Where are the unions

[red flag over teeside]

With the 30th June fast approaching the question is what is the trade union movement doing to build support for the strikes amongst the working class? Where are the tables in our city centres with agitational material on them? Nowhere to be seen! By their inaction unions are showing that they are not fit for purpose to defend workers both employed as well as unemployed.
If we are going to stop these attacks by the capitalist class then we need to start organising independently as the first step in building a movement that will not only stop the attacks but also overthrow the whole rotting capitalist system that is responsible. Workers assemblies, strike committees are needed at the present time.

[Rakhmetov]

With the 30th June fast approaching the question is what is the trade union movement doing to build support for the strikes amongst the working class? Where are the tables in our city centres with agitational material on them? Nowhere to be seen! By their inaction unions are showing that they are not fit for purpose to defend workers both employed as well as unemployed.
If we are going to stop these attacks by the capitalist class then we need to start organising independently as the first step in building a movement that will not only stop the attacks but also overthrow the whole rotting capitalist system that is responsible. Workers assemblies, strike committees are needed at the present time.

There has been a war against unions by the bourgeoisie through many generations. You're right when you say unions will help attack the capitalist thugs. But people are intimidated by the laws that favor employers to fire workers whenever they try to unionize. Greed has run amok. Still, we have so much opportunity here in the states in that we can organize without having to worry about death squads killing our people. So yeah we should organize big time! We have that duty.

[Feodor Augustus]

Red, I take it you raised these points at your last union meeting then?

[red flag over teeside]

Lets say I did would it have made any difference to the beauracrats? Of course not. The leadership of the unions have always talked left in time of rising class tension only to divert the struggles on the grounds of bourgeoise legality. The unions as organisations will lead to the cuts being implemented unless as workers we cann organise independently of the unions. It's this task which is so difficult that leads many on the left to think they can either put pressure on the leadership or beleive that they can transform the unions into effective fighting organisations. They have never been able to do this and never will.

As I said this call for independent organisations will only be heard by a minority of workers at the present time and its these workers who will provide an alternative future leadership as long as they are organised as Marxists and not as reformists. To be involved in the class struggle you dont need to be a member of a union in fact you are probably more effective outside the unions as long as you can relate to workers in their place of work. As I say unions will oonly lead the struggle in a dead end. Im sure the 30th June is going to be impressive but until all workers are involved in strike action then these days will fizzle out. The unions will not organise on a class basis they are part of the problem not part of the solution.

[Feodor Augustus]

Your summary of the role of unions is, well, interesting. As it stands, your polemic aside, the fact of the matter is that unions currently suffer from their political isolation. Only last week the Business Secretary Vince Cable warned the GMB conference that large scale strike action would result in legal changes to labour law that would make it much harder to call strikes, - almost impossible. There is no political force strong enough to counter these kind of threats, and from a pragmatic point of view it makes sense to not to produce too much 'agitational material', or else risk swift prosecution by the legal-political establishment.

In effect, your position is the equivalent of watching a bully beat someone up, and rather than trying to stop this from happening, you instead blame the victim for not fighting back hard enough. Unions are by no means perfect, but to suggest that they have never achieved anything is a-historic nonsense; while this:


The unions will not organise on a class basis they are part of the problem not part of the solution.

...is priceless.

[red flag over teeside]

Unions organise on a sectional basis and do not include all workers in their organisations. This sectionalism weakens class struggle and reinforces bourgeoise ideology. Thats what I meant when I said unions dont organise on a class basis.

[Feodor Augustus]

Unions organise on a sectional basis and do not include all workers in their organisations.

Evidently, and while I'd agree that 'sectionalism weakens class struggle and reinforces bourgeoise ideology', - although less so than you suggest, particularly with regards the second point, - and that 'One Big Union' would be preferable, you seem to be of the opinion that these things can be conjured up out of thin air. It was hard enough to even establish unions with the kind of social power they had three or four decades ago, and it has proved impossible to maintain them at this level. Which suggests other factors have a strong impact upon the nature of union organisation, factors other than theories about union organisation. That reality does not turn out to resemble theory is not however a good basis on which to give up all hope and abandon trade unions; instead, it suggests that a revolutionary socialist position should be to try and win these bodies over to these more beneficial models.

Unions do organise on a class basis: i.e. workers enter them and formulate demands based on a specific class programme, which is the the key difference between a class-for-itself and a class-in-itself. The flaws and weaknesses of unions stem from their relatively disadvantaged position vis-a-vis employers and the state. Workers have only one response to the combined power of the ruling class: common solidarity. The question is then how best to build such solidarity: Outside the bodies of the working class, criticising them for their flaws? Or inside these bodies, working to overcome their flaws? The second option often leads to failure and disappointment, while the first allows one to be neither compromised nor influential.

Politics is a mucky business, no doubt; but it also not a spectator sport for armchair critics, at least as far as actually achieving anything is concerned.

[praxis1966]

Am I the only one here thinking that if this is the way Red feels, he should quit crabbing and join the IWW? Just about all his criticisms and suggestions fall exactly in line with just about everything every Wob I've ever encountered has said and done... Nearly verbatim. I don't want to self-nominate as spokesman for the entire organization so I'll couch this in the first person, but the business unions drive me fucking crazy. A lot of them are class collaborationist, they do segment the working class, and they are undemocratic. Those are the primary reasons I signed up.

[Q]

"red flag over teeside"'s position strikes me as ultra-left: Completely branding unions as reactionary and, consequently, failing to see it as an important arena of political struggle. Feodor Augustus' position however seems overly optimistic, bordering the naive.

I want to put a position between these two extremes. It is obviously true that the union leaderships take a conservative, cautious and often class collaborating position. In the Netherlands this is actually institutionalised in the form of the socalled "Poldermodel". Other countries have their own variants. The UK state historically took a more confrontational approach in the form of the anti-union laws, but even here it didn't result in more fighting unions.

The reason for this problem has to be understood. Why do bureaucracies come into existence?

Within capitalism you have a choice: Either you work a lot and have a lot of money, but little time or you have lots of time but starve to death. For a workers organisation this inevitably points to the need of getting fulltimers in which the wage is paid up by the membership. What will then happen is that these fulltimers will want to consolidate their position, their means of livelyhood, precisely because of their position of dependency. This will result in top-down organisational control. Bureaucratism. This is not inevitable, but it is a "way of least resistence" in how these things tend to develop.

On another level unions are, almost by definition, economic organisations. They often shun politics. However, by merely fighting for changes on the economical level, you will very soon reach a brick wall in what capitalism can realistically offer. No wonder that such a "realpolitik" then is also often the modus operandi of union leaderships. So, not too radical, not too jumpy.

The political effect of this will be that unions remain strictly within the capitalist system: a class collaborationist, bureaucratic and nationalist set of positions. They are in that sense effectively state agents.

So, should we then shun unions? Are they completely reactionary? That would be a mistaken position.

Unions are, despite all the limitations and prooblems they have, real class organisations. Yes, they are state agents, but with a contradiction. All too often we see pressure building up from below, which force the leaderships to move in order to hold on to their positions of authority. So surely there is potential. What is needed though is a strategy to unite and politicise the potential, a communist strategy of "revolutionary patience" that is aimed to transform unions towards bigger membership participation and political education in order to undermine the apolitical base of power on which the bureaucracy rests. Such a long term project could transform the unions in "schools of communism" in that they become actual instruments of working class self-emancipation. Such a project should be seen within the context of an explicitly proletarian mass party that acts as the political reference point.

So yes, we should explicitly oppose the union bureaucracy, all bureaucracies, even "leftwing" ones, as they pose an obstacle in our liberation. But no, that doesn't mean we should completely ignore unions. They are a vital arena of struggle.

[Feodor Augustus]

Feodor Augustus' position however seems overly optimistic, bordering the naive.

Maybe. I did qualify my position by noting that working within these organs 'often leads to failure and disappointment', and would not disagree with the substance of your post. Praxis brought up the IWW, and I have always had a high opinion of it, and indeed if possible that would be my choice, so to speak.

However the fact of the matter is that most workers are not organised, and most of those that are organised are not organised in the IWW. Thus in some way we have to engage with these people: in the case of unionised workers, while I think you paint an overly gloomy picture of the nature of the 'bureaucrat', I have no objection to what you say and indeed support what of late has come to be known as democrat renewal. In essence, my only point of difference would be to say that I don't blanket reject full-time officials, but think these should be subject to popular recall and not earn more than a 'workers wage'.

I would also say that there is not one, but many contradictions in the functioning institutionalised unions, and that the trick must be to understand these as best as possible, and not take any stance to the extreme. If the tavern is the bulwark of the proletarians political freedom, then the union is the bulwark of her political expression. It thus seems more than naive, perhaps irresponsible, for any socialist to take a position against these organs - particularly as the consequence of such narratives is, in the end, to give support to those forces that support the restriction of union rights by not offering any serious defence of them. If they are bourgeois institutions then the logic of red's position is that he wouldn't care if the government outlawed them: it would, after all, be little more than a faction fight within the ruling class. (This position also seems very close to the 'special interests' argument of classical economics.)

[Q]

Praxis brought up the IWW, and I have always had a high opinion of it, and indeed if possible that would be my choice, so to speak.
For all its niceties, the IWW is irrelevant. I has about 2000 members, out of which 900 are in "good standing" (meaning they paid a contribution in the last two months).

The IWW actually shows how it too doesn't offer an alternative, in a different way. It does raise the point that wages need to be abolished for workers to be truly free. It however explicitly rejects political struggle and a partyist approach. What you then get is that they too hit the "brick wall" of capitlism, going to sign "no strike" deals for example. I believe this is exactly why they are so marginal as they recruit on a higher level, yet don't go all the way and thus disillusion those same layers.


In essence, my only point of difference would be to say that I don't blanket reject full-time officials, but think these should be subject to popular recall and not earn more than a 'workers wage'.
I think you misunderstood my point. I too am not rejecting full-time officials. I do reject any kind of bureaucratic approach towards organisation. The two don't necessarily coelesce, however they often do. What I described was the "way of least resistance" in how such organisations tend to develop, because we live in capitalist society, with all its pressures. But yeah, recall, workers wage and short terms (with a maximum number of terms) are good ways to at least mitigate these problems. The problem however runs deeper, on a political level: What if the bureaucrat we just replaced is followed up by a new bureaucrat? This is an inherent problem in unions being purely economical organisations.


If they are bourgeois institutions then the logic of red's position is that he wouldn't care if the government outlawed them: it would, after all, be little more than a faction fight within the ruling class. (This position also seems very close to the 'special interests' argument of classical economics.)
Ah! That's what you and I think, what about the vast majority of those non-politicised, even non-active members? They will feel discomfort in what they see as an irresponsibly confrontational position towards the state. Whether you like it or not, the "rule of law" mentality lives deep in the consciousness of the worker and the bureaucracy will exploit that to marginalise any radical elements.

This points to the task of education by the socialist elements, in a long term and patient fashion. This is the first task. Not for nothing was the classic Marxist formula towards organisation "educate, agitate, organise", in that order. The point is not to form a "better leadership" in the existing unions, that would merely be a leftwing bureaucracy, which still uses the same patronising approach to organisation. The point is to raise the membership to such a point that they want liberation, undoubtedly a much more difficult task.

[Feodor Augustus]

Q, I see very little to dispute in what you wrote above, and indeed your comments on the IWW have something of an awkward truth about them. I do think however, both on this and more generally, that the Left always commits a quite fatal error in that it usually considers only how it can impact upon society, and not how society can impact upon it. (Or at least does not give these two points equal focus.) A more sober evaluation of the possibilities for action would do a lot of groups the world of good: pragmatism guided by a strong sense of principle.

[praxis1966]

For all its niceties, the IWW is irrelevant. I has about 2000 members, out of which 900 are in "good standing" (meaning they paid a contribution in the last two months).

If the number of members in a given group is a reflection of the worth of its contribution to leftist activism then the majority of the genuinely revolutionary leftist organizations in North America are completely irrelevant. Further, I guarantee you the workers at the shops we've organized don't think we're irrelevant either.


The IWW actually shows how it too doesn't offer an alternative, in a different way. It does raise the point that wages need to be abolished for workers to be truly free. It however explicitly rejects political struggle and a partyist approach. What you then get is that they too hit the "brick wall" of capitlism, going to sign "no strike" deals for example. I believe this is exactly why they are so marginal as they recruit on a higher level, yet don't go all the way and thus disillusion those same layers.

First of all, we do engage in political struggle. Second of all, we do cooperate with partyist organizations. What we don't do is make permanent our affiliations with political parties in order to maintain independence of action and for very good reason. Bill Haywood tried to lead us down that path way back when with the CPUSA... I shudder to think what would've become of the IWW's integrity if that'd happened.

[red flag over teeside]

I cant see any British government outlawing unions. This isn't because I beleive that the Brittish bourgeoise is somehow more humane which is obviously a nonsense the British bourgeoise will do what it takes to maintain its political/economic power. The reason why the unions will not be abolished is that they perform a useful function in managing disputes within capitalist legality. After all Thatcher never abolished the right of unions to exist what she did was to ensure that the unions as organisations managed the shopfloor militants. If workers have the confidence then all the laws in the world would not stop us taking action. In fact it would be the unions that would stop us taking action.

The tragedy will be that while the turnout on the 30 June will be marvelous it will be sacrificed by the union machinerires who at best will call token gestures every three months while keeping the private sector workers out of the struggle. the only way out of this dead end is to develop autonomous organisations independent of union sabotage.

[Commie73]

Rather than looking at the composition of the membership, I think we have to look at what the unions are in relation to capitalism - that is the unions negotiate the level of exploitation, they are as much a part of capitalism as the bourgeosie itself. However even if we were for a moment to consider the unions a potential tool for fighting the cuts, I think communists should be in opposition.

The unions in many cases do not present a real working class alternative to the current austerity measures. Their campaign is partly launch pad for the labour party, which is an attempt to direct workers struggle against cuts into the dead end of bourgeois parliamentarism. If the anti cuts movement is actually going to be anything, it should be anti-capitalist. Rather than the reformist and leftist approach of focusing only on the effects of the cuts, communists should be pointing to the root cause - capitalist crisis.

[Feodor Augustus]

The reason why the unions will not be abolished is that they perform a useful function in managing disputes within capitalist legality. After all Thatcher never abolished the right of unions to exist what she did was to ensure that the unions as organisations managed the shopfloor militants.

You appear to have a rather Machiavellian perspective on political matters. In reality, unions 'perform a useful function in managing disputes' because the working class won that right of representation. From Thatcher onwards, this right has been steadily undermined, but the ruling elite could never abolish this right outright without a great struggle, and therefore they employ more subtle means of redress. Additionally, to conclude that because unions exist in a capitalist structure they must be capitalists institutions which are respondent only to ruling class interests is completely lunacy; and moreover, a gross inversion of the Marxist method.


the only way out of this dead end is to develop autonomous organisations independent of union sabotage.

Okay, I'm game: what would these 'autonomous organisations independent of union sabotage' look like, and how long do you think it would it take for them to develop - i.e. within a year or so, so as to provide a combative organisation that can fight against the governments austerity measures? (The best attempt of this kind thus far in Britain, has been the TUSC - and this doesn't appear to be doing all that well, although it is too early for any final judgement. While it is also not 'independent of union sabotage' - whatever that means.)


However even if we were for a moment to consider the unions a potential tool for fighting the cuts, I think communists should be in opposition.

And what do you propose to be the solution? Maybe unions are not an effective tool precisely because communists are in opposition: they demand the purity of these organisations before entry, rather than try to win them over via political argument.


If the anti cuts movement is actually going to be anything, it should be anti-capitalist.

And if humans could fly, we wouldn't have need for aeroplanes.

Still, say your worst fears happen: a pro-Labour pro-capitalist anti-cuts movement emerges. How should socialists react to such a phenomena?

[Le Socialiste]

The trade unions have made their true position known many times over throughout modern history. The only real consistency I see in their actions is that they only serve to recreate the hierarchical structures that inhibit workers and stifle their demands. If you think about it, the unions are pretty nice to have around - for the capitalist. Unless a union is built upon a foundation of revolutionary/emancipatory politics, it cannot serve the workers; instead, it becomes yet another cog in the bourgeois-capitalist machine. It is very important that the workers realize that their fight can't be won (much less fought) through the trade unions. Once they do, they can take the steps necessary to forming their own participatory committees, unions, assemblies, and syndicates - all based on a revolutionary platform, of course.

[red flag over teeside]

Dave Prentis, the head of Unison, which has 1.2 million members in the pension scheme, said his union would not now ballot until after further talks in the summer, indicating that it had gone into the talks fully expecting to do so. "There was a sense that today we were in real negotiations," he said. This is from a report in todays Guardian and shows the bankruptcy of the trade unions as organisations which workers look too to lead the struggle against the austerity cuts.

In Spain, Italy, Greece mass assemblies are taking the place of the unions and revolutionaries in the UK need to look to these forms of organisation rather than outdated organisations such as unions.