Communist critique of the unions - reading suggestions

For those who didn’t follow-up Darren p’s link to the SPGB on unions (in post #48), here’s a quote:
“The question arises to what extent can modern trade unions still be regarded as democratic organisations, in the sense of being run by and for the workers. That the unions do provide a service for their members cannot be denied. What is relevant in this context is the extent to which trade unions are run by their members. Most unions have formal democratic constitutions which provide for a wide degree of membership participation and democratic control. In practice however, these provisions are sometimes ineffective and actual control of many unions is in the hands of a well-entrenched full-time leadership. It is these leaders who frequently collaborate with the State and employers in the administration of capitalism; who get involved in supporting political parties and governments which act against the interest of the working class.
But it would be wrong to write off the unions as anti-working-class organisations. The union has indeed tended to become an institution apart from its members; but the policy of a union is still influenced by the views of its members. A union is only as strong as its members. For without their participation at the place of work, and without their willingness to go on strike or take some other form of industrial action, a union would be in a weakened position with regard to the employer.
Even though unions have sometimes strayed from this basic role but can be pressurised by their members into fulfilling it, they are useful to the working class. They provide a minimum of protection against the pressures on wage levels that always exist under capitalism. “

This is a perfectly logical tie in with their views on parliament, elections and democracy. Both are completely idealist, with a wholly blinkered, formulistic view of the world. Parliament is a sham: the state operates through its executive organs. To argue otherwise is to try to peddle belief in a rotting corpse.
For the SPGB, the unions have working class members, so they cant be anti-working class. In reality, just as they proved in 1914 when they pimped as recruiting sergeants for the slaughter of millions of workers, the unions are wholly anti-working class. Far from providing “a minimum of protection against the pressures on wage levels that always exist under capitalism” they function as barrier to the only real protection workers have – the class struggle. Their democracy is a sham: petty bureaucracy, totally remote decision-making, and Kafkaesque protocol, ensures base level control remains in the hands of apparatchiks. When the unions respond to worker unrest, it is to derail it, to isolate it in sectors, to stage-manage any action, engage in endless secret negotiations, and to finally sell to the workers a package acceptable to the bosses.

I agree, but workers who are unable to join a union are not more likely to become active in struggle; on the contrary. The union as a mechanism of bureaucratic control is designed to keep workers in check and paralyzed, but the same is all the more true for work in general, and even as union management derails workers' struggles, said workers are able to build on the experience of struggle as rank-and-file members, and come to an understanding of the true nature of union leadership themselves, whereas just saying that unions are bad is not going to mean anything to non-unionized workers who want union representation.
I agree that the SPGB article doesn't go far enough in its criticism of unions, but to say that unions are simply anti-working class, end of story, is equally "idealist, wholly blinkered, and formulistic" in my view.

If read carefully, this seems pretty germane:

Trades' unions. Their past, present and future

(a) Their past.

Capital is concentrated social force, while the workman has only to dispose of his working force. The contract between capital and labour can therefore never be struck on equitable terms, equitable even in the sense of a society which places the ownership of the material means of life and labour on one side and the vital productive energies on the opposite side. The only social power of the workmen is their number. The force of numbers, however is broken by disunion. The disunion of the workmen is created and perpetuated by their unavoidable competition among themselves.

Trades' Unions originally sprang up from the spontaneous attempts of workmen at removing or at least checking that competition, in order to conquer such terms of contract as might raise them at least above the condition of mere slaves. The immediate object of Trades' Unions was therefore confined to everyday necessities, to expediences for the obstruction of the incessant encroachments of capital, in one word, to questions of wages and time of labour. This activity of the Trades' Unions is not only legitimate, it is necessary. It cannot be dispensed with so long as the present system of production lasts. On the contrary, it must be generalised by the formation and the combination of Trades' Unions throughout all countries. On the other hand, unconsciously to themselves, the Trades' Unions were forming centres of organisation of the working class, as the mediaeval municipalities and communes did for the middle class. If the Trades' Unions are required for the guerilla fights between capital and labour, they are still more important as organised agencies for superseding the very system of wages labour and capital rule.

(b) Their present.

Too exclusively bent upon the local and immediate struggles with capital, the Trades' Unions have not yet fully understood their power of acting against the system of wages slavery itself. They therefore kept too much aloof from general social and political movements. Of late, however, they seem to awaken to some sense of their great historical mission, as appears, for instance, from their participation, in England, in the recent political movement, from the enlarged views taken of their function in the United States, and from the following resolution passed at the recent great conference of Trades' delegates at Sheffield:

"That this Conference, fully appreciating the efforts made by the International Association to unite in one common bond of brotherhood the working men of all countries, most earnestly recommend to the various societies here represented, the advisability of becoming affiliated to that hody, believing that it is essential to the progress and prosperity of the entire working community."

(c) Their future.

Apart from their original purposes, they must now learn to act deliberately as organising centres of the working class in the broad interest of its complete emancipation. They must aid every social and political movement tending in that direction. Considering themselves and acting as the champions and representatives of the whole working class, they cannot fail to enlist the non-society men into their ranks. They must look carefully after the interests of the worst paid trades, such as the agricultural labourers, rendered powerless [French text has: "incapable of organised resistance"] by exceptional circumstances. They must convince the world at large [French and German texts read: "convince the broad masses of workers"] that their efforts, far from being narrow -- and selfish, aim at the emancipation of the downtrodden millions.

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1866/instructions.htm#06

Steven. - There is a pamphlet by Richard Hyman from the 1970s which surveys Marx, Lenin, Trotsky and Michels on trade unions. I don't think it's a substitute for what you propose, but it might be a good reference point.

There is a summary of it here: http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/soc/courses/soc4s3/theory/hyman.htm

I have a copy, which I can bring to the meeting that I emailed you about tomorrow night, if you're coming.

Try reading 'Trade Unionism and the Class War' by Guy Aldred.

i will not think about that image.
i bought the ICC's booklet last weekend, haven't started reading it yet, first must finish my International Publishers binge (connolly, larkin, gurley flynn, now the molly maguires).

In what way is the class struggle a protection? Struggle in iteslf is no guarantee of victory. Unions are not a barrier to the class struggle but one, of many, expressions of it. To be anti-union in 2009 is to give advantage to the employers.

It is true that the unions’ role is one of mediation and as such does nothing to challenge the material basis of the relation between workers and employers. However as the existence of the wages system is only questioned by a tiny minority this can be of no great surprise; the unions do not work to establish socialism because their members are not socialists. To write off unions as defenders of capitalist exploitation is a step too far, “to be without a union would usually be even worse under present conditions.”

The real question is one of internal democracy and the extent in which the union is run by and for its membership. Whilst all unions do have a certain amount of democratic framework the amount of member participation is often lacking, perhaps not surprising when “unions are generally run today primarily as financial service brokers – "negotiating deals on insurance, mortgages and pensions, medical cover, holidays and car breakdown services" etc – and investment funds with a sideline in industrial arbitration.” Unions, sometimes under the well entrenched leadership of full time officials, have at times acted against the interests of the working class but such occurrences should not be understood as a fault of the union form per se but as an expression of the contradictions of the position of workers under capitalism.

The assumption that capitalism can be overcome through industrial action alone is not one that should go unquestioned. Workers who struggle to maintain and better their conditions should be commended, but until the working class consciously and politically organise to end the wages system the same battles will have to be fought over and over again.

Unfortunately the SPGB view expressed by Darren tells us nothing as to why, either in the everyday experience of workers today or in terms of the historical development of the class struggle within capitalism, that the trade unions, despite often formal comitment to 'democaracy',continue to elude efective and sustained control by their members or why other more radical base unions more often than not end up the same way.

Their continued ability to 'sell out' (actually to act in line with their basic function) relies on their historical origins as workers organisations in a previous era rather than in therir abillity to act as genuine defenders of workers interests in todays modern global calpitalism.

This is not to say that they don't (sometimes) provide some basic cover for individual workers within the rules of capitalist property relations but only that they are unsuited to the tasks facing workers in todays world and a barrier to radical class struggle when it does emerge from time to time.

No one imagines that 'industrial struggle alone' will 'overcome' capitalism - that requires a class wide social and political struggle but pro-revolutionary views of what constitutes the 'political' is not reduced to the narrow and sterile SPGB form of propaganda and or participation in capitalist elections.

Sorry, but defending the pro-union 'credo' gives advantages to the bosses. Would you care to give any historical analysis of how unions have actually been able to rest lasting reforms and concessions from the employers?

Even the briefest study of the history of the workers' movement goes to show that the absolute opposite is the case...

When will you pro-union zealots get it into your thick skulls that the struggle is not the union!? OK, it's fair enough to say that struggles are not enough. They have to become politicised and go from the defensive to the offensive, but this process happens through the struggle, not outside of it. Jeez...

Most of Darren P's post above is a word-for-word cut & paste from a recent review (his own?) http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/oct09/page20.html (half way down page) of this pamphlet http://libcom.org/history/report-reflections-uk-ford-visteon-dispute-2009-post-fordist-struggle

His last paragraph above draws an "assumption" from his reading of the pamphlet that is surprising and inaccurate.

My review from the standard clearly states "until the working class consciously and politically organise to end the wages system the same battles will have to be fought over and over again" Unions have not not been able to win lasting reforms and concessions, and neither has any other form of working class organisation.

Now, lets look at the situation in 2009, in the UK. Are bosses eager to invite unions into there workplace? Is there a higher concentration of militancy in non-unionised workplaces? No.

Workplace struggles, whether unionised or not are but one expression of the class struggle. It is impossible for a member of the working class to exist outside of the class struggle, it affects every aspect of our daily lives. There is nothing outside of the class struggle.

Why stick to the national perspective of the UK? In the USA, the Obama administration seems very happy to encourage wider union participation with the passing of the Employee Free Choice Act.
http://en.internationalism.org/inter/152/efca

Why stick to 2009? The history of the workers' movement in the US during the 30s demonstrated how keen the Roosevelt administration was to develop the industrial unions as a means to manage class conflict and keep it within reasonable boundaries (see the Wagner Act). It's important to know your history because the institutions that are around today have been well established for decades, if not centuries. Their class nature doesn't change overnight.

That may be the case today, in 2009. But why? The most militant workplaces have tended to become highly unionised because the state and bosses need a method of gauging the temper of the workers and policing the workforce. They ain't dumb. They're extremely intelligent and experienced at managing the conflict beween capital and labour, and the unions are one of the most powerful weapons in their armoury. The unions are not a form of working class organisation either. They once were (1800s), but not any more, which is another reason why the union weapon is so successful.

Why stick to 2009? Because that is the year we are in. Today, workers with no union representation are left at the complete mercy of the bosses' whims, forced to endure humiliation, unpaid overtime, etc. I learned this firsthand.
No one, but the most naive Trot or Labourite, is claiming that unions are inherently revolutionary and "for the working class," but to use that basic fact to paint over the very real material advantage that union representation offers is pretty disingenuous.

Yes, this is all true, but you've still not addressed the question. What you're saying is "yes, unrepresented workers are completely non-militant, but that's because militant worker's struggles' have been recuperated via the unions." Does this mean that unrepresented workers are actually better off, because if they, by some miracle, became militant, the union would show up and ruin everything? Sorry, that makes no sense to me. Unrepresented workers will not become militant by accident; this is a fact. Everywhere I've worked where there was zero chance for union representation, from big retail chains to small freight forwarding firms, workers were absolutely defeatist and demoralized. In such places the bosses turn playing workers off against each other into an art form (much like the union bosses do, I know, but that is beside the point). Such workplaces are probably only behind sweatshops (which they resemble in many ways) in terms of non-militancy and demoralization. Hoping for a miraculous upsurge in class militancy is not going to get you anywhere. At the end of the day, workers can only learn the true nature of unions by being involved in struggles mediated by unions. Left communist critiques will not substitute for real life experience. And for unrepresented workers, to tell them that they're "better off" without union representation because union bosses don't actually care about their struggle, that's a bit like saying "false consciousness, comrades."

Actually, historically non-revolutionary unions have always had middle class interests to defend. This is why during the 1830s-40s, most trade unions in England wanted nothing to do with Chartism for example, because of the latter's occasional reputation for "working class violence" and willingness to use direct action against the big mill-owners. The point is trade unions have never been strictly working-class organizations.

Doesn't this put the cart before the horse? Maybe there are no unions in those workplaces because there is no working-class militancy to manage?

There are no unions, because it's illegal to unionize. Because the consensus is "every worker for himself and the boss against all," and who the fuck is going to argue against that if you got bills to pay and kids to feed? Some of my co-workers were clearly aware of the purpose and possible advantage of union representation, but they saw no possibility of achieving it. It's not like the union shows up in town and asks who wants to join ffs. Simply saying that " there is no working-class militancy" is like saying "those thick proles don't understand what their class interest is." I'm saying they do understand, and given the change to organize, they would assert it, but this chance will never come out of the blue. Union representation is an important step.

i second this entirely - except for the word 'disingenuous', i think LCs are not special-pleading, but i do think they're myopic on this point.

Worker militancy isn't just being upset at how things are, it's the actual potential to organize, which perhaps doesn't exist equally in all industries under all situations. I wouldn't be quick to blame prole thickness for that, surely there are other material and social conditions contributing to it. High worker turnout makes it hard to establish trust, a commission-based salary makes the workers competitive, a workforce based on illegal immigrants/migrant workers tied to the employer through the visa makes them less likely to make waves, etc. A union would usually look at this kind of workplace, realize that there aren't going to be many disputes for it to recuperate, and move on to some more well-established industry. Or a union federation may be willing to back a fledgling union at such a workplace, in return for gaining complete control over that union, only to abandon it months later when it turns out not to be of advantage to its larger dues-paying union. But I'm starting to think we mean different when we say "union".

That's what I was saying.

precisely.

Yes, that is a good point. But once the union establishes a presence, it doesn't take much effort for worker discontent to become more visible. This does not mean that there will be a full-scale riot once workers become unionized, but they might take the opportunity to go on strike, esp. when work conditions are getting increasingly terrible (as they usually do in non-unionized workplaces, esp. nowadays). I don't think there is a situation where disputes will simply never arise in a unionized workplace, regardless of the circumstances.
I think the main point is that demoralized, divided and humiliated workers with zero experience of struggle will not go on a wildcat strike just like that. In fact they won't do anything but work, lacking the experience of struggle. However recuperative and ultimately reactionary an official, bureaucratic union may be, it still offers the workers a chance to pit their needs against those of the bosses, even as their struggles are defeated.
Look, I don't pretend to be an expert in unions, and I don't want to engage in an endless debate on whether they are wholly against the workers or not, because I am not ideologically pro-union by any means. My concerns on this issue arise from the very material reality that I deal with on a daily basis. What do you do as an unrepresented worker living near the poverty line when the boss asks you to do double the work for no extra pay, while creating all sorts of divisions between workers? If you get laid off, is anyone going to stand up for you?

duhh. The struggle is not the assembly, the struggle is not the council: the form is not the content, related though they are. Category error.

I think it may be apt on this thread to quote the German council communist , Paul Mattick , who had first hand experience of German 20s class struggles and the heightened American struggles of the 30s .

The SPGB has always had the caveat thats it will ONLY support trade unions when unions ACT on SOUND lines and have never viewed them as agents of revolution .and don't forget that early SPGB criticism of industrial unionism and syndicalism and its pessimistic prognosis of those industrial strategies proved rather accurate . We share with Mattick the view that workers have to function within capitalism .Under capitalism, workers depend on wages they get for the sale of their labour-power and that it is in their interest to get the highest possible price for this and collective organisation via trade unions, can help obtain this. So yes , its all a matter of haggling over the workers' commodity and , clearly, this has no anti-capitalist content. But this doesn't mean that the wages struggle isn't part of the class struggle. It is an economic, defensive struggle within capitalism to get the best deal under it and with all its failings (and as a one time activist in the CWU i am only too painfully aware of them ) trade unions are a necessary weapon in the workers armoury.

Thr SPGB's lack of any historical approach to the trade unions is only a reflection of a much deeper failure to understand the material relationship between the everyday class struggle and the potential to challenge and eventually overthrow capitalist social relations.

The class struggle is more than the workplace struggle but the workplace struggle is in turn still a good deal more than a matter of the level of wages - it is at it's core about control - a fact illustrated time and again in both everyday mundane issues over the use of worktime and far more radically in situations of widespread strikes and occupations.

Such situations don't automatically lead in some mechanical way to the overthrow of capitalism but they do open up cracks in the system that allow large numbers of workers to see the possibility of living a different life to that dominated by the law of value.

The SPGB ( as I have argued on other earlier threads) is, despite it's rejection of social democracy's reformist 'minimum programme' unable to extract itself from the social democratic formalism expressed in a rigid division betyween the supposed 'economic' expression of the class struggle through the trade unions and the supposed 'political' expression of that struggle through a propagandist and parliamentary style organisation.

The SPGB despite it's formal adherance to a 'marxist analysis' is an essentially idealist organisation ( which is not dish some good communist ideals!).

I can accept these points . As i have said , having been a postal worker and engaged in industrial action for much of my time there , i do appreciate that many of the issues we were fighting for was the fact that we controlled such things as staffing and staffing hours - the duty auctions , the overtime rotas and the short cuts and adaptations of those duties and delivery walks . It has always been more than just pounds and pence or even job numbers within the mail strikes.

I do expect the line between parliament and industrial struggle will increasingly blur the more heightened they become but i think both are necessary , and perhaps it is the dismissive attitudes of others in " the thin red line" ( or historically , also the anarchists inside the Socialist League ? ) to-wards the parliamentary subversion of the State ( an approach that was shared by the SLP and James Connolly so it is not a necessay unique SPGB principle) that makes the SPGB over-compensate on what you call its social democratic formalism .
And i think the SPGB accept that it is will be within a revolutionary process and not our feeble propaganda efforts which will create the socialists that we do deem necessary to establish socialism .

How wait until you read the non-review in the latest Direct Action

Ah well, I guess it just wasn't topical enough to find room for it among the reviews of folk music and a history book on 100 years of the IWW...

No my friend you misunderstand me, it is reviewed but the review of the actual pamphlet is one paragraph long out of six.

Steven

I read Melmoth's post on Workers Voice and checked out that only the Movement for Workers Councils in Germany was re-published by the late Graeme Imray (who was on the editorial board of Workers Voice for the first year of its publication as a joint paper). Neither the Workers Voice magazines nor the Workers Voice paper produced after the CWO was formed are digitalised which is a shame as people could see the evolution of the politics of those particpating at the time. They are in places like the British Library and the International Library of Social History in Amsterdam but I suppose that is a bit passe now.

The ICT (formerly IBRP) position on union can be found at http://www.ibrp.org/en/articles/1997-06-01/communist-work-and-the-trades-unions-today

So it's in the forthcoming 2010 issue? Or in the current winter 2009?

The current one DA#48 autumn 2009, came out in time for the bookfair. basically we just big oursleves up and talk about siezing the means of production. awful review in my opinion.

There’s the beginnings of a discussion on the role of trade unions in Britain on the Liberty & Solidarity forums:

http://www.libertyandsolidarity.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=126