Luxemborg on the unions

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Rosa Luxemborg
[the unions] are no longer workers' organisations; they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point.

Devrim

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

What i think is ment is that a new union; run by, and for the proleterians must be set up. The unions she speeks of are run in support of the state. Most strikes are unofficial and not supported by the unions. So they do not offer financial support to the striking workers.
There are loads of unions that are not co-ordinated and thus there is no class solidarity...and lots of "blacklegging" on other workers/unions. Also the unions are inefficent. The time it takes for the workers to tell the unionists and so forth that the unions are inefficient. Direct action is what Rosa wanted and co-ordinated unions in which preassure could be put on the bourguoise

[Rawthentic]

So, wouldnt it be ok for communists to agitate in the unions to win over the workers as well as in the workplace?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In the workplace is better. Labour unions are irredeemably opportunistic.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

A union or ANY form of work-place organisation is needed. Support can be gained from either...union members are generally class concious despite their unions being bourguois run. I believe that a union is the perfect place to "infultrate" and push for reform (or gaining support for an alternative "union" )within it so it becomes a true prolerterian organisation capable of weilding the arm and the poewr to overthrow capitalism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by devrimankara+May 21, 2007 10:51 am--> (devrimankara @ May 21, 2007 10:51 am)
Rosa Luxemborg
[the unions] are no longer workers' organisations; they are the most solid defenders of the state and bourgeois society. Consequently it follows that the struggle for socialisation must entail the struggle to destroy the unions. We are all agreed on this point.

Devrim [/b]
Let's not forge that this was written in the height and heat of a revolution.

Also, I don't think she meant the same kind of "destruction" that Stalin and his cronies carried on in the SU.

Luís Henrique

[Leo]

Let's not forge that this was written in the height and heat of a revolution.

So? She is talking about the historical change in the role of trade-unions.


Also, I don't think she meant the same kind of "destruction" that Stalin and his cronies carried on in the SU.

What does this have to do with Stalin?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ RedDali said in another thread that Stalin the "theoretician" believed unions were irredeemably opportunistic and reformist, so he believed that the party - as the SOLE leading force in the new society - should control the unions.

[More Fire for the People]

While Rosa Luxemburg dismissed trade unions as a defunct agency of the working class now in the hands of the bourgeoisie she also saw potential in industrial unionism. Industrial unions organize upon the basis of workshop or industry rather than trade. Decisions such as strikes and occupations are decided by all of the employees themselves and not just employees from this or that trade.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+May 21, 2007 08:58 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ May 21, 2007 08:58 pm) While Rosa Luxemburg dismissed trade unions as a defunct agency of the working class now in the hands of the bourgeoisie she also saw potential in industrial unionism. Industrial unions organize upon the basis of workshop or industry rather than trade. Decisions such as strikes and occupations are decided by all of the employees themselves and not just employees from this or that trade. [/b]
Do you have any evidence at all for this assertion? The original Luxemborg quote has no mention of trade unions. It simply says unions. It is my undertanding that the unions in Germany at the time were industrial unions. Certainly that was true for the metal workers:


IG Metall
In 1891, the Deutsche Metallarbeiter-Verband (DMV) (German Metalworkers' Federation) was founded, and by 1914 it had become the largest single trade union in Germany. The DMV, alongside the Christian Metalworkers' Federation, established in 1899, and a liberal organization, was the largest organization that preceded the present-day IG Metall. Even at that time the DMV was already based on the principle of one union for one industry, i.e. a federation that all persons in the metal-working industry were free to join

Please, back up your post with some evidence.

Devrim

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Hammer
^^^ hasta said in another thread that Stalin the "theoretician" believed unions were irredeemably opportunistic and reformist, so he believed that the party - as the SOLE guiding force in the new society - should control the unions.

Whereas the left communist believe that the unions are incorperated into the state, not merely 'irredeemably opportunistic and reformist'. The German communist left never argued either that the party should be the sole guiding force in the new society, or that it should control the unions.

I don't see the connection.

Devrim

[Rawthentic]

hasta said in another thread that Stalin the "theoretician" believed unions were irredeemably opportunistic and reformist, so he believed that the party - as the SOLE guiding force in the new society - should control the unions.
What the fuck? Where?

[More Fire for the People]

Well at a glance I thought the quote was from Theory & Practice which I read only a week or so ago but it turns out that the quote has its origins in a single source offered by a Bordigist publication. Perhaps I was confusing Luxemburg for Gorter but I know for sure that it is Gorter’s position that…

However, there are better material grounds yet. The German workers who left the Trade Unions, that wished to destroy them, that created the industrial organisations and workers’ unions, stood IN THE REVOLUTION. It was necessary to fight at ONCE. The revolution was there. The Trade Unions refused to fight. What is the good then of saying: remain in the Trade Unions, propagate your ideas, you will grow stronger, and become the majority. Apart from the fact that the minority would be strangled, as is the custom there, this would be quite fine, and also the Left Wing would try it, if there were only time to do so. But it was impossible to wait. The revolution had begun. And it is still going on!

IN THE REVOLUTION (mind, Comrade, it was in the revolution that the German workers split the Party, and created their Workers’ Union) the revolutionary workers will always separate themselves from the social-patriots. In the struggle, no other way is possible. No matter what you, and the Moscow Executive, and the International Congress say, and no matter how much you dislike a split in the Party, it will always take place, on psychological and material grounds, because the workers cannot in the long run tolerate the Trade Unions shooting them, and because there has to be fighting.

That is why the Left Wing has created the Workers’ Unions; and as they believe that the revolution in Germany is not over yet, but it will proceed to the final victory, they keep them up.

Comrade Lenin, is there another way out, in the workers’ movement, when two trends come up, but that of fighting? And when those trends are very divergent, if they oppose one another, is there another way out but secession? Did you ever hear of any other? And is there anything more opposed than revolution and counter-revolution?

For this reason again the KAPD and the General Workers’ Unions are quite right.

[…]

The industrial unions and workshop organisations, and the Workers’ Unions that are based on them and formed from them, why are they such excellent weapons for the revolution in Western Europe, the best weapons even together with the Communist Party? Because the workers act for themselves, infinitely more so than they did in the old Trade Unions, because now they control their leaders, and thereby the entire leadership, and because they have the supervision of the industrial organisation, and thereby of the entire union.

Every trade, every workshop is one whole, where the workers elect their representatives. The industrial organisations have been divided according to economic districts. Representatives have been appointed for the districts. And the districts in turn elect the general board for the entire State.
All the industrial organisations together, no matter to what trade they belong, constitute the one Workers’ Union.

This, as we see, is an organisation altogether directed towards the revolution.
If an interval of comparatively peaceful fighting should follow, this organisation might moreover be easily adapted. The industrial organisations would only have to be combined, according to the industries, within the compass of the Workers’ Unions.


The only reference I find is in my notes on Theory & Practice:

§13 These ‘failed’ strikes bear significance are successes in that they promote union organization especially in hard-to-organize branches of labor. These ‘ill-advised’ strikes serve as the foundation of union organizing. Kautsky’s strategies are incapable of leading any movement.

Note: The Pullman Strike, the organization of railroad workers, and the risky organization of similar workers led to a new form of practice, industrial unionism, which transcended the reformism and intra-class conflict of trade unionism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:52 pm

hasta said in another thread that Stalin the "theoretician" believed unions were irredeemably opportunistic and reformist, so he believed that the party - as the SOLE guiding force in the new society - should control the unions.
What the fuck? Where?
^^^ hasta, sorry - that was RedDali. :( He said some remarks regarding working within unions and connected it to the party issue a couple of days ago. He contrasted Lenin's "guiding force" with Stalin's "leading force" stuff.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by Gorter
However, there are better material grounds yet. The German workers who left the Trade Unions, that wished to destroy them, that created the industrial organisations and workers’ unions, stood IN THE REVOLUTION.

I think that you have misread Gorter here, Hopscotch. This may be due to a poor translation of the phrase from the German. The organisation that Gorter is refering to here as 'industrial organisations and workers’ unions' is the AUDD (Wiki link in French, I couldn't find an English one: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_g%C3%A9...d'Allemagne (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale_des_travailleurs_d'Allema gne) ), which I don't think can really be compared to a syndicalist union. Part of the problem comes from the translation. The German word for trade union is 'gewerkschaftsbund'. The U in AAUD, however, stands for 'union'. Maybe it could be translated into English as unitary organisation. Anyway, the point being is that these organisations were very different from industrial unionism as they were political organisations based on the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Luxemborg wouldn't have supported these 'unionen' as they were established after her death. The only member of the German communist left who had any sympathy for industrial unionism that I know of was Mattick, who was involved with the IWW in America in latter years. Certainly Gorter though was a firm opponent of the stratergies of industrial unions, and revolutionary syndicalism.

Devrim

[bolshevik butcher]

And Rosa Luxemburg also said that nations dont have the right to self determination laughingly dismissing any chance of a serious national liberation struggle entwined with the class struggle in Ireland. Rosa Luxemburg is a hero of internationalist socialists everywhere and rightly so but it would be frankly an insult to her memory to take all that she said as gospel.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+May 22, 2007 05:19 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ May 22, 2007 05:19 pm) And Rosa Luxemburg also said that nations dont have the right to self determination laughingly dismissing any chance of a serious national liberation struggle entwined with the class struggle in Ireland. Rosa Luxemburg is a hero of internationalist socialists everywhere and rightly so but it would be frankly an insult to her memory to take all that she said as gospel. [/b]
I think that what Luxemburg said was that
Originally posted by [email protected]
Imperialism is not the creation of one or any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will.

Therefore:
Luxemburg
In the contemporary imperialist milieu there can be no wars of national defence.

Gorter, and Pannekoek agreed with her. They are the positions still defended by the communist left today.

Luxemburg was not in agreement with the left of the party on the issue of parliamentarianism, but on two of the three major points attacked by Lenin in 'Left-wing communism...', Luxemborg stood with the left.

It is not about taking what people say as gospel. It is about the development of communist politics.

It is strange though that while the Trotskyists hold her up as a hero. They condemn the politics that she held. I suppose it is called recuperation.

Devrim

[bolshevik butcher]

I don't condem everything she stood for, I think that much of what she said and did I would agree with, the mass strike for instance is a great addition to the works of the socialist movement.

There is by the way a quote in that work where Luxemburg laughs at the thought of national liberation entwined with class struggle in Ireland, which clearly given what happened in 1916 and what has happened in other struggles since is ironic and to be frank the wrong analysis.

Beyond that she was a brave revolutionary fighter who was a socialist martyr, I can admire someone for that, even if I disagree with some of the things that they said and did, surely?

Anyway, if its about the development of communist politics don't blindly start a thread with a quote as though to say she said it and that's that then.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher
Anyway, if its about the development of communist politics don't blindly start a thread with a quote as though to say she said it and that's that then.

Actually, I put it up because somebody asked me for it.


There is by the way a quote in that work where Luxemburg laughs at the thought of national liberation entwined with class struggle in Ireland, which clearly given what happened in 1916 and what has happened in other struggles since is ironic and to be frank the wrong analysis.

Yes, the working class has been dragged out to die, and pulled into national/sectarian/religious conflicts on behalf of the bourgeosie. I don't see the irony though.


Beyond that she was a brave revolutionary fighter who was a socialist martyr, I can admire someone for that, even if I disagree with some of the things that they said and did, surely?

Yes, Rosa was a communist. It doesn't mean that everything she said was right though. The Trotskyists though do try to lay claim to her heritage while at the same time as completly distorting, or hiding what she actually believed in. To your credit at least you are not trying to do that. I do think though that her work places her closer to the traditions of the left communists than the Trotskyists.

Devrim

[bolshevik butcher]

Well Luxemburg believed in a political party along something on the lines of the bolsheviks and defended the Russian revolution but at the sametime I would agree she wasn't an architypal Leninist and probably had some ideas in common with yourself as well.

I think that to dismiss the Easter rising, the citizens army and the independence war that followed soon after in Ireland as the working class just going out to die for the bourgoirse shows a complete lack of knowledge of Irish history.

And sorry I didn't realise that you were asked for this quote.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+May 22, 2007 05:56 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ May 22, 2007 05:56 pm) Well Luxemburg believed in a political party along something on the lines of the bolsheviks and defended the Russian revolution but at the sametime I would agree she wasn't an architypal Leninist and probably had some ideas in common with yourself as well.
[/b]
The communist left belive in a political party.


I think that to dismiss the Easter rising, the citizens army and the independence war that followed soon after in Ireland as the working class just going out to die for the bourgoirse shows a complete lack of knowledge of Irish history.

Maybe Sean O'Casey had 'a complete lack of knowledge of Irish history' too.


Sean O'Casey in History of the Irish Citizens Army (1919)
Liberty Hall was no longer the Headquarters of the Irish Labour movement, but the centre of Irish national disaffection.

Devrim

[bolshevik butcher]

So you wouldnt dismiss the citizens army? That was a proletarain organisation that fought for national liberation. And no I wouldnt have any illusions in the Irish bourgirse or their nationalism. This was shown by the murder of republicans and socialists by the free state.

[Y Chwyldro Comiwnyddol Cymraeg]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 06:05 pm


The communist left belive in a political party.

[/quote]
Yes but they dont see a large role for the party in a revolution...not as big as most Lennints




Is there such a thing as Luxemburgism...if so is somewhere in between trotskyism and council communism???

[Devrim]

Originally posted by bolshevik butcher+May 22, 2007 06:12 pm--> (bolshevik butcher @ May 22, 2007 06:12 pm) So you wouldnt dismiss the citizens army? That was a proletarain organisation that fought for national liberation. And no I wouldnt have any illusions in the Irish bourgirse or their nationalism. This was shown by the murder of republicans and socialists by the free state. [/b]
I am not sure what you mean. The quote above refers to the ICA. It was an organisation that ended up fighting for Irish nationalism. O'Casey resigned from the ICA after his motion to prohibit dual membership of the ICA, and the Irish Volunteers. A completly bourgeoise organisation that was:


Originally posted by Sean O'Casey in Drums under the [email protected]
streaked with employers who had openly tried to starve the women and children of the workers, followed meekly by scabs and blacklegs from the lower elements among the workers themselves, and many of them saw in this agitation a plumrose path to good jobs, now held in Ireland by the younger sons of the English well-to-do.

I think that Pearse shows the nationalist nature of the rising very clearly:


Pearse
Our foes are strong and wise and wary; but, strong and wise and wary as they are, they cannot undo the miracles of God Who ripens in the hearts of young men the seeds sown by the young men of a former generation. And the seeds sown by the young men of '65 and '67 are coming to their miraculous ripening today. Rulers and Defenders of the Realm had need to be wary if they would guard against such processes. Life springs from death; and from the graves of patriot men and women spring living nations.

He seems quite clear about the nature of the rising, nationalist through, and through.

Devrim

[The Grey Blur]

Yes but Pearse and the IRB weren't the sole propogators of the Irish resistance, in fact the largest physical part was played by the ICA and it was Connolly's leadership that meant that the Proclamation ended up containing explicitly Socialist ideals - that Ireland belong to the whole people of Ireland and not merely the business and land owners.

I don't see what relevance the ICA vs IV debate has to whether the working-class can play an independent role in the struggle for National Liberation, other than a subjective debate in a certain area. If you look at the example of the later War of Indepedence inspired by the Rising it was lead by the proleteriat and poor peasants and many resistance fighters pushed for a Socialist revolution to follow the National one. This eventually lead to the conflict between the Left and Right currents and though the Left was defeated it shows the important and constructive role working-class organisations can play in struggles of National Liberation.

[Lamanov]

Where was this quote taken from? When was it written?

Time is of relevance, because she developed her stance on political organization durring that whole time from 1890's untill her death.

So, if this quote is from early years, she might have meant that she's not dismissing unions per se, but that they must be taken over from below durring the revolutionary upheaval (as in, for exaple, The Mass Strike (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm), 1906.).

But if this quote is from later years (after 1914), then this might be a long sought evidence on this forum on her stance on total and complete rejection of unions, since, besides this quote, nowhere in her programme we could find any talk of unions whatsoever.

[More Fire for the People]

I agree with DJ-TC's skepticism. Like I said the quote comes from a Bordigist source which of course would display a bias towards anti-union struggle.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+May 22, 2007 10:04 pm--> (DJ-TC @ May 22, 2007 10:04 pm) Where was this quote taken from? When was it written?

Time is of relevance, because she developed her stance on political organization durring that whole time from 1890's untill her death.

So, if this quote is from early years, she might have meant that she's not dismissing unions per se, but that they must be taken over from below durring the revolutionary upheaval (as in, for exaple, The Mass Strike (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm), 1906.).

But if this quote is from later years (after 1914), then this might be a long sought evidence on this forum on her stance on total and complete rejection of unions, since, besides this quote, nowhere in her programme we could find any talk of unions whatsoever. [/b]
It is taken from the ICC book on the Dutch and German communist left. I imagine that the date is quite late from where it comes chronilogically in the book. I think, but I am not certain where they quote it from, but it is easy to check. I think it may come from Barrot, and Martin's work.

I thought her position on the unions was fairly well known.


Hopscotch Anthill
I agree with DJ-TC's skepticism. Like I said the quote comes from a Bordigist source which of course would display a bias towards anti-union struggle.

Hopscotch, if you think the ICC is a Bordigist source, I would suggest you have never come across real Bordigists.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 11:34 pm
I thought her position on the unions was fairly well known.

Well, it's not. It changed. For exaple, you can just scroll through this text to see her interest in development of the unions as a potential revolutionary force (in Need for United Action of Trade Unions and Social Democracy (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch08.htm)).

Of course, this is prior to the war and revolutionary upheaval, when all forces come to play and reveal their true character. So, precisely because she takes full part in these events, she can see what becomes of the unions, and change her opinion.

Truily, revolution reveals more than thousands of books ever could. ;)

[Devrim]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+May 23, 2007 05:03 pm--> (DJ-TC @ May 23, 2007 05:03 pm)
[email protected] 22, 2007 11:34 pm
I thought her position on the unions was fairly well known.

Well, it's not. It changed. For exaple, you can just scroll through this text to see her interest in development of the unions as a potential revolutionary force (in Need for United Action of Trade Unions and Social Democracy (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/ch08.htm)).

Of course, this is prior to the war and revolutionary upheaval, when all forces come to play and reveal their true character. So, precisely because she takes full part in these events, she can see what becomes of the unions, and change her opinion.

Truily, revolution reveals more than thousands of books ever could. ;) [/b]
Yes, I think that more interesting is that her position on parliamentarianism didn't.
Devrim

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:16 pm
Yes, I think that more interesting is that her position on parliamentarianism didn't.

Yeah, that's strange indeed, more so if we consider what was going on at the time. In 1914 social-democratic parliament gives its votes to war. In November 1918 workers' councils gave their trust to social-democracy and they gave the power up to the bourgeois parliament. Instead of rejecting wholeheartedly any sort of integration or concept of "using" the existing structures, she goes ahead to question the dismantling of Constutuent Assemby in Russia, besides all other things she might have questioned.

Of course, this is not the only weak side of Luxemburg. There are other mistakes and confusions. The main contribution, however, at that time was the fact that she was one of the few militants who wanted to recognise the subjective force of the proletariat: against all existing Orthodox Marxist beliefs (both in the West and in Russia).

[Leo]

Yes, I think that more interesting is that her position on parliamentarianism didn't.

I think that changed too:

In the text called What Does the Spartacus League Want?, Luxemburg is calling for: "Elimination of all parliaments and municipal councils, and takeover of their functions by workers' and soldiers' councils, and of the latter's committees and organs."

[Lamanov]

Oh, yeah, I forgot about that. :)

'What Does the Spartacus League Want?' was definately a 'Communist Manifesto' of her time. Most of those demands (listed in there) could hold on very firmly even today.

[Link: english (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/12/14.htm) / srpski (http://prol68.tripod.com/x-roza-spartak.htm)]

[Entrails Konfetti]

This thread, to me raises a question:
How do workers get to the point of organizing outside traditional unions?
From there, how does anyone conscious of struggles get fellow workers to not sign contracts limiting their strength, aswell as telling them that they must smash capitalism and assume power?
How do you prevent the councils getting too caught up in a local struggle, when there are no eruptions of upheaval far away unite and to spread influence?

I'm sorry if my questions confuse you, but I'm confused myself. I'm not sure of what I'm doing, or if I'm asking the right questions.

[Alf]

El Kablamo - I think the answer resides in a number of practical experiences of workers in struggles during the 68-89 period, and again more recently. The basic form of organisation is the general assembly, which elects a revocable strike committee or other commissions for particular tasks. The assembly has no permanent institutionalised existence, but workers who have had the experience and 'tradition' of holding them can convene them very quickly when disputes or contracts come up. In addition, the workers who see the need for self-organisation, and for spreading the striuggle, can stay together in struggle groups which agitate for such methods but these don't have any pretence of being the 'representative' of the workers.

The assembly form is open to all workers, regardless of category or union mebership. it should also be open to other workers, to the unemployed, etc. It's also 'open' to the future in that assemblies and strike committes are the embryos of the workers councils of the revolutionary period. We had a clear glimpse of this in Poland in 1980 when the assemblies elected delegates to a central strike committee (the MKS) for an entire city. In this sense the assemblies are also open to the past, because they are a link int the chain to the previous revolutionary experience of the class.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Alf,
68-89-- what countries am I to research?

[Devrim]

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 27, 2007 05:13 pm
Alf,
68-89-- what countries am I to research?
I would say that the best examples are the mass strikes in Poland in 1980, and in France in 1968. There are many others though.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

El Kablamo, here are some interesting texts you could use:

Italy, 1970: Organizing at Fiat (http://www.prole.info/articles/fiatorganizing.html) (From the perspective of a worker!).
France, 1968: General Strike, A. Hoyles (http://www.prole.info/articles/generalstrike1968.html), Worker-Student Action Committees, F. Perlman (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/peractil.htm).
Poland, 1980-1: Lessons Still Valid, ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/103_poland80.htm), Mass Strike Rediscovered, ICC (http://en.internationalism.org/wr/237_poland.htm).

[Alf]

Kablamo: I would agree with Devrim and DJ-TC. France 68 and Poland 80 were the two pivotal moments. But Italy 1969 was also very important, and Spain in the 70s, the high point of which was the mass strike in Vittoria (76) where the general assemblies virtually ruled the city for a while. The Rotterdam dockers strike of (I think) 79 and the shoras in Iran around the same time....
There were also a number of important experiences in the 80s: in France, railway workers (86) and health workers (88); the COBAS in the education sector in Italy in 87.
We wrote about a lot of these experiences but not much of it is online yet; however we can send you copies of articles if you get in touch.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Thankyou very much for the articles, and I just contacted the ICC.