal contradictions’ and as
a
result have
reached ‘conditions of crisis’. Low rates of production, inflation, unemployment and dis-
contented workers are not unknown in countries with socialist systems.
Convinced apparently that British capitalism is heading towards collapse, Hyman sees
the growing role of the State and erosion of voluntarism as the means by which capital is
maintaining its power over labour. This view of the role of the State does less than justice
to the influence of the unions. Such analysis as there
is
of the factors which have changed
the nature of modern capitalism and altered the role of the State is extremely superficial.
The effects of the extension of democracy, the rising level of education, the great advance
in living standards and the massive improvement in social welfare, and the role of the
unions in these developments, all developments contrary to the predictions of Marx,
receive little consideration.
Hyman is concerned to show that his analysis of industrial relations, which is based
upon the proposition that ‘conflict and accommodation are two contradictory, but in-
escapable aspects of industrial relations’ is fundamentally different from that of his
teachers Flanders and Clegg. He admits that the ‘pluralists accept that the interests of
workers and employers diverge and that conflict
is
therefore endemic in industry, but they
236
To continue reading
Request your trial