Certain anarchists against unions?

[Veg_Athei_Socialist]

I read somewhere that insurrectionary anarchists don't believe in unions, is this true? Could someone please explain this position?

[BIG BROTHER]

Basically their analysis of Unions is that this are bureaucratic institutions that play a reactionary role in the class struggle and keep workers from revolting against capitalism.

They are right in the fact that many Unions have a right-wing leadership, burocratic, but were they are wrong is in their conclusion. Unions are organic workers organizations that arose in the struggle against capital. The reason why capitalist work to buy them off is because of the power they have when they act.

Unless its completely reactionary I think any decent organizer should strike to change the leadership of Unions rather than ignoring them.

[Paulappaul]

Unions are organic workers organizations that arose in the struggle against capital. The reason why capitalist work to buy them off is because of the power they have when they act.Wildcat Strikes are organic workers' operations. Trade Unions are not. Workers' align with them and they in effect "trade and negotiate". They don't raise the level of consciousness of the workers, the workers had class consciousness in going to a Union, not being in one. Unions just subdue movements.


Unless its completely reactionary I think any decent organizer should strike to change the leadership of Unions rather than ignoring them.

It's more then just leadership, it's the fact that unions in themselves are incapable of being revolutionary. Workers' should instead create their own means of organizations, as they have always done.

[BIG BROTHER]

Wildcat Strikes are organic workers' operations. Trade Unions are not. Workers' align with them and they in effect "trade and negotiate". They don't raise the level of consciousness of the workers, the workers had class consciousness in going to a Union, not being in one. Unions just subdue movements.





It's more then just leadership, it's the fact that unions in themselves are incapable of being revolutionary. Workers' should instead create their own means of organizations, as they have always done.

Unions are and organic product of the working class because its when the workers organize themselves on class bases to defend their interests.

Its stupid to think only wildcat strikes are organic product of the proletariat. So if after a wild cat strike the workers decide to organize into a Union to keep on organizing strikes and fight for their interests they are not longer organic?

This type of reactionary idea is pretty anti-revolutionary. You are basically telling the proletariat to give up one of their major ways of fighting back against capital.

That being said it is true that most Unions do not raise worker's conciousnes on its own. Its the worker's experiences that radicalizes them. Also this process requires a vanguard (or whatever you wanna call it)

May 68
10 million workers ended up going on strike, the country was nearly paralized and a revolutionary situation had developed. It was thanks to the leadership of the communist party and the right-wing union leadership that the proletariat did not take power. This is an example of how crucial Unions are. Had a Revolutionary group being able to either take leadership of the Unions and/or pressured the Union burocracy, to take the power France would have had a succesful worker's revolution.

Another case is the CNT the anarcho-syndicalist union of Spain, this one literally lead a revolution, now the outcome of the revolution was a defeat which I blame on the anarchist ideology itself, but that is not the point of my argument here. The point is that it was a Union which along with the FAI and the POUM organized a revolution. Or was organization not an organic part of the working class because they didn't all have wild cat strikes?

It is true that most Unions now days have a reactionary leadership, which makes it even more important for revolutionaries to fight for Union democracy and militancy. This Ultra-leftist attitude that Unions in of itself are reactionary is damaging and will not lead to a revolution. I am not arguing however that as a revolution develops Unions are no longer satisfying to all the needs of a workers society and the revolution, new institutions and organizations will grow. An example of this would be factory committees to control the economy, worker's councils or soviets, etc.

[#FF0000]

Unions are and organic product of the working class because its when the workers organize themselves on class bases to defend their interests.Except that unions don't always operate in the interests of the workers. in New York City, a huge transit worker's strike was broken up by the union after it declared it was illegal. And what about in France? Did the strikes stop because the workers gave up, or because the Unions did?

At this point, I don't see much "revolutionary potential" in workers unions. If anything, they're crucial if you want to hold on to any sort of decent living and benefits, but even then it's hard to rely on them.

[Paulappaul]

Unions are and organic product of the working class because its when the workers organize themselves on class bases to defend their interests.


Its stupid to think only wildcat strikes are organic product of the proletariat. So if after a wild cat strike the workers decide to organize into a Union to keep on organizing strikes and fight for their interests they are not longer organic?

Here's how Unionism works. On one hand you can have a workplace which is already unionized and when there is a problem, a worker simply brings it up with the trade union and the trade union goes to the Capitalist on the bases of: Trade and Negotiate.

On the other hand, Workers' can in an argument with Management, vote to either get in with an existing Union, say for example, a carpenters union, and negotiate with management.

Or they can form a Strike Committee of their own. Now Wildcat Strikes create permanent workers' unions. They aren't usually disbanded right after the Strikes over. So No I am not railing aganist organization. I railing against the difference between a Strike Committee, and the combination of it into Workers' Unions and Workers' Councils and the Trade Unions like the AFL - CIO.



May 68
10 million workers ended up going on strike, the country was nearly paralized and a revolutionary situation had developed. It was thanks to the leadership of the communist party and the right-wing union leadership that the proletariat did not take power. This is an example of how crucial Unions are. Had a Revolutionary group being able to either take leadership of the Unions and/or pressured the Union burocracy, to take the power France would have had a succesful worker's revolution.

No. How do you define a "Vanguard"? The Communist Party thought they were the Vanguard. They thought they were fighting for the Working Class. Really, as we've seen the Unions and Parties supposedly with Organic ties to the Working Class, were uh, guess what? Domesticated by the Communist Party and Unions.




That being said it is true that most Unions do not raise worker's conciousnes on its own. Its the worker's experiences that radicalizes them. Also this process requires a vanguard (or whatever you wanna call it)

Huh? What? So wait. Let me get this straight. Workers need practical experience and they get that not from fighting, but from a Vanguard?

Workers become class conscious, autonomous and "vanguardistic" in leading and learning from their struggles.

Much like how Revolutionaries can solidify their own theories in the form of practice.


Another case is the CNT the anarcho-syndicalist union of Spain, this one literally lead a revolution, now the outcome of the revolution was a defeat which I blame on the anarchist ideology itself, but that is not the point of my argument here. The point is that it was a Union which along with the FAI and the POUM organized a revolution. Or was organization not an organic part of the working class because they didn't all have wild cat strikes?

It's worth noting that the CNT isn't like any American Trade Unions. Syndicalism is alot different than American Trade Unionism. The CNT-FAI was more then just a Union. It was very Political as well. The failure wasn't furthermore, from the Anarchist Idelogy, but from dipshit Vanguardists, who domesticated the whole movement. If anything, the FAI keep the movement organic to its principles. I guess you could say that was the true "vanguard".


It is true that most Unions now days have a reactionary leadership, which makes it even more important for revolutionaries to fight for Union democracy and militancy.

Unions are what they are. Much like the Government is what it is. Socialists entering government they do under its rules and in its form. In that way, Socialists become a part of the government and insomuch, a part of Bourgeois society.

Now, lets look at the internal makeup of Unions. First of all lets get the basics, its existence represents the a comprise between labor and capital. It rejects political struggle and has a neutrality relationship with Parties or Political organizations. They put up as their goal, not victory, but agreement. Not Control of the workplace by the workers' themselves.

And what is the role of the worker in a Union? To pay dues and carry out orders. Bourgeois institutions are characterized in they are comprised of paid officials and a centralised bureaucracy. They have congress', parliaments, presidents, etc. Look at Richard Trumka, good ol' president of the AFL - CIO. Does that look like your ordinary working class man? Or a member of a large corporation of executives, officials, secretaries, commanding over a large membership of willess puppets?

Frankly, I don't see much in Reformism. Seems to me Unions don't work. And while they may rise organically and in working class interests, they had in them, the failures which lead to Institutionalism as an organ of Bourgeois Control. How about this. How about in a country where the mass of workers are not Unionised, how about instead of reforming the unions, we assist in the creation of authentic workers' organizations?


This Ultra-leftist attitude that Unions in of itself are reactionary is damaging and will not lead to a revolution.

Ohh geez :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

May 68
10 million workers ended up going on strike, the country was nearly paralized and a revolutionary situation had developed. It was thanks to the leadership of the communist party and the right-wing union leadership that the proletariat did not take power. This is an example of how crucial Unions are. Had a Revolutionary group being able to either take leadership of the Unions and/or pressured the Union burocracy, to take the power France would have had a succesful worker's revolution.

or if they hadn't had unions to tell them to stop striking...

[BIG BROTHER]

Here's how Unionism works. On one hand you can have a workplace which is already unionized and when there is a problem, a worker simply brings it up with the trade union and the trade union goes to the Capitalist on the bases of: Trade and Negotiate.

On the other hand, Workers' can in an argument with Management, vote to either get in with an existing Union, say for example, a carpenters union, and negotiate with management.

Or they can form a Strike Committee of their own. Now Wildcat Strikes create permanent workers' unions. They aren't usually disbanded right after the Strikes over. So No I am not railing aganist organization. I railing against the difference between a Strike Committee, and the combination of it into Workers' Unions and Workers' Councils and the Trade Unions like the AFL - CIO.

This is a form of a strawman argument.

Of course there is a problem when Unions have a right-wing leadership and/or they are burocratic and lack democracy and thus also a militant membership.




No. How do you define a "Vanguard"? The Communist Party thought they were the Vanguard. They thought they were fighting for the Working Class. Really, as we've seen the Unions and Parties supposedly with Organic ties to the Working Class, were uh, guess what? Domesticated by the Communist Party and Unions.

WTF is "Domesticated" and yes a lot of groups claim to represent the working class and they don't

A Vanguard is a group of people whose conciousnes has develop and understand the need to overthrow capitalism and establish communism/anarchist (whatever you want to call it)

If you (I assume an anarchist?) organize with other people to let say organize a strike, stage a demonstration, tell workers that only wildcat strikes are organic to them, etc you are being a vanguard. One with failed ideology in my opinion but nevertheless a vanguard.



Huh? What? So wait. Let me get this straight. Workers need practical experience and they get that not from fighting, but from a Vanguard?

Workers become class conscious, autonomous and "vanguardistic" in leading and learning from their struggles.

Much like how Revolutionaries can solidify their own theories in the form of practice.

You did not understand me. I already explained what a vanguard is and agree with what you said about how workers become class conscious, nevertheless a vanguard also provides a perspective and information. They both play a role, although personal experience usually achieves more than what 1000 newspapers, conferences, etc could...


It's worth noting that the CNT isn't like any American Trade Unions. Syndicalism is alot different than American Trade Unionism. The CNT-FAI was more then just a Union. It was very Political as well. The failure wasn't furthermore, from the Anarchist Idelogy, but from dipshit Vanguardists, who domesticated the whole movement. If anything, the FAI keep the movement organic to its principles. I guess you could say that was the true "vanguard".

Yes the CNT was a lot different which is why I point out that the problems are not unions themselves, but the right-wing leadership, burocracy, lack of democracy, lack of militancy, etc


Unions are what they are. Much like the Government is what it is. Socialists entering government they do under its rules and in its form. In that way, Socialists become a part of the government and insomuch, a part of Bourgeois society.

That is very simplistic, you can't say the class struggle is the same in Bolivia or Venezuela vs lets say the US because even though they both have bourgoise goverments in the Bolivarian nations you have political parties that were put in power due to the mass movement behind them.

This goverments and the class struggle there is not simplistic as you put it and is a lot more complex. Just like its reactionary lets say that Hugo Chavez has a top down aproach to his reforms, the coup against him was also reactionary but at a whole different level.

^btw I know this is random its just and example of how you can just simply a situation, you have to take into account the classes when you analyse politics.

And also didn't you just say that the CNT wasn't anything like US Unions? So I guess the thing isn't so simple huh?




Now, lets look at the internal makeup of Unions. First of all lets get the basics, its existence represents the a comprise between labor and capital. It rejects political struggle and has a neutrality relationship with Parties or Political organizations. They put up as their goal, not victory, but agreement. Not Control of the workplace by the workers' themselves.

No, Unions are the expression of the working class, conciously fighting against capital as a class. For you and me know that the proletariat and the capital have nothing in common.

That being said is the burocracy that seeks to act as a compromiser and sells out the workers, very much the same way the burocracy of the USSR did.

And are you saying that unless all unions have the imediate goal of overthrowing capitalism (which wouldn't be bad and the IWW actually did try and/or tries?) then they are neutral in the class struggle? capitalist certantly don't think so, and that is why they spend so much time trying to subert the Union movement.


And what is the role of the worker in a Union? To pay dues and carry out orders. Bourgeois institutions are characterized in they are comprised of paid officials and a centralised bureaucracy. They have congress', parliaments, presidents, etc. Look at Richard Trumka, good ol' president of the AFL - CIO. Does that look like your ordinary working class man? Or a member of a large corporation of executives, officials, secretaries, commanding over a large membership of willess puppets?

Again I don't disagree with you with the fact that this layer of burocracts are a bunch of leeches that have to go away, who are reactionary and have tied down labor and given it to the bourgoise....

The problem I have with the idea you are representing is that this means Unions all together should be ignored.

In other words it seems like you are ok with letting the burocrats keep control over union and ensuring they are the organizations that compromise with capital and screw prevent the proletariat from fighting for its own interets.


Frankly, I don't see much in Reformism. Seems to me Unions don't work. And while they may rise organically and in working class interests, they had in them, the failures which lead to Institutionalism as an organ of Bourgeois Control. How about this. How about in a country where the mass of workers are not Unionised, how about instead of reforming the unions, we assist in the creation of authentic workers' organizations?

Of course there is need for different types of workers organizations as I mentioned before, Unions are limited in what they can offer in a revolutionary society, they are just like a trampoline to push off.

In the current situation in the US Unions are still a priority, last year they mobilized people....to vote for the democrats. This shows both the preasure of its memebership to push for mobilizations but also the how futile this is until the labor movement doesn't break with the democrats(and in other countries would be with bourgosie parties) and seeks an independent political expression, such as forming its own labor party.

Now lets say a Revolution happened in the US and workers responded with forming workplace committees, workers councils, etc which efectibelly mobilized the proletariat and was its organic expression. In this case focuzing on burocratic right-wing unions wouldn't be the main priority and depending on how strong the worker's councils were then Union work could be completly skipped.

However as experience has shown for example in the Russian revolution even the Unions as weak as they were played a role in the revolution and became radicalize. However as you may notice too, it was the Soviets and the factory committees the ones that led the revolution.






This Ultra-leftist attitude that Unions in of itself are reactionary is damaging and will not lead to a revolution.

Ohh geez :rolleyes:

The truth hurts. I mean really give me an example were this ultra-leftist approach has successfully resulted in the overthrow of capitalism and established a whatever you wanna call it worker's society.

[BIG BROTHER]

or if they hadn't had unions to tell them to stop striking...

which is my point... thank you! that is why you can't ignore unions, had some revolutionary group successfully interviewed in the unions the revolution wouldn't have been butchered.

[bcbm]

i think you missed the point.

and if your revolution can be stopped by the words of some union bosses, well...

[BIG BROTHER]

i think you missed the point.

and if your revolution can be stopped by the words of some union bosses, well...

The Russian revolution was put in danger by the reformism of the Mensheviks and a near revolution was stopped by the CP of france and the union leadership...I believe history proves me right...

Of course that in the former case the Revolutionary party, was able to overcome such obstacle.

[bcbm]

indeed, history does prove you right. listening to bosses gets you a very good chance of being betrayed by said bosses.

[BIG BROTHER]

indeed, history does prove you right. listening to bosses gets you a very good chance of being betrayed by said bosses.

I'm glad we both could agree on something.

[bcbm]

not sure how you get the solution "try a different boss" tho

[BIG BROTHER]

not sure how you get the solution "try a different boss" tho

I guess if in your word the working class is unable to organize democratic organizations and/or unions then yea we are fucked because everyone will be a "different boss"

[bcbm]

wasn't aware unions are the only form of organizing that exist

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Look into the SEIU's role in the P-9 Hormel Strike, Trumka and the UMWA's role during strikes in the US coalfields, the international's role in the NYC transit strike of 2005, the UAW's stake in the auto manufacturers, the role of the unions in France in May 1968, etc.

[BIG BROTHER]

wasn't aware unions are the only form of organizing that exist

Wasn't aware I was ever arguing that. I believe I did mention other forms of organization...

And I guess I should go tell my comrades in Mexico to tell the SME, the miners union and the teachers of Oaxaca section(local) 22n to disband their organizations?

[bcbm]

well we were talking about unions specifically, not sure why you threw in "democratic organizations" in that one post.

if their unions have bosses that can tell them all to go back to work i would say you should probably pass on that advice. if not, well, i'd say "be wary" all the same


I mean really give me an example were this ultra-leftist approach has successfully resulted in the overthrow of capitalism and established a whatever you wanna call it worker's society.missed this earlier... no approach has successfully resulted in this end so this isn't an argument.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I don't normally bother replying to this kind of stuff anymore, but I'm going to this time.


Unions are and organic product of the working class because its when the workers organize themselves on class bases to defend their interests.

During the 19th Century I think this is a perfectly legitimate argument. Of course, we don't live in the 19th Century any more.

In the modern epoch, the epoch of social revolution, the form appropriate to workers' struggle and the form it has assumed time and time again is the soviet/workers' council. This was the lesson of 1905 and 1917.


Its stupid to think only wildcat strikes are organic product of the proletariat. So if after a wild cat strike the workers decide to organize into a Union to keep on organizing strikes and fight for their interests they are not longer organic?

More or less your getting it. This process of formalisation of workers' self-organisations faced with the decline of the struggle represents an attempt to continue the struggle where the basis no longer exists for it. There are lots of examples we can cite where well intentioned minorities seek to perpetuate the struggle through this process of formalisation and merely end up full-filling the same policing role of all unions because the basis for their existance has evaporated.


You are basically telling the proletariat to give up one of their major ways of fighting back against capital.

But have the unions ever been a means of fighting against capital? I would argue that unions have always been organs of combat on the terrain of capital. The purpose of the union is the struggle for a change in the allocation of the proportions of surplus-value. Communism on the other hand is the struggle against value.

Nic.

[ComradeOm]

You get revolutionary unions in revolutionary times. It would be quite strange if this were not the case. And for every May 1968 there are plenty of examples of unions playing a revolutionary role. Which brings me nicely onto the below...


In the modern epoch, the epoch of social revolution, the form appropriate to workers' struggle and the form it has assumed time and time again is the soviet/workers' council. This was the lesson of 1905 and 1917So now we're whitewashing the unions from the histories of these revolutions? In both 1905 and 1917 the trade union movement played significant roles. This was particularly the case in 1917 where it emerged as one of the strongest and most radical advocates of revolutionary social change. Unions were calling for a transfer of power to the Soviet long before the actual soviets got around to doing so. IMO 1917 represents a perfect example of the key role of the union - the unparalleled ability to mobilise and radicalise significant numbers of workers on a national level

[Paulappaul]

WTF is "Domesticated" and yes a lot of groups claim to represent the working class and they don't

It's a historical term. In revolutionary periods domestication means removing the radical ideas from a revolutionary class - Ex. The Tendency of so called Vanguards.


A Vanguard is a group of people whose conciousnes has develop and understand the need to overthrow capitalism and establish communism/anarchist (whatever you want to call it)


So anybody is a Vanguard? Me and my comrades are a Vanguard?



If you (I assume an anarchist?)

I'm a Marxist and Communist.


organize with other people to let say organize a strike, stage a demonstration, tell workers that only wildcat strikes are organic to them, etc you are being a vanguard. One with failed ideology in my opinion but nevertheless a vanguard.

A calling for a Wildcat Strike, is different from organizing one. The later is the approach of a Vanguard.


Yes the CNT was a lot different which is why I point out that the problems are not unions themselves, but the right-wing leadership, burocracy, lack of democracy, lack of militancy, etc

You're an idoit. Syndicalism and the CNT's organization IS COMPLETELY different from American Unions. It's not Right-Wing Leadership or whatever bullshit, its the fact that the Structure is completely different.


That is very simplistic, you can't say the class struggle is the same in Bolivia or Venezuela vs lets say the US because even though they both have bourgoise goverments in the Bolivarian nations you have political parties that were put in power due to the mass movement behind them.

This goverments and the class struggle there is not simplistic as you put it and is a lot more complex. Just like its reactionary lets say that Hugo Chavez has a top down aproach to his reforms, the coup against him was also reactionary but at a whole different level.

^btw I know this is random its just and example of how you can just simply a situation, you have to take into account the classes when you analyse politics.

Thanks Professor. How about you get on that boat and explain to me how Complex Venezuela is!

But then again, we're talking about America. And then again, I really don't care to write a 500 page paper for you anaylisising classes and the role they play in Government and as a Revolutionary class that capitulates to reforms.


No, Unions are the expression of the working class, conciously fighting against capital as a class. For you and me know that the proletariat and the capital have nothing in common.

No. Trade Unions aren't revolutionary. In their conception they want reforms. They want to mediate the interests between Capital and Labor, not overthrow one. They aren't fighting capital as a class, they are fighting their personal masters. This is why Marx never laid any stress on the union form like he did the Party form. Because the later fought the Bourgeois as a class.


That being said is the burocracy that seeks to act as a compromiser and sells out the workers, very much the same way the burocracy of the USSR did.


Are you in a Union? Hell I see the I.W.W. without a bureaucracy capitulate to reforms.


And are you saying that unless all unions have the imediate goal of overthrowing capitalism (which wouldn't be bad and the IWW actually did try and/or tries?) then they are neutral in the class struggle? capitalist certantly don't think so, and that is why they spend so much time trying to subert the Union movement.

A Capitalist relation with unions is a tool fold manner. First a Capitalist hates unions as you say. It hates giving higher wages, better working conditions, etc. Second the Capitalist loves Unions. In any modern mass revolutionary period, unions are always their en mass to subdue the organic struggles of the working class. May 68, Italy's Hot Autumn, etc.

Yes Unions are neutral.


The problem I have with the idea you are representing is that this means Unions all together should be ignored.

In other words it seems like you are ok with letting the burocrats keep control over union and ensuring they are the organizations that compromise with capital and screw prevent the proletariat from fighting for its own interets.

And like I said, the Union is what it is. Its organization is built in with the ability to become a bureaucratic organization. Its existence its history, since its conception has been not for revolution but to mediate Capital and Labor.

I'm out of time, I will get to more stuff later.

[Comrade_Stalin]

I read somewhere that insurrectionary anarchists don't believe in unions, is this true? Could someone please explain this position?

Yes, They don't believe in unions and it is for the following reason.


Basically their analysis of Unions is that this are bureaucratic institutions that play a reactionary role in the class struggle and keep workers from revolting against capitalism.



This is also the reason why anarchists are NOT communist.




So now we're whitewashing the unions from the histories of these revolutions? In both 1905 and 1917 the trade union movement played significant roles. This was particularly the case in 1917 where it emerged as one of the strongest and most radical advocates of revolutionary social change. Unions were calling for a transfer of power to the Soviet long before the actual soviets got around to doing so. IMO 1917 represents a perfect example of the key role of the union - the unparalleled ability to mobilise and radicalise significant numbers of workers on a national level

We must also not for get that there are a lot of non-union groups that call themselfs unions. Credit Unions for example are banks with a unions labels when normal banks are ssen as bad. There are also some anarchists party taht call themselfs unions, which leads to the ideal that some anarchists support "good unions".



I'm a Marxist and Communist.



No you are a "Council communists" which means that you are a anarchist playing the "I'm a Marxist and Communist." card. You wish for every thing to be run by a council, but no representatives. This is no different then anarchist who are against the party, unions and representatives. So you are a anarchist, you are just labeling yourself a Marxist and Communist.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1. Did an internet-Stalinoid just bust out "You're not a real Marxist!"?
2. As far as the question of unions go, it's all well and good to try and talk about the character of unions as an abstract idea, and say, "Look! 1917! They played an important role!" or "1968! They were worthless sellouts!" but in either case, it's more valuable to talk about actually existing unions. I could maybe tolerate an argument to the effect that the IWW,, or similar projects represent useful means of finding one another, and self-organizing in spite of negotiating with capital, but to try and defend most unions as anything other than parasitic collaborationist shit is . . . well, you'd have to be stupid.

[NoOneIsIllegal]

Comrade Stalin: stop trolling

A modern example of Anarchists opposed to unions is the Anarchist Federation of the U.K. From their website:

Unions also work as a part of the capitalist system, so although workers struggle within them, they will be unable to bring about capitalism's destruction unless they go beyond these limits.
That's a pretty big "unless". Is this a poke at hinting they support revolutionary unions or not? I was under the impression they frowned upon all unions, syndicalist or moderate.

[StalinFanboy]

unions arose as organic worker responses to specific material and historical conditions that many first world nations are no longer in. This applies especially to the United States and other nations where industry is outsourced to third world countries. The United States specifically (as that's where I'm from) has a very small industrial proletariat and the majority of the working class has casualized jobs that are very hard/impossible/impractical to unionize.

On top of that, all unions even supposed radical ones like the IWW are no longer confrontational organizations, but merely act as a mediator between the workers and the bosses. And they always work towards a middle ground compromise that benefits the bosses as much if not more than it does the workers. As far as I know, all unions also have used no-strike agreements in many workplaces. Unions are very much entrenched in capitalism, and with some union bosses making significantly more money than their rank-n-file, their interests do not lie in revolution. It's not a matter of "ignoring" unions, but understanding their current counter-revolutionary role.

[StalinFanboy]

Yes, They don't believe in unions and it is for the following reason.



This is also the reason why anarchists are NOT communist.



We must also not for get that there are a lot of non-union groups that call themselfs unions. Credit Unions for example are banks with a unions labels when normal banks are ssen as bad. There are also some anarchists party taht call themselfs unions, which leads to the ideal that some anarchists support "good unions".



No you are a "Council communists" which means that you are a anarchist playing the "I'm a Marxist and Communist." card. You wish for every thing to be run by a council, but no representatives. This is no different then anarchist who are against the party, unions and representatives. So you are a anarchist, you are just labeling yourself a Marxist and Communist.

I'm not surprised that someone with stalin in their name would be under the impression that we are in the same material and historical phase as we were 80 years ago.

[Zanthorus]

I'm not surprised that someone with stalin in their name would be under the impression that we are in the same material and historical phase as we were 80 years ago.

Well, if we understand material conditions in the sense of Marx, to mean not simply the natural conditions of material production but the social relations of production, and if we understand that it is not enough to, in the manner of vulgar economy, merely examine the surface appearance of capital, but to examine beneath this phenomenal reality to the underlying social relations, which are the same in every form of capitalist society despite outward appearances, then yes we are in the same 'material phase' as we were eighty years ago. Unions have never been revolutionary instruments. They are organisations which decrease competition between workers in a particular trade sector in order to raise wage levels. Their particular merit was in demonstrating that the interests of the working-class can only be pushed forward by workers organising collectively, but the specific union form is not revolutionary. The working-class is revolutionary to the extent that it generalises it's natural capacity for collective organisation into an organisation of the class as a whole directed against capital, that is to say, it is revolutionary to the extent that it's union is not that of a particular trade or industrial sector, but a general union of the working-class as a whole, a political party based on individual membership. In places where unions have been revolutionary, it has been to the extent to which they acted not as trade-unions but as part of a broader political movement of the class.

[Wanted Man]

You get revolutionary unions in revolutionary times. It would be quite strange if this were not the case. And for every May 1968 there are plenty of examples of unions playing a revolutionary role. Which brings me nicely onto the below...

So now we're whitewashing the unions from the histories of these revolutions? In both 1905 and 1917 the trade union movement played significant roles. This was particularly the case in 1917 where it emerged as one of the strongest and most radical advocates of revolutionary social change. Unions were calling for a transfer of power to the Soviet long before the actual soviets got around to doing so. IMO 1917 represents a perfect example of the key role of the union - the unparalleled ability to mobilise and radicalise significant numbers of workers on a national level

This, basically. When people here talk about whether X is "progressive or reactionary", those are basically just substitute words for "good or bad". When of course the simplest answer as to the role that unions take is that it depends.

The anti-union argument here is basically that many major unions in the west are currently of the service-model or polder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poldermodel) variety, whose leadership exist to co-opt and misdirect the workers' struggle, and that unions are therefore bad. But of course that doesn't say anything about workers' unions, it says all about the situation of class struggle in many western countries.

In any case, I haven't seen much of an alternative from 100% anti-union people here. How do they intend to organise effectively without unions? What you usually get here is an incredibly vague story about how, "And then the workers will all rise up, form Soviets and everything will be good." Then when you say that this is vague, the follow-up will be along the lines of, "What, don't you trust workers to do what's right?" :rolleyes:

[Paulappaul]

No you are a "Council communists" which means that you are a anarchist playing the "I'm a Marxist and Communist." card. You wish for every thing to be run by a council, but no representatives. This is no different then anarchist who are against the party, unions and representatives. So you are a anarchist, you are just labeling yourself a Marxist and Communist.

Marx didn't believe in representatives. He believed in Delegates. Remember, Stalin isn't Marx :rolleyes:

[TC]

Well, unions are hierarchical, typically centralized, formally organized and run by majoritarian voting not consensus, and impose terms and decisions on a workplace despite certain unwilling workers (in fact even a minority can impose decisions since the balance between people voting against the voting majority and people who choose not to vote or participate in the union at all may constitute a majority).

There is no (superficial) contradiction between being an anarchist in the sense of opposing the state while supporting unions, but it seems to me that unions are, organizationally, not that friendly to typical anarchist principles.

[black magick hustla]

T
In any case, I haven't seen much of an alternative from 100% anti-union people here. How do they intend to organise effectively without unions? What you usually get here is an incredibly vague story about how, "And then the workers will all rise up, form Soviets and everything will be good." Then when you say that this is vague, the follow-up will be along the lines of, "What, don't you trust workers to do what's right?" :rolleyes:

do you realize most people dont go to union meetings and that the fuckers you see in those lil rooms are all either cadre of front groups or people who has made it in a career? in the contrary, i think people overestimate how much union members give a fuck about union culture. idk man some marxists make it seem as if the union is the life of unionized workers. one of the most crippling strikes the us ever had, the 1970s postal worker strike, was a wildcat strike btw

[black magick hustla]

Well, unions are hierarchical, typically centralized, formally organized and run by majoritarian voting not consensus, and impose terms and decisions on a workplace despite certain unwilling workers (in fact even a minority can impose decisions since the balance between people voting against the voting majority and people who choose not to vote or participate in the union at all may constitute a majority).

There is no (superficial) contradiction between being an anarchist in the sense of opposing the state while supporting unions, but it seems to me that unions are, organizationally, not that friendly to typical anarchist principles.

not all anarchists model themselves around consensus voting. the biggest international anarchist organization, the IWA-AIT, is a centralized organization that runs by voting. consensus voting is dumb anyway and it usually ends up with white male nerds dominating

[BIG BROTHER]

It's a historical term. In revolutionary periods domestication means removing the radical ideas from a revolutionary class - Ex. The Tendency of so called Vanguards.


You mean like the Bosheviks? Oh wait no...they lead a successful revolution...

A real vanguard is characterized by its actions, by being able push the class struggle forward.



So anybody is a Vanguard? Me and my comrades are a Vanguard?

If you and your comrades are are fighting for the revolution yes.

If you and your friends only talk about revolution but never amount to anything or play a reactionary role then no, you are not being a vanguard.



I'm a Marxist and Communist.

if you say so :rolleyes:




A calling for a Wildcat Strike, is different from organizing one. The later is the approach of a Vanguard.


Oh so its bad for workers to organize a strike? The only legitimate strike is one that is spontaneous? The only real aproach to a worker's strike is one person yelling "Hey lets stirke!" and hope everyone follows? is that what you are saying? I

That is a very reactionary idea, lack of organization results in defeats.



You're an idoit. Syndicalism and the CNT's organization IS COMPLETELY different from American Unions. It's not Right-Wing Leadership or whatever bullshit, its the fact that the Structure is completely different.


I'm not an idiot. I do know and said that yea the CNT and the majority of Unions in the US are different. This shows that Unions are not reactionary in of itself but the structure, leadership, way its run, etc is what makes a Union play a revolutionary or reactionary role.



Thanks Professor. How about you get on that boat and explain to me how Complex Venezuela is!

But then again, we're talking about America. And then again, I really don't care to write a 500 page paper for you anaylisising classes and the role they play in Government and as a Revolutionary class that capitulates to reforms.

Not analyzing situations usually leads to making bad decisions. Are you arguing that any situation in the class struggle should be just taken at face value without deeply discussing and analyzing it?

And America is a continent not a country btw ;-)

I guess this is one of the reasons then why your kind is completely irrelevant to the proletariat.



No. Trade Unions aren't revolutionary. In their conception they want reforms. They want to mediate the interests between Capital and Labor, not overthrow one. They aren't fighting capital as a class, they are fighting their personal masters. This is why Marx never laid any stress on the union form like he did the Party form. Because the later fought the Bourgeois as a class.


So fighting for reforms is reactionary then?

I'm sure you agree with me that the proletariat is revolutionary as a class even though most of them start with only demanding reforms and is not until class struggle moves successfully and reaches its highest pick that the majority of the proletariat demands to take power.

So are Unions revolutionary in their nature because they are a fighting organization of the working class. Its a manifestation of their fight against capital.

In this age of decadent capitalism, when the bourgoise are rolling back all the past gains of the working class even the most basic reforms contradict the capitalis system.

And yes this does not mean that only trough unions you will have a Revolution, Revolutionary and mass worker's party is needed too.



Are you in a Union? Hell I see the I.W.W. without a bureaucracy capitulate to reforms.

No I'm not in a Union, my status in this country makes it nearly impossible for me to get a union job. So the IWW is reactionary because in all strikes an actions they don't demand an immediate end to capitalism?

As long as capitalism exists I'm sure in all worker's organizations there will be certain amount of burocrats. Only the complete victory of the working class over capitalism and the withering of classes will destroy this reactionary breed.



A Capitalist relation with unions is a tool fold manner. First a Capitalist hates unions as you say. It hates giving higher wages, better working conditions, etc. Second the Capitalist loves Unions. In any modern mass revolutionary period, unions are always their en mass to subdue the organic struggles of the working class. May 68, Italy's Hot Autumn, etc.

No, capitalists do not love Unions....but they realize unlike you the power they have. That is why they put so much effort into controlling them, corrupting their leadership, etc

May 68 is actually a perfect example of my position.

The Unions played a huge leading role in the general strike, wich gave the proletariat the chance to sieze power. Yet at the same time the leadership let power slip away and it DID play a reactionary role.

Had a Revolutionary party being in that situation its role would have been to push the proletariat to seize power. This could have been done in different ways, it would have been relatively easy to take leadership of the Unions, or pressuring them to take power.

The lesson of May 68 is not that Unions are "bad" or "reactionary" but that a Revolutionary party is needed to carry the revolution forward.



Yes Unions are neutral.

They are an fighting organization of the proletariat. The proletariat as a class is no neutral against capitalism. So no, they are not neutral. In any case boss controlled Unions, burocratic ones are reactionary because they don't have worker's democracy which prevents them from performing their natural function.




And like I said, the Union is what it is. Its organization is built in with the ability to become a bureaucratic organization. Its existence its history, since its conception has been not for revolution but to mediate Capital and Labor.

Can you give a more redundant statement.... and no, actually most Unions at the beguning actually had as one of their goals the overthrow of capitalism. As capitalism expanded for a while the Bourgeoisie was able to make concessions to the proletariat including its organizations which lead to many labor leaders to fall in reformism.

The bourgoise as I said before is smart enough to realize their strenght, which is why they put so much effort in subverting them, when they can not outright destroy them.

All organizations can become burocratic...



I'm out of time, I will get to more stuff later.

I'm sure none of it has to do with actual class struggle



I would like to point out to the ultra-leftist here (I'm referring the ones with such a reactionary view against unions because a lot of revolutionary anarchists do not have this position) due this out of desperation. Is indeed frustrating see how many Unions indeed have played a reactionary role in the class struggle. But their analysis is wrong and flawed.

Unions are and have been a fighting institution of the working class to defend its interests. Thus they are as revolutionary as the consciousness of the proletariat is. In order to write off Unions as naturally reactionary one is basically saying the organized proletariat is reactionary, in that case the revolution is just an utopia...

The role of a revolutionary is to interviene on this reactionary unions and do whatever it takes to put them in the right track of being a militant, figthing organization. Had a Revolutionary party done this lets say in France May 1968, we would have had the 1st succesful revolution in an industrialized nation.

An you all also speak as if all the Unions were playing a reactionary role.

The SME (Mexican Union of Electric workers) has been playing a very militant role in the class struggle, and even called for a general strike not too long ago.

here are some news in spanish about them(just use google transalate)

http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/03/16/index.php?section=opinion&article=017a2pol

[PhoenixAsh]

Unions can be very effective and are an organicly created entity. They can be extermely powerful.

Unfortunately they can become institutionalised and as such become part of the system instead of fighting the system. The power of the union is then broken and turned against the revolutionary movement...as seems to be the case in many European countries. Some unions actually start of within the system itself (Christian orientated ones...for example).

In this case they function more as bandages to keep workers in check and eleviate the worst of capitalism so that worker dissatisfaction does not get a chance to become revolutionary. Workers may not recognize this because in such cases they do not get the needed guidance from counter capitalist groups.


That is why some groups believe that unions are in fact reactionary.

[Paulappaul]

Oh so its bad for workers to organize a strike? The only legitimate strike is one that is spontaneous? The only real aproach to a worker's strike is one person yelling "Hey lets stirke!" and hope everyone follows? is that what you are saying? I

That is a very reactionary idea, lack of organization results in defeats.There's a difference between organizing a strike by the workers, and organizing a strike by a union. The later isn't the workers. The later isn't revolutionary.

And very often huge strikes, really do happen by a single workplace saying "hey lets strike" - people have a reason at all times to strike, struggles and fight. Have the time, the working class is scared.


This shows that Unions are not reactionary in of itself but the structure, leadership, way its run, etc is what makes a Union play a revolutionary or reactionary role.I made an inportant distinction between Syndicalism, the CNT, even I.W.W. and Trade Unions. I am a Council Communist. I believe in Unions, not trade unions. I believe in a political organization of the proletariat, not a political party.



Not analyzing situations usually leads to making bad decisions. Are you arguing that any situation in the class struggle should be just taken at face value without deeply discussing and analyzing it?No I'm arguing that once again, we're not talking about Venezuela. Stop bringing it up. You're just sounding like a twat.


So fighting for reforms is reactionary then? Let's take an example. In America - or if we're going to be a smartass, The USA - we struggle with not having a reasonable healthcare system. It's privatised in large part. National Healthcare is reactionary - it's a reform. Which in itself benefits a section of the Bourgeois class that reaps it's benefits. Rather then being class conscious and understanding that the entire system of Capitalism makes healthcare so expensive and of poor quality, they react to its cost by demanding reforms from Capitalist parties, in Capitalist government.


I'm sure you agree with me that the proletariat is revolutionary as a classNot everything Proletarian is revolutionary. When a Proletariat shops at Walmart, is he doing so in a revolutionary fashion. How about when the Proletariat is reactionary, when they see Walmart eating up all the small business' in their area and decide to shop at farmers markets?

It really maters though what you mean when you say a proletarit organised as a "class". During World War 2, the Proletariat in mass got behind the No-Strike Pledge at the voting booth and in their parties. When the No-Strike pledge was backed up by physical force, the Workers' broke out in mass wildcat strikes even though, oddly enough the very same workers' in the strike, were the ones voting for the No-Strike pledge in the first place. Class Consciousness, organizing the workers' as a class, seems very transparent and predictable, among also being easy to understand, until you actually get real experience.


The Unions played a huge leading role in the general strike, wich gave the proletariat the chance to sieze power. Yet at the same time the leadership let power slip away and it DID play a reactionary role.

Had a Revolutionary party being in that situation its role would have been to push the proletariat to seize power. This could have been done in different ways, it would have been relatively easy to take leadership of the Unions, or pressuring them to take power.

The lesson of May 68 is not that Unions are "bad" or "reactionary" but that a Revolutionary party is needed to carry the revolution forward.
My guess is you've read "Revolutionary Rehearsals"?

Regardless, the unions did play a huge leading role in the general strike, that of which lead the Proletariat to national contract reforms. Nothing Revolutionary really, or out of the blue. It happens alot in Europe, infact the same process happened in Italy during the "Hot Autumn" a few years later. Hence why the Workers' broke off in serious mass (11 million Wildcat Strikers if I am not mistaken) from their unions.

There was Revolutionary momentum behind the Workers. From the so called "Revolutionary Parties", the revolutionary anarchists, the Syndicalists in the Unions, the socialist student movement, the Situationists - etc etc. in every Wildcat Strike, in every city, in the minds of every Proletariat there was Revolution. Why didn't happen? The Workers placed alot of hope in the State and in Reform. It's interesting that despite so much consciousness, the Proletariat was still quite reactionary - the Prime Minister did actually better in the 68 elections.

And the Unions road the tiger of the revolutionary struggle and elected more free Unions, more militant unions, but the internal structure was still the same and it didn't make much difference.

In fact, when falling back on Elections and Unions, the Proletariat did worse then when working on there own.


They are an fighting organization of the proletariat. The proletariat as a class is no neutral against capitalism. So no, they are not neutral. In any case boss controlled Unions, burocratic ones are reactionary because they don't have worker's democracy which prevents them from performing their natural functionIn the Huge Corporatised Unions that we have today, they are built contrary to the prospects of the true organic unions for which they arose as. It's not about seizing existing ones and falling back on the same structure that's more "democratic", it's about telling the workers to act for themselves, building their own organizations as a revolutionary organization, defending them against assault and corruption.


Can you give a more redundant statement.... and no, actually most Unions at the beguning actually had as one of their goals the overthrow of capitalism. As capitalism expanded for a while the Bourgeoisie was able to make concessions to the proletariat including its organizations which lead to many labor leaders to fall in reformism.The First Trade union congress was convened by Schweitzer and Fritzche in 1868. Fritzche characterized very aptly the trade union movement organizations and their duties when he explained: "strikes are not a means of changing the foundations of the capitalist mode of production; they are, however, a means of furthering the class consciousness of the workers, breaking through police domination and removing from day's society individual social abuses of an oppressive nature, like excessively long working time and Sunday work."

They never regarded the Union movement as changing the Capitalist mode of Production. As far as the Class Conscious raising abilities of the Unions themselves, much as changed in the Union form today since them. They have grown and changed from small unions centered in towns or in workplaces to huge corporations holding millions of dollars with wealthy middle class professionals.


In order to write off Unions as naturally reactionary one is basically saying the organized proletariat is reactionary, in that case the revolution is just an utopia...Except it's not the organized Proletariat. Have you ever seen a union organised walkout/strike? The Working class sits twiddling its thumbs. As the Unions talks to the Managers, the Workers and back again. The workers is merely a puppet in Trade Unions. With exception naturally, as I have said, to the unions formed by the Workers' themselves.

I'm Drunk and Tired, sorry if I haven't got to the rest of your shit.

[BIG BROTHER]

Yea I'll get back at you too, but look how conveniently you once again ignore my example of the SME(Union of Mexican Electrical workers)

[William Howe]

Anarchst means one opposed to authority. Some anarchists see Unions as an authoritative, beaurocratic structure, therefore disagree with them.

[Paulappaul]

The SME (Mexican Union of Electric workers) has been playing a very militant role in the class struggle, and even called for a general strike not too long ago.

And? That's what unions do - General Strike! I didn't see much in your link that said the SME was Militant, infact It sounds like the Union is working with the Government and is also trying its best to encourage "Peaceful action" and reconcile the workers who want more from the struggle. Sounds like Trade Unionism. General Strikes are not a huge deal, especially not in Latin America.

In Italy and in May 68 - 69 there was general strikes in both countries, called by in large part by the mass Communist Parties' unions with much rhetoric of Vanguardism. And yet in both cases, the workers broke off with their unions, formed their own Workers' Unions/Councils and continued the General Strike on their own. In both the Unions and Parties were able to "ride the tiger" of the revolutionary movement and subdue to it.

The First stage of a true Workers' movement is breaking with Unions and Parties. That doesn't mean a lack of organization.

[ComradeOm]

The First stage of a true Workers' movement is breaking with Unions and PartiesEmphasis mine. You would consider a movement that did not "break with unions and parties" to be non-worker or non-revolutionary in character? I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this

[syndicat]

So now we're whitewashing the unions from the histories of these revolutions? In both 1905 and 1917 the trade union movement played significant roles. This was particularly the case in 1917 where it emerged as one of the strongest and most radical advocates of revolutionary social change. Unions were calling for a transfer of power to the Soviet long before the actual soviets got around to doing so.

i doubt this. most of the unions in Russia were highly centralized affairs, with power in the national executive committee, which was controlled by party cadre. at the beginning of 1917 most of the unions (other than the metal workers and food workers) were controlled by the Mensheviks who certainly did not call for power to the soviets.

unionism has two souls, or characters, i would say. there is the basic grassroots, worker controlled form, and then there is bureaucratic service agency. this latter form comes to the fore after workers have, through huge struggles, forced the employers to make concessions and accept the union. if there isn't a constant active involvement, there is a tendency then for a minority of activists, who played leading roles and gained experience like how to negotiate and do public speaking etc, to become paid functionaries, and concentrate decision-making in their hands.

in the case of the Russian revolution of 1917, you had these two forms, the national unions, and then the factory committee movement, which was independent of the union leaders, and was based on assemblies and elected delegate committees.

in periods when the masses aren't prepared to be active on a large scale, the more grassroots, oppositional tendency or "soul" may take the form of militant minorities of various kinds, such as rank and file oppositional groups, and the like.

[Lyev]

Echoing several people that have already posted in this thread, it seems like a slightly strange logic to point to several examples of historical strikes where unions were superfluous or 'reactionary' (whilst downplaying areas where they actually have fought against capital, in proletarian interests) and then apply these examples to trade unions anywhere and everywhere. With this kind of mindset, we are prone to de-emphasize or dismiss examples where unions have been on the side of workers. I agree that this isn't 1848 anymore, but shouldn't we just examine each industrial dispute and individual strike action as it comes?

[Paulappaul]

You would consider a movement that did not "break with unions and parties" to be non-worker or non-revolutionary in character?

Unions are extremely institutionalized organizations for which to maintain and honor labor relations. A destruction in Capitalism means a destruction in them. It is acknowledged by every Revolutionary Communist that there is no Revolution in the ballot box. And in modern conditions where elections don't mean rat shit, I don't much use of them. In that respect, I don't see much use in a Party.

Now Unions and Parties, are just words. Their structures are the remaining symbols of the old workers' movement. In their conception, they were for great goods, but the testimonial of time stands against them really. Especially in modern conditions, where there is little difference between Corporation, Government agency and Union.

The modern proletariat can't utilize these old forms of Struggle. So Revolution inherently means breaking with them. The New Workers' Movement, the "true" workers' movement shares little with the Old Movement. It is characterized as we've seen in countries with conditions ripe for revolution, by Strikes organized by the Workers themselves, in tactics and in demands that reach beyond their trade unions and into Workers' Councils. But there is role for the most class conscious and active of Proletarians and that is in defending and analyzing struggles, in being a clear compass towards Communism.

[ComradeOm]

i doubt this. most of the unions in Russia were highly centralized affairs, with power in the national executive committee, which was controlled by party cadre. at the beginning of 1917 most of the unions (other than the metal workers and food workers) were controlled by the Mensheviks who certainly did not call for power to the sovietsSomething of a caricature here and one that draws heavily on Western prejudices. For a start, and without going into detail, the Russian unions were not "highly centralised". Their structure placed a heavy emphasis on the operation of city boards which were elected by and responsible to local workers. This is where real power in the unions lay. Nor were they particularly bureaucratic; the Metalworkers Union in Petrograd, for example, had less than 100 full-time employees in October 1917 - 0.006% of its 160,000+ membership. Did the unions have the same degree of intimacy of the FCs? Of course not, but then they were operating on a vastly broader level. More on that below

Nor were the unions strongholds of Menshevism. Naturally this was the case at the beginning of 1917 but then the exact same could be said about the soviets. Very few unions, the printers' springs to mind, remained strongly Menshevik until October. Elsewhere the picture was varied and defies simplistic categorisation. For example, in May (!) 1917 the Petrograd Congress of Trade Unions passed a resolution calling for the transfer of power to the Soviet, even though the Bolsheviks did not have a complete majority on that body

As an ironic aside, its worth comparing the slow Bolshevik progress in the unions (and city soviets) with their exceptionally rapid advances in the district soviets and factory committees. If there was any division between the unions and the FCs then it was because the latter were calling for a more explicitly Bolshevik line


unionism has two souls, or characters, i would say. there is the basic grassroots, worker controlled form, and then there is bureaucratic service agency. this latter form comes to the fore after workers have, through huge struggles, forced the employers to make concessions and accept the union

in the case of the Russian revolution of 1917, you had these two forms, the national unions, and then the factory committee movement, which was independent of the union leaders, and was based on assemblies and elected delegate committeesExcept that the reasons why the Russian unions proved to be so popular, and they were immensely so, is exactly because the unions were incredibly efficient at driving wage rises and squeezing the capitalists. Particularly so because they were capable at operating on a national level. It was this 'bureaucracy - which has often been vastly exaggerated, "assemblies and elected delegate committees" were also features of Russian unionism - that proved so effective and attractive. The FCs were simply unable to push for the industry-wide gains that the unions did

As for the idea of the unions somehow 'piggybacking' on FC gains, this depends entirely on the industry. Obviously it took time for the unions to assemble and take form and in the larger plants the emergence of the FC was an important initial event. Outside of the large factories however, particularly in the smaller workshops or stores, it was the trade unions that emerged first. Plus of course the underground unions that already had some basic structure in place in 1917. But then I think this sort of arbitrary division is pretty false. Both unions and FCs were part of the explosion of working class militancy and trying to pin down an exact chronology or insist that one was better than the other is pretty pointless

Unfortunately the above is necessary to correct this idea that the Russian unions were passive bystanders or at worst reactionary bodies in 1917. They were not: they were bastions of the revolutionary movement and contributed significantly to working class gains in 1917

[syndicat]

i would appreciate references to back up what you say about unions in the Russian revolution.

also, your comments are tangential to the main point i was making, which is about the distinction between unionism in its grassroots, worker controlled form, which tends to come to the fore in periods of working class upsurge and rising class consciousness, and in its bureaucratic service agency form. the latter tends to come to the fore during periods of lower levels of active participation by workers.

[ComradeOm]

i would appreciate references to back up what you say about unions in the Russian revolutionI've referred you to it often enough - Smith's Red Petrograd remains the definitive study of the Russian labour movement during the revolutionary years


also, your comments are tangential to the main point i was making, which is about the distinction between unionism in its grassroots, worker controlled form, which tends to come to the fore in periods of working class upsurge and rising class consciousness, and in its bureaucratic service agency form. the latter tends to come to the fore during periods of lower levels of active participation by workers.Obviously there are differences between a revolutionary and a non-revolutionary union (which I've said since my first post in this thread) but you're trying to tease out distinctions that did exist in 1917. There was no contraction between worker militancy on the immediate factory floor and on a national level through union bodies

[syndicat]

Obviously there are differences between a revolutionary and a non-revolutionary union (which I've said since my first post in this thread) but you're trying to tease out distinctions that did exist in 1917. There was no contraction between worker militancy on the immediate factory floor and on a national level through union bodies

and you offer no useful guidance on what that even means.

i've read smith's book. it doesn't show what you think it does, but, as I said, to repeat, my concern wasn't with the Russian revolution. that may be all you think about but that was long ago...

[ComradeOm]

and you offer no useful guidance on what that even meansWhat, you want me to spell it out for you? Fine: you're making a baseless assertion when you contrast "basic grassroots" with "bureaucratic service agency". Its a gross simplification and certainly not one borne out by 1917


i've read smith's book. it doesn't show what you think it does, but, as I said, to repeat, my concern wasn't with the Russian revolution. that may be all you think about but that was long ago...You were the one who questioned my characterisation of the Russian unions. If you've read the work then you can show me how my above post is not an accurate representation

More to the point, any discussion that claims that unions have no meaningful role to play in revolutionary movements has to reconcile this statement with the historical reality. 1917 was not so long ago, and nor do we have enough examples of such revolutionary change, that we can simply ignore it or the lessons available. This includes defending frankly incorrect assertions about the nature of this movement or the unions

[syndicat]

More to the point, any discussion that claims that unions have no meaningful role to play in revolutionary movements has to reconcile this statement with the historical reality. 1917 was not so long ago, and nor do we have enough examples of such revolutionary change, that we can simply ignore it or the lessons available. This includes defending frankly incorrect assertions about the nature of this movement or the unions

the question of the OP implied the contemporary era, not bygone revolutionary waves. the contemporary unions in all the first world countries are bureaucratic service agencies. now, how do they differ from the kind of mass organizations workers build in periods of more sustained struggle and deeper class consciousness?

i'm a syndicalist. i'm not likely to say that "unions have no meaningful role to play in revolutionary movements." but discussing with you appears pointless as you have poor reading comprehension and impose your preconceptions.

[ComradeOm]

the question of the OP implied the contemporary era, not bygone revolutionary wavesAnd my response was in direct reply to someone who was explicitly, and erroneously, referring to Russia 1905 and 1917. You were saying about "reading comprehension"?

[syndicat]

revolutionary waves are relevant to the distinction i made because that's when we are more likely to see the more radical, grassroots form of unionism, since it depends on sustained rank and file participation.


Nor were they particularly bureaucratic; the Metalworkers Union in Petrograd, for example, had less than 100 full-time employees in October 1917 - 0.006% of its 160,000+ membership.

a city wide board for a union with a mass membership in that city is essentially an oligarchy. during the biennio rosso (1919-20) in Italy the FIOM (metal union) membership in Turin was 40,000 and it had one of these city wide boards...and it was considered by the revolutionaries to be an oligarchy. the mass radical shop stewards meetings in Turin, created independently of the union, and the mass assemblies they were based on, were a rank and file insurgency against that oligarchy. they eventually ousted the "commission" that ran the city wide union and restructured the local union so that the shop stewards were in control. this would be the equivalent of the FCs seizing control of the Russian unions.

the distinction between the paid hierarchy of the Italian unions and their ongoing contractual relationships to the employers, on the one hand, and the mass upsurge of the stop work meetings and elected delegates was what Gramsci had in mind when he made the distinction that I was referring to, between the two souls of unionism

by comparison, in the spring of 1936 there were only 3 or 4 paid officials and only a handful of paid organizers for the CNT with 1.65 million members in Spain. but it was a union run by the delegate councils in the workplaces, who met in large plenaries to make the main policy decisions.