Unions, Socialism and Marx

[RedMaterialist]

Marx gave many speeches to union audiences, one of his most famous on Value, Price and Profit to the First International Workings Men's Association in 1865.

Such a speech by a radical revolutionary intellectual to a major union, esp. in the U.S.,today would be almost unthinkable. Why is this? Is it only that union members and the working class have been so thoroughly indoctrinated against socialism?

I occasionally see Richard Wolff, the Marxist professor of Economics, giving speeches to college audiences, but never to unions, as far as I can tell. What would happen if Wolff gave a speech to the UAW explaining how their employer makes a profit by taking, by appropriating, the value of the work they produce without paying them for that value which is over and above the value of their wages?

It's been my experience that the average worker understands how this appropriation works when it is explained to him. If you ask a worker how much they make in wages per hour and how much they produce per hour they will tell you immediately what the difference is.

Of course, there is the overcoming the Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Stalinist, Maoist hysteria.

Any ideas on how to re-integrate the intellectuals and the working class?

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

Marx was a member of the General Council of the International Workingmen's Association, I believe he remained in there untill 1972 when it moved to New York, so him giving speeches to it is not a strange thing. Not to mention it was a socialist organization.

I would say that it largely depends on the union whether or not a marxist would be allowed to give speeches. For example the IWW, an anti-Capitalist union, would allow it. But the bigger, more bureaucratic, unions which have social-democratic backgrounds, i.e. reforming capitalism, would not.

Of course, the left is also largely insignificant as a whole, and the Marxists that were in a higher position in the unions, without left-wing politics, got kicked out, they always tended to go a bit further in their demands though.

[subcp]

All of that depends on your view of labor unionism, what you think the raison d'etre of communists is (what purpose do 'we' serve, what do 'we do', etc.).

Historically, all manner of unions (in those days usually craft unions and trade unions) developed alongside, within, or in tandem with local socialist parties and groups. Some union movements, like the Chartists in England, from the beginning were more liberal than socialist in orientation, whereas in other countries, labor unions developed out of local socialist movements. In Germany the labor unions were an integral part of the SPD, in other countries they were integrated completely into the SP (like the UK Labour Party and TUC later on). This direct link made it possible for socialist thinkers (Lenin's "twelve wise men" in every socialist party in WITBD) to have an organic involvement in local unions. Yet the SP's and labor unions integrated with capitalism and the state over time.

If you take a movement where this didn't happen (like the Chartists and the US labor movement), later developments involved leftists gaining influence in the unions from the outside rather than being integrally linked. The way the CPUSA became an important part of the industrial union movement is an example of this, using 'boring from within' and dual-unionism strategies through TUEL then TUUL. A few books (Dynamite, Labor's Untold Story, etc.) describe how CP militants were "used" by AF of L and later CIO yellow union leaders to build and strengthen unions, and how the CP "used" yellow bread & butter trade unionists and leaders to gain influence and prestige among the members. By the 1940's (and especially during the popular front peak during WWII) the CP was known to have heavy influence in unions and union leadership- the 'Communist Party Machine' in the labor movement. John L. Lewis, head of the UMWA and embryonic CIO federation, is said to have had a meeting with a militant organizer. The organizer told him "I am a Communist Party member" and was thrown out of the union; Labor's Untold Story describes this anecdote as an example of 'reds' being well-known in the union movement, but it had to be an unspoken influence among the leadership. How easy it was to expel the CP from its prestige and power in the unions should demonstrate how tenuous this power really was.

IMHO, unions have no interest in Marxist thinkers and militants for very simple reasons. The institution of unionism is inherently tied to the state and the political regimes of every nation. Nominally socialist parties still have strong influence over the union movement, but that is because these parties are governing organizations that are at the helm of the state very often (PASOK, SPD, etc.). They are not capable of being revolutionary (the SP's or the unions) because of structural reasons in modern capitalism.

I hope that contemporary communists will abandon strategies and tactics that were outdated in the 1920's and 1930's, with dreams of being at the head of unions. The experience of Trotskyists and M-L's in the 1960's and 1970's (the 'to the factories!' era) is documented (and can be researched online) as a sad chapter of militants throwing away their lives to live an ideal of proleier-than-thou jobs and acting as workplace messiahs bringing the 'good news' to the workers. The US Socialist Workers Party as case in point.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

In the UK union leaders are constantly calling for 'socialism' but the only problem with that is their 'socialisn' inevitably means supporting Labour and turning Labour 'left'. You get a few like Bob Crow who are explicitly communists and support small trot coalitions during electoral politics but again, while I don't see him as a hinderence to revolutionaries, he's not quite thrown in his lot.

[Clarion]

I don't know how things are in the US but over here communists speakers routinely address union audiences.

[RedMaterialist]

I don't know how things are in the US but over here communists speakers routinely address union audiences.

In the U.S. union audiences would likely stone the communist to death.

[subcp]

There are still some Trotskyists in positions within unions, or extra-union organizations that still exist and have influence (Labor Notes, Teamsters for a Democratic Union). PLP say they have a member at the head of a large city transit workers local union. But I'm sure all of this is based on "staying in the closet" as a Trotskyist/PLer.

[The Jay]

Here is a link to a PDF of some writings of DeLeon on unions. Bam!

[ed miliband]

I don't know how things are in the US but over here communists speakers routinely address union audiences.

haha, oh do they?

[Le Socialiste]

Marx was a member of the General Council of the International Workingmen's Association, I believe he remained in there untill 1972 when it moved to New York, so him giving speeches to it is not a strange thing. Not to mention it was a socialist organization.

Think you got your dates mixed up comrade.

There's certainly difficulties in approaching union rank-and-file members about radical or revolutionary politics nowadays, but we have a greater opening for doing so than in years prior. Additionally, some unions are more militant than others. Port workers in Oakland have struck or refused to work as a means of protesting against things they consider unjust, like against South African apartheid in the '80s and most recently against the war in Iraq in the early 2000's. Workers in Washington (or was it Oregon?) dumped grain deliveries, sabotaged rail lines, and attempted to stop trains from making their deliveries as a means of resisting their company's attempts to break their union in 2011/12, and the number of strikes consisting of 1,000 workers or more has risen to over 22 since hitting an all-time low in 2005-6. In 2012 we saw the CTU strike in Chicago (and make considerable, albeit uneven, gains in the process) - and their vice president is a socialist.

All this is to say, we have a very long way to go in terms of generalizing these experiences beyond regional radicalism or militancy. Too many labor leaderships continue - as they have - to acquiesce to the demands of private capital, effectively retreating themselves into nonexistence. But in many instances it's the rank-and-file that wants to fight back, to resist, and many push to do so. I think, in light of recent events surrounding the economy, austerity, the complicity of all major parties in the handling of the crisis, and the reluctance of labor bureaucracies to fight back, many workers are increasingly open to the alternatives we put forward. There's a growing movement afoot, one oriented around conceptions of a new type of unionism, of social justice. But it requires the active presence and agitation of socialists within these organizations in order to give a voice to the frustrations of the membership and guide them toward concrete action. We've a long road ahead of us, but it's being built.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

haha, oh do they?

I think he means nominally communist

[Thirsty Crow]

There's a growing movement afoot, one oriented around conceptions of a new type of unionism, of social justice.

Examples?

But it requires the active presence and agitation of socialists within these organizations in order to give a voice to the frustrations of the membership and guide them toward concrete action. We've a long road ahead of us, but it's being built.

This is fundamentally ambiguous.

Do you presume that the function of radicals should be to occupy official posts in these unions of a new type? Or is it that, as workers who are unionized, radicals need to put forward a different perspective?

[subcp]

I don't know many other union workers who have good things to say about trade unionism.

Workers in Washington (or was it Oregon?) dumped grain deliveries, sabotaged rail lines, and attempted to stop trains from making their deliveries as a means of resisting their company's attempts to break their union in 2011/12

They've also been PATCO'd at least twice in the last decade (including that Iraq war protest), and the company amalgam is going after the container royalty fund (their contract extension ends in a week or 2- the strike was put off, now it may be back on on the East Coast). I'm sure watching the construction of Scab Alley in Portland and reading the news on the docks is making everyone jumpy- heavy cuts are coming, and no matter how left-learning the ILWU is (or how not-left leaning the ILA is) isn't going to matter- EGT still broke the union monopoly and negotiated a backward deal in Longview, WA which is putting every dock contract in jeopardy. It happened to the professional air traffic controllers, it can happen to the longshoremen.