Why are leninists against unions?

[MetJeBrood]

Why are lenists against unions?
??

[Saorsa]

Erm, Leninists are not against trade unions. I've been a union member in every job I've ever had.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Leninists are not against unions as such. Leninists more often employ rhetoric against the 'conservative union bureacracy' and call for 'revolutionary leadership' of the unions or other tactics of communist participation in them.

It is is the communist left which is distinguished for it's opposition to unions. The justification of this position is as follows (sorry for long quotes):


In the present period of decadence of capitalist society, the union is called upon to be an essential tool in the politics of conserving capitalism, and therefore to assume the precise functions of a State organ (Internationalist Communist Party, Conference on the Trades Unions, 1947)


With the decadence of capitalism, the unions everywhere have been transformed into organs of capitalist order within the proletariat. The various forms of union organisation, whether ‘official’ or ‘rank and file’, serve only to discipline the working class and sabotage its struggles (International Communist Current (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.en.internationalism.org), Basic Positions (http://en.internationalism.org/basic-positions))


In the nineteenth century, the period of capitalism’s greatest prosperity, the working class - often through bitter and bloody struggles - built up permanent trade organisations whose role was to defend its economic interests: the trade unions. These organs played an essential role in the struggle for reforms and for the substantial improvements in the workers’ living conditions which the system could then afford. They also constituted a focus for the regroupment of the class, for the development of its solidarity and consciousness, so that revolutionaries could intervene within them and help make them serve as ‘schools for communism’. Although the existence of these organs was indissolubly linked to the existence of wage labour, and although even in this period they were often substantially bureaucratised, the unions were nevertheless authentic organs of the class to the extent that the abolition of wage labour was not yet on the historical agenda.

As capitalism entered its decadent phase it was no longer able to accord reforms and improvements in living conditions to the working class. Having lost all possibility of fulfilling their initial function of defending working class interests, and confronted with an historic situation in which only the abolition of wage labour and with it, the disappearance of trade unions, was on the agenda, the trade unions became true defenders of capitalism, agencies of the bourgeois state within the working class. This is the only way they could survive in the new period. This evolution was aided by the bureaucratisation of the unions prior to decadence and by the relentless tendency within decadence for the state to absorb all the structures of social life.

The anti-working class role of the unions was decisively demonstrated for the first time during World War I when alongside the Social Democratic parties they helped to mobilise the workers for the imperialist slaughter. In the revolutionary wave which followed the war, the unions did everything in their power to smother the proletariat’s attempts to destroy capitalism. Since then they have been kept alive not by the working class, but the capitalist state for which they fulfil a number of important functions:


actively participating in the efforts of the state to rationalise the economy, regulate the sale of labour power, and intensify exploitation;
sabotaging the class struggle from within either by derailing strikes and revolts into sectional dead-ends, or by confronting autonomous movements with open repression.

Because the unions have lost their proletarian character, they cannot be ‘reconquered by the working class’, nor can they constitute a field of activity for revolutionaries. For over half a century the workers have shown less and less interest in participating in the activities of these organs which have become an integral part of the bourgeois state. The workers’ struggles to resist the constant deterioration of their living conditions have tended to take the forms of wildcat strikes outside of and against the unions. Directed by general assemblies of strikers and, in cases where they generalise, co-ordinated by committees of delegates elected and revocable by these assemblies, these strikes have immediately placed themselves on a political terrain in that they have been forced to confront the state in the form of its representatives inside the factory: the trade unions. Only the generalisation and radicalisation of these struggles can enable the class to move from the defensive terrain to the open and frontal assault on the capitalist state; and the destruction of the bourgeois state power necessarily involves the destruction of the trade unions.

The anti-proletarian character of the old trade unions is not simply a result of the fact they are organised in a particular way (by trade, by industry), or that they had ‘bad leaders’; it is a result of the fact that in the present period the class cannot maintain permanent organisations for the defence of its economic interests. Consequently, the capitalist function of these organs also applies to all those ‘new’ organisations which play a similar role, no matter what their initial intentions. This is the case with the ‘revolutionary unions’ and ‘shop stewards’ as well as those organs (workers’ committees, worker’s commissions…) which stay in existence after a struggle - even in opposition to the unions - and try to set themselves up as ‘authentic’ poles for the defence of the workers’ immediate interests. On this basis, these organisations cannot escape from being integrated into the apparatus of the bourgeois state even in an unofficial or illegal manner.

All political strategies aimed at ‘using’, ‘regenerating’. or ‘reconquering’ trade union type organisations serve only the interests of capitalism, in that they seek to vitalise capitalist institutions which the workers have often already deserted. After more than fifty years of experience of the anti-working class character of these organisations, any position advocating such strategies is fundamentally non-proletarian. (ICC, Platform of the ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/platform))


Unions arose as negotiators of the terms of sale of workers’ labour power. Trades unions are organs of mediation between labour and capital. They are not, and have never been, useful instruments for the overthrow of capitalism. In the imperialist era the unions, regardless of their social composition, are organisations which work for the preservation of capitalism especially at the most crucial moments when it is under threat. From this it follows that it is impossible for revolutionaries to conquer the unions or to transform them into organs for revolution. Everywhere the proletarian revolution will have to fight the unions as they will be bastions of the counter-revolution. (IBRP (http://www.ibrp.org/), Platform of the IBRP (http://www.ibrp.org/en/platform))


Thesis I
It is an accomplished and irreversible fact that the trades unions are subjected and incorporated into the capitalist state. Since the first decades of this century working class experience has fully confirmed our analysis and predictions. As an integral part of the state apparatus, reduced to an essential tool for the support of the national economy and to an organic factor in the maintenance of the capitalist mode of production (operating in accordance with its laws), the trade union has completely lost even the last trappings of an intermediary and apolitical organism which, during the first years of the Third International of Lenin, still made it possible for the Party to use it as an instrument for the revolution.

The trade union arose as a tool of the working class by its bargaining over the price and conditions of employment of labour power. However, at the same time as it regulated the relationship between wage labour and capital it was inevitably destined to preserve it. The task of administering this relationship, which fundamentally supports capital’s economic base, has completely absorbed both the union organisations and the people involved in them. If, in the period of capitalism’s ascendancy there existed objective conditions and leeway to justify the union’s specific task of making contractual demands, that leeway has been progressively reduced in the imperialist monopoly epoch — to the point of having been annulled by today’s general economic crisis.

The possibility of concessions somehow favourable to the class of wage earners is definitively exhausted. Today each reform is synonymous with bourgeois attacks on the working class. The trade union could do nothing other than develop a mediating role in accordance with the survival of capital, and the passive acceptance of the workers. (IBRP, Communist Work and the Trade Unions Today (http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/1997-06-01/communist-work-and-the-trades-unions-today))

[Jimmie Higgins]

Why are lenists against unions?
??I don't think Leninists are against trade unions. I see unions as a defensive tool of workers and think it's important that radicals work with rank and file trade unionists.

I think it's bad for radicals to try and become the leadership of the union officialdom; instead, I think our job is to try and convince fellow rank and file members of the necessity of radical politics and tactics to actually win reforms and good contracts in the short-term while ultimately a revolution and full worker control is the only way to actually make industry benifit us.

I am not opposed to radical unions like the IWW either, I just don't think they should be counterposed to organizing radicals within the trade-unions as well.

I'd suggest reading "Left-wing Communism an Infintile disorder" to see what Lenin thought about trade unions and how radicals should relate to them. Lenin comes down hard on not trying to build radical unions, but I think this is due to the historical context of radicalism following the Russian Revolution.

[Hit The North]

Moved to Learning.

[Mephisto]

As was mentioned correctly by Niccolò Rossi, as Leninists we, of course, are not against trade unions, but strongly criticize the leadership of nearly every mass trade union, for they mostly developed into what Marx described as "Workers Aristocracy", which means an incrusted beaurocracy, only dedicated to it's own interests and bound to the capitalist system.

Revolutionary Marxists in the leninist tradition therefore call for a participation in the mass trade unions which aims to build up class war orientated opposition from within and, if possible, the establishment of a revolutionary leadership.



But it is important to emphasize, that revolutionary marxists do not share the anarchosyndicalists idea of building up revolutionary mass trade unions, because we think, that this is quite utopistic.

The development of the class consciousness of the proletariat is not a linear process but subordinated to the dynamic dialectics of society. It rises and falls, depending on the economic circumstances and on several other factors. Therefore Leninists see the only possibility of a revolutionary organization in the buildup of a vanguard cadre party, which gathers those around itself, who are willing to educate themselves and organize the struggles at the sharp end, even in times when most of the proletariat can't see the necessity of class war and revolution, e.g. because there may be no capitalist crisis at this point.

While trade unions, as mass organizations, necessarily follow most of this up- and downturns of the proletariats consciousness, a revolutionary vanguard party is able, although it is a minority in society, to pursue the revolutionary analysis of society, learn from the daily class struggles and keep alive all the experiences and insights of these fights as some kind of a collective memory of and for the working class. Of course it serves the class and it emerges out of it, but the relationship party-class is characterized by a special form of mutual independence.

The party can not command the class, but must convince by logical analysis and it's ability to organize the class struggles, for both better living conditions now and a socialist revolution when the time is ripe.
But as I said before as well, the party is not bound to the manifold up- and downturns of the majority of the working class and that's exactly why it is called a Vanguard Party.

[Pogue]

As was mentioned correctly by Niccolò Rossi, as Leninists we, of course, are not against trade unions, but strongly criticize the leadership of nearly every mass trade union, for they mostly developed into what Marx described as "Workers Aristocracy", which means an incrusted beaurocracy, only dedicated to it's own interests and bound to the capitalist system.

Revolutionary Marxists in the leninist tradition therefore call for a participation in the mass trade unions which aims to build up class war orientated opposition from within and, if possible, the establishment of a revolutionary leadership.



But it is important to emphasize, that revolutionary marxists do not share the anarchosyndicalists idea of building up revolutionary mass trade unions, because we think, that this is quite utopistic.

The development of the class consciousness of the proletariat is not a linear process but subordinated to the dynamic dialectics of society. It rises and falls, depending on the economic circumstances and on several other factors. Therefore Leninists see the only possibility of a revolutionary organization in the buildup of a vanguard cadre party, which gathers those around itself, who are willing to educate themselves and organize the struggles at the sharp end, even in times when most of the proletariat can't see the necessity of class war and revolution, e.g. because there may be no capitalist crisis at this point.

While trade unions, as mass organizations, necessarily follow most of this up- and downturns of the proletariats consciousness, a revolutionary vanguard party is able, although it is a minority in society, to pursue the revolutionary analysis of society, learn from the daily class struggles and keep alive all the experiences and insights of these fights as some kind of a collective memory of and for the working class. Of course it serves the class and it emerges out of it, but the relationship party-class is characterized by a special form of mutual independence.

The party can not command the class, but must convince by logical analysis and it's ability to organize the class struggles, for both better living conditions now and a socialist revolution when the time is ripe.
But as I said before as well, the party is not bound to the manifold up- and downturns of the majority of the working class and that's exactly why it is called a Vanguard Party.

Why do you think the anarcho-syndicalist vision is utopianistic? Surely the working class as a whole needs to be schooled in class struggle/running the country to lead to a mass working class run society?

[Ohnoatard]

No that's BS. Do you actually have a question? ...

[ZeroNowhere]

But it is important to emphasize, that revolutionary marxists do not share the anarchosyndicalists idea of building up revolutionary mass trade unions, because we think, that this is quite utopistic.Ahem?

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's an underrated difference between a revolutionary mass trade union, on the one hand, and syndicalist "revolutionary" unions on the other. One raises political questions (including by means of its own internal organization, like union officials on average workers' wages) and is part of the worker-class movement via ties with the party, while the other limits itself to "bread and butter" issues as a way to achieve its "One Big Union" (and is hostile to party politics).

[h0m0revolutionary]

Why do you think the anarcho-syndicalist vision is utopianistic?

Surely the working class as a whole needs to be schooled in class struggle/running the country to lead to a mass working class run society?

Disagreeing with the notion, theory and practise of anarcho-syndicalism, does not mean we do not agree that the working clas must engage in class struggle and form a classless society.

Anarcho-syndicalism fetishies the trade unions as revolutionary vehicles, capable of not only facilitating a revolutionary situation, but even offering some form of governence post-revolution.

As comrades have rightly pointed out this is not in keeping with left-communist or anarchist-communist though, but has more to do with Leninism (although you would find much more of the 'Leninist' variety taking up the highly-paid, powerless and bureaucratic positions that characterise modern trade unions).

Syndicalism is based around a notion that the unions can be reformed (although some strands call for new unions built around revolutionary lines - not unlike the IWW, which incidently has in the United States, signed no strike deals, selling out their workers) or that the unions can offer a stationary beacon of class struggle and can ignite, if not facilitate, a revolution.

This isn't a view shared by Leninists, who believe that the state itself can be reformed, or at least vital componants of it. This is shown most strikingly by Lenins complete lack of criticism of the German Social Democrats (SPD) within the International prior to the outbreak fo the war in 1914. His lack of understanding of the degeneracy of Social Democracy (in fact in 'What is to be Done' he praised the SPD for uniting the "working class movement" and "socialism") came from the fact that Germany posessed a democratic-bourgeios regime with a working class intergrated into that system. Contrast Russia which had no such system, and therefore no Parliament or Trade Unions to agitate within, for Lenin then, as with Leninists now both these bodies are open to utilise. This lead Lenin to have massive illusions with social democracy, to the extent that when he was informed of the SPD's 'war credits' in 1913, he assumed it was fake. Modern Leninists may not have illusions with Social Democratic Parties, but their illusions with Unions (and often Parliament) remains stable.

Anarcho-Communists on the other hand know full well that unions are part and parcel of capitalism, their function is to mediate between bosses and workers, and we don't feel that any body that has an aim of negotation and compromise with bosses is one which we can take seriously. Workers today have a record low level of faith in their unions, and this stems not only from their powerlessness, but from a sound recognition that unions have always been the body that stands equidistant from employer and employee seeking a deal that suits both. That is not in the interests of the workign class assuming control. That is not reovlutionary. But that is the nature of Unions.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anarcho-syndicalism fetishies the trade unions as revolutionary vehicles, capable of not only facilitating a revolutionary situation, but even offering some form of governence post-revolution.

What about "socialist industrial unionism," then?

[BTW, you should join the RevLeft Interest group Revolutionary Strategy. ;) ]


This isn't a view shared by Leninists, who believe that the state itself can be reformed, or at least vital componants of it. This is shown most strikingly by Lenins complete lack of criticism of the German Social Democrats (SPD) within the International prior to the outbreak fo the war in 1914. His lack of understanding of the degeneracy of Social Democracy (in fact in 'What is to be Done' he praised the SPD for uniting the "working class movement" and "socialism") came from the fact that Germany posessed a democratic-bourgeios regime with a working class intergrated into that system.

Even if we disagree about our positions on Lenin's profoundly true and important revolutionary centrism / "Kautskyism" (and your direct polemic against the Marx-Engels-Kautsky "merger of socialism and the worker movement" (http://books.google.com/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=lars+lih+merger+socialism+worker&source=bl&ots=5i5oanyNVm&sig=8epGt41VwVEhLMJNhqoenUweKm0&hl=en&ei=TraKSs-MHpH8tQPs6r3PDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onepage&q=&f=false)), it's very refreshing to see somebody on the other side being more historically aware of this.

[Too bad it isn't a Trotskyist. :rolleyes: ]

[Tower of Bebel]

Leninists are not against unions as such. Leninists more often employ rhetoric against the 'conservative union bureacracy' and call for 'revolutionary leadership' of the unions or other tactics of communist participation in them.This is more like a characteristic of Trotskyism than Stalinism. Communist parties of the past have sometimes set up their own trade unions next to the official trade unions. However, since Stalinism too has been the victime of severe set backs it doesn't always have the capacity to set up alternative structures, forcing it to do the same as Trotskyism always did: to organize a fight against the current trade union leadership within existing unions

[Niccolò Rossi]

I'd suggest reading "Left-wing Communism an Infintile disorder" to see what Lenin thought about trade unions and how radicals should relate to them. Lenin comes down hard on not trying to build radical unions, but I think this is due to the historical context of radicalism following the Russian Revolution.

Lenin's position on 'red' unions was not the only thing influenced by the historical context of the Russian and (more fundamentally) world revolution at the time. I would say Left-Wing Communism... as a whole needs to be read and understood as such.


No that's BS. Do you actually have a question? ...

The OP asked a serious question, even if it is confused. There is no need for rude or dismissive comments.

Instead of asking the OP whether they have a question, ask yourself whether you have a contribution to make.


This is more like a characteristic of Trotskyism than Stalinism. Communist parties of the past have sometimes set up their own trade unions next to the official trade unions. However, since Stalinism too has been the victime of severe set backs it doesn't always have the capacity to set up alternative structures, forcing it to do the same as Trotskyism always did: to organize a fight against the current trade union leadership.

Point taken. I did say 'more often' though. I realise this position is not universal. Besides, 'Leninism' is a difficult term.

[The Ungovernable Farce]

There's an underrated difference between a revolutionary mass trade union, on the one hand, and syndicalist "revolutionary" unions on the other. One raises political questions (including by means of its own internal organization, like union officials on average workers' wages) and is part of the worker-class movement via ties with the party, while the other limits itself to "bread and butter" issues as a way to achieve its "One Big Union" (and is hostile to party politics).
Surely any functioning trade union should be "part of the worker-class movement via" having a membership made up of workers fighting for their class interests, party or no party?

[Niccolò Rossi]

Surely any functioning trade union should be "part of the worker-class movement via" having a membership made up of workers fighting for their class interests, party or no party?

I'm confused by this comment.

Certainly you agree with the concept of a political left-wing of capital, alien from the workers movement but posing as part of it. The membership of an organisation (whether it be a union or party) does not determine it's class nature. If this was the case we would have to accept various labour, liberal and even fascist parties as being part of the workers' movement.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Surely any functioning trade union should be "part of the worker-class movement via" having a membership made up of workers fighting for their class interests, party or no party?

Define "fighting for their class interests."

"Every class struggle is a political struggle." For an example of what syndicalist "revolutionary" unions can't fight for, please read my blog on Participatory Democracy, Demarchy, and Class Issues. There's also a minimum program in this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-democracy-t112457/index.html

[The Ungovernable Farce]

I'm confused by this comment.

Certainly you agree with the concept of a political left-wing of capital, alien from the workers movement but posing as part of it. The membership of an organisation (whether it be a union or party) does not determine it's class nature. If this was the case we would have to accept various labour, liberal and even fascist parties as being part of the workers' movement.
Yeah, I agree with that. I was just responding to Richter's bizarre assertion that the socialist industrial union would be "part of the worker-class movement via ties with the party" and not in its own right.

[JJM 777]

(sorry for long quotes):
You should rather be sorry for not mentioning the quoted source.


The trade union arose as a tool of the working class by its bargaining over the price and conditions of employment of labour power. However,

... however, trade unions are competing with each other in a Capitalist manner, each trade union seeking to maximize their own salaries and benefits. This is not much different from any other Capitalist pursuit in the society.

The basic idea of trade unions is good: workers united to protect each other from exploitation of the employers.

What has gone wrong is the fact that we have a multitude of trade unions competing against each other, instead of having only one workers' union seeking equal protection and benefits to all workers. This is the basic contradiction between Socialism and trade unionism: in Socialism the goal is equality to all people, in trade unionism the goal is maximizing the salary and benefits of their own small group, without caring what happens to others in the society.