By Bill Godwin, adapted from a talk given at the Insurrection 2000 event, 10 July 2000, Nottingham.

Most of us have to work and trade unions are about opposing the oppression of the employer. The problem is that the structure of trade unions themselves can be oppressive.

This piece is about trade union organisation and non-hierarchical forms, past, present and future. In it I will ask the questions, "what is syndicalism?" and "is syndicalism the only method of trade union organisation for people against hierarchy (anarchists)?"

Non-hierarchical forms of organisation have not always been the minority type. Trade unions arguably began in the 18th century. They reached the zenith of their early history in the Grand National Consolidated Trades Union (GNCTU) of 1834. The GNCTU was a revolutionary union(1) with aims of creating a co-operative commonwealth by workers taking control of the means of production and distribution. These aims are clearly analogous with the later ideology of twentieth century syndicalists. During the chartist period of the 1840s similar attempts were made.

The failure of both of these initiatives led to the New Model trade unionism of the 1850s using bureaucratic structures to achieve 'respectability' and permanence(2). This was the direct precursor of today's bureaucratic mainstream unions. In fact the Amalgamated Society of Engineers which was formed in 1850 is the direct ancestor of the modern Amalgamated Electrical and Engineering Union (AEEU).

The next significant stage was twofold. In the 1890s in Britain New unionism was the spreading of trade union organisation to unskilled workers(3). In France the first stirrings of revolutionary or anarcho-syndicalism were occurring.(4) For the purposes of this piece, I define syndicalism as the idea of organising society around a trades union structure, that is workers control. This is to be achieved by revolutionary direct action.

A synthesis of new unionism and syndicalism led to the massive upswing of direct action and organisation around the goal of workers' control in the period between 1910 and 1920. The forward march of British syndicalism was halted by two devastating historical events. The trade downturn in the 1920s leaving 1 million unemployed for a decade and the success of the centrally controlled Russian Bolsheviks who were then emulated by British revolutionaries in their form of organisation.(5)

Since then unions have developed twin structures mirroring those of bourgeois liberal democracy. That is they have democratically elected representative construction usually with a national delegates conference as the supreme decision making body. However, the real power lies in the bureaucrats in un-elected paid positions. Their declared aim is to get the best deal under capitalism for their members by negotiation with employers rather than by overthrowing capitalism.

Communist unions such as TAS have all gone in the UK now. So revolutionary unionism is again back in the syndicalist arena. Syndicalist unions such as Solidarity Federation and the Industrial Workers of the World officially take the line of dual unionism. That is they want to become mass membership revolutionary organisations. However, given their small existing memberships, counted in the hundreds (a generous estimate) compared to the 7 million members of bureaucratic unions this seems an unrealistic goal. Many members of these syndicalist unions are in fact active within mainstream unions. Their motives range from wanting to subvert the existing structures to a desire to do something positive for their fellow workers now. This tactic is akin to the entryism associated in recent times with Trotskyist groups. Nevertheless, the first protagonists of this method were the British syndicalists of the 1910s and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with it.

Most anarchists would say that it is simply a cynical ploy on the part of privileged officials. That is it provides them with cushy jobs, good salaries and power over the membership.(6) There can be no doubt that many trade union bureaucrats do want these things and will fight to keep them. However, if this is the full story, why do millions of people join them? I would suggest that it is because there are a number of advantages to a hierarchical bureaucratic structure.

Firstly, bureaucracy provides full time experts who are employed by the union. This allows them much greater freedom to be critical of their members' bosses (because they can't be victimised or sacked) and gives them the time to develop negotiating skills equal to those of full time managers.

Secondly, bureaucracy provides funds to buy essentials such as research, legal services and buildings.

Thirdly, technological advances and anti-trade union laws have reduced the power of collective action within the bourgeois liberal democratic framework. This means that much more emphasis must be put onto negotiation and legal action if that framework is broadly supported by the organisation.

Despite these advantages to bureaucracy, I oppose it wholeheartedly because it creates oppression of the membership by its very nature and far from challenging capitalism it mirrors and supports it.(7) So, we need to find non-hierarchical alternatives which can offer a useful and workable replacement for the existing oppressive hierarchies.

Its no good proposing grandiose schemes of building new mass membership organisations out of thin air. The existing structures flawed as they are can offer members better protection from their bosses than a bunch of idealistic utopians (us) winging on about the oppression of bureaucracies. This doesn't mean we can't do anything though, it just requires a bit of humility and understanding. The working class has had the option to organise without hierarchy in a revolutionary organisation many times before (see history bit above). Trade unionists chose bureaucracy because it had advantages not because of a lack of vision on their part. We can turn some of those advantages around now.

Technology doesn't just allow employers to replace people with machines, it also means information can be communicated without the need of a bureaucratic structure. This has become a cliché following the success of J18 etc.

The anti-union laws make conventional unions holding huge reserves of members money powerless to resist without losing their (that is their members') assets as miners' and communications workers found out in the eighties.

The forms of organisation we need to use to forward the cause of non-hierarchical union organisation are not new. However, they are made more achievable by technology and the retreat from grass roots organisation by existing unions which anti-union laws and general disillusionment with sham democracy have brought about. I don't think syndicalism holds all the answers. That's why I think that TUNA is right to advocate anarchist worker networks within unions, industries, and localities. Also and perhaps most importantly links with anarchist organisations and activities with the community outside the workplace. There is no magic formula for achieving the end of oppression but ended it must be.

1 W. H. Oliver, ‘The Consolidated Trades’ Union of 1834’, in Economic History Review, 2nd series, Vol. XVII, 1964-1965

2 S. and B. Webb, The History of Trade Unionism, London, Chiswick, 1920

3 Henry Pelling, A History of British Trade Unionism, 5 ^th ed., London, Penguin, 1992

4 Barbara Mitchell, The Practical Revolutionaries: A New Interpretation of the French Anarchosyndicalists, New York, Greenwood, 1987

5 Branko Pribicevic, The Shop Stewards' Movement and Workers' Control: 1910 - 1922, Oxford, Blackwell, 1959; Bob Holton, British Syndicalism, 1900-1914: Myths and Realities, London, Pluto Press, 1976; James Hinton, The First Shop Stewards Movement, London, George Allen and Unwin, 1973

6 See any issue of Class War, Organise, or any Crass record.

7 Robert. Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, New York, Free Press, 1962

RETURN TO HOMEPAGE