Pannekoek & Trade Unionism

TRADE UNIONISM IN GENERAL

This of course is a cursory examination of the context and content of Trade Unionism however it is hopefully a useful attempt to shed light on the very real necessity of contextual and historical analysis in regard to the trade union question. Pannekoek throughout his life remained in the minority in regard to the trade union debate. As on many questions, he was derided as radical of the deviant left and was decried as dogmatic and unreasonable. However, as time went on and the real relation of his analysis to the quite stark experience of the proletariat toward the labor unions was cast in broader daylight. The early conceptions which he defended against the encroachments of rightwing social democracy were often vindicated and as recent interest has shown, a second look at the communist conception of organized labor may be Inevitable.

EARLY PANNEΚΟΕΚ (1902-1908)

The roots of Pannekoek's analysis of the trade union are in the political tendencies he found himself enmeshed in, Dutch and more notably German Social Democracy. In fact, Pannekoek himself spent extensive periods of time teaching at the German SPD Parteischule. During this time, he adopted a common Marxist view, that while Trade unionism was certainly limited (a view directly inherited from Marx and Engels), communist engagement with them was certainly unavoidable. Works such as 'Labor Movement and Socialism' (1908) showed particular attention to the issues of reformist unionism and the division of union leaders and their membership. However, at the same time, Pannekoek asserted additionally that the union organization as a form was fundamentally inseparable from the wider class struggle.

ROOTS OF CRITICISM (1908-1913)

Pannekoek, who had already dealt with reactionary pseudo-socialism inside the Dutch SDAP, was now tasked with a notable confrontation with already renegading Kautsky. This correspondence was in part on the trade union question, in which Pannekoek attacked the conservative Kautsky for his own indulgences toward the reformist aspects of trade unionism. Pannekoek published these criticisms in' Marxist Theory and Revolutionary Tactics' (1912), which eviscerated the reactionary character of rightwing 'socialism'. However, while in his pamphlet 'Socialism and Labor Unionism' (1913) he criticized syndicalism for its blind adherence to form fetishism and the reformist tendencies of organized labor, he asserted that the trade union held 'just as great a revolutionary significance as the political party. This would later be totally abandoned.

BUILDING THE CRITIQUE (1914-1918)

Pannekoek's criticism of the Second International and Kautsky, in tandem with his struggle against both rightwing Dutch and German Social Democracy (which were done together with his ally Herman Gorter), served as a basis for the reckoning with the vulgarized conditions of European socialism which Pannekoek was about to continue his struggle against. In his pamphlet 'The Downfall of the International' (1914), he explicitly stated that within trade unionism, a confrontation out of structural defects between revolution and reaction had to take place. Further, Pannekoek wrote of the new forms of organization that would soon replace parliamentarism and trade unionism, such as organs of mass action and mass strike in particular. Further, the conservatism present in the former dominant means of agitation became more and more apparent to him.

REVELATION & REVIEW (1918-1919)

While watching the construction of socialism in Russia and the German Revolution, Pannekoek began to formulate his opposition to the trade unions on the basis of class. The counterrevolutionary status of many trade unions in the German revolt concerned Pannekoek deeply, who as an active agitator for the Communist 'Lefts' observed the rapidly disintegrating potential of 'revolutionary action via the existing trade unions. In his essay 'The German Revolution' (1918), Pannekoek recounted the widespread bourgeois collaboration which trade unions engaged in. However the real 'day of reckoning' occurred with regard to his criticism of Lenin, who in conjunction with much of the western European communist movement fundamentally disagreed with Lenin's endorsement of Communist engagement with the trade unions.

THE STRUGGLE BEGINS (1920-1936)

The apex of Pannekoek's analytical influence on the trade union question was undoubtedly during the years of the early 20s. Following Lenin's engagement with the Communist left, of which Pannekoek (who frequently wrote under pen names) was one, Pannekoek launched himself into a passionate defense of the Left's criticism of trade union action. In his seminal work, World Revolution and Communist Tactics' (1920), Pannekoek decried the unions as the 'material incarnates of bourgeois authority and advocated the detachment of the communist workers from them altogether. Further, he identified the unions reactionary qualities as inherent and fundamentally Incapable of changing via entryism or new management. They were to him, the hand of capital which produced an undisturbed flow of labor power, to be dispensed by the owning class, the bourgeoisie.

PANNEKOEK AGAINST LENIN

Pannekoek's criticisms of Lenin such as 'World Communism and Revolutionary Tactics' (1920) encapsulated a truly fundamental change in his conception of the trade union movement concerning communist revolt. While he had certainly always (and perhaps before his counterparts) noted the structural failures of trade unionism, Pannekoek had always maintained at least a cautious endorsement of the Integration of trade unionism in the active process of proletarian revolution. Pannekoek grew even more lucid in his criticisms of the labor aristocracy, explicitly following his experience with the German Revolution. Pannekoek became convinced that Lenin's positions on the trade union question had directly contributed to the failure of proletarian revolution in Germany, which Gorter and others agreed.

TRADE UNIONISM IN ORIGINATION

By 1956, with the publication of Trade Unionism', Pannekoek had decisively adapted the criticisms of trade unionism found by Marx and his own experiences to form a broader trade union critique. Pannekoek noted that the development of trade unionism was inherently bound to industrial capital, strongest in the countries of Western Europe. Further, due to their orientation towards conditions (which both Marx and Engels criticized), alienated them from being truly revolutionary organs. The trade unions were incapable of looking beyond capitalism, for they owed their own existence to it. Their leadership threw itself Into Industrial Peacemaking and concerned itself with organizing an excellent flow of wage labor. The nature of collective bargaining is one of capitalism and its maintenance of that is inevitable.

LABOR ARISTOCRACY (1936)

In ‘Trade Unionism', Pannekoek concerned a significant portion of text towards the question of labor leadership, which due to the bureaucratization of the massive apparatus of the old labor movement, had constituted itself as a particular productive group in opposition to revolution. As Pannekoek said "The labor leader stands beside the capitalist in their common fear of the workers' rebellion." Very clearly, the class allegiance of the Labor leader is shown in his attitude towards proletarian action, such as the wildcat strike. The supposed revolutionary potential of the trade unionists was limited by their own birth in capital. Supposedly 'Socialist' trade unionists desired, Instead of Communism a system in which 'Instead of greedy capitalists honest labor leaders will manage industrial production.' The revolutionary potential of the union is suffocated by both its productive role and its leadership among others.

TRADE UNION ENTRY (1936)

Trade Unionism was one of the best documented examples of Pannekoek's usage of the reasoning: the fight for revolution is one against the trade unions! Previous Communist conceptions that the Trade Union movement could be entered or subverted into support for worker revolution, which even Pannekoek granted weight, was washed away in favor of a comprehensive conclusion: Trade Unions have class interests which diverge from the proletariat, as he said they are organic forms which conceal their bourgeois class allegiances. Communist agitation via the unions was totally limited, born out by historical failure and the actualization of critique became to Pannekoek, not only superfluous insofar as Communism was concerned but even damaging due to the reformist and conservative nature of the organizations themselves. The struggle within had become the struggle against the unions.

TRADE UNIONISM & NATIONS (1936)

Pannekoek devoted a brief passage in Trade Unionism to the question of organized labor and war. This represented years of experience with reactionary trade unions, which for Pannekoek began as early as 1903 with the Dutch rail workers Strike, then later the struggle against the SDAP, the KPD, the KAPD's agitation and the debate with Lenin on the tactics of Western Europe. Pannekoek consistently witnessed the trade unions granting national powers the right of way in the event of war or any large scale national event, foregoing workers empowerment in favor of the great good of the nation.
Trade unions, however, in war must stand upon the side of the capitalist. Its interests are bound up with national capitalism, the victory of which it must wish with all its heart. Hence it assists in arousing strong national feelings and national hatred. It helps the capitalist class to drive the workers into war and to beat down all opposition.

Source: https://x.com/RevueMontagne/status/1827846243793690936