Working Class
Self-Activity
The following article by George Rawick originally appeared in
Radical America vol. 16, no. 3, May-June 1982. It was edited by R.A.
A longer version can be found in vol. 3, no. 2 March-April 1969.
The history of the American working class is a subject obscure to
the Old and New Left alike. For the most part, academic and labour
scholarship has been institutional history focusing on the trade
union, and like all institutional orientations has been quite
conservative. "Radical" labour history has similarly been little
concerned with the working class because of its concentration on
another institution, the radical political party. Marxists have
occasionally talked about working-class self- activity, as well they
might, given that it was Marx's main political focus; but as E. P.
Thompson points out in the preface to his monumental Making of the
English Working Class, they have almost always engaged in
substituting the party, the sect, and the radical intellectual for
class self-activity in their studies. As a result of this
institutional focus, labour history from whatever source generally
ignores also social structure, technological innovation, and the
relation between the structure and innovation.
* * *
The American working class did change American society, despite
the fact that American capitalism was very powerful and had often
indicated clearly in the 1930's that it would resort to any means, if
allowed to do so, to prevent a radical transformation of society.
We can estimate most sharply the power of the American working
class if we look at its accomplishments comparatively. In Italy the
crisis of capitalism of the decade of the Bolshevik Revolution and
the World War produced fascism as an answer to the bid of the Italian
working class for power. In Germany, the crisis of capitalism
produced first the Weimar Republic, which did nothing to alter the
situation, and then Naziism; the consequence was the worst defeat any
working class has ever known. The German working class was pulverized
- unlike the Italian working class, which was never smashed to bits
under fascism and in fact survived to destroy fascism itself. In
France essentially the same pattern as in Italy was repeated, with
the difference that full-fledged fascism came only as a result of the
German military advance, since the French working class had managed
to defend democracy throughout the 1930's, often over the heads of
the radical parties.
In the United States the situation was different. Throughout the
1920's the working class found its organisations weakened; but in the
1930's the working class struggled and created mass industrial unions
of a kind never known anywhere in the world, unions that organised
all the workers in most major industries throughout the nation. The
working class of America won victories of a scale and quality
monumental in the history of the international working class. Only
the capture of state power by the relatively small working class of
Russia - a state power it did not retain - has surpassed the
magnitude of the victory in the thirties.
The full organisation of the major American industries, however,
was a mark of the victories, not the cause of the victories, of the
American working class. The unions did not organise the strikes; the
working class in the strikes and through the strikes organised the
unions. The growth of successful organisations always followed strike
activity when some workers engaged in militant activities and others
joined them. The formal organisation - how many workers organised
into unions and parties, how many subscriptions to the newspapers,
how many political candidates nominated and elected, how much money
collected for dues and so forth - is not the heart of the question of
the organisation of the working class. The statistics we need to
understand the labor history of the time are not these. Rather, we
need the figures on how many man-hours were lost to production
because of strikes, the amount of equipment and material destroyed by
industrial sabotage and deliberate negligence, the amount of time
lost by absenteeism, the hours gained by workers during the slowdown,
the limiting of the speedup of the productive apparatus through the
working class' own initiative.
* * *
The full incorporation of the unions within the structure of
American state capitalism has led to very widespread disaffection of
the workers from the unions. Workers are faced squarely with the
problem of finding means of struggle autonomous of the unions. . . .
As a consequence, workers struggle in the factories through wildcat
strikes and sporadic independent organisations. Outside the factory,
only young workers and black workers find any consistent radical
social-political expression, and even the struggles of blacks and
youth are at best weakly linked to the struggles in the factory.
There is often a very sectarian and remarkably undialectical
reaction to these developments. Some historians and New Leftists
argue that it demonstrates that the CIO was a failure which resulted
only in the workers' disciplining. This argument ignores the gains of
the CIO in terms of higher living standards, more security for
workers, and increased education and enlightenment. Clearly, the
victories are embedded in capitalism and the agency of victory, the
union, has become an agent of capitalism as well. This is a concrete
example of what contradiction means in a dialectical sense; and it is
part of the process which leads to the next stage of the workers'
struggle, the wildcat strike.
There are two characteristics of the wildcat strike which
represent a new stage of development: first, through this device
workers struggle simultaneously against the bosses, the state, and
the union; second, they achieve a much more direct form of class
activity, by refusing to delegate aspects of their activity to an
agency external to themselves.
When the wave of wildcat strikes first began to appear as the new
form of working class self- activity and organisation, it was hard to
see (except very abstractly) where they would lead. But after
glimpses of the future afforded by the workers' councils during the
Hungarian Revolution in 1956 and the French uprising of May and June
1968, the new society which can only be realised and protected by
revolutionary struggle is clearly revealed: workers councils in every
department of national activity, and a government of workers'
councils.
Glaberman
Archive / Home Page