Are Unions necessary for revolution to occur?

[Hexen]

In order for a revolution to occur (since I read somewhere that Unions are basically the stepping stones for a socialist revolution)? If so then the more I realize that all hope was lost from the very moment Reagan took down the unions. Although I could be wrong.

[Ostrinski]

Unions don't have any revolutionary value.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

Most unions these days aren't going to help the revolution at all with their beliefs that the interests of the workers and management are one in the same.

On the other hand, they drastically improve conditions for workers in the short term.

[Hexen]

So what is needed for the revolution to occur then?

[Manic Impressive]

So what is needed for the revolution to occur then?
socialists/communists/anarchists

[Kosakk]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't unions outlawed/banned in USSR?

The current unions aren't rather helpful. Social democrats at best.
And therefore upholding today's capitalism by compromising.

But, I still believe that even in socialism, a worker's state, they shouldn't be
dismissed. Because there will always be a need for advocacy groups.
And, the workers needs to be organized and to maintain their rights.

[Hexen]

socialists/communists/anarchists

I meant in what conditions and how workers organize (I read somewhere that Unions was a way for workers to organize therefore revolution would be easier to carry out).

[Manic Impressive]

I meant in what conditions and how workers organize (hence I read somewhere that Unions was a way for workers to organize).
Since there has never been a successful revolution the matter is up for debate, that's why we have different tendencies. The answer is nobody knows. Some think it will come from unions, some think it will come through urban guerrilla warfare :rolleyes:, some think it will come through parliamentary means, some through a coup de tat. No one can tell you the right answer you have to work it out for yourself.

My opinion is that when enough workers know what socialism/communism/anarchism is and why capitalism needs to go a revolution will happen one way or another.

[Ostrinski]

So what is needed for the revolution to occur then?That question is why tendencies exist. I believe we need a mass central party with direct democratic operation.

[downandtotheleft]

The current unions aren't rather helpful. Social democrats at best.
And therefore upholding today's capitalism by compromising.


While most current unions hold little to no revolutionary value, I wouldn't say they are compromising with mutant modern-day capitalism completely. If they were, union leaders would be encouraging their members to look out for solely themselves in order to get their shot at the "American dream" or whatever. I think unions at this point are like a pillow for the proletariat that makes sleeping on the cold floor that is capitalism slightly more bearable. Ultra-conservatives like Governor John Kasich in my homestate of Ohio would like to see unions/collective bargaining completely done away with in order to demoralize the common worker and get rid of any possible organizational groups for Leftists. When there is more momentum behind socialist reformist/revolutionary movements the unions will be a strong base for progressive organization and building. Also, I'm new to RevLeft, so hey comrades.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Unions don't have any revolutionary value.
I think a revolutionary union could have revolutionary value, but you're right about the ones that are pro-reform and pro-bosses.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Most of the time revolutions occur once a majority of the proletariat are faced with troubling times. For instance, another recession or great depression could spark huge reforms. A revolution in the US will remain unlikely because the poor and middle class here view themselves not as an oppressed proletariat, rather embarrassed millionaires.

[x359594]

...they [unions] drastically improve conditions for workers in the short term.

That's right, as the Free Rider's Card states in below in negative terms:


FREE RIDER'S CARD
I am opposed to all unions. Therefore, I am opposed to all benefits that unions have won through the years: paid vacations, holidays, sick leave, seniority rights, wage increases, pension and insurance plans, safety laws, workmen's compensation laws, Social Security, time and a half for hours in excess of eight in one day or 40 in one work week, unemployment benefits, and job security.



I refuse to accept any benefits that will be won by union negotiators with this Union shop, and I hereby authorize and direct the company to withhold the amount of the union-won benefits from my paycheck each week and to donate it to charity.
_____________________
Signature Date

[x359594]

I think a revolutionary union could have revolutionary value, but you're right about the ones that are pro-reform and pro-bosses.

The first revolution has to be against the ruling bureaucracies of the business unions by the rank and file.

I'm a dual carder myself because I can barely stomach the sell-outs who run my union (and it's not the IWW I'm talking about.)

The ultimate source of all corporate profits (from which they derive all their power) is the workplace--and every workplace has workers whose interests necessarily conflict with those of corporate profits. Workplace safety, the right to organize, better pay and conditions--all of these things can only be effectively fought for from inside the workplace. And that is the role of the labor union.


The American labor movement threw its lot in with an alliance with the corporations, to defend corporate profits through protectionism and hostile opposition to "foreigners". The result has been utter disaster.

[Hiero]

That question is why tendencies exist. I believe we need a mass central party with direct democratic operation.

What does that even mean?

[Geiseric]

Unions are necessary for a revolution because they raise living standards and are an organ of working class political power. The only thing wrong with Unions is the leadership, and if the rank and file can be organised by Communists to go against the parasitic leadership, the organisational capacity and the resources of a Union are vital to any Revolutionary movement. They raise living standards which gives the proletariat more freedom to be political. There is a reason that they were fought against by Capitalists when they were formed.

Like the U.S.S.R. the only thing needed to fix most unions is a change in Leadership.

[Ostrinski]

What does that even mean?Aren't you a Leninist?

[Ostrinski]

Like the U.S.S.R. the only thing needed to fix most unions is a change in Leadership.Are you kidding me?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Unions again? As Revolutionaries we should be against every kind of resistance that tries to reform with the oppressors. Every ounce of trying to improve the working people conditions should be to either make their own co-operative business or expropriate their exploiters. Break the Chains!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Unions again? As Revolutionaries we should be against every kind of resistance that tries to reform with the oppressors.
Why assume that union = reformism? That's not the only form a union can potentially take.

[Grenzer]

Like the U.S.S.R. the only thing needed to fix most unions is a change in Leadership.

So you think Socialism in One Country works and that everything would have been fine if Trotsky was in charge? I hope not.. the problems went much, much, much deeper than one corrupt thug at the top(or the hundred people below him(or the thousand people below them(or the ten thousand people below them))).

[-NW2-]

I think unions definitely have a role to play in raising working class consciousnes. As a union member, I know thats where I first came into contact with Socialist politics and ideas.

A highly unionised workforce and society would certainly be more politically aware and willing and prepared to fight against any cuts and neo liberal attacks on the welfare state, NHS etc.

Surely if the majority of workers were unionised, even if those unions themselves were not revoultionary, by the very fact that the members are politically aware and organised, this would help bring about a revolutionary situation.

[Hiero]

Aren't you a Leninist?

I don't subscribe to any ideology. But the Leninist party is not a mass party, it is a vanguard party. It means it selects and removes members based on essential criteria. Unions are mass organisations, membership is in most cases open to the union's membership scope.

What you said made no sense it was just M-L vernacular arranged to mean nothing.



Unions again? As Revolutionaries we should be against every kind of resistance that tries to reform with the oppressors. Every ounce of trying to improve the working people conditions should be to either make their own co-operative business or expropriate their exploiters. Break the Chains!


You can't really be a worker, or worker with a family to support. Most workers just want better conditions, better pay and security. They want to work 8 hours a day or get their overtime, go home safe and occasional go on holidays. Go talk to workers at a workplace, most won''t even join a union unless it is neccassary or it is a majority union workplace. If they don't care about unions they care little for you so called revolutionaries.

[Thirsty Crow]

In order for a revolution to occur (since I read somewhere that Unions are basically the stepping stones for a socialist revolution)? If so then the more I realize that all hope was lost from the very moment Reagan took down the unions. Although I could be wrong.
Not only that unions are not stepping stones to social revolution, but they are also an active impediment to the radicalization and spreadout of class struggle. Havign said this, I think we also need to highlight the position unions find themselves in, or better yet, union bureaucracy. This position amounts to them being a "social partner", intimately tied to the bourgeois state and employers' organizations, though they are a partner whose relevance and power is diminishing (the example of Reagan) so they are basically forced to call for certain actions with respect to the situations their base finds themselves in. These actions are in essence defensive and aimed at remedying the social costs of the offensive of the capitalist class, or in other words, they're immediate economic actions.

And does all of this mean that somehow support should be granted to political measures of union busting? Definitely not since I don't think that communists should in any way support the bourgeois state, especially in relation to its role in labour issues, which also goes for the capitalist class and their interest in curbing workers' organizing.

[Book O'Dead]

Is anyone here interested in the Deleonist conception of revolutionary industrial unionism?

[x359594]

...You can't really be a worker, or worker with a family to support. Most workers just want better conditions, better pay and security. They want to work 8 hours a day or get their overtime, go home safe and occasional go on holidays. Go talk to workers at a workplace, most won''t even join a union unless it is neccassary or it is a majority union workplace. If they don't care about unions they care little for you so called revolutionaries.

That accurately sums up the attitudes of most workers, but here in the US there's a layer of the working class subject to enough onerous exploitation so as to want the protection against further exploitation that the union affords them. These workers are largely in the service sector, and particularly in the food service sector where hours are irregular and low pay and overwork are the rule. These workers tend to be younger too.

In my part of the US there are a lot of immigrant workers who've joined unions or formed unions. For example, there's the Korean Immigrant Workers Association and the United Farm Workers. Within SEIU there's Janitors for Justice.

The ultimate source of all corporate profits (from which they derive all their power) is the workplace--and every workplace has workers whose interests necessarily conflict with those of corporate profits. Workplace safety, the right to organize, better pay and conditions--all of these things can only be effectively fought for from inside the workplace. And that is the role of the labor union, to organize the struggle against the bosses.

The alternative is a fragmented, demoralized and isolated mass of laborers competing against each other for a few crumbs from the boss's table.