Revival of Trade Unionism

[BobKKKindle$]

I have recently been reading Pannakoek's Worker's Councils. The Author discusses some of the ways in which trade unions have changed over time and concludes that unions often no longer function as agents of workers liberation. In, particular he notes how employers have followed the example of trade unions in some respects in that they have formed associations which can exercise lock-outs in the event of militant industrial actions in order to ensure that workers are not able to maintain a strike for long periods of time, as Unions only have limited funds with which they can support their members. He also notes how in larger unions there is a divergence of interests between Permanent Union officials who are responsible for engaging in discussions in negotiations with Capital, and workers and shop-stewards who are characterised by greater militancy and confrontation, such that increasingly unions simply function as mechanisms by which Capitalists can communicate their decisions to workers.

Given these weaknesses, to what extent to trade unions still remain viable institutions to fight Capital, and in what respects should we change or reform Unions in order to ensure that they represent workers interests and are capable of exercising control over Capital? Or should we just undertake direct action? Any thoughts would be much appreciated.

[Hit The North]

Trade Unions fight capitalism in a defensive manner. Without the ability to organize, workers would be vulnerable to increased exploitation and danger in their work. So in that sense, it is crucial that socialist defend and promote union membership.

Turning the unions into aN offensive instrument of class struggle has proved to be a lot tougher, I think. They tend to either be superseded by other organizational forms such as workers councils or, if left to dominate the political leadership of the class, lead the class to abject failure (the British General Strike of 1926 being a good example).

Despite this, trade unions remain good schools for socialist activists and can play a role in radicalizing layers of the class.

[rouchambeau]

Trade Unions fight capitalism in a defensive manner. Without the ability to organize, workers would be vulnerable to increased exploitation and danger in their work. So in that sense, it is crucial that socialist defend and promote union membership.
False dichotomy. Workers can, and have, organize outside of the unions.


Despite this, trade unions remain good schools for socialist activists and can play a role in radicalizing layers of the class.
I really doubt that. The IWW may be the exception, but I still really doubt that. Even the IWW is still bourgeois, like all unions.

[LSD]

The advantage of the union is that it develops directly out of the living class struggle, whereas other forms of workers' organizing do not.


He also notes how in larger unions there is a divergence of interests between Permanent Union officials who are responsible for engaging in discussions in negotiations with Capital, and workers and shop-stewards who are characterised by greater militancy and confrontation

There can be no doubt that, as organs operating within the bourgeois economic system, unions, even of the most radicalized variety, bear a substantial risk of falling into reformism.

But fighting the bourgeoisie and winning, even on minor issues, helps to develop class consciousness. Because unless workers see that they have political and economic power as a class, alternate social identities will continue to be primary.

Whether it was fighting poor laws in the 1830s or anti-union laws in the 1930s, the proletariat has always required specific external catylists before it could start acting as a united entity.

Today, most workers no longer see themselves as workers first and they certainly don't see unions as means of expressing their social interests. That's for a number of reasons, of course, including the general reactionary tenor of society in general, but an important part of the story is the failure of unions themselves over the past few decades.

That's not an indictment of union-based organizing itself, however, because that same pheonomenon can be seen all across the workers' movement, regardless of the structural model being followed.

And the union remains the single best focal point for worker organizing.

Re-radicalizing those unions, getting them involved in class war again, will ultimately result in the remaking of those unions, hopefully from the bottom, and the reemergence of the union as the expression of proletarian power.

A fight, almost any fight, forces the bureaucrats and bourgoies stooges in union "management" to choose between their organizational and class duties and their prime position up the capitalists' assholes. It will also reveal to the union body in general just how useless their "leaders" are.

The prime engine of working class revolution must always be the revolutionary union. Accordingly it is our job as revolutionaries to help build it up again to the position that it can actually challange the bourgeois social order.


I really doubt that. The IWW may be the exception, but I still really doubt that. Even the IWW is still bourgeois, like all unions.

Unions are often corrupt, and they are certainly often inept, but the only way that they can be "bourgeois" is by becoming to entrentched in the bourgeois political system. By losing sight of their proletarian interests (i.e., serving their flesh-and-blood working class members) and instead start serving ideology.

That's not to say that unions shouldn't have ideals, but that those ideals should be a part of serving the workers, not the other way around.

That means that many unions should be strongly criticized and others should be rebuilt from the bottom up, but to reject the principle of proletarian union is absurd. The workers syndicate remains the fundamental organ of working class organization and has always been the driving force in pushing working class goals.

Where the revolutionary left has gone wrong is when it has put the party above the union; because the political party truly is a bourgeois invention. It exists and operates solely within the sphere of bourgeois legislative politics.

And I'm curious as to how anyone can see the political party as a viable means of proletarian emancipation but reject the union. I'm equally curious as to what people would propose replacing the union with? Social clubs? Affinity groups? Message boards? :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:18 pm
False dichotomy. Workers can, and have, organize outside of the unions.
And workers organised outside "unions" are what, if not other unions?

Luís Henrique

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 09:18 pm
I really doubt that. The IWW may be the exception, but I still really doubt that. Even the IWW is still bourgeois, like all unions.
how so? I wonder how an organisation can be bourgeois when only working class people are allowed and its explicit goal is to over through the bourgeouis and impliment workers control?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

LSD

I would like to know what you think about Trade Unions in regards to the Thatcher/Reagan era of politics.

Because, i like unions, but at this time they were completely taken apart by a much more organised and determined adversary.

Do you think there can be a way for Unions to be close together enough that they cannot be isolated and destroyed like they were in the 80's?

very interested on your thought on this.

[rouchambeau]

to reject the principle of proletarian union is absurd. The workers syndicate remains the fundamental organ of working class organization and has always been the driving force in pushing working class goals.

I don't disagree with you at all. I think the point of contention is what is meant by "a union". I'm talking about the typical style of workplace organization that is so ubiquitous today. I do not oppose workers getting together.


And workers organised outside "unions" are what, if not other unions?
A union is not just some workers getting together in any old fashion. It's a form of organization where the union leader at the top negotiates with the bosses to settle on a rate of exploitation. Another form of organization is the councils that left communists like to advocate where the demands and actions of workers are much more revolutionary.


I wonder how an organisation can be bourgeois when only working class people are allowed and its explicit goal is to over through the bourgeouis and impliment workers control?
Poor word choice. I hardly even remember typing that line about the IWW being bourgeois.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Bad thing for socialist movements everywhere; in this instance, worse is better (bourgeois article - warning):

How Globalization Is Creating a New European Underclass (http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,442649,00.html)


Though bombs can shake a [bourgeois] democracy or market economy, they cannot destroy it. But the process of economic erosion deprives the West of jobs, then money and, in the end, democratic legitimacy. What is citizenship worth if people are denied the opportunity to participate in the working world? What use are civil liberties if the right to an independent lifestyle is no longer among them? Would it be acceptable if the rights set down in the constitution were only applicable to the educated classes?

...

Questions of fundamental importance are forcing their way to the foreground: Can a [bourgeois] democracy tolerate having part of its populace continuously shut out from the rising quality of life? And if that is accepted, will this decision come back to haunt us in our lifetimes?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Because, i like unions, but at this time they were completely taken apart by a much more organised and determined adversary.

Don't forget much of the "left," which helped a ton! You remember.. the folks supporting the same CIA/cleric-backed Solidarnosc "union" in Poland that Reagan supported (while at the same time crushing the PATCO strike).

[Luimneachabu]

What has to happen with the Trade Union movement thoroughout the world,is for the radical politicisation of the rank and file union members. In 1919 a group of union members from Limerick City established the Limerick Soviet,where the members printed ther own money and established Workers Co-Operatives. This sadly was short lived but this is the way for trade union members to create a positive situation for themselves rather than to seek guidance from centrist bureaucrats.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 08:02 pm
Today, most workers no longer see themselves as workers first and they certainly don't see unions as means of expressing their social interests. That's for a number of reasons, of course, including the general reactionary tenor of society in general, but an important part of the story is the failure of unions themselves over the past few decades.
Funny... when I've looked at union activity in Quebec and Canada in recent year, it's the highest number of strikes per year in 20 years, and it's still going up.

Let's not forget the resurgence of General Strikes the likes of which have not been seen since the 70's, and of course the ongoing factory occupations in Ontario.

Seems like labour is on an upswing... or maybe we should stay on the sidelines and not find out what's actually going on before we talk about how regular working people don't see unions as their tool anymore.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Yeah.. I see alot of this sort of thing; usually from people that aren't in or around unions. There's no doubt that unions in the U.S. are shrinking; but there is a recent upswing in class struggle, and it's just not the case that workers don't identify as workers anymore.

In the city I live in right now, with a population of a couple million, 1 in 4 workers is a "blue collar" worker. Make no mistake, we know we're workers.

In many other countries, unions are even more important in the current swing of things.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Unions today need to catch up with business which is totally global in its strategy, meaning they can out manoeuvre the unions with ease.

Thankfully though, i think Britain's largest union is going to join together with the American steel workers union.

Also, there are talks about trying to organise one big global union, just thinking about the potential of such an institution is very exciting :)

[RNK]

I agree with what LSD wrote. Unions definately have their place; they are the most readily available tool for workers to set up a first line of defense against capitalist aggression against their safety and livelihoods; but unions are in no way revolutionary (or rarely are). In my opinion, unions today are simply the last-ditch, desperate defense workers turn to to protect their dental benefits or vacation time or pensions -- not an offensive tool that they actively and consciously use against the bourgeoisie to wrestle control for themselves.

[LSD]

Seems like labour is on an upswing... or maybe we should stay on the sidelines and not find out what's actually going on before we talk about how regular working people don't see unions as their tool anymore.

When did I say that?

In fact, I believe the entire point of my post was the unions remain the single best tool for organizing workers.

In case you didn't notice, the paragraph you quoted was followed by:


Originally posted by me
That's not an indictment of union-based organizing itself, however, because that same pheonomenon can be seen all across the workers' movement, regardless of the structural model being followed.

And the union remains the single best focal point for worker organizing.

Re-radicalizing those unions, getting them involved in class war again, will ultimately result in the remaking of those unions, hopefully from the bottom, and the reemergence of the union as the expression of proletarian power.

A fight, almost any fight, forces the bureaucrats and bourgoies stooges in union "management" to choose between their organizational and class duties and their prime position up the capitalists' assholes. It will also reveal to the union body in general just how useless their "leaders" are.

The prime engine of working class revolution must always be the revolutionary union. Accordingly it is our job as revolutionaries to help build it up again to the position that it can actually challange the bourgeois social order.

And the fact that the labour movement is not as strong today as it has been in the past is undeniable. Yes, there are improvements being made, but we're still seeing very low levels of union participation and disturbingly high levels of political apathy.

I think that re-radicalizing unions is a good way to fight that. ...are you disagreeing?

[chimx]

Originally posted by CyM+--> (CyM)Funny... when I've looked at union activity in Quebec and Canada in recent year, it's the highest number of strikes per year in 20 years, and it's still going up.[/b]

That's certainly great, but what is the membership at compared to 20 years ago? Korea has a similar situation of having significantly more union activity, but has a huge drop in union membership. It seems to be a case of marginalization of the vocally radical left. Is this also true for Canada?


LSD
The advantage of the union is that it develops directly out of the living class struggle, whereas other forms of workers' organizing do not.

"develop" being the key word though, isn't it? worker solidarity, activism, and consciousness seems to be at its highest when a union is in the process of developing. After they have won their case, there is often a decrease in activity and an increase in apathy. As BobKindles says, this leads to unions that are divorced from the actual workplace. You see the rise of union bureaucrats. Unions come to rely on capitalism, instead of wanting to see its dismantlement.

I think it is great when union activity aids and assists with the rise of class consciousness, but my infatuation tends to end there. Unfortunately, solutions end there for me. Leo is one of the most violent denouncers of unionism on this board, and I would love to hear what he has to say regarding feasible solutions rather than another critique.