Anti-Union Opinions?

[JesusRocks]

Well, we all know plenty of reasons to support unions, anyone have any arguments against unions, and ways to address them?

[Thirsty Crow]

Well, we all know plenty of reasons to support unions, anyone have any arguments against unions, and ways to address them?
The issue of unions is poorly framed when relying on such vague notions as support.

For instance, I fully support unionization almost under any conditions and yet think that the union is a fundamental mechanism of the preservation of capitalist social relations, in the sense that a) it is entirely dependant on the historical state of capital accumulation and b) on the state recognizing it as a legitimate social partner in negotiation over the conditions of exploitation.

Support for unionization comes from perceived positive effects of a particular kind - it is incorrect to assume that a lack of union representation makes militant working class action more likely. In fact, I think that such steps are important insofar as immediate gains and fights won are necessary as a phase in the overall process. I don't think that picture of a one historic loss after another as leading to anything other than severe demoralization makes sense.

And on a purely immediate grounds, there are benefits to union representation, and these benefits don't stand in the way of a communist movement that would challenge the rule of capital. The problem's not that a specific section of the working class is paid too much, that there are paid holidays and so on. The problem lies in the demoralization, fragmentation due to reorganization of work, national and ethnic divisions, political and union representation having ideological effects, sectional divisions and so on. By itself, it isn't true that any strike or any union campaign represents a potential spark for the revolution; but I do think it is indispensible to support any and all workers' action aimed at bettering living and working conditions (due to what I said about mounting defeats not leading to victories, and due to the fact that I've bloody interest in being subjected to pauperization on grounds of "the worst conditions breed best revolutions" kind of thinking).

But I do think that any idea that unions are revolutionary formations, either now or as "seeds" of future formations of this kind, is illusory and in this sense my views are anti-union (as I belive any international revolution today will necessarily have to deal with the union apparatus and its grip over the class).

[BIXX]

Unions are essential to capitalist negotiation of exploitation. They don't challenge capital in any way and only serve to deintensify struggles against capital.

[Ele'ill]

I am in a union and participate and it is nice to have some basic protection from the bosses but it is mostly useless to the extent we'd want to talk about it on a revolutionary web forum

[The Idler]

Unions are essential to capitalist negotiation of exploitation. They don't challenge capital in any way and only serve to deintensify struggles against capital.
Why do capitalists engage in aggressive union busting and persecute trade unions then?

[RedMaterialist]

I am in a union and participate and it is nice to have some basic protection from the bosses but it is mostly useless to the extent we'd want to talk about it on a revolutionary web forum

If I could ask you a couple of questions:

1. Does your union discuss any socialist/economic issues, such as how the hourly wage does not equal the value which is produced?

2. Does your union discuss the issue of international cooperation? I've read that international unions are illegal, and it is easy to see why. If, say, auto workers were represented by an international union they're bargaining power would increase probably at least ten times.

[Bala Perdida]

Why do capitalists engage in aggressive union busting and persecute trade unions then?Capitalists don't want to mediate exploitation, they're looking to increase profits. Unions are looking to mediate, yet that's all they do. They don't agitate or seek to destroy capitalism, they are part of it. They perpetuate the same work ethic as capitalists, but they act as a middleman towards the bourgeois. They have to show the bourgeois that they can output as much commodities, with less exploitable labor.

[Thirsty Crow]

Why do capitalists engage in aggressive union busting and persecute trade unions then?
Because variable capital is anothger expense that drags down profits, and in such times when the assault can be carried out in favor of the capitalist class, it will be attempted. That's something completely different from any implication that the union form represents an inherent danger to capital - which is nothing but a myth.

Again, this doesn't amount to an argument in favor of union busting or any opposition to hitherto unionized workplaces getting union representation. If a consistent communist would argue for these practices, then it would be necessary to show that there's a very good chance that mass mobilization and militant action will happen in the absence of union representation (and consequently that unionization drives serve to defuse this time bomb), which doesn't hold. Another argument would run along the lines of favoring widespread immiseration as necessary for social revolution - which is acceptable for trust fund communists, but not many people apart from them.

[#FF0000]

I'm a little less pessimistic about the concept of revolutionary unions than most people here I think. Revolutionary unions are possible and necessary, in my opinion, though I don't think they're capable of overthrowing capitalism in themselves. At the same time, I think conservative "business unions" are even worse than people in this thread are saying, because very few of them even lift a finger to protect the workers they're meant to represent on the shop floor, and virtually all of them will sign long-term (2-6 year) contracts with clauses that ban strike actions and force the union to go through legal channels that take months to arbitrate and very often side with the employer anyway.

I think avoiding contracts entirely and practicing minority unionism instead of wasting time and effort in trying to get full recognition would be a better path towards rebuilding a labor movement. I don't think there's even anything worth recuperating in the AFL-CIO.

[ComradeAllende]

Well, we all know plenty of reasons to support unions, anyone have any arguments against unions, and ways to address them?

Here in the States, unions are almost always associated with lazy government workers (usually white collar) and mob-like thugs. I understand the first generalization, since our labor movement is most visible in public education and general govt services. But I'm not sure why we picture card-carrying thugs; I would have thought that the decades of violent union-busting would have made us more skeptical of managers...

Also, the labor movement lost its revolutionary fervor after the anti-Communist purges during the Cold War. Decades of ideological purges, fatal complacency, and diminished expectations has transformed the union from a model of participatory democracy into a scleortic and collaborationist bureaucracy.

[Sewer Socialist]

I'm a little less pessimistic about the concept of revolutionary unions than most people here I think. Revolutionary unions are possible and necessary, in my opinion, though I don't think they're capable of overthrowing capitalism in themselves. At the same time, I think conservative "business unions" are even worse than people in this thread are saying, because very few of them even lift a finger to protect the workers they're meant to represent on the shop floor, and virtually all of them will sign long-term (2-6 year) contracts with clauses that ban strike actions and force the union to go through legal channels that take months to arbitrate and very often side with the employer anyway.

I think avoiding contracts entirely and practicing minority unionism instead of wasting time and effort in trying to get full recognition would be a better path towards rebuilding a labor movement. I don't think there's even anything worth recuperating in the AFL-CIO.

I agree with you on shitty business unions, but I feel like a huge amount of workers don't want to work on a union they run themselves in the lulls where the boss hasn't done something dastardly.

When I was a wob, we had this huge organizing drive at a company where they cut the pay rates slightly, and organized a one-day strike. With 22 out of 23 of the workers in this division striking, they folded in an hour and even agreed to a small raise over the rate they had before the cuts.

...And on the other hand, when nothing terrible happened for a while, no one wanted to be involved, membership declined, and I felt like it was just two people doing all the work, until the next bad thing happened, which was my co-worker (and friend) dying on the job. And after that, while we had another surge of activity, it fell much more quickly, and I kind of stepped back, found something else to be involved in, eventually moved away, and the IWW's involvement with the entire industry pretty much disappeared. That section of the IWW doesn't exist anymore in that town.

Election campaigns aren't always the way to go, but I feel that had we pushed for one at that company when we had near universal support, they would have a union today, instead of none. Shit, for all I know, they pushed that pay cut through again.

[Pancakes Rühle]

Why do capitalists engage in aggressive union busting and persecute trade unions then?

It's in the interest of capitalists to extract the most possible, but in the overarching interest of capital to deintensify struggle against it.

[Decolonize The Left]

Unions are essential to capitalist negotiation of exploitation. They don't challenge capital in any way and only serve to deintensify struggles against capital.

The first claim is false, as unions are not essential in any manner and the capitalist class would like nothing more than to be rid of them once and for all. The latter claim assumes, in many cases--wrongly, a struggle against capital in the first place.

It seems to me as though the truth of the matter is that the union/anti-union argument usually boils down to the fact that people either identify as working class or they don't. If they don't, then unions are exactly as you say. If they do, then unions are a valid vehicle for building class consciousness but, and LR hit the nail on the head, they are not an end in themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

The first claim is false, as unions are not essential in any manner...

Whether they are essential or not is of little importance when they exist specifically to negotiate the conditions of exploitation and maintain capitalist economics. For the continuation of capitalism, trade unions serve a very specific and useful purpose.


and the capitalist class would like nothing more than to be rid of them once and for all. The latter claim assumes, in many cases--wrongly, a struggle against capital in the first place.

To free market fundamentalists trade unions present an obstacle precisely because they negotiate compromise on conditions. Libertarians like Sajid Javid and David Cameron want to limit trade union interference in order to attract business, and don't believe that there should ever be compromise on the market's freedom to operate. Of course, for those who own the means of production, they probably wish we could go back to Victorian era workhouses! Most of the political class, however, see unions as a necessary part of capitalist society. Social democrats, centrists and even the centre-right see a role for trade unions, and advocate for their existence in keeping the checks and balances of capitalism. The then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, spoke at a GMB conference talking about the crucial role trade unions play in upholding workers' rights and the historic link between the liberals and trade unions. He spoke of their common objectives for job creation and investment -- a common objective! And the thing we have to remember is that during negotiations with the coalition government, despite the rhetoric, the Trade Union Council capitulated on all negotiating fronts.


It seems to me as though the truth of the matter is that the union/anti-union argument usually boils down to the fact that people either identify as working class or they don't. If they don't, then unions are exactly as you say. If they do, then unions are a valid vehicle for building class consciousness but, and LR hit the nail on the head, they are not an end in themselves.

If unions are valid vehicles for building class consciousness, why is it that they have consistently failed to do that? The vast majority of union struggles in the UK have been sector-led, narrowly focused and anti-militant. We have had five years of crippling austerity and the NHS is slowly being privatised; the conditions for militancy definitely exist, yet union membership has continued to slowly decline (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313768/bis-14-p77-trade-union-membership-statistical-bulletin-2013.pdf) and there has not been a generalised escalation from the very passive trade union activity to a broad movement that is challenging the conditions of austerity. Even attempts to politicise anti-austerity sentiment within the trade union movement have failed. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition made no impact during the general election. Even the miners' strike, arguably the most radical moment of trade union militancy in recent memory, never managed to generalise class consciousness. There does seem to be an appetite for strike action, but as we've seen over the last month, memberships have rolled back on strike action at the smallest glimpse of compromise. If anything, what this demonstrates is that trade unions are vehicles for building acceptance to compromise.

[The Feral Underclass]

In fact, I think that such steps are important insofar as immediate gains and fights won are necessary as a phase in the overall process.

[...]

...I do think it is indispensible to support any and all workers' action aimed at bettering living and working conditions (due to what I said about mounting defeats not leading to victories, and due to the fact that I've bloody interest in being subjected to pauperization on grounds of "the worst conditions breed best revolutions" kind of thinking).

Supporting workers' action that deviates from a specific communist line or does not form a specific communist measure is counter-productive to your objectives, irrespective of whether it makes the living and working conditions of workers better.

Winning any victory should not be an objective in-and-of itself. The immediate objective is to win the correct victories.

[Thirsty Crow]

The first claim is false, as unions are not essential in any manner and the capitalist class would like nothing more than to be rid of them once and for all. The latter claim assumes, in many cases--wrongly, a struggle against capital in the first place.

It seems to me as though the truth of the matter is that the union/anti-union argument usually boils down to the fact that people either identify as working class or they don't. If they don't, then unions are exactly as you say. If they do, then unions are a valid vehicle for building class consciousness but, and LR hit the nail on the head, they are not an end in themselves.That's not a good argument at all. Of course the capitalist class would like all sorts of things, but this doesn't change the fact that the historical development of the so called social partnership established both union representation and political representation (workers' and social democratic parties) as two pillars of continued integration of the working class into the existing order. The fact that the US, for instance, sees a vampire like capitalist class hell bent on union busting doesn't imply anything apart from the current vulnerability of capital with regard to profit; and in any case, this isn't a universal paradigm at all. Different strategies are pursued elsewhere, ones that involve the union apparatus intimately. But I think it is safe to assume that this double representation of the working class is indeed essential at least for specific historical periods in capitalist accumulation and social reproduction, depending on such more concrete conjunctures and conditions.

I can't agree with what you say about people identifying as workers as a factor here. I'd like to believe I'm consistent in my communist positions with regard to union, which are anti-union in a specific sense, yet most surely I will very soon end up as a worker (right now I'm on no contract, and basically freelance and suck income from my support network).

I'm not sure what kinds of unions are viable vehicles for the working class, but the recent success of SI Cobas in Italy might point the way forward (with a significant exception that any union is also an enterprise selling a service, and depending on the conditions of recognition by sectorally based capitalists and the state, base unions like Cobas might as well be on the trajectory towards a mere business union right now*).

One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I don't think such base unions primary role is fostering "class consciousness". With each day I seem to be more wary of this concept, but the point is that such formations are essentially fighting formations that strive to transcend the existing boundaries - of workplace, sector, ethnicity and nationality. That's in my mind something different than "class consciousness", or to put it more clearly - the term doesn't and cannot cover all relevant aspects of these formations and activities.

* As for revolutionary unions, I'm of the opinion that the basic function of unions - representation within negotiating the conditions of exploitation - precludes any such union to even exist. Or to be more clear, it would make no sense to use the term "revolutionary union" if it was indeed union that we're dealing with. Another thing is that there's a specific blend of political agitation and propaganda groups with workplace...formations, which get the label of a "union". If they're legally recognized as bargaining partners, okay, but then the point stands that the union apparatus functions in specific ways due to its structural role in capitalist social reproduction. These ways are at least tendentially completely contrary to the development of a workers' revolutionary movement.


Supporting workers' action that deviates from a specific communist line or does not form a specific communist measure is counter-productive to your objectives, irrespective of whether it makes the living and working conditions of workers better.

Winning any victory should not be an objective in-and-of itself. The immediate objective is to win the correct victories.Can you provide some examples? I thinki it will be much easier to discuss this productively with concrete stuff in mind. Primarily, I'm not sure what you mean by "communist measure", and actions that deviate from a specific communist line (in case of the latter, ethno-nationalist, anti-immigrant campaigns and workers' actions come to mind).

I do agree that winning any victory should not be a gaol in-and-of itself though, without actually thinking about how it relates to the prospects for a formation of a revolutionary movement.

[Sharia Lawn]

Unions are essential to capitalist negotiation of exploitation. They don't challenge capital in any way and only serve to deintensify struggles against capital.

The existence of living workers is also essential to capitalist exploitation. Does this mean we should supporting genociding all members of the working class? There was a certain Cambodian who flirted with that idea, I think.

[Ele'ill]

If I could ask you a couple of questions:

1. Does your union discuss any socialist/economic issues, such as how the hourly wage does not equal the value which is produced?

2. Does your union discuss the issue of international cooperation? I've read that international unions are illegal, and it is easy to see why. If, say, auto workers were represented by an international union they're bargaining power would increase probably at least ten times.

Regarding the union overall, not the last time I checked and I'm pretty confident that nothing has changed. Regarding the local, there are about two of us who push discussion into the realm of what you're asking here. To be fair there are moments where roleplaying is made easier when we some how reach unanimous decisions. We removed a popular regional campaign from our to-do list because we didn't trust the intentions of the people pushing it, and we didn't see its strategy panning out. I thought that was a big little-thing since it required actual discussion of real things at a meeting and none of that turned into a jumbled mess. We've also engaged in direct action that was organized outside of any official union structure for relatively short term goals. I have not seriously brought up or discussed international solidarity actions or anything like that, it would sound like the chronicles of narnia to some of the people involved, but I have brought it up on a smaller regional level i.e. the ports and stuff.

We live in a city that sees itself as progressive so we are constantly bombarded with 'opportunities' to go to dinners, rallies, talks, etc..and the bureaucrats seem to jump at that, so it's like a constant stream of distractions being pushed towards us. Each one of those types of things we've gone to has been a situation where the groups involved are entirely liberal and usually there to make noise for their own organization or figureheads, and a call to worship an area of struggle.

[Ele'ill]

The existence of living workers is also essential to capitalist exploitation. Does this mean we should supporting genociding all members of the working class? There was a certain Cambodian who flirted with that idea, I think.

I think their point was not that bodies of workers shouldn't organize and attack in varying ways but that unions heavily rooted in the existence of every day life such as an adherence to laws and civil order, channel that into deescalation for self preservation of the organization. In that way unions depend on private ownership and civil order for their own existence and do not actually seek to liberate humans from the role of worker. We could come up with some larpy models of workers attacking together and call it a union but I dont' think that was the point.

[The Feral Underclass]

Can you provide some examples? I thinki it will be much easier to discuss this productively with concrete stuff in mind. Primarily, I'm not sure what you mean by "communist measure", and actions that deviate from a specific communist line (in case of the latter, ethno-nationalist, anti-immigrant campaigns and workers' actions come to mind).

To keep a specific communist line it is important never to deviate from the core message that communism is the only viable alternative to the problems we face. Trade unionism, reformism -- these are not solutions. The break with the logic of capitalism and the production of communism is the only solution, and we should never deviate from that line. Obviously we should not support ethno-nationalist or anti-immigrant struggles, but we should also not support struggles on the left that separate the class from their historic task or strengthen the conditions of their exploitation. In other words, struggles or measures taken that do not specifically challenge the logic of capitalism and the state, and which do not escalate class antagonism in the production of communism is deviating from a communist line.

Political and economic struggles tend to recreate forms and modes of practice that do not break with the logic of capitalism or bourgeois social relations. For example, a union struggle does not produce anything other than a resolution for capitalism. The same can be said of reforms. A communist measure, therefore, is a course of action taken that produces communism -- communism in the sense that it challenges and breaks from the logic of capitalism and bourgeois social relations. There are obvious examples of this, such as rejecting hierarchy or anti-homophobic organising, but more concrete economic examples would be acts of [re]appropriation and [re]distribution. If you are involved in a workplace struggle for better wages, do not argue for an increase in wages, argue for why wages are the basis for our exploitation and our antagonism with our bosses. That is the communist line. By seeking an increase in wages you are not challenging wage-labour, you are reinforcing the basis with which the capitalist can extract profit -- this is not producing communism, it is strengthening capitalism, "The raising of wages excites in the worker the capitalist’s mania to get rich, which he, however, can only satisfy by the sacrifice of his mind and body. The raising of wages presupposes and entails the accumulation of capital, and thus sets the product of labour against the worker as something ever more alien to him." In this instance, the correct measure -- the communist measure -- would be a course of action that breaks from the logic of capital and communises. This will inevitably create confrontation with the state, but in the pursuit of our historic task it is the nature of our conflict; this is class antagonism actualised. That is the class struggle.

Unfortunately within the left there is a problem of imagination and it is largely due to conforming to a [bourgeois] mentality that sees immediate concerns as taking precedence over anything else -- in this case the production of communism. The inevitable response to what I am saying is that workers will lose jobs or maybe some people will go to prison. The answer to that is: This is what class war looks like. Retreating from the inevitability of conflict is precisely how the state maintains capitalism and how the bosses discipline workers. These things are what keep our historic antagonism subdued. Another inevitable criticism is that these conflicts cannot exist as islands within capitalist society and of course they can not. But it is at moments of confrontation when our opportunities are the most vivid and the tasks we face, therefore, are firstly to stay the course and secondly to generalise it.


I do agree that winning any victory should not be a gaol in-and-of itself though, without actually thinking about how it relates to the prospects for a formation of a revolutionary movement.

Or rather "revolutionary" measures. I'm not convinced that a "movement" is particularly useful or necessary (depending of course on what you mean by 'movement.')

[Decolonize The Left]

Whether they are essential or not is of little importance when they exist specifically to negotiate the conditions of exploitation and maintain capitalist economics. For the continuation of capitalism, trade unions serve a very specific and useful purpose.

To free market fundamentalists trade unions present . . .

I am aware of all this. My response was to the following:

Unions are essential to capitalist negotiation of exploitation.
This claim is false. Unions emerged historically as a result of, and in response to, capitalist working conditions--they are not essential to capitalism in-and-of itself in any way.

That was my point and it is important because capitalism can, and almost assuredly will, change forms many times. To think that trade unions are necessary is to limit the scope of one's vision regarding the future. I agree with the points regarding the fact that they exist to negotiate conditions of exploitation and have never argued otherwise. In fact, in the very same post you quoted here I acknowledge that.


If unions are valid vehicles for building class consciousness, why is it that they have consistently failed to do that? . . . If anything, what this demonstrates is that trade unions are vehicles for building acceptance to compromise.

I disagree and I think your argument is limited by its scope. I would argue that trade unions were, in fact, extremely valuable--nay, invaluable--to the class struggle. Proof of this is the fact that we can thank the unions for a laundry list of important concessions (such as the weekend, etc), not to mention the long list of strikes which led to greater leftist movements.

The reason why unions are no longer very good at building class consciousness is not the fault of unions qua unions, but, rather, the fact that there is very little 'working class' left to speak of. Conditional employment, part-time employment, independent contracting, etc. all these are newly-developed ways to fragment and instrumentalize the working class. Automation and economies of scale have resulted in what would be the working class being spread out over the globe and isolated. There is no real "shop floor" to speak of at Google or Amazon, is there?

My point is that it is shortsighted to look at the lack of working class consciousness and go "damn unions!" The truth is that the situation is much more complex and unions are a mere reflection of the greater conditions.

[Decolonize The Left]

That's not a good argument at all. Of course the capitalist class would like all sorts of things, but this doesn't change the fact that the historical development of the so called social partnership established both union representation and political representation (workers' and social democratic parties) as two pillars of continued integration of the working class into the existing order.

The working class is not "continuously integrated" into the existing order at all. The existing order necessitates and is formed by the means of production held in relation to labor power via the wage, which is to say that the working class is a necessary part of the existing order. No working class: no existing order.


I can't agree with what you say about people identifying as workers as a factor here. I'd like to believe I'm consistent in my communist positions with regard to union, which are anti-union in a specific sense, yet most surely I will very soon end up as a worker (right now I'm on no contract, and basically freelance and suck income from my support network).

There are working class people on this forum, people with more intellectual prowess than I, who do not identify as working class. And this is not to blame them at all, but merely to state that the days of a defined working class existing in opposition to a defined capitalist class are over.

For an example, think about the difference between taxi cab drivers and Uber. Taxi cab drivers are clearly defined working class individuals who exist in real, everyday, opposition to the capitalist class. On the other hand, Uber means that anyone, anywhere, can potentially fill the function of a taxi cab driver. But is that person working class? Yes, but it is not clear at all. For in one moment they may be working for Uber and in the next for a different company.

We are witnessing a fundamental change in the social production relation.


One thing I'd like to emphasize is that I don't think such base unions primary role is fostering "class consciousness". With each day I seem to be more wary of this concept, but the point is that such formations are essentially fighting formations that strive to transcend the existing boundaries - of workplace, sector, ethnicity and nationality. That's in my mind something different than "class consciousness", or to put it more clearly - the term doesn't and cannot cover all relevant aspects of these formations and activities.

This is fair. I would argue that "class consciousness" = "transcendence of existing boundaries."


* As for revolutionary unions, I'm of the opinion that the basic function of unions - representation within negotiating the conditions of exploitation - precludes any such union to even exist. Or to be more clear, it would make no sense to use the term "revolutionary union" if it was indeed union that we're dealing with. Another thing is that there's a specific blend of political agitation and propaganda groups with workplace...formations, which get the label of a "union". If they're legally recognized as bargaining partners, okay, but then the point stands that the union apparatus functions in specific ways due to its structural role in capitalist social reproduction. These ways are at least tendentially completely contrary to the development of a workers' revolutionary movement.

I agree.

[Ele'ill]

I am aware of all this. My response was to the following:

This claim is false. Unions emerged historically as a result of, and in response to, capitalist working conditions--they are not essential to capitalism in-and-of itself in any way.


Regardless of the initial intentions couldn't it still be argued from this pov, that workers at least in the US had horrible times historically addressing and organizing around the actual condition of work and the conditions at work because the unions were doing things like offering (with private ownership) wage hike incentives specifically against increasing hostility towards a bigger picture? Isn't this more of a criticism, 'what to expect' of emergent organizations and institutions within capitalism?

[Thirsty Crow]

The working class is not "continuously integrated" into the existing order at all. The existing order necessitates and is formed by the means of production held in relation to labor power via the wage, which is to say that the working class is a necessary part of the existing order. No working class: no existing order.
When I wrote that the working class is continuously integrated into the excisting order I meant "continuously" in the chronological sense, while the ntegration itself takes on many forms, the two of which are political representation and economic negotiation which serve to preclude the revolutionary independence and activity of the class. In short, pacification, ensuring at least passive consent since there are no more binding and overarching divine authorities.

Of course, when the mediating mechanisms (be they political representation, economic negotiation, ideology and mass communication) start to alarmingly fail, other measures are at the disposal for the ruling class. But that doesn't mean that the former aren't essential for a particular historical period and specific nations and regions (for instance, a case could be made that at the same time one such mediating factor is dominant in the US, while other factors are at play in other places).

I'm not sure how the simple fact that capital exists solely vis-a-vis the working class implies I'm wrong in what I said about integration.



There are working class people on this forum, people with more intellectual prowess than I, who do not identify as working class. And this is not to blame them at all, but merely to state that the days of a defined working class existing in opposition to a defined capitalist class are over.

For an example, think about the difference between taxi cab drivers and Uber. Taxi cab drivers are clearly defined working class individuals who exist in real, everyday, opposition to the capitalist class. On the other hand, Uber means that anyone, anywhere, can potentially fill the function of a taxi cab driver. But is that person working class? Yes, but it is not clear at all. For in one moment they may be working for Uber and in the next for a different company.

We are witnessing a fundamental change in the social production relation.
I'm not at all convinced that there is any fundamental shift, but that depends on what one means by fundamental.

It's actually quite simple. Individuals who depend on the sale of their labor power - be it successful or not - for their livelihood are working class. One can also make the distinction between freelancers and other workers which would depend on the former technically owning their means of production, but that might not be so useful when thinking about the supposed fundamental shift.

If there's a fundamental shift going on, it's in terms and conditions of employment and work, not the social relations of productions per se (e.g. it's irrelevant for the latter if a worker is on a temp contract or on full time, full benefits contract).

[The Feral Underclass]

I disagree and I think your argument is limited by its scope. I would argue that trade unions were, in fact, extremely valuable--nay, invaluable--to the class struggle. Proof of this is the fact that we can thank the unions for a laundry list of important concessions (such as the weekend, etc), not to mention the long list of strikes which led to greater leftist movements.

The narrative that trade unions are the reason for workers' rights is one used by trade unions and socialists alike. It is a romanticised version of history, and one that serves specific and nefarious political functions. I think the story that trade unions were this shining beacon of workers' rights is false. In reality, the trade union movement from its inception was fractious and inwardly focused. The various emerging trade unions throughout history have always happened because of strikes and unrest occurring in spite of their existence. In other words, they have always been running to catch up with working class militancy, seeking to impose specific form onto spontaneous working class dissent. And when they did manage to subsume this dissent they always expressed the least radical elements of the workers' movement. In the UK the trade unions at the time had to be pressured into adopting the 8 hour work day as a key goal, for example! It should be pointed out also that, as far as I am aware, the weekend that you mentioned was actually largely already instituted for religious reasons. In fact, shorter working hours and weekends were used by the state to prevent layoffs.

To disagree with what I am saying is to disagree with reality. You claimed that trade unions are a vehicle for building class consciousness and as far as I can tell this does not relate in any way to reality. You mention this long list of strikes which led to greater "leftist" movements, but which movements are these exactly? Peasants and workers have been fighting for better working conditions since the Middle Ages. Trade unions as political entities have subsumed those fights into a form that has not proven to be effective in producing communism. Especially if we are to look at modern history. While it may be true that they served an important purpose in the emergence of workers organising themselves as a legitimate task, we live in a different period of history now. The restructuring of capitalism has moved us away from the realities of the industrial revolution, Fordism and the 1980s when unions may have made sense. Trade unions now simply have no place in the production of communism in restructured capitalism. Interestingly, this is something you highlight below...


The reason why unions are no longer very good at building class consciousness is not the fault of unions qua unions, but, rather, the fact that there is very little 'working class' left to speak of. Conditional employment, part-time employment, independent contracting, etc. all these are newly-developed ways to fragment and instrumentalize the working class. Automation and economies of scale have resulted in what would be the working class being spread out over the globe and isolated. There is no real "shop floor" to speak of at Google or Amazon, is there?

While I reject the assertion that there is little working class to speak of, I could agree that there is very little of the traditional working class left, which is precisely why trade unions no longer serve a function, and precisely why they are incapable of building class consciousness. Trade unions occupied a period of history, but since capitalism's restructuring, that space no longer exists. The majority of workers are precarious or unemployed, and the nature and reality of their struggles cannot be confined to the union form. The trade union doesn't relate to the reality of capitalism in the way it once may have done. For what it's worth, every union foray into organising the unemployed and precarious that I have witnessed has failed precisely because their cumbersome forms cannot adapt to the cultural and social realities of the contemporary proletariat.


My point is that it is shortsighted to look at the lack of working class consciousness and go "damn unions!" The truth is that the situation is much more complex and unions are a mere reflection of the greater conditions.

I am responding to your own assertion that they are vehicles for building class consciousness. I have not based my criticisms of unions on this. You claimed it, but there is no evidence for it.

[The Feral Underclass]

We are witnessing a fundamental change in the social production relation.

We're not witnessing it, it's already happened! What we have to remember, however, is that, "[Capitalism] begins not with the offer of work, but with the imperative to earn a living. [...] Unemployment precedes employment, and the informal economy precedes the formal, both historically and conceptually. We must insist that ‘proletarian’ is not a synonym for ‘wage labourer’ but for dispossession, expropriation and radical dependence on the market. You don’t need a job to be a proletarian: wageless life, not wage labour, is the starting point in understanding the free market.’"

[Decolonize The Left]

Regardless of the initial intentions couldn't it still be argued from this pov, that workers at least in the US had horrible times historically addressing and organizing around the actual condition of work and the conditions at work because the unions were doing things like offering (with private ownership) wage hike incentives specifically against increasing hostility towards a bigger picture? Isn't this more of a criticism, 'what to expect' of emergent organizations and institutions within capitalism?

Indeed, and I am not opposed to critiquing unions either as a whole or individually. I am opposed to two things (in this discussion):
1) The conflation of unions qua unions with larger, structural phenomena.
2) The portrayal of unions as fundamentally anti-leftist, in the sense that, by leftism, we mean an end to capitalism.

These two things are intertwined. Unions were very useful in resisting/combating capitalism; their usefulness has lessened, but not because of unions themselves, rather, the conditions in which unions take context has changed.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's actually quite simple. Individuals who depend on the sale of their labor power - be it successful or not - for their livelihood are working class.

I accept your definition of working class to a point; I would add that to be working class is to exist in opposition to the capitalist class. For example, if there was no capitalist class, your definition would still suffice but would be meaningless in the context of leftism.

The fundamental shift is not in the social productions relations themselves (i.e. labor power does not relate to the MoP in a non-wage fashion), but in the way in which these relations manifest on the level of everyday life. Therefore the terms which we use (working class, production, capital, etc.) are becoming less and less relevant as the context through which they take meaning is changed.

[breadnroses]

One major argument I hear against unions is...

after the labor movement, outsourcing of jobs to China

first tell them that this is post hoc ergo propter hoc, and their entire argument is fallacious.

After that, mention that companies were able to undermine the rights of workers by outsourcing to countries without fair labor laws because this country does not have adequate protections in place in the forms of tariffs, tax penalties, embargoes, etc. If these things were in place, there would be many more employed, unionized workers in this country

[Decolonize The Left]

The narrative that trade unions are the reason for workers' rights is one used by trade unions and socialists alike. It is a romanticised version of history, and one that serves specific and nefarious political functions.

An interesting point. Please see my response to Mari3L for the specifics regarding what I'm saying about unions. I would argue that unions were an attempt to formalize the non-uniform boundary between the working and capitalist classes. That boundary may not be able to be formalized at all, but this potential fact doesn't mean that the efforts were worthless.



I am responding to your own assertion that they are vehicles for building class consciousness. I have not based my criticisms of unions on this. You claimed it, but there is no evidence for it.

To be fair, what I said was:

It seems to me as though the truth of the matter is that the union/anti-union argument usually boils down to the fact that people either identify as working class or they don't. If they don't, then unions are exactly as you say. If they do, then unions are a valid vehicle for building class consciousness but, and LR hit the nail on the head, they are not an end in themselves.
My claim was a conditional one, and I have since explained how I feel as though the conditions for the claim are in danger.


We're not witnessing it, it's already happened! What we have to remember, however, is that, "[Capitalism] begins not with the offer of work, but with the imperative to earn a living. [...] Unemployment precedes employment, and the informal economy precedes the formal, both historically and conceptually. We must insist that ‘proletarian’ is not a synonym for ‘wage labourer’ but for dispossession, expropriation and radical dependence on the market. You don’t need a job to be a proletarian: wageless life, not wage labour, is the starting point in understanding the free market.’"

First, please post who you are citing. Second, I can dig this. Third, we are witnessing it--it is not over. The old social production relation is still in place in much of the world where the process of accumulation has not yet evolved into a posthistorical paradigm. It just so happens that the two of us sit in highly postindustrial economies and thus, to us, it seems as though it has already occurred, when in fact it is just beginning.

[Thirsty Crow]

I accept your definition of working class to a point; I would add that to be working class is to exist in opposition to the capitalist class. For example, if there was no capitalist class, your definition would still suffice but would be meaningless in the context of leftism.
Okay, I don't think anything is gained by your addition, but nothing is lost either. Although, the way I framed the issue might be considered as transhistorical as it applies to wage labor under any wider set of relations of production; yourway specifically fleshes out the modern working class and how is it socially and economically constituted.


The fundamental shift is not in the social productions relations themselves (i.e. labor power does not relate to the MoP in a non-wage fashion), but in the way in which these relations manifest on the level of everyday life. Therefore the terms which we use (working class, production, capital, etc.) are becoming less and less relevant as the context through which they take meaning is changed.
I don't think this makes any sense. If there isn't any fundamental shift in the social relations of production, and we both seem to agree on this point, then surely the terms are as relevant as they have been ever since these global social relations came into full bloom for the first time in history.

I also think you're being way too vague here; many significant shifts occur with employment (agency and temp, precarious employment conditions generally) and work (just in time, technology impacting work patterns and concentrations of workers, capital intensive industries and unemployment, the historical entry of women into the workforce en masse, the current shifts in gendered work etc.) patterns. But nothing here, somewhat apart from the rise of freelancers in number (which complicates the division between the petite bourgeoisie and the working class, but not by much) speaks of a valid reason to misconceive such useful terms as working class, production and capital as slowly becoming irrelevant. Maybe for some all the reason necessary are fanciful theories of the multitude, immaterial labor, and cognitive capitalism, but mostly these represent a spider's nest of severe confusion and nothing more. Makes one recall the theories of plenitude coming from the dmocratic capitalism which shortens the working day which were en vogue back in the 60s among those who saw that social class is fast becoming a relic of the 19th century.

One other reason which is a potential candidate is that working class folks mostly don't share this conceptual framework and coinsider themselves something else. But that's a poor gauge of conceptual relevance, isn't it?

[The Feral Underclass]

An interesting point. Please see my response to Mari3L for the specifics regarding what I'm saying about unions. I would argue that unions were an attempt to formalize the non-uniform boundary between the working and capitalist classes. That boundary may not be able to be formalized at all, but this potential fact doesn't mean that the efforts were worthless.



To be fair, what I said was:

My claim was a conditional one, and I have since explained how I feel as though the conditions for the claim are in danger.

First, please post who you are citing. Second, I can dig this. Third, we are witnessing it--it is not over. The old social production relation is still in place in much of the world where the process of accumulation has not yet evolved into a posthistorical paradigm. It just so happens that the two of us sit in highly postindustrial economies and thus, to us, it seems as though it has already occurred, when in fact it is just beginning.

Michael Denning -- Wageless Life