The role of the unions (continuation from Rachael Dolezal thread)

[crossthebreeze]

I'm not sure what you mean by that really. For institutional racism to exist, you first need an institution, no? Is the working class an institution? Not sure - seems to me you're diluting the term 'institution' so much as to render it meaningless. But certainly there are working class institutions, and sure they can be racist.

Um no. Even trade unions are solidly bourgeois.

Lenin didn't *necessarily* deny this, though he advocated working in them... (something I take issue with, but that's for another thread...)

Depends which trade union you're talking about. London's couriers recently formed a trade union. They are not in any way bourgeois in their membership, aims or practices.

They are bourgeois in formation.

I don't see any sense in that idea. Bourgeois in what way?

If you band together with your fellow workers to give yourselves a collective voice in a struggle for better conditions, you're doing a bourgeois thing?

That sounds like nonsense to me.

Well if you don't see sense in the idea I don't really think I can clarify it for you. I don't mean to antagonise but the way you're looking at this is emotionally, not in terms of the magnates and imperatives of capital. I.E: in russia there wasn't a bourgeoisie, as such, but it existed in the interstices of the economy, as a class in formation. Likewise newly formed unions are bourgeois unions in formation, not necessarily bourgeois at this present day and time.

And anyway, that's not what the anti-union position entails. But it is often an argument wheeled out by careerist and reformist Trots. Are you one of them, by any chance?

No it's not. I'm genuinely puzzled by your use of words and at a loss as to the meaning you are attaching to them. What you say sounds like nonsense on stilts.

This is the theory:

...after WW1 (and the german rev specifically showed this) the unions as whole passed into integrative bodies for the state and capital as capital itself moved from a position where it could offer compromises and buy-offs without threatening its own stability into one where any such moves would undermine its own continued existence and therefore that of the unions themselves (this is decadent capital, no longer in an ascending phase) which explains their counter-revolutionary behaviour in moments of social revolution - behaviour which is only possible to undertake on the basis of carrying on with ordinary non-threatening union behaviour, acting as the economic left-wing of capital.

Pretty much a theory of despair if it's taken to mean that merely by forming a union you are colluding with capital. That's why it sounds like nonsense on stilts.

Taking my real-world example, London's couriers have started a campaign to shame clients into asking the courier companies how they treat their workers. They are taking direct action to try to improve the lot of couriers, and risking their jobs to do so in many cases. To call that bourgeois is just plain daft.

So it's emotional then. Good shout mate. I didn't know I had to oppose capitalism on emotional grounds. I'll go back to being a liberal.

Bourgeois scum?

At best it's a theory that requires massive caveats.

The argument is about the union form itself, not the content of each individual one( The other directly related historical example is of the party-form itself being bourgeois under contemporary capitalism, or capital after WW1 anyway - a historicised understanding). And, given that they (unions not parties) rely on the continued existence of capital for their own existence they must necessarily take on those non-revolutionary forms or cease to be unions. That's the theory - there's nothing in it that says people shouldn't join or try to change unions and the way they relate to these forms or capital or engage in various struggles. It's just standard left-communist tradition.

In that example, the couriers are not necessarily opposing capitalism, or at least not directly. What they are doing is trying to improve the lot of workers who are massively exploited. Calling that bourgeois is laughable.

You're misunderstanding what bourgeois means here - it doesn't mean 'bourgeois scum' - it means formations historically and functionally tied to the existence of both capital and the state. Like the NHS. It's a politically analytical concept, not abuse.

Spare me the emotional polemicising, thanks. I know what the function of unions are and it is not a proletarian function. And I did not say that the couriers union is bourgeois in this specific period. I said that it is succumbing to a bourgeois form, that of the union coordinating the sale of labour power meaning that in revolutionary situations it will side with capital or cease to be a union.

Despite their obvious faults, unions are useful. And you appear to characterise unions as some monolith whilst disregarding the sum of its parts.

The function of uunion can vary. One function is to provide a collective voice for workers in a struggle for better conditions. And in its formation that is all the courier union is about. So does your theory stand up to this real life example? I say it doesn't, that calling such actions bourgeois is meaningless.

For me, unions are the best vehicle to get none left people organised around ideas of collective bargaining etc. Although some people use it for personal gain, which happens unfortunately under atomised Thatcherism, it draws people away from individualist bargaining.

out of curiosity how would you say a union - which when recognised is engaged in negotiations with employers - is not "colluding with capital"?

If you would actually desist with your kneejerk appeal to some kind of vague notion of solidarity we could perhaps get somewhere...

When workers vote for a racist party are they bourgeois? unequivocally not.

Are the workers who comprise of and join such a union, bourgeois? Again, no. Is the union a bourgeois structure? Undoubtedly, and history and analysis of capital proves this. It is you who is floundering about with no way to back up your ideas.

IE: LBJ's idea is to just analyse class struggle, the commodity form and mystification, without understanding why things behave in the way they do when subject to capital. It's Althusserian overdeterminist bollocks, thoroughly eurocentric and Stalinist to boot and anti -working-class in its orientation. The anointed vanguards will shift the unions to the left and/or replace the union bureaucracies. Like we haven't heard this shit from Trots before, like a tramp over a bag of cold chips. Wouldn't be funny if union bureaucracies weren't such a small crust of union makeup, smaller than the so-called labour aristocracy. As you were.

Surely the issue is with the representative nature of most trades unions (ie elected representatives negotiating with employers)? As opposed to a union form where workers organise together/use direct action and no member becomes a representative to mediate or negotiate on behalf of other members?

You're right, in theory. In reality the wc fares better with them than without them.

Fuck me this is bollocks.

You said



about a union you hadn't heard of before, by their nature as all unions are.

This is utter nonsense.

I want you or butchers to come back and defend this phrase. Your theory is so far removed from the actual lived world, it's really not funny. It's really fucking annoying. Particularly as you see fit to patronise me because of your stupid theory.

Not theory, lived reality - lived courage.

btw this is nothing to do with being a 'trot', whatever that is. hiding behind that kind of abuse is shit. Totally shit. It's avoiding the issue about what self-organisation can be, and is. You know, in the real world, where people are being shat on and want to do something about it. Where does that fit in with your theory?

 

[crossthebreeze]

Personally, i think representative, recognised trades unions (ie all TUC trades unions and many others) do have a bourgeoisie role (because they will always act to maintain their role as negotiator - which often means acting against workers to control more radical action in order that they will continue to be seen as legitimate by the bosses). Yes they have helped the working class win things, but more along the lines of giving us a bigger cage (or stopping it from being pushed smaller) rather than helping us to escape from it.

However, there are/have been other union forms (anarcho-syndicalist unions, IWW (in the US anyway), the AAUD in 1920s Germany) - which avoid many of the problems associated with representative, bureaucratic unions and play a different role. Workers can also sometimes find space even within representative unions to meet and organise in radical ways (and because anarchism and left communism are hardly widespread, mainstream unions are obviously going to be where most people start organising in the workplace)- though of course if they go too far they will be opposed by the union bureaucrats. Of course workplace organising (and forms of struggle outside of the workplace) can take place outside of the unions too, but when does an action group in a workplace become a union?

 

[Pickman's model]

any union involved in workplace struggles - which let's face it is all of them - is, to some extent, colluding with capital. it can't be any other way while workers have to work for bosses. yes, now and again there will be periods of heightened class struggle. but i haven't seen anything irl which leads me to believe the iww doesn't collude with capital or that unison doesn't collude with capital. would be interested in seeing any evidence of non-collusion.

 

[Pickman's model]

Personally, i think representative, recognised trades unions (ie all TUC trades unions and many others) do have a bourgeoisie role (because they will always act to maintain their role as negotiator - which often means acting against workers to control more radical action in order that they will continue to be seen as legitimate by the bosses). Yes they have helped the working class win things, but more along the lines of giving us a bigger cage (or stopping it from being pushed smaller) rather than helping us to escape from it.

However, there are/have been other union forms (anarcho-syndicalist unions, IWW (in the US anyway), the AAUD in 1920s Germany) - which avoid many of the problems associated with representative, bureaucratic unions and play a different role. Workers can also sometimes find space even within representative unions to meet and organise in radical ways (and because anarchism and left communism are hardly widespread, mainstream unions are obviously going to be where most people start organising in the workplace)- though of course if they go too far they will be opposed by the union bureaucrats. Of course workplace organising (and forms of struggle outside of the workplace) can take place outside of the unions too, but when does an action group in a workplace become a union?

iww and this german lot: forget the bureaucracy, did they implicitly acknowledge that a) capital existed; b) that in furtherance of workers' grievances negotiation was necessary; c) that the revolution not happening tomorrow so good if union recognised by employers?

 

[ViolentPanda]

For me there are 2 questions with regard to the collusion of trades unionism with capitalism.

1) To what extent is collusion necessary?

2) Do the ruling hierarchies of trade unions go beyond what we might call a "minimum necessary extent of collusion" with regard to engaging with capitalism?

For me the answers are:
1) In apolitically-imperfect world, a minimal degree of collusion is necessary, given the predominant form of worker/boss relations - there needs to be a way to minimally interact in order to collectively bargain.

2) Most UK trade unions go beyond a "minimum necessary extent of collusion" because the institution in which they work - the trade union hierarchy - is shot through with compromise in the interests of capitalism, hence the unwillingness to use the "ultimate sanction" of striking except in short, ineffective blocks; hence the refusal of some unions to support labour withdrawal even when the labour withdrawal is legal (nice one, Bill "treacherous cunt" Morris); hence the whittling away of membership rights and imposition of legislation with nary a whisper from those with the most power to question such actions.

Trade unions may still have a role "on the shop floor", but their executive are just another bunch of intermediaries between the bosses and the workers, nowadays.

 

[DotCommunist]

a form of workplace dispute insurance, so you can get a rep with you if its a disciplinary matter. Hopefully you get a good one. A wage negotiator- in theory this would be the membership collectively pressuring employers to raise wage at least in line with inflation.

Other actual uses[question mark]

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Trade unions may still have a role "on the shop floor", but their executive are just another bunch of intermediaries between the bosses and the workers, nowadays.

Depends. As my example of the new courier union shows, I think. In that example, the union still very much is the workers. It was set up by couriers for couriers. What it might mutate into over time, who can say? But to call it bourgeois in formation, which was the claim, makes no sense to me.

 

[Pickman's model]

Depends. As my example of the new courier union shows, I think. In that example, the union still very much is the workers. It was set up by couriers for couriers. What it might mutate into over time, who can say? But to call it bourgeois in formation, which was the claim, makes no sense to me.

yes. but if they're to get anywhere they will have to work with the employers: and it may be worth looking at the last time a couriers' union was formed, back in the 1990s. https://libcom.org/history/unions-w...ups-are-competing-organisation-dispatch-rider

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Depends. As my example of the new courier union shows, I think. In that example, the union still very much is the workers. It was set up by couriers for couriers. What it might mutate into over time, who can say? But to call it bourgeois in formation, which was the claim, makes no sense to me.

Out of interest how could a union fight for proletarian interests and still remain a union? Given that capital is no longer in an ascendent phase and can't compromise without negatively impacting upon itself?

Like, I'm willing to say that newly formed unions aren't bourgeois in formation. All very good, if a coherent defence can be mounted that capitalism is still a progressive system/not in decline/not decomposing.

 

[Pickman's model]

Out of interest how could a union fight for proletarian interests and still remain a union?

perhaps it would be best to see unions for what they are and not for what people might think they are - organisations to represent sections of the working class to employers - and not, in the main, organisations which seek to overturn society as we know it. you can see that unions' objectives are, in the main, quite limited through the part played in founding the labour party: which has never been a revolutionary organisation (i know, but some people still have illusions).

 

[Pickman's model]

red leader to crossthebreeze come in crossthebreeze

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Out of interest how could a union fight for proletarian interests and still remain a union? Given that capital is no longer in an ascendent phase and can't compromise without negatively impacting upon itself?

Like, I'm willing to say that newly formed unions aren't bourgeois in formation. All very good, if a coherent defence can be mounted that capitalism is still a progressive system/not in decline/not decomposing.

There are big fights and there are small fights. You might consider that a few hundred couriers banding together to push for better conditions is one of the small fights. I think I would. So in and of itself it isn't seeking to fight capitalism, it's seeking better conditions by means of a group of people coming together to operate more effectively as a collective. That's what the thing is.

And at this stage in their struggle, one thing I can assure you they are not doing is colluding with the employers. There is a wide experience of unions and union action, no? From militant unions whose leaders are persecuted to establishment unions whose leaders sell their members out, with many shades in between.

 

[Pickman's model]

There are big fights and there are small fights. You might consider that a few hundred couriers banding together to push for better conditions is one of the small fights. I think I would. So in and of itself it isn't seeking to fight capitalism, it's seeking better conditions by means of a group of people coming together to operate more effectively as a collective. That's what the thing is.

And at this stage in their struggle, one thing I can assure you they are not doing is colluding with the employers. There is a wide experience of unions and union action, no? From militant unions whose leaders are persecuted to establishment unions whose leaders sell their members out, with many shades in between.

yes, so people get together as a collective. and then someone or some people will represent them to the employers. the right of the employers to be employers is not in doubt, is it? what the couriers are after is better pay and conditions: and achieving this comes by colluding with capital, by working with capital, not by questioning its right to exist.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

yes, so people get together as a collective. and then someone or some people will represent them to the employers. the right of the employers to be employers is not in doubt, is it? what the couriers are after is better pay and conditions: and achieving this comes by colluding with capital, by working with capital, not by questioning its right to exist.

It's a small fight. It's not an attempt to overthrow capital. But that fight begins with making life uncomfortable for the employer, with threatening to disrupt smooth running of business, and, in the case of the leaders of the movement, with very probably risking your own job if you fail. That's not collusion.

 

[Pickman's model]

It's a small fight. It's not an attempt to overthrow capital. But that fight begins with making life uncomfortable for the employer, with threatening to disrupt smooth running of business, and, in the case of the leaders of the movement, with very probably risking your own job if you fail. That's not collusion.

while you say that fight begins with making life uncomfortable for the employer, i would suggest you mean that fight begins with gaining members - so that any subsequent action has the support of colleagues. after that you might ask the employer for what you want. at that point, and not before, you might start taking industrial action. but i do hope you're not telling me that the first thing they've done, before recruiting members, before asking if the employers will give them what they want, is making life uncomfortable for the employer. because that would be stupid.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

while you say that fight begins with making life uncomfortable for the employer, i would suggest you mean that fight begins with gaining members - so that any subsequent action has the support of colleagues. after that you might ask the employer for what you want. at that point, and not before, you might start taking industrial action. but i do hope you're not telling me that the first thing they've done, before recruiting members, before asking if the employers will give them what they want, is making life uncomfortable for the employer. because that would be stupid.

Before you reach a compromise with the employer that you take back to your members, you first organise the disruption that extracts the concession in the first place. That's all. And that's not simple collusion with the employer, not if you've actively organised the disruption that wouldn't have happened without your efforts.

 

[Pickman's model]

Before you reach a compromise with the employer that you take back to your members, you first organise the disruption that extracts the concession in the first place. That's all. And that's not simple collusion with the employer, not if you've actively organised the disruption that wouldn't have happened without your efforts.

before any of that you have a) to get members; b) to define demands. why don't you see that?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

before any of that you have a) to get members; b) to define demands. why don't you see that?

Of course I see that. I'm talking about the order of things - you moved straight on to collusion.

 

[Pickman's model]

Of course I see that. I'm talking about the order of things - you moved straight on to collusion.

i asked you a question on the other thread. i am not sure you ever provided an answer.

as for the order of things, you've quite plainly above said it starts with making life uncomfortable for the employer. which is transparently daft: there are preliminaries in this sort of thing. you're not a union steward, are you?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

Unions coordinate the sale of labour power. That in itself is a function and demand that colludes with capital which is what I think Pickman's model was getting at (correct me if I am wrong.)

The point is can such a union remain outside becoming an integrative body for the state and capital via said collusion (which, again, we say is inherent to a union, neither positively nor negatively defined.) After 1918 it is hard, if not impossible to say so.

The leninists argue that unions are reluctant to push proletarian (not revolutionary) demands because of a small cust at the top called the union bureaucracy. All that is needed, of course, is to push said bureaucracy to the left and/or get the rank-and-file to raise more radical demands. We take issue with this gross reductionism.

 

[Pickman's model]

Unions coordinate the sale of labour power. That in itself is a function and demand that colludes with capital which is what I think Pickman's model was getting at (correct me if I am wrong.)

The point is can such a union remain outside becoming an integrative body for the state and capital via said collusion (which, again, we say is inherent to a union, neither positively nor negatively defined.) After 1918 it is hard, if not impossible to say so.

The leninists argue that unions are reluctant to push proletarian (not revolutionary) demands because of a small cust at the top called the union bureaucracy. All that is needed, of course, is to push said bureaucracy to the left. We take issue with this gross reductionism.

the other thing is most people aren't at this point revolutionaries. they want better pay. they want appropriate training. they want a safe place to work. they want better conditions. the people who can supply these are the bosses: but bosses don't want to talk to people one by one, so where unions have a presence it makes sense from the bosses' pov to talk to unions. obviously bosses don't always want to give people higher wages or whatnot: which is when the membership take action. but the interests of the membership and the union hierarchy not always the same...

 

[ManchesterBeth]

There are big fights and there are small fights. You might consider that a few hundred couriers banding together to push for better conditions is one of the small fights. I think I would. So in and of itself it isn't seeking to fight capitalism, it's seeking better conditions by means of a group of people coming together to operate more effectively as a collective. That's what the thing is.

And at this stage in their struggle, one thing I can assure you they are not doing is colluding with the employers. There is a wide experience of unions and union action, no? From militant unions whose leaders are persecuted to establishment unions whose leaders sell their members out, with many shades in between.

You're missing my point, once again. The point isn't a big or small fight. The point is raising demands that the union structure cannot accommodate.

 

[Celyn]

You're missing my point, once again. The point isn't a big or small fight. The point is raising demands that the union structure cannot accommodate.

So what do you plan to do about it?

 

[chilango]

Outside and Against the Unions

 

[ManchesterBeth]

So what do you plan to do about it?

Making working class organisations more open and versatile, for a start. Emphasising self-organisation outside and beyond the unions (which, again, has historical and contemporary precedent behind it) combatting values alien to the workers movement which do nothing but to waste time, such as trying to push the labour party or Unite to the left.

Cheers chilango - was going to link that Wildcat pamphlet.

 

[Celyn]

And are you succeeding in this, or are you simply telling "the workers movement" what to do?

 

[ManchesterBeth]

If by workers movement you mean the politicised working-class, then obviously I have no intention of telling them what to do. That being said I will tell fellow socialists what I think is the correct way of approaching things and I see no contradiction in this.

The Communist left has always been small in comparison to the various socialist groups who act as pressure most of the time and can't push forward the demands of the class.

 

[chilango]

Making working class organisations more open and versatile, for a start. Emphasising self-organisation outside and beyond the unions (which, again, has historical and contemporary precedent behind it) combatting values alien to the workers movement which do nothing but to waste time, such as trying to push the labour party or Unite to the left.

Cheers chilango - was going to link that Wildcat pamphlet.

There's also the Dave Douglass pamphlet "Refracted Perspective" that that the pamphlet is a reply to )and the Echanges et Mouvements contributions to this debate that are worth reading. I offer no comment. It's 20-25 years since I last read this stuff. Except to say that IRL I've found no issues in largely accepting the left communist position in theory and being a Union member in practice.


..but that's just me.

 

[ManchesterBeth]

There's also the Dave Douglass pamphlet "Refracted Perspective" that that the pamphlet is a reply to )and the Echanges et Mouvements contributions to this debate that are worth reading. I offer no comment. It's 20-25 years since I last read this stuff. Except to say that IRL I've found no issues in largely accepting the left communist position in theory and being a Union member in practice.


..but that's just me.

But the leftcom position doesn't say don't join a union.

 

[chilango]

But the leftcom position doesn't say don't join a union.

Well quite.

The lived reality is that the left communist critique of Unions and the everyday frustrations about Unions aren't a million miles apart.

It's a needless argument about an interesting discussion imo.