Syndicalist rebuttals to the "unions are reformist" argument?

[Skyhilist]

I tend to typically side with syndicalism. Recently though I've been hearing a lot of arguments about how unions are naturally reformist and that revolutionary change and unions don't mix. Can any syndicalists on here rebut this argument?

Also, please give syndicalists a chance before bringing forth the standard argument against unions. I'm already familiar with the general argument and would like to hear what syndicalists (or people familiar with the standard pro-union syndicalist rebuttals to this) first, if possible.

[Mackenzie_Blanc]

If the syndicalist union is a bottom-up organization, it wouldn't be reformist and contain the bureaucratic mess of a social democratic union. As long as a political front made up of radical members purges reformists, then the potential for revolutionary activity is there. Remember that the most important anarchist revolution occurred in Spain through the CNT-FAI, so to say that syndicalist unions can't be the catalyst for revolutionary activity is incorrect.

[Os Cangaceiros]

A lot of syndicalists favor a dual-card approach, i.e. syndicalists would belong to two organizations: a non-revolutionary union (in which they could make their influence felt among a large group of co-workers) and a smaller, explicitely political revolutionary organization, of an anarcho-syndicalist or revolutionary syndicalist character.

My own opinion is that unions by themselves are not revolutionary, they're reformist, but the union structure itself is helpful in that it pools your co-workers together in a forum that's (ostensibly) provided to serve their interests, and therefore it can be helpful for organizational/agitational purposes.

[JoeySteel]

Syndicalism doesn't really provide much of an answer as it is all concerned with process and not the end goal of a new society we want to see.

However it is wrong to say that outside of syndicalism "revolutionary change and unions don't mix."

It is very simplistic and childish to brand unions as unions as simply "reformist" or "revolutionary." They are the mass organizations of the working class and exist in diverse forms. Communists must work within unions and work to organize workers into unions as an intrinsic element of organizing workers as a class.

The elitist trend of dismissing unions and union workers as unworthy of the support of enlightened "revolutionaries" is harmful to the working class movement and the fighting morale of workers. As communists we are the most staunch, organized, and dedicated subjective force among the working class movement, and we have to sacrifice and bring those qualities to bear upon unions especially at the local levels. Even with the decline of membership in many countries, unions are still where a relatively organized mass of workers are to be found and cannot be neglected. This also points to the importance of organizing workers into unions to build up the confidence of the class, school communists in organizing, fight for material gains for workers, and enlarge the pool of organized workers who are now getting engaged in the organized resistance to the anti-social offensive and for a working class program.

Even with the historic misleadership of the labour movement in the 20th century and its effects being continued to be felt, today objectively many unions and/or union locals are playing an active role in fighting the anti-social offensive and at the local level provide workers with tools to empower themselves in this fight. Fighting the cuts, increasing the claim of workers to the value they create, and restricting the operation of the labour market are part and parcel of the class strategy for proletarian revolution. That is why the role of communists is not to sabotage or abstain from supporting organized workers fighting for their rights but to lend utmost support and gain the confidence of the class.

[Thirsty Crow]

If the syndicalist union is a bottom-up organization, it wouldn't be reformist and contain the bureaucratic mess of a social democratic union.
Wrong.

The bureaucratic, hierarchical structure of unions, and practices flowing from it, is only one side of the picture. Another, let's call it structural, side concerns the position of unions as legally recognized negotiation partners within capitalist society, whereas the union and the workforce it represents is inherently bound up with capital, so that successful capital accumulation has to be recognized as, sooner or later, the precondition for workers immediate interests (wages, working conditions) and the interest of the functioning union officials (maintenance of their life through the relationship not to the means of production, but rather to the means of negotiation of the wage relation).


As long as a political front made up of radical members purges reformists, then the potential for revolutionary activity is there.Union officials do not act the way they do because of a faulty structure of organization, or due to personal, political faults. They are subject to structural pressures and imperatives.

And that is even to fail to mention the very low probability of any such purges. It is more probably either that revolutionaries would be purged or that they would have to put aside their aspirations to communism while performing the function of the union official.



Remember that the most important anarchist revolution occurred in Spain through the CNT-FAI, so to say that syndicalist unions can't be the catalyst for revolutionary activity is incorrect.And it was not that surprising that the same union structure presided over counter-revolution, among other actors (May Days and the acceptance of the Popular Front being the most glaring aspects of it all).


It is very simplistic and childish to brand unions as unions as simply "reformist" or "revolutionary." They are the mass organizations of the working class and exist in diverse forms. Communists must work within unions and work to organize workers into unions as an intrinsic element of organizing workers as a class.


The elitist trend of dismissing unions and union workers as unworthy of the support of enlightened "revolutionaries" is harmful to the working class movement and the fighting morale of workers.
On the contrary, and I speak from experience here, it is workers who will welcome a clear and honest assessment of the unions pretty much immediately when they find themselves in opposition to "their" union apparatus. It is more than necessary to foster a clear insight into this through honest communication and intervention by revolutionaries (concrete conditions dictating the details of said intervention - it is not always advisable to go in all guns blazing against the union apparatus).

And of course that it is ridiculous to claim that communists must work within unions, and it is ambiguous as well. Does that mean that communists need to accept official functions?


Even with the historic misleadership of the labour movement in the 20th century and its effects being continued to be felt, today objectively many unions and/or union locals are playing an active role in fighting the anti-social offensive and at the local level provide workers with tools to empower themselves in this fight.
Of course, that doesn't need to surpise us. And on the other hand, for every figting union there's a half a dozen of those that are more than willing to negotiate the terms of the cuts - some going so far as actually advocating lay offs as opposed to wage cuts accross the board (again, personal experience).

And most importantly, while the union apparatus might be jolted into action due to all sorts of reasons, they will perform it as a body of discipline over the working class, unfortunately. To dismiss this as childish or simplistic is ridiculous. I shouldn't even comment on this idea of an "elitist trend", as if the views people like myself hold are a matter of wishing to pose as the biggest nastiest revolutionary out there. It's quite a pathetic cop-out.

[Riveraxis]

I tend to typically side with syndicalism. Recently though I've been hearing a lot of arguments about how unions are naturally reformist and that revolutionary change and unions don't mix. Can any syndicalists on here rebut this argument?

Also, please give syndicalists a chance before bringing forth the standard argument against unions. I'm already familiar with the general argument and would like to hear what syndicalists (or people familiar with the standard pro-union syndicalist rebuttals to this) first, if possible.

Same here. My usual argument is that we live in non-revolutionary times, and so every bit helps. Unions are free to act as they wish, they don't follow some sort of leftist code. But whether or not you agree with the actions of any specific unions, you must admit that they are basically our only means of defense against the heads of these companies. They are important in principal.

Does that make them "reformists"? Maybe if you consider every (even slightly) revolutionary action committed in a capitalist society to be "reformist". I don't. I think we'll take what we can get and not burn bridges unnecessarily.
I'd like to go preach revolution in the street right now. But I'm not going to because no one cares, so I'll stick to message boards for now. Does that make me a "reformist" too? Or am I just playing the hand I was dealt, the best I can?

[Ostrinski]

There aren't that many syndicalists on this site anymore.

[Skyhilist]

There aren't that many syndicalists on this site anymore.

Any idea where I might find them?

[Ostrinski]

Not sure. There might be a few on libcom but I don't browse there very much. There used to be an anarcho-syndicalist poster here by the username of syndicat. You might find some interesting stuff if you dig around in his/her posts.

[Skyhilist]

Not sure. There might be a few on libcom but I don't browse there very much. There used to be an anarcho-syndicalist poster here by the username of syndicat. You might find some interesting stuff if you dig around in his/her posts.

Hmm alright, thank you

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

The bureaucratic, hierarchical structure of unions, and practices flowing from it, is only one side of the picture. Another, let's call it structural, side concerns the position of unions as legally recognized negotiation partners within capitalist society, whereas the union and the workforce it represents is inherently bound up with capital, so that successful capital accumulation has to be recognized as, sooner or later, the precondition for workers immediate interests (wages, working conditions) and the interest of the functioning union officials (maintenance of their life through the relationship not to the means of production, but rather to the means of negotiation of the wage relation).

That's a pretty good critique of legal and collaborationist unions.
On the other hand, many unions began as illegal organizations, oriented toward combat.
Just my 2 cents.

[homegrown terror]

the only problem i have with unions is the fact that some of them are deceptive left-hands of the management itself (this often happens in single-facility unions) these "unions" have about as much power as "student government" in high schools, and exist primarily to give the bosses a way to placate the workers to ignore any injustices served upon them.

beyond that, whether a union is reformist or revolutionary, they generally have my support. things are bad now, but when bad becomes worse becomes worst, the majority of the reformist unions will come to the realisation that their moderate stances have run their course, and turn revolutionary. i don't think reformist unions are a step in the wrong direction, they just haven't really started running the race, yet.

[subcp]

Anarcho-syndicalists would argue that it is the tactics of revolutionary anarchism that ensure mass unions exercise class power via direct action, and are not involved in mediation directly. CNT-AIT (E) and CGT (E) split over whether or not an anarcho-syndicalist union should participate in works councils (a kind of mix between company union, labor-management committee and 'union parliament')- CNT being against.

The Solidarity Federation pamphlet that recently came out can probably answer your question better.

http://www.libcom.org/library/fighting-ourselves-anarcho-syndicalism-class-struggle-solidarity-federation

Though there are a lot of critiques of trade unionism and syndicalism (anarcho-syndicalist, revolutionary syndicalism, industrial unionism/One Big Unionism/IWW) that are about a lot more than 'they are reformist' (which isn't even a primary reason to be against unionism, including radical or revolutionary unionism).

[Thirsty Crow]

That's a pretty good critique of legal and collaborationist unions.
On the other hand, many unions began as illegal organizations, oriented toward combat.
Just my 2 cents.
Good 2 cents.

Obviously, the structure and function of unions is dependent on the way the state apparatus relates to workers' organizations. And sure, I think it is quite obvious that in different historical circumstances (for instance, when the practices of class collaboration and co-optation hadn't yet fully developed, in the 19th century) and in different regions, any kind of workers economic organization is pushed to militant struggle by the very fact of workers coming together to form an organization.

I also think that the distinction between formal subsumption of labour - pumping out surplus value predominantly through lenghtening the working day and directly squeezing workers wages (absolute surplus value) - and real subsumption of labour (for instance, post WW II productivity deals, relative surplus value mostly pumped out by technological development) bears in significant ways on this issue.



beyond that, whether a union is reformist or revolutionary, they generally have my support. things are bad now, but when bad becomes worse becomes worst, the majority of the reformist unions will come to the realisation that their moderate stances have run their course, and turn revolutionary.
This is naive at best. As it had been explained numerous times before, the union apparatus is inherently bound to capital, and individual union officials are subjected to structural pressures which make such statments mere pipe dreams. Besides, we can look at historical examples when shit got really bad and how unions acted then. Unfortunately, the existing historical experience directly counters such wishful thinking.

However, that is not to say that individual union officials simply can't arrive at revolutionary positions...just that they will probably be forced to practice it outside the unions, and not as union officials.

[Skyhilist]

How are revolutionary syndicalist unions bound to capital? If they require anti-capitalism as a requirement to join, how can this be? I mean reformist unions maybe, but no one is saying that those general unions alone will carry out revolution. But given enough time and even assuming that the reformist unions are as greedy as possible, they're going to strive for more money for themselves (the workers) instead of the bourgeois. For most unions though, dividing the money up amongst themselves instead of the bourgeois still wouldn't provide them as much of a benefit as socialism to them, so it would make sense that they'd radicalize anyways. The only exceptions would be occasional companies like Nintendo where if pay was divided equally every worker would still be a millionaire. These would be minorities though and wouldn't prevail. And even assuming this didn't fully happen, the revolutionary unions would still be there along with other anti-capitalist organizations and collectives. The problem lies in centralized unions that use a top-down method. Even the reforms these unions seek however are better than there being no unions. I sure as hell would prefer the working world we have now under capitalism to the one we'd have under it had unions never existed.

[Thirsty Crow]

How are revolutionary syndicalist unions bound to capital? If they require anti-capitalism as a requirement to join, how can this be? If they are the recognized negotiating partner, then it's clear how, despite the nominal adherence to "anti-capitalism".


But given enough time and even assuming that the reformist unions are as greedy as possible, they're going to strive for more money for themselves (the workers) instead of the bourgeois.

That's not how it works though.

As I stated, in times of crisis for capital, unions usually fall over themselves to offer the best ways of managing the crisis - which amounts to wonderful initiatives such as advocating lay offs instead of wage reductions for all workers in a given sector (public sector, healthcare workers - nurses and technicians and so on, here where I live).

This is the conflict ridden, middle position of the union official - between angrier and angrier workers and management/the state. The latter is predominant in its requests, due to structural reasons.


For most unions though, dividing the money up amongst themselves instead of the bourgeois still wouldn't provide them as much of a benefit as socialism to them, so it would make sense that they'd radicalize anyways.

I think you neglect the fact that union officials occupy a very special position in bourgeois society, and the fact that these "benefits" are first dubious as they enjoy significant privileege and more importantly, due to the fact that revolution is a messy, bloody affair.


Even the reforms these unions seek however are better than there being no unions.

I'm not arguing, and never will, for union busting.

[Skyhilist]

I think your criticisms are valid--for unions structured in a top-down manner. But can you provide examples of unions structured in a bottom-up manner that have advocated things like layoffs? Moreover, can you prove that even when unions are structured like this, they'll advocate things like that the majority of the time? I don't think many syndicalists really look to top-down labor unions as revolutionary saviors, which seems to be the type of union that you're mainly describing.

[subcp]

How are revolutionary syndicalist unions bound to capital? If they require anti-capitalism as a requirement to join, how can this be?

Take the IWW as an example. Revolutionary communism is in the preamble of the union constitution. In the US, the IWW took advantage of American labor law, declared itself a labor organization (official bargaining agent) and complies with the law. The Labor Management Disclosure & Reporting Act of 1959 requires union to file financial paperwork to the Department of Labor (specifically the Office of Labor-Management Standards, which does nothing but oversee compliance with the LMDRA), be transparent to the membership, the state and the public, and sets standards for things like union members rights and what to do about embezzlement by union officials. It also allows the DOL to conduct audits of the unions books. What this means in practice is that the IWW files paperwork every year telling the government how many members it has, how much money it has, what it spends its money on, etc. and all of this becomes public record (if you get on the OLMS website, you can read these reports, see how many the IWW has, etc.). A trade off is the IWW gets to be a 'non-profit organization' as far as its taxes go. But it is treated like any other union in the United States- and, since the IWW has some contracts in some workplaces, it is an exclusive bargaining agent, following off of Section 9 of the National Labor Relations Act. This puts extreme limits on the kinds of direct action the IWW can participate in, it is bound by laws like Taft-Hartley, which regulates/bans several of the most effective weapons of the working-class (wildcat strikes, mass picketing, secondary/sympathy strikes and boycotts, etc.). Similar to the IWW-UK, which complied with UK labor law in paying the state for the right to be treated as a legal union.

In any mass organization, if there is not uniform political maturity and commitment to principles, you get a Lenin Levy- a mass organization with nominal revolutionary aspirations and communist principles, but because the large majority of the members are not committed, politically mature militants, the organization suffers as a result; the communist content becomes diluted in a sea of confusion and opportunism. For example, everyone on this website claims some kind of anti-capitalism; but there are people advocating stuff like the SPGB joining a coalition with opportunist Trot groups or the Green Party to 'get more votes'. It doesn't matter that the original core membership were solid communist militants, if you open up the group to anybody of the working-class who passively agrees with some of the platform or principles, it strangles the life (the communist content) and you end up with a normal, harmless political group or union with a veneer of militancy or radicalism.

Unions are mediating bodies; even the most radical, the most militant- whether the RMT or UE or IWW. I'd argue that what are calling themselves 'anarcho-syndicalist unions' are largely political organizations of communist militants who agree on a set of tactics.

[Yuppie Grinder]

The biggest problem with unions is not a specific set of policies or even the association with the democrats or the labour party, it's that unions are part of the bourgeois state apparatus.

[Skyhilist]

subcp: I have no doubt that the IWW would break those laws if class consciousness was actually at a level where revolution was possible. The problem you're describing lies in state power, not the existence of unions themselves. Anarcho-syndicalist unions would seek to abolish this state power. The fact that they might choose to avid by it now is for tactical purposes. It's sort of like how many social anarchists are against state power yet might vote for something like providing welfare that might mean more state involvement. It doesn't make these anarchists pro-state, it just means they're being practical because simply "smashing the state" instead of voting for such things benefits the proletariat even less. Radical unions that adhere to the law should be seen as analogous to this.

[subcp]

I think that's an opportunistic reading of the situation. Mouvement Communiste talk about the general tendency, starting in the late 19th century and complete by the general integration of the trade unions into the war economy of WWI (and later WWII and beyond):



To ameliorate its condition, the working class organised itself into unions. That, in the historic context of the nineteenth century, was an expression of the workers. Nevertheless, very rapidly, the capitalists understood their interest in buying social peace by ameliorations to the workers’ conditions. But, to put social peace in place, they had to have specialists in negotiation facing them, sharing in the aim of conserving the system. The movement of bureaucratisation and integration into the capitalist state of the old class unions was thus begun. It aimed at the constitution of a legal union apparatus. If, at the beginning of the twentieth century, one could still imagine bringing back to life some of the old unions, despite the already numerous betrayals of strikes, it was no longer possible after 2 August 1914, the date marking their political passage into the camp of the warmongering bourgeoisie. In France, in Germany and in Great Britain, the trade unionists participated in the industrial planification of the war effort. During the world revolutionary wave of 1917-1927 (from the October Revolution to the Shanghai Commune), in all countries of all political nuances, the social democratic and Stalinist union bureaucracies acted as auxiliaries in the crushing of the revolution.
In the present period marked by the recognition and integration of the unions into the state, since at least the end of the Second World War (and well before in France), it has not been possible to have permanent organs for the defence of workers’ interests. If numerous autonomous struggles have aimed at the formation of independent organs, these no longer have any chance of survival in this state. They are presented with a simple alternative. Either to be an autonomous organisation which goes beyond its original limits, at the price of becoming in a minority, that is to place itself essentially on the political plain, or to devote itself to enriching the social democratic institutions of capital by confining itself to the defence of the immediate interests of the workers. In reality there is also a third outcome which, in fact, is the one most often produced: the pure and simple disappearance of the autonomous organisation at the end of a proletarian political cycle, accelerated or not by repression. This is the Italian case of 1968-1978.
http://www.libcom.org/library/unions-political-struggle-mouvement-communiste


-Mouvement Communiste, 'Unions and Political Struggle'


I don't think there is such a thing as a century long tactical maneuver; only a general tendency of integration into the state of all unions in all states- making them an apparatus of capital, not a part of the worker's movement any longer. The example of the IWW is just a specific example of a specific way this integration has happened (for a self-described revolutionary union). I post this as someone who was originally introduced to revolutionary communism via syndicalism and the IWW.