Study the past if you want to define the future … (Confucius)

Reflections on the commemorations of the First World War: Peace and Social Justice

‘Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice …’ (Preamble to the Constitution of the International Labour Organisation, 1919).

The end of the nineteenth century was a period of globalization, just like today. International trade and the financial sector were booming. Leaving apart the link between globalization, nationalism and war, I want to briefly focus on the lessons that were learnt in that period. These lessons remain highly relevant and useful today, but they are too often ignored.

In 2014, in Belgium and in other European countries the First World War is being commemorated, one century after its start. We should use this opportunity to look at all dimensions of its legacy, and up till now, this is not the case. One of the important lessons that were drawn from the murderous conflict 1914-1918 was this: peace is not possible without social justice.

This is why together with the Versailles Peace Treaty emerged the International Labour Organisation (ILO).

The ILO is a unique global institution. It is the only one with a tripartite membership. Decision-making is not the prerogative of States, but also of employers and workers.

What was the reasoning then, one century ago? Globalisation was seen as a given. No one wanted to hinder international trade. But for several decades, international public and private groups had been sitting together to try and define common social rules The basic idea was that competition was positive, on condition that it was fair and loyal. This meant that countries with strong social regulation in favour of workers should not be disadvantaged because of it. Competitiveness was  not to be acquired at the cost of workers. Trade had to be liberalized, but without putting the standard of living of people at risk. Just imagine!

Immediately after its inception, the ILO started to work at international agreements concerning labour right and social security.

It is interesting to see that as from the 1850s international cooperation on topics of social and labour rights started to emerge. Social security was put in place in  different countries, depending on local power relations, needs and circumstances. But the broad outlines had been defined at the international level. As one of the most industrialized countries of that time, Belgian reformers played an important role.

Of course this was not a matter of pure altruism. Fear of socialism and communism were real. Paternalistic approaches of employers as well as philanthropy were still very common.

But one thing was generally accepted after the First World war: labour and war had been globalized. Liberalism had failed. A League of Nations was created in order to promote cooperation, as well as an International Labour Organisation. The League of Nations did  not survive the crisis of the 1930s. The ILO did. After the Second World War a Declaration of Philadelphia was added to it stating that poverty, anywhere, was a threat to all, everywhere. ‘Labour is not a commodity’, so it said, by which was meant that labour also was a source of personal enrichment, of welfare and social integration. Markets were accepted but they were subordinated to a higher goal. Thanks to trade unions and collective bargaining, workers were empowered. Social and political security were considered indivisible and inseparable.

Reading these documents to-day, one hundred or seventy years later, one can only conclude they are more relevant than ever.

When welfare states are being dismantled, when globalization thrives, based on growing poverty, inequality and wage competition, when talks on making better common rules are failing, one cannot but wonder: how to avoid making the same mistakes as one century ago?

The European Union is following a clearly neoliberal route. Member States are following or are even outpacing it. Rightwing populist parties are fighting ‘social fraud’ and ‘welfare tourism’. With newspeak like ‘social investments’ and ‘social innovation’ people are encouraged to take care of themselves and forget that public authorities are responsible for the welfare of people and for organizing solidarity.

Our social protection surely needs to be re-shaped. The economy and society are not what they were sixty years ago. In the framework of the sixth reform of the State in Belgium, parts of social security are being reformed, but there is no public debate at all. As if structural solidarity had no importance?

Globally, social protection is on the political agenda, worldwide, but it is nothing but an improved version of poverty reduction. It is at the service of markets and of growth.

Once again, it is the ILO that makes a modest proposal for ‘social protection floors’ so as to give everyone a minimum of social security.

Liberals and conservatives have their proposals ready. They know what they want. The Left is silent. It looks at poverty and now also at inequality in order to blame capitalism. But it has no alternative. Trade unions are defending an impossible status quo. Concrete proposals on a multilevel social policy or on what we can and should expect from the European Union are lacking.

Unless one wants to perceive the ‘basic income’ proposal as an alternative? It is in fact an easy ‘solution’ that would do away with one century of social struggles, social and economic rights, even trade unions…

It is now exactly one year ago that more than one thousand workers lost their lives under the ruins of their textile factory in Bangladesh. Today, workers are dying in Brazil and Qatar in order to let us enjoy football. In many European countries extreme rightwing parties are on the rise. These are all symptoms of a crisis that threatens peace.

Just take a look at the past. It can help. In 1969 the ILO won the Nobel Peace Prize. Rightly so. Social justice is a major building block of peace. But is forgotten in all commemorations.

The natural aim of social protection is to destroy a market in which human labour is a commodity, according to Karl Polanyi. Today, this reasoning is put on its head. This cannot have a happy ending.