Different left-communist positions on unions

  1. newdayrising
    newdayrising
    I've been reading and comparing some things by the ICC and the ICT regarding unions, and it seems to me that the latter is a bit less, say, anti-union than the former.

    What is the difference between both organizations views on unions and how did they arrive at such positions? What about other groups in the communist left, where do they stand?
  2. Alf
    Alf
    Can you explain why you see the ICT as a bit less anti-union than the ICC?
  3. Android
    Android
    I've been reading and comparing some things by the ICC and the ICT regarding unions, and it seems to me that the latter is a bit less, say, anti-union than the former.
    Yes.
    What is the difference between both organizations views on unions and how did they arrive at such positions? What about other groups in the communist left, where do they stand?
    Beyond speculation I can't account too much for how the respective groups arrived at their positions. The differences in theory are largely that one views the problem as resulting from their role as mediators between capital and labour, situated historically through changes in capitalist development (ICT). And the other sees it as a product of the transformation of capitalism from an ascendant to a decadent phase (ICC).

    Both groups relate it to their own particular understandings of capitalist decadence. There are also differences in how these analyses are applied in practice. The ICC has a position that there members can only be in unions if it is required through a closed shop situation. Whilst the ICT has no objection in principle to its members being in trade unions, and that is is really the circumstance that should determine this.
    n the nineteenth century, the period of capitalism’s greatest prosperity, the working class - often through bitter and bloody struggles - built up permanent trade organisations whose role was to defend its economic interests: the trade unions. These organs played an essential role in the struggle for reforms and for the substantial improvements in the workers’ living conditions which the system could then afford. They also constituted a focus for the regroupment of the class, for the development of its solidarity and consciousness, so that revolutionaries could intervene within them and help make them serve as ‘schools for communism’. Although the existence of these organs was indissolubly linked to the existence of wage labour, and although even in this period they were often substantially bureaucratised, the unions were nevertheless authentic organs of the class to the extent that the abolition of wage labour was not yet on the historical agenda.

    As capitalism entered its decadent phase it was no longer able to accord reforms and improvements in living conditions to the working class. Having lost all possibility of fulfilling their initial function of defending working class interests, and confronted with an historic situation in which only the abolition of wage labour and with it, the disappearance of trade unions, was on the agenda, the trade unions became true defenders of capitalism, agencies of the bourgeois state within the working class. This is the only way they could survive in the new period. This evolution was aided by the bureaucratisation of the unions prior to decadence and by the relentless tendency within decadence for the state to absorb all the structures of social life.
    http://en.internationalism.org/icc/2...uments-capital

    This text is fairly comprehensive, it describes the CWO/ICT conceptualise unions, historically and today, and the issue of newly emerging unions. I wont quote it as it would make the post cumbersome to read.