Trade Unions NOT a means BUT an end in themselves

[Lark]

I believe fundamentally that the trade unions are not a means to any end, they are an end in themselves, they are an organic and popular association of workers.

I hate the trot infiltrators and other marxists who want to gut trade union delegate democracy and reduce the unions to some obscure and pointless lever for their parties.

THE USSR IS OVER AND NO SOCIALIST IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO REPEAT IT.

[syndicat]

Well, there is a point to forming organizations of collective struggle against the employers, the dominating classes, in situations where there is a division into classes, and workers are thus an exploited class. But that is to give unions an instrumental value, as a means to worker advancement, self-defense, protection, freedom...not as an end in itself. The union does become sort of an end in itself for the career union bureaucrat. if workers authentically self-managed industry, and there was no longer a class system, it's not clear there would be a need for unions. certainly it is true that, for a mass union to be an authentic vehicle of the workers themselves, it must be autonomous of control by a political party, not a trampoline used by a party to bounce itself into control of a state.

[Demogorgon]

Well obviously we need trade unions. I doubt you will find much opposition to that here. But trade unions in of themselves aren't going to do much. I mean here in Britain we have plenty of Trade Unions, but with a few honourable exceptions, they simply cosy up to the bosses these days and don't offer a great deal of support to workers. We can't call a Union like that an end in of itself.

[More Fire for the People]

I believe fundamentally that the trade unions are not a means to any end, they are an end in themselves, they are an organic and popular association of workers.
If this statement was made before the 1900s in Europe or before the 1940s in America then it might be true but this is not the case. The union bureaucracy has consolidated its power over the trade union and now uses it as another wing of the state. Participating in a trade union is about as revolutionary as participating in a pro-Labour or pro-Democrat rally — which, of course, some of our 'revolutionary' comrades support as 'revolutionary' means.

The trade union was beat out in terms of working class organization by the industrial union and the industrial union was beat out by the workers' council.


I hate the trot infiltrators and other marxists who want to gut trade union delegate democracy and reduce the unions to some obscure and pointless lever for their parties.
What is needed is organization that begins in the workshop floor and works its way up through federation of these workshop organizations. The best hitherto experimented form of this kind of organization is the workers’ council. What is need is (1) intra-class dialogue, or workers democracy; (2) suppression of the bourgeoisie, or the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Communists work for this kind of organization not as subordinate to their parties but as active members of the working class. Communists only distinguish themselves from other members of the working class in that they consciously support (1) the revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of thing in every corner of the earth; (2) in each of these movements they bring to the forefront the question of property no matter what its degree of development at the time; (3) they labor everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries;

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 04:57 pm
I believe fundamentally that the trade unions are not a means to any end, they are an end in themselves, they are an organic and popular association of workers.
So having a trade union is an end in itself? Doesn't matter if, say, the trade union actually fights to win any improvement in working conditions or pay?

Hopefully that's not what you meant. So it's OK to use trade unions as a means to some immediate end, then, right?

Why is it bad to see them also as a means of fighting for more long-range, revolutionary goals?

It's bad if the immediate fight is sabotaged by some sectarian over some bit of abstract "revolutionary" dogma, sure. But isn't it sabotaged even more often by trade union bureaucrats trying to make a deal with the bosses?

For the bureaucrats, the union sure is an end in itself - it's the source of their salaries. They don't care how much the membership is able to accomplish for themselves using the union....as a means.


I hate the trot infiltrators and other marxists who want to gut trade union delegate democracy and reduce the unions to some obscure and pointless lever for their parties.

What are you talking about? Typically it's the people currently at the top of the unions who want to gut union democracy - that would increase their own power, obviously. Make it easier for them to maximize their own salaries and make deals with the bosses without worrying about whether the ranks think the contract terms are OK.

And of course, as part of that, the top bureaucrats demonize any kind of organized opposition group or caucus. As "infiltrators" trying to misuse the unions for their own ends, etc. Obviously demonizing all opponents makes it easier for an entrenched leadership to monopolize power.

Any opposition group, even if they only want power for themselves, would be fools to oppose union democracy - with no democracy, how are they supposed to replace the current leaders? And of course they don't have the power to gut democracy as long as they remain out, so the main problem is the current bureaucracy's anti-democratic practices in any case.

Lemme make a suggestion. Instead of going on about "infiltrators" and people who supposedly are trying to misuse the unions for some unstated end:

Why not let everyone play their part in the fights of today? Let all the groups and leaders and wannabe leaders compete to see who can do the most to build solidarity with striking workers. And otherwise strengthening the unions, and the power of the rank and file excercised through the unions to win better conditions from the bosses.

Let's see who's really loyal to that purpose of the unions. I'll bet it's not the current bureaucracy. And who knows, it might include some of those "infiltrator" groups.

[Anarchovampire]

The problem is unions like mine, run by rich, fat, lazy asshats unwilling to listen to the workers and exploiting them to earn a profit... we are cattle... if a Union sticks to its roots and remains in the control of the workers, fine... but few do... most are more interested in monetary gain... for the union leaders, which is wrong.

And eventually, the unions would be obsolete... in a worker's state or an anarchist state, what good are unions anyways? Who will the protect the workers from? So no... I say they are a means, not an end... because if they are the end (looks around) we have so lost touch with what we want.

[BobKKKindle$]

I believe fundamentally that the trade unions are not a means to any end, they are an end in themselves, they are an organic and popular association of workers.

Except..Trade Unions are not 'organic and popular associations of workers'. Most trade union leaders do not reflect and put forwards the demands of ordinary members, and many unions are bureaucratic and under the control of un-elected union officials that do not engage with the working class.

In addition, Trade Unions do not reflect the links between political and economic power and instead simply try to achieve limited and temporary reforms within the framework of the existing system with no political aims. A revolutionary union needs to understand the importance of the question of state power.

[temp918273]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 10:57 pm
I believe fundamentally that the trade unions are not a means to any end, they are an end in themselves, they are an organic and popular association of workers.

I hate the trot infiltrators and other marxists who want to gut trade union delegate democracy and reduce the unions to some obscure and pointless lever for their parties.

THE USSR IS OVER AND NO SOCIALIST IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD WANT TO REPEAT IT.
I don't think that anyone wants to repeat the exact events of the USSR's history, that would be impossible. Communists in their right mind DO want something similar to the Russian revolution, the forceful seizure of political power and means of production by the working class and the establishment of a worker's state(whose form is rightly subject of much debate) to coordinate it all.

You're right that trade unions are often an end in themselves, which is why they shouldn't be held as revolutionary models. But you can't really call members of the union who happen to be marxists "infiltrators". They are just members who want to politicize the union, which is nothing unusual at all and ought to be encouraged. The entire history of unions and working-class organization has been a political struggle, why on earth would you want to neuter the movement by removing its politics?

[Janus]

I don't see how trade unions are an end in themselves particularly since they were born out of the struggle against capitalism. We're going to need something new after the revolution and there's no reason to stick with a static organization.

[Coggeh]

Unions can be used as a platform to raise marxist ideas when you have such a high number of workers in the one organisation i do believe that the unions should be used as a way to gain support for the revolution . But not used as the voice of the workers (unless they were openly anti-capitalist) the reason why is because their ultimately going to sell out the workers in the end . e.g Irish ferries .