Trade Unionism

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

What are your thoughts on this idea of organizing for revolution within the trade unions? Is this a real way of hastening forward revolution or do you suppose (as I have come to highly suspect) that, to the degree this approach is relied upon, it yields a narrow economist outlook? (An outlook that is, which equates the price workers receive for their labor to degrees of socialism. Or which, similarly, equates the size of industry to degrees of socialism.)

It seems to me that, besides yielding narrow economism, trade unionism also fails to organize and mobilize all positive factors for revolution...including many people at the very base of society who either lack union representation or are unemployed, besides, of course, non-proletarian strata. What are your thoughts on this?

(My thinking prefers independent political resistance as the most correct approach to hastening while awaiting the development of a revolutionary situation.)

[Hit The North]

Trade unions are not revolutionary organisations, they are defensive organisations. This side of the revolution, workers need to defend themselves against the ambition of capitalists. To confuse them for political organisations is just that - confusion. So I think you are right.

"Independent political resistance" - independent of whom or what?

[Monkey Riding Dragon]

I think it's one thing for workers to, for example, strike for a somewhat more livable price for their labor, but that has nothing to do with bringing forward a revolutionary situation at all. That's why I really think there needs to be a separation of the labor movement and the communist movement. Not that we should separate ourselves from the proletariat, of course (!), but that trying to get people mobilized toward revolutionary aims from within that framework of labor prices is bound to lead to an economist outlook and to limit the potential for revolution beyond what can actually lead to it. In other words, communists should not be involved in organizing strikes for higher wages and things like this is what I'm trying to say.

What I mean by independent political resistance is resistance that's 1) directed at the main ways the system is oppressing people at any given point, and 2) led by the organized vanguard that's independent of capital. The Bolsheviks put forward the slogan of "peace, land, and bread". These were the main, immediate needs of the people in that context, which no other party had an answer for. That's why the masses rallied behind the Bolsheviks for revolution. That, I think, captures the essence of what I'm trying to get at the need for. Now should we be unwilling to get with and lead forward struggles between workers and their employers? No, we should be willing to do that, but only if and when it's on the basis of a revolutionary orientation; actually hastening forward a revolutionary situation.

[S. Zetor]

trying to get people mobilized toward revolutionary aims from within that framework of labor prices is bound to lead to an economist outlook and to limit the potential for revolution beyond what can actually lead to it. In other words, communists should not be involved in organizing strikes for higher wages and things like this is what I'm trying to say.

I don't agree with this. Even though it naturally is a question of where you can have the most effect with the forces you have at your disposal at a given time, I think it's not correct to distance yourself that categorically from trying to organise activities from within the trade unions, too. Economic demands and economic struggle can lead to political demands and political struggle, and if it looks like a good shot to communists active within the trade union movement, I think pushing for e.g. higher wages is a good thing to do.

Higher wages (as well as other costly improvements) squeeze the capitalist's profit margin, and can lead to severe countermeasures on the capitalist's part. Those countermeasures can then again draw militant reaction from the workers. This is how purely economic demands have the possibility within them to turn an economic struggle into a political struggle. It's merely a possibility, but it's there and should be made use of if it seems like it could yield results.


Now should we be unwilling to get with and lead forward struggles between workers and their employers? No, we should be willing to do that, but only if and when it's on the basis of a revolutionary orientation; actually hastening forward a revolutionary situation.

I think you might be making a needless division between revolutionary and non-revolutionary orientation. Economic struggle can turn into a polical, even revolutionary struggle. It's not to be expected that the ordinary workers' consciousness is so high that they would respond favourably to "openly" revolutionary demands right from the start. I think the task of the vanguard is to be one or two steps ahead, instead of one or two miles ahead.

In my opinion, we shouldn't expect ordinary workers to respond to "openly" revolutionary slogans very easily, because people tend not to support ideas so much as bread-and-butter issues. I think it's the task of communists to translate the bread-and-butter issues into demands and action that has the capacity move the class struggle forward in the situation at hand, without necessarily always insisting that you always keep the "flag of the revolution" high.. preaching and besserwisserism tends to put people off. It's a delicate line between advancing the cause of socialism, and sectarian pseudo-revolutionary phrase-mongering..

Anyway, in a situation where there hardly is any workers movement at all, or the movement is clearly on the retreat, the task for communists is probably not to infiltrate the trade unions and start working from within, but rather to build an independent centre to organise activities, to raise money for political activities etc. by means of e.g. hard business activity (rather than think you can fund a militant organisation with volunteer work, jumble sales and newspaper selling).

(Sorry if I misunderstood what you were trying to say, and what your intended context was..)

[Charles Xavier]

The Trade Union movement must be the central organizing point for any serious communist party are the central organization of the working class. Their leadership might be right wing but it doesn't mean we shouldn't work with the trade union movement and propagate to trade unionists.

[davidbrooke]

We have to begin by building consciousness in the workplace. Already mentioned we must be at the same step as the class, who at the moment still (to some extent) feel we live in a "democracy". Now considering that a decent democratic trade union with a properly built social basis should also be in conflict with the employers. Trade unions should be defending but also actively attempting to demand more from the employers. It is when the conflict of the classes arise with the trade union and the employer that consciousness of capitalist relations of productions leads to revolutionary demands. Workers must see and understand for themselves the true functioning of the state powers, and they'll understand this when the demands of the trae union cannot be met under capitalism.

So for me, we should work into overhauling the trae unions into being actively engaged with the working class. Admittely they are inherently reformist organisations, but they are the best means of approaching and organising large members of the working class. We must realise this and engage our activity in this.

At the moment (in Britain) the trade unions are controlled right wing beauracrats it's our task to change this. An independent resistance movement would be isolating ourselves from the working classes.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

The Trade Union movement must be the central organizing point for any serious communist party are the central organization of the working class. Their leadership might be right wing but it doesn't mean we shouldn't work with the trade union movement and propagate to trade unionists.
I'm sure you hold this position as well, we must be careful that the union organization doesn't be come the highest we set our sights. In the United States, provincial unionism began a collaboration with capitalism and government to insure "stability." I don't remember who said it, but it was something like, "Unions are only revolutionary when the demand for hire wages is paired with the demand to end all forms of exploitation." I'm sure that's not the right quote, but I agree with it nonetheless.