Social Democracy, Neo-Conservatism and Hegemonic Crisis in British Columbia

Abstract

This paper adopts a Gramscian perspective in presenting a case study of hegemonic crisis and political-economic restructuring. In British Columbia, the period from 1983 through 1987 marked a decisive shift from a variant of Fordism to a neo-conservative project with strong resonances of Thatcherism. Focusing on the historical specificity of the province in the Canadian political economy and the political crises of 1983 and 1987, we explore the structural and strategic reasons for this transformation, and examine the obstacles confronting the left in its hesitant attempts to mount a successful opposition around a counter-hegemonic project. Hegemony and the Canadian StateThe 1980s have witnessed a protracted economic downturn and sharpening of class politics in British Columbia, a Canadian province long known for its militant labor movement and mass-based social-democratic party.i This paper explores the underpinnings and implications of two important episodes of collective action in this period, which took place as moments of defensive mobilization against an ascendent neo-conservatism at the provincial level of the Canadian state.In theorizing these struggles we draw on the problematic of Antonio Gramsci, within which hegemony is viewed as a strategy of &dquo;moral and intellectual&dquo; leadership hinging on (1) the capacity of a class or fraction thereof to go beyond its present material or &dquo;economic-corporative&dquo; interests to articulate &dquo;universal&dquo; interests for the whole of society, and (2) at LAURENTIAN UNIV LIBRARY on June 4, 2016 crs.sagepub.com Downloaded from 30 a class's success in securing the consent of other class fractions and social groupings, i.e., in unifying around itself a &dquo;group of allies&dquo; (Sassoon, 1982:111; Adamson, 1980:171; Bocock, 1986:45). As Jessop points out, &dquo;the key to the exercise of such leadership is the development of a specific 'hegemonic project' which can resolve the abstract problem of conflicts between particular interests and the general interest&dquo; (1983:100), thus opening up a &dquo;national perspective&dquo; to the whole of society (BuciGlucksman, 1982:120). Such projects are themselves underwritten by specific accumulation strategies which give a characteristic form to the circuit of capital and tend to create a material basis for consent among certain class fractions.In the development of Canadian capitalism we can distinguish two periods in which a national-popular will was mobilized on the basis of a successful hegemonic project. In the era of capitalist consolidation and initial monopolization, the National Policy combined an import-substitution accumulation strategy with a project of nation-building that involved a succession of compromises and alliances between capitalists, workers, and the petite bourgeoisie. The National Policy tariff, for instance, met the immediate interests that Canada's fledgling working class had in employment while protecting the emerging home market for Canadian capitalists (Craven and Traves, 1979). ...

Between Leninism and Radical Pluralism: Gramscian Reflections on Counter-Hegemony and the New Social Movements

“…Cooptation by the state is not only a problem for NSMs, but also for workers' struggles within the established labor movement (cf. Carroll and Ratner, 1989, for an analysis of strains between labor and grassroots communal movements in response to a neo-conservative state agenda; also see Hall and Jameson, 1990). The failure of radical pluralism to deal with state power is even more pronounced in response to interstate regional alliances such as the European Economic Community or the North American Free Trade Agreement.…”

Hegemony, the Media, and New Right Politics: Ontario in the Late 1990S

“…Even in British Columbia, with its marked tradition of class politics, NR initiatives by the Social Credit government smacked initially of an immediate, short-term, crisis-management response to growing budget deficits and an economic downturn. Only later, and then on a narrower, more focused basis, did the government begin to undertake the kind of change redolent of a longer term hegemonic project (Carroll and Ratner 1989).…”

‘Pulling the Monster Down’: Interview with William K. Carroll

“…Very much so. Basically, the article that Bob Ratner and I put together as our first collaborative work came out in 1989 in Critical Sociology (Carroll and Ratner 1989)and it was on British Columbia and the development of neoliberalism in British Columbia, as a hegemonic project,the attempts to resist it and how they failed --how basically they were very conjunctural, mechanical assemblages of movements that lacked a real coherent social vision and didn't have the organizational capacity to sustain themselves over the long haul. What was happening there was not a war of position but a momentary war of manoeuvre to try to block or resist a particular state initiative, and it was not likely to succeed for that reason.…”