Reclaiming the trade unions and the labour parties

[Guest1]

It is essential for us to study the political history of the trade unions and, by extension, the mass parties of the working class. What circumstances led to the rise of the right-wing bureaucrats in the trade unions, and in mass workers' parties such as Labour in the UK and the NDP in Canada? Under what circumstances have they historically been weakened? How have they been defeated?

The right-wing in the unions

During times of boom, so long as things are "going fine" workers often participate less in their unions, leaving a layer of bureaucrats to develop in the absence of the active intervention of the working class. This layer can raise itself above the rest of the class, even attaining very high salaries, and hob-nobbing with the bosses and their political representatives. Their mentality is affected by their conditions, and the privileges they gain from their amicable relationship with the bourgeoisie lead them increasingly to play the role of "peacekeeper". "The boss isn't so bad, he has a wife and kids, I've even had dinner with them".

This can often go to extremes, as we can see now with the leadership of the UAW (United Auto Workers) using their full authority to push no-strike contracts onto their members. They even put forward the idea that the workers should take responsibility for the company health plan, meaning the workers would be on their own if it failed. The bosses hadn't even asked for it!

This layer of bureaucrats, in the absence of an active rank and file, appoints many representatives pretty much unopposed. Many general assemblies don't reach quorum, or if they do, few enough workers show their faces that the union tops get their man. Workers, disgusted by betrayals, may be even less inclined to vote in union elections or participate. It's a self-fulfilling cycle, fed not by apathy, but disgust at the unions.

The right-wing in the labour parties

Labour parties, where they do exist, are plagued by the very same disease. The same self-selecting bureaucrats that poison and clog the trade unions, find their counterparts in the labour parties. Unions affiliate to a labour party, by paying a membership fee for every member of the union. This essentially makes the party an extension of the trade unions, granting unions enormous power within the party, and representation in its democratic structures.

The trade union bureaucrats, again in the absence of the working class, put forward right-wing representatives to represent the unions within the labour parties. Most of these parties have some sort of trade union bloc vote, which is a powerful weapon, but lies dormant. A union, if it so wished, could use its bloc vote in a congress or conference, and vote on behalf of the million or so members it represents. The labour party representatives of the right-wing trade union tops can hardly be leftists.

Right-wing degeneration within the trade unions thus finds its reflection in the labour party. The mass party of the unions now turns to advocating capitalist policies, cuts in wages and conditions and attacks on the working class.

What was true of declining attendance at union meetings is even more true of declining attendance at the party's local democratic structures. The less the workers participate, the more the right-wing tightens its grip, the less the workers wish to participate.

But this is a situation that cannot last forever.

A slump brings the house down

When the boom comes to an end, and workers can no longer solve their problems by individual solutions like turning to credit, the whole tide turns. Obviously, the link between the boom/slump cycle, and the class struggle, is not direct. There are explosions of class struggle even during booms, and sometimes slumps serve to disorient the working class. More importantly than the boom, or the slump itself, is the sudden change between the two, which shakes consciousness. That being said, the boom/slump cycle is an important factor to consider if we want to understand the social basis of the traitorous bureaucracy within our unions and labour parties.

Human consciousness is very conservative. It will often go on chugging as before for a long time after the objective situation has changed, and only when it can ignore reality no longer does a revolutionary change in consciousness occur. A tipping point is reached, and often the change is violent and sudden.

The boom is over, and quite suddenly, millions of working class families are finding that they are now drowning in mortgages which are worth more than their homes. We are in the midst of an intense crisis of capitalism, one which even the bourgeois economists are saying could be on the scale of 1929. It has not reached its bottom, it isn't even halfway through yet.

This has sent shockwaves through the working class.

Looking at the situation in many advanced capitalist countries, we can see the beginnings of changes at the base. The right-wing is losing ground within the unions, and the spectacular failure of governments like Gordon Brown's have completely discredited their counterparts in the labour parties.

The war within the unions and labour parties

So here we are, the right-wing labour leaders in the unions and the parties can offer no solution to the workers. The workers know it. The masses are returning to the scene of history, with force. Belgium has announced the first shots of the end of the age of the "third way" in the unions. There, just this past two months, a wild-cat general strike exploded against inflation, despite all attempts by the labour leaders to avoid it. With the crumbling power of the union tops to control their agitated members, the edifice of right-wing social democracy is standing on crumbling foundation. Furthermore, the self-perpetuating process of disgust and right-wing power will shift into reverse. As the members take action, they will reclaim their local structures, bringing more hope and self-confidence and spurring even more participation and victory against the right-wing.

A shift in the trade unions will eventually have to express itself in a shift in the labour parties. Once again, this will not be a direct and immediate link, there will be many half-steps and even steps back before the process finally works itself out. But in the final analysis, if rank and file revolt overwhelms the trade union tops, and they are toppled, the grassroots will not keep the same labour party representatives. The grassroots will be a presence yet again.

They too will be changed, and a revolutionary tendency within the labour parties will find opportunities to build a powerful movement towards socialist policies and for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie. Afterall, this movement to reclaim the unions and the labour parties would start as a response to the economic crisis.

This is a crisis that cannot be solved without the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism, and the conscious, democratic, rational planning of the economy.

How can one justify working within trade unions to topple the right-wing, but not in the labour parties the workers built? How can a change in the trade union leadership not eventually lead to change in the labour parties?

One last thing, in responding to this thread, please be careful if you live in the US, as the historical lack of a labour party there makes most comparisons utterly irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How can one justify working within trade unions to topple the right-wing, but not in the labour parties the workers built? How can a change in the trade union leadership not eventually lead to change in the labour parties?

Things are much more complicated than what you're suggesting:

Workers' Movements (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-movements-t78942/index.html)


Nevertheless, it would be naïve and reductionist to think that workers need only be organized into non-combative “yellow” trade unions (the word “yellow” refers to the difference between non-combative trade unions and so-called “red unions”). This yellow-trade-union reductionism is the ideological paradise of the bourgeois-friendly yellow-trade-union bureaucrats, for it allows them to offer neo-liberal consumerist “deals” to the rank-and-file, completely devoid of a political character (either “orange” or “red”). Indeed, why did UNITE not unite with more combative workers in French and Italian trade unions?

That being said, historically influential workers’ movements have always gone beyond mere “labour movements” (“yellow” trade unions) in their organization. At their disposal were humanitarian organizations such as the International Red Aid, cultural organizations and sport clubs, workplace committees, and so on – all of which penetrated into as many facets of life as possible in order to provide both an alternative social network and, in Vernon Lidtke’s words, an “alternative culture” – both of which culminated in a state within the state.

Also:

"United Social Labour": The Merger of Political Soc. and the Workers' Labour Movement (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)


In regards to the class struggle itself, this class struggle must not be carried out within parliamentary organs. Material developments have closed the door to the parliamentary option, contrary to Kautsky’s parliamentary reductionism. This chapter section was written shortly after the 40th anniversary of the death of Martin Luther King Jr. In his time, the development of the media came to a point wherein minimum demands (to be revisited as a concept later) could be achieved by "demanding" from outside (most notably through publicized civil disobedience). Today, even more non-parliamentary channels have emerged (for the benefit of even genuine reformists in favour of more direct democracy and the associated referenda), in the form of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and of course the Internet. Of course, the only form of “parliamentarianism” that would be acceptable is the kind that would exist in the emerging organs of workers' power themselves (such as soviets and workplace committees) – and possibly even the emerging organs of general participatory democracy, such as non-bourgeois communal councils. Building these alternative organs – a common task for both revolutionaries and genuine reformists within the United Social Labour organization (the Mensheviks did indeed help to build the soviets in 1917) – is not just for the post-revolution environment, but also for reminding working-class people everywhere of the class struggle: that things are changing for the better.

As for the prospects of parliamentarianism, which should be treated by workers with utter contempt through coordinated mass spoilage (as opposed to abstention, which reinforces the bourgeois notion that abstainers are either stupid or content), even bourgeois-oriented academics are increasingly worried about the state of bourgeois “democracy” sliding into authoritarian capitalism. Over the past several decades, more and more power has accumulated within factually non-accountable sectors of the executive branch. In the United States, this would be the “imperial presidency”: a shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the president’s “Executive Office” (headed by the Chief of Staff). In Westminster-model countries, the legislative power has become increasingly one of a rubber-stamping function of the executive policies (even under minority-government scenarios), and there has been a similar shift in subordinate executive power from the Cabinet to the “Prime Minister’s Office.” Nowadays, there is no difference between parties in opposition and parties outside parliament, save for the fact that non-Marxist opposition parties receive electoral funding from bourgeois elements.

[Guest1]

Do you mind answering the post, instead of quoting yourself?

No offense, but I didn't post this thread just so that I could read another 3 threads I had no idea even existed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I did answer your question. It seems you don't know the original reason for parliamentary participation as a tactic employed by the international proletariat's first vanguard party (http://www.revleft.com/vb/sozialdemokratische-partei-deutschlands-t79754/index.html) and by the RSDLP and Bolsheviks: it all had to do with the "tribune of the people" concept.

Exclusively working within parliamentary parties does little, if anything at all, to advance participatory democracy.

[Guest1]

I clearly and boldly linked work in the labour party as an extension of work in the trade unions.

Where did I say this tactic should be exclusive?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The problem with you Grantites is that you have a VERY anti-party, pro-liquidationist attitude not unlike that of some Mensheviks who wanted to dissolve the RSDLP into a "broad Labour congress" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html) (ahem, "workers' united front," to use Trotsky's words) even after the 1906 Unity Congress.

[Guest1]

^^^ The problem with you Grantites is that you have a VERY anti-party, pro-liquidationist attitude not unlike that of some Mensheviks who wanted to dissolve the RSDLP into a "broad Labour congress" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-revolutionary-t83064/index.html) (ahem, "workers' united front," to use Trotsky's words) even after the 1906 Unity Congress.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. The RSDLP was the labour party of the time (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party), the Bolshevik tendency, the equivalent of a tendency working within a mass party, slowly winning over the workers and fighting the Menshevik right-wing.

A revolutionary party does not have to dissolve in order to work in the mass organizations. In fact, liquidationism has absolutely no relevance to this debate. This is the problem with you, you just redefine things as you see fit, until no one can understand what you're saying but you.

Try again. Maybe taking my post point by point will help?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Weeks have passed, so I shall respond, this time using my reply to Comrade Luis Henrique:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/poll-united-social-p1220896/index.html#post1220842


Since my work was complete awhile back, comrades, I have decided to self-critically stick with USL. This past weekend I have pondered about the degeneration of so many "socialist" (France and Spain), "social-democratic" (Germany and Austria), "labour" (Britain), and "workers'" (Brazil and Kurdistan) parties time and again. This pondering was made possible due to Comrade Luis Henrique's post and my reply here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/best-option-your-t85432/index3.html



Start building a working class party.

Luís Henrique

I have problems with the ambiguity of your words, but don't worry, comrade, since it's a self-criticism of my work, too. :( Such "working-class party" should be a class-strugglist labour party. According to your view, such party doesn't yet have to be a "communist" party," but the term class-strugglist indicates something definitely in the middle without flirting with bourgeois "socialism" ("Socialist" International style).

[The self-criticism is in regards to "Social Labour (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)" as a name, when the full name should be "Class-Strugglist Social Labour" or "Class Strugglists for Social Labour." Also, the two merger formulas that I used may not have been clear enough ("political socialism" and "workers' movement"). :( ]

In each instance, the concept of class struggle was under-emphasized from the outset, and the "democratic" aspect was not pushed beyond bourgeois electoralism, much less representative democracy itself.

It's too late to edit my work now to suggest terms like those in the above self-quotation or like "Class-Strugglist [Social-]Labour Democracy [organization]" (yeah, too long, but at least "class-strugglist democracy" should imply participatory democracy, while "class-strugglist labour" indicates a class-conscious workers' movement), but at least I've developed self-criticism. :(

Simply put, trade unions, even with all the dangers of tred iunionizm (yellow-trade-union reductionism, or "nothing but the trade-union struggles"), have more potential to be class-strugglist (in between fighting for just "bread and butter" issues and fighting for socialism) than established labour parties. I mean, who with the big $$$ lobbies trade unions? :glare:

[PRC-UTE]

the Labour Party is massively funded by the state and the bourgeoisie. You cannot possibly reclaim it.

[black magick hustla]

I'm not sure what you're talking about. The RSDLP was the labour party of the time (Russian Social Democratic Labour Party), the Bolshevik tendency, the equivalent of a tendency working within a mass party, slowly winning over the workers and fighting the Menshevik right-wing.

A revolutionary party does not have to dissolve in order to work in the mass organizations. In fact, liquidationism has absolutely no relevance to this debate. This is the problem with you, you just redefine things as you see fit, until no one can understand what you're saying but you.

Try again. Maybe taking my post point by point will help?

I think this is the problem with IMTers. They think the epoch of the RSDLP is the same from the present epoch. RSDLP existed before the age of imperialism, which was a fundamentally different stage of capitalism. There is a reason whycommunists had to dissasociate from the second international.

There was a time where communists could work in the left wing of social democracy - not anymore though. And this includes trade unions.

[Tower of Bebel]

the Labour Party is massively funded by the state and the bourgeoisie. You cannot possibly reclaim it.
Forgive me my schematic formulation but building on this quote I want to add that the moment the left wing reclaims the unions and/or the Labour party it will be the moment society is stuck in revolution or crisis (the moment where capital is weak, the moment where capital retreats to safety - the moment when Labour is free from capital).
Now, for a decent revolution you need a politicly organized working class - a working class trained in socialism and revolutionism just like the Russian and German proletariat -, and this type of organization involves a strong, broad vanguard (party).
For a decent economic crisis you don't need an organized proletariat. So at the time when the radical left wing of Labour takes power and will have to initiate a socialist revolution against capital it will have no organized working class.
I think this can only mean barbarism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Such dire words there, comrade...

[Winter]

It seems to me working with trade unions these days is akin to voting democrat. The option of changing the system completely is never suggested.

[Bilan]

It seems to me working with trade unions these days is akin to voting democrat. The option of changing the system completely is never suggested.

Before I respond, I want to make one thing clear: The reclaiming of the Trade Unions and the reclaiming of the Labour Part(y) are two different questions.

First, it must be understood, that the Labour Party (And pardon, I can only speak from my context [Australia] on this) is lost. It is a bourgeois capitalist party. Period. It belongs entirely to the rich, and is completely absorbed into the bourgeois political structure.
It is part of the façade of democracy, and in no way, and can never be, an organ of workers power, or revolution.

The question of the Trade Unions is different.

Trade Unions in Australia have been going through some changes. The first is that the numbers have been dropping dramatically throughout most unions. The number of organized workers in Australia sits at about 19% of the workforce.
The other change is in the nature of the unions.
Some unions have a tradition of socialism (Such as the MUA).
Others have begun to grasp it - namely, the Fire Fighters Union (which now makes clear the struggle for socialism in its platform).

Some Anarcho-syndicalists here have been active in the transport sectors and have been organizing and agitating for change within the unions. The most notable here is ASN (A workerist anarcho-syndicalist group), who've been involved in both the Fire Fighters, but more in the Bus and Transport sectors, with a successful workers publication (Sparks), and more victories to come.

They haven't been so much "reclaiming" the unions, but as organizing and agitating within the rank and file - and in that, "reclaiming the unions". But its recognized that the Trade Unions within the ACTU in no way can successfully lead the revolution - simply because of the bureaucracy and because they're tied down to the Labour Party.
It will take major structual change within the unions, and the shaking off of the unelected parasites, before they can be revolutionary (truly) in any sense.

Having said that, WintersDemise, being active in the Trade Unions is far from similar to voting Democrat. Voting is not an active form of organizing in the workplace against the bosses. Voting is a petty reaffirmation of the bourgeois political structure which will ultimately alter nothing.
Working in the trade unions, at least from what I'm interpreting, is working on the ground and organizing with workers and agitating. This cannot be compared to voting for a bourgeois party.

What determines the importance, and methodological nature of this approach, however, is determined by the context. So in countries with a growing syndicalist movement (such as Spain, or whatever) or where there are large syndicalist unions (Sweden, Spain, Italy, etc), working in the trade unions takes on a different role and form.

[Winter]

Having said that, WintersDemise, being active in the Trade Unions is far from similar to voting Democrat. Voting is not an active form of organizing in the workplace against the bosses. Voting is a petty reaffirmation of the bourgeois political structure which will ultimately alter nothing.
Working in the trade unions, at least from what I'm interpreting, is working on the ground and organizing with workers and agitating. This cannot be compared to voting for a bourgeois party.

I understand. But here in the U.S. the democratic party has the trade unions in their pockets. It seems for the most part, the most radical thing a union member can do over here is to vote democrat! It's sad, and that's my justification for making such a statement. I'm glad things are better in Australia and hope they continue to flourish progressevely.

[Bilan]

I understand. But here in the U.S. the democratic party has the trade unions in their pockets. It seems for the most part, the most radical thing a union member can do over here is to vote democrat! It's sad, and that's my justification for making such a statement. I'm glad things are better in Australia and hope they continue to flourish progressevely.

Things are in bad shape in Australia, largely. There's just pockets of hope. IT's the same everywhere.
But you're position negates a realistic and practical approach to organizing, or the differences between voting and organizing; the two are far from synonymous.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ This is a first, to see the two of us in agreement beyond basic principles not concerning the state: working in trade unions promotes the "tribune of the people" concept.

BTW, what are your thoughts on tred iunionizm?

[Bilan]

MY thoughts on it are only attributed to what it means :blushing:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Sorry for the delay, but I stated the answer in a post above on the meaning of tred iunionizm:


Nevertheless, it would be naïve and reductionist to think that workers need only be organized into non-combative “yellow” trade unions (the word “yellow” refers to the difference between non-combative trade unions and so-called “red unions”). This yellow-trade-union reductionism is the ideological paradise of the bourgeois-friendly yellow-trade-union bureaucrats, for it allows them to offer neo-liberal consumerist “deals” to the rank-and-file, completely devoid of a political character (either “orange” or “red”).

[Bilan]

So, is tred iunionizm just trade unionism?

A bit more clarity would be dynamite, Richter.

[Bilan]

Ah, and I looked it up for the sake of clarity.


Tred-iunionizm he leaves untranslated: he argues that it means not ‘trade unionism’ in the broad sense of supporting or building trade unions, but the specific politics of the right wing of the British trade union movement, who at the period when WITBD was written opposed the creation of a labour party. Since this political trend is extant in British and US trade union politics, I guess it would have been possible to have translated it, by one of the modern usages, as ‘business unionism’ (US) or ‘moderatism’ (UK). However, leaving it in transliterated Russian serves to flag the fact that the tred-iunionizm Lenin characterises as bourgeois politics is not trade union activity as such, but the political right wing of the trade union movement.

If this is what you mean, my opinion of the political right wing of Trade Unionism would be much like my opinion of right wing politics generally.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, to be fair, there are trade-union militants opposed to the ass-kissers, but those among them who prefer an exclusively trade-unionist approach (these folks are GROWING, due to their disillusionment with political parties) are, at best, the left wing of tred iunionizm. Lih specifically said "trade-unions-only-ism" - hence my remark about "yellow-trade-union reductionism."

These militant folks may actually be orange-trade-union reductionists ("orange" referring to class-strugglism as a guiding principle). Then there are the red-trade-union reductionists: the syndicalists (yes, that includes anarcho-syndicalists).

[Bilan]

Well, to be fair, there are trade-union militants opposed to the ass-kissers, but those among them who prefer an exclusively trade-unionist approach (these folks are GROWING, due to their disillusionment with political parties) are, at best, the left wing of tred iunionizm. Lih specifically said "trade-unions-only-ism" - hence my remark about "yellow-trade-union reductionism."

These militant folks may actually be orange-trade-union reductionists ("orange" referring to class-strugglism as a guiding principle). Then there are the red-trade-union reductionists: the syndicalists (yes, that includes anarcho-syndicalists).

I am finding this all a bit confusing.
What is the difference between an "orange trade unionist" and a "red trade unionist"? And, what is the purpose of the coloured distinction?

But more to the point, class struggle is a guiding principle of "red trade unionists", and syndicalists - that is something undeniable. Anarcho-syndicalists also reject the use of political parties. Are they, then, orange or red?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hypothetically speaking (formal logic), it is possible to be an avowed class-strugglist worker without having a revolutionary-socialist viewpoint, hence the possibility of "orange" tred iunionisty. ;)

The syndicalists that you mentioned are at the extreme left of tred iunionizm (they have both a revolutionary-socialist and a class-strugglist viewpoint), hence they would be "red" tred iunionisty.

Of course, neither Lenin nor the revolutionary wing of German social democracy touched upon these two types of tred iunionizm, having concentrated their attacks on the "yellow" form.

[Bilan]

Right, I get you.

Though, I don't think its really possible to be an avowed class strugglist worker, as you say, and not be a socialist.

Never the less, I see where you're coming from now.

[chimx]

I think you'll find many workers in yellow unions who believe in class struggle in practice but don't identify with socialism or communism, especially in the United States which has such a long history of red scare anti-left tactics.

[Bilan]

I think you'll find many workers in yellow unions who believe in class struggle in practice but don't identify with socialism or communism, especially in the United States which has such a long history of red scare anti-left tactics.

That's a logical contradiction, though, is it not?

How can you believe in class struggle practice without end? What objective can they have, if its not communism under a different name?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Some may just want "workers' rule" without the "stateless society" stuff. Some may even want just ultra-left Keynesianism, being deluded about state interventionism.

As for chimx's remarks regarding anti-left tactics, I've updated my work (see Demand #2):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/program-new-type-t83818/index.html

And I'm also working on another work. :)

[Bilan]

^^^ Some may just want "workers' rule" without the "stateless society" stuff. Some may even want just ultra-left Keynesianism, being deluded about state interventionism.

It's funny you mention that, I was just reading about Keynesianism the other day, so I actually know what you're talking about! God save the ASR! :lol:

Anywho, I suppose that is true, and to some extent, I can concede to that.

[Tower of Bebel]

I wonder whether some, of those who claim they can reclaim the Labour parties in the future, know the difference between a "new-found leftist profile" and opportunism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I read something interesting regarding Britain and tred iunionizm in The Twentieth Century (specifically a chapter in that book written by, unsurprisingly, Lars Lih):


The technical term within social-democratic discourse for the effort to keep the working-class struggle free from socialism was Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, "trade-unions-only-ism." [Since England was the classical home of this anti-Social-Democratic ideology, the English words "trade union" were used by both German and Russian Social-Democrats to make an "-ism" that was equivalent for Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei [...]]

CPGB comrade Mike Macnair has talked consistently about the White-Anglo-Saxon-Protestant tred iunionisty's exceptional ability to keep workers away from socialism (which is the case in the US, as well). [With all due respect to RevLeft Anglo-Saxons, of course :) ]

[Guest1]

Are we spelling "trade unionism" as "gobbledygook-ism" now?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It is important to spell the word in a transliterated/Romanized Russian manner, especially given the historical context (which you yourself seem to be unaware of). Some people take Lenin's remarks in WITBD as being against trade union activity (the general definition of trade unionism).