Trade-Unionism

I've always understood left-communism to be anti-union seeing them as merely an organ for defending the interests of the proletariat which becomes integrated into the capitalist state and hence can't act as any kind of revolutionary agent and arguing for workers to break with the unions during the revolutionary period. I also understood left-communism to be critical of revolutionary unionism for failing to understand the real nature of unionism. However these passages from Pannekoek would seem to contradict that:

The forms of trade unionism are different for different countries, owing to the different forms of development in capitalism...

The most notable form sprang up in America, in the "Industrial Workers of the World,"...

Against the narrow craft spirit of the old unionism, of the A.F. of L., which divided the workers of one industrial plant into a number of separate unions, the I.W.W. put the principle: all workers of one factory, as comrades against one master, must form one union, to act as a strong unity against the employer. Against the multitude of often jealous and bickering trade unions, the I.W.W. raised the slogan: one big union for all the workers. The fight of one group is the cause of all. Solidarity extends over the entire class. Contrary to the haughty disdain of the well-paid old American skilled labour towards the unorganised immigrants, it was these worst-paid proletarians that the I.W.W. led into the fight. They were too poor to pay high fees and build up ordinary trade unions. But when they broke out and revolted in big strikes, it was the I.W.W. who taught them how to fight, who raised relief funds all over the country, and who defended their cause in its papers and before the courts. By a glorious series of big battles it infused the spirit of organisation and self-reliance into the hearts of these masses. Contrary to the trust in the big funds of the old unions, the Industrial Workers put their confidence in the living solidarity and the force of endurance, upheld by a burning enthusiasm. Instead of the heavy stone-masoned buildings of the old unions, they represented the principle of flexible construction, with a fluctuating membership, contracting in time of peace, swelling and growing in the fight itself. Contrary to the conservative capitalist spirit of trade unionism, the Industrial Workers were anti-capitalist and stood for Revolution. Therefore they were persecuted with intense hatred by the whole capitalist world. They were thrown into jail and tortured on false accusations; a new crime was even invented on their behalf: that of "criminal syndicalism."

Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold, the state power. Nevertheless, the I.W.W. so far has been the most revolutionary organisation in America. More than any other it contributed to rouse class consciousness and insight, solidarity and unity in the working class, to turn its eyes toward communism, and to prepare its fighting power.

Thus the two forms of organisation and fight stand in contrast, the old one of trade unions and regulated strike, the new one of spontaneous strike and workers' councils. This does not mean that the former at some time will be simply substituted by the latter as the only alternative. Intermediate forms may be conceived, attempts to correct the evils and weakness of trade unionism and preserve its right principles; to avoid the leadership of a bureaucracy of officials, to avoid the separation by narrow craft and trade interests, and to preserve and utilise the experiences of former fights. This might be done by keeping together, after a big strike, a core of the best fighters, in one general union. Wherever a strike breaks out spontaneously this union is present with its skilled propagandists and organisers to assist the inexperienced masses with their advice, to instruct, to organise, to defend them. In this way every fight means a progress of organisation, not in the sense of fees paying membership, but in the sense of growing class unity.

An example for such a union might be found in the great American union "Industrial Workers of the World" (I.W.W.). At the end of last century in contrast to the conservative trade unions of well-paid skilled labor, united in the "American Federation of Labor," it grew up out of special American conditions. Partly out of the fierce struggles of the miners and lumbermen, independent pioneers in the wilds of the Far West, against big capital that had monopolised and seized the riches of wood and soil. Partly out of the hunger strikes of the miserable masses of immigrants from Eastern and Southern Europe, accumulated and exploited in the factories of the Eastern towns and in the coal mines, despised and neglected by the old unions. The I.W.W. provided them with experienced strike leaders and organisers, who showed them how to stand against police terrorism, who defended them before public opinion and the courts, who taught them the practice of solidarity and unity and opened to them wider views on society, on capitalism and class fight. In such big fights ten thousands of new members joined the I.W.W., of whom only a small fraction remained. This "one big union" was adapted to the wild growth of American capitalism in the days when it built up its power by subjecting the masses of the independent pioneers.

Similar forms of fight and organisation may be propagated and may come up elsewhere, when in big strikes the workers stand up, without as yet having the complete self-confidence of taking matters entirely in their own hands.

I also think I remember seeing some stuff on Bordigists supporting "red unionism" but I can't remember where it was. Is there something I'm missing here or is there still some kind of debate within left-communism on the role of trade unions? Can someone explain the various historical positions that left-communists took on unions?

The 'left communist position' on the unions has never been entirely monolithic and it has also evolved over time. For example, the KAPD in the early 20s was against the existing unions and for workers' councils, but it also participated in the 'Unionen' formed in industrial centres and coordinated in the AAUD. These were real class organs at the time but there were illusions that such organisations - which regrouped the most militant fighters and had some basic political positions as a basis for membership (such as being in favour of proletarian dictatorship) - could be maintained on a mass scale outside periods of open, massive struggle. Pannekoek and others in that current tended to see the IWW in a similar light. Of course Pannekoek is right to say that there can be intermediate forms and that it is important for the most militant workers to try to stay together outside periods of open struggle, but in our view it is misleading to call such groups 'unions' since their function is not to 'represent' the workers.
The Bordigists have always had a different view on unions from groups like the ICC or ICT. They do tend to call for 'red trade unions' or other permanent forms of 'workers' associationism', although there are differences among the various Bordigist groups.
A bit sketchy but hope that helps.

Alf: You wouldn't happen to be able to link to any Bordigist articles on unionism would you? I can't seem to find any via google

Oh and as a side note: Who are the other main theorists of the Italian left besides Bordiga?

you could have a look at this, though I haven't read it myself. Probably a lot of other basic Bordigist texts on www.sinistra.net

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/coml...osiicecie.html

theorists of the Italian left? Well, there's Onorato Damen for the 'Battaglia' tendency; during the 30s,the period of the Fraction, you had people like Vercesi and Mitchell, though all of these are not really 'Bordigist'. Bordigism is really a post-world war two development, and while Bordiga wrote a lot of the key texts during that period, there were others, such as Maafi. But the Bordigists were usually against signng articles and preferred the party to be made up of 'anonymous' militants.

Thanks a lot

It's not an accident that "the left" is blind on the trade unionism question. In many respects, leftism is the ideological expression of unionism, just as unionism is the organisational expression of leftism. Both spring from the same underlying reality: the domination of bourgeois ideology over the proletariat, given a working class language and flavour.

I'd just like to mention the Workers' International Industrial Union, which split off the IWW in 1908, disbanded in 1926, and was reformed last year. It is a revolutionary union that seeks to organize the organs of proletarian rule in the industries, and unlike the IWW advocates the use of political activity as a means of making effective propaganda, and eventually capturing the capitalist state politically, for the purpose of dismantling it, and handing over all power to the workers organizations. Check it out, www.wiiu.org. Maybe some of you belong in the wiiu.

I'd just like to mention the Workers' International Industrial Union, which split off the IWW in 1908, disbanded in 1926, and was reformed last year.

One would assume that there is no connection at all between this current organisation and the historical one. The adoption of the name seems to me like political grave robbing.

Devrim

Actually I think there is a direct link between the 'new' WIIU and the old. The original WIIU came from the Detroit IWW, the faction linked to the SLP when it left the IWW. The SLP was the main factor in re-forming the 'new' WIIU, so it is the same group forming it again.

IWW, IWA, etc act just like the yellow unions, just with radical language and a more activisty orientation. Also, the 'political action' with the WIIU means democratic electoralism; same with the SLP, their parent party.