[What
is Anarchism]
[WSM]
[Publications]
[Discussion
lists]
[Getting
Active]
[Ireland]
[Spanish
revolution]
[Women]
[Anti-Racism]
[Capitalism]
[Sexual
liberation]
[About
these pages]
Anarchism and the trade unions
be active - be involved
Anarchists are anarchists because we want to bring about a
wholesale change in the way society is administered. For us,
therefore, a crucial question is "How can such a change be brought
about?" or - to put it more pertinently - "Who can change society?"
This question must be posed in a historical context and the lessons
of that history transferred to present times.
At every single stage in the development of society - from ancient
times through feudalism up to the present day - society has comprised
two distinct groups : an oppressed class and a ruling class. These
two classes have been allotted very specific roles. The oppressed
class has been the one whose labour has created the wealth of
society, the ruling class has controlled and exploited that wealth.
This social division has not always been readily accepted. At almost
every stage in society's development, the oppressed class (or
sections of it) have fought back. Examples include the slave revolts
of ancient Greece and Rome, the peasant uprisings of the Middle Ages
and the social revolutions of the 1600s and 1700s.
These struggles have all been different in nature but they have
always had one thing in common. They ended with one set of rulers
being replaced by another set of equally parasitic rulers. Whilst a
slight realignment in society's make-up often occurred, there was no
fundamental change. The new society which emerged was divided along
the old familiar lines - rulers and oppressed.
The failure of the oppressed classes to maintain control of the
revolutions they fought in can be explained by two principal factors
- the generally low level of wealth in society and the fact that the
everyday lives of the people did not prepare them to run society. The
majority were illiterate peasants who had no idea what life was like
outside their own locality. Their everyday lives divided them from
each other. Each peasant had to worry about his own plot of land,
hoping to enlarge it. Each craftsman had to worry about his own
business. To varying degrees each peasant and craftsman was in
competition with his fellows, not united with them. There was no
thought of "class unity".
Collective Oppression
The emergence of capitalism in the early 19th century changed
this. Firstly, under capitalism, the workers began to create enough
wealth to feed and clothe the world and still have plenty left for
science, culture, leisure activities, etc. Secondly - and more
importantly - the everyday lives of the oppressed class under
capitalism prepares them to take over the running of society.
Capitalism brings workers together in large workplaces and into
large towns and cities - it makes us co-operate every day at work. On
the factory floor each person has to do his/her bit so that the
person at the next stage of production can continue the process. The
services sector requires similar levels of co-operation. From office
to hospital to school to fast-food outlet, workers must co-operate
with each other to get the job done. This level of co-operation and
mutual dependency makes it possible to envisage a revolution which
will involve the oppressed class taking over the entire running of
society. Workers' many talents will then be used to develop new
societal structures which will do away with the need for rulers.
Those who administer and benefit from the capitalist system are
only too well aware of this fact. That is why we are told again and
again that such co-operation and mutual dependency is not possible.
From an early age we are led to believe that the way in which society
is currently structured is the only one possible. The need for rulers
and ruled goes unquestioned. The fact that people die of hunger in
one part of the world while, in another part, farmers are actually
paid grants not to produce food; the fact that some people are forced
to live in cardboard boxes while others live in mansions; the fact
that governments can spend billions of dollars on weapons of mass
destruction while at the same time cutting back spending on health,
education and welfare...... These are all passed off as natural
phenomena. The possibility that the working class would have the wish
never mind the ability to run society in all our interests is never
considered. This is hardly surprising given that the media - which
essentially controls the majority of political debate - is owned and
controlled by either governments or big business. It certainly would
not be in the interests of either Rupert Murdoch or Tony O'Reilly to
question the basis of the society which sees them sitting on top of
the pile. Neither are we likely to see Dick Spring, Tony Blair or any
other of our wannabe 'leaders' quoting from Proudhon's 1849 writings
when he said - among other things
"When left to their own instincts the people almost always see
better than when guided by the policy of leaders."(1)
Individuals who might feel that a 'fairer' or 'more just' system
would be desirable (doesn't practically everyone you know?) are
overwhelmed by the enormity of the task. They feel isolated and
powerless. This sense of powerlessness can however be turned on its
head. When the co-operation or collective power described above which
is used to run the factories, shops, schools, offices etc. is used to
stop them from functioning, small glimpses of the potential emerge.
Workers involved in strikes, whether they involve small numbers (eg,
the Early Learning Centre strike in Cork last year), or larger
numbers of workers (as in the Liverpool Dockers' strike, or - even
more so - the wave of strikes in France in December 1995, for
example), get a glimpse of the potential of their own power, their
own ability to decide how things should be and to fight for that
vision. Similarly the tens of thousands of people who refused to pay
the Poll Tax in Britain and who fought the successful battle against
service charges in Ireland saw that solidarity is indeed strength.
Collective Power
While both the anti-Poll Tax and anti-service charge campaigns
succeeded - for the most part - despite rather than because of the
trade union leaderships (an honourable exception being the
Amalgamated Transport and General Workers Union in Dublin), it is
fair to say that it is through their trade union that most workers
get their first glimpse of collective power in action. From their
early beginnings, nearly 300 years ago, one thing is clear - for a
worker to join a trade union is a recognition, to some degree at
least, that he/she has different interests to the boss. The very
survival of trade unions over the centuries is testament to the
reality that there are different class interests in a capitalist
society. Yes, conservatism, bureaucracy and backwardness are often -
in fact nearly always - the hallmark of modern trade unions at their
leadership level but even this cannot hide the essential fact that
workers understand that to promote their own interests they have to
organise along class lines.
This is not to suggest that trade unions are in any sense
revolutionary organisations. They may go through periods of intense
militancy from time to time (eg, 1913 in Dublin) but at the end of
the day trade unions were formed to defend and improve the lot of
workers under capitalism, not to challenge the existence of
capitalism itself.
Nevertheless, for anarchists, trade union campaigns and activity
are extremely important. We view our work within our unions not just
as another sphere of activity, but as an absolute necessity. In the
course of workplace struggle - whether to improve pay and conditions
or to defend existing conditions - workers may begin to identify
their potential power. Such struggles also open up the possibility of
further radicalisation and the potential for bringing those involved
into the revolutionary movement.
After all, when we get down to basics, what is anarchism other
than workers, acting collectively, running a free society? What is a
strike other than workers acting collectively towards a common goal?
This is not to suggest that strikers set out with anarchist goals or
even anarchist tactics in mind. They don't. But collective action is
indeed the only weapon with which a strike can be successful so the
logic of the workers' position - collective action in production,
collective action in struggle does lead in an anarchist direction.
And once in struggle, the potential for people's ideas to change is
enormous. Workers involved in a strike gain confidence in their own
abilities, they are also exposed to the naked face of capitalism in
action. In many instances, for example, workers going on strike
believe in the 'impartiality' of the police force, the judiciary and
other arms of the state apparatus only to have this 'impartiality'
exposed to them in a brutal manner (eg, the British miners' strike in
the 1980s).
Central to anarchist politics is the contention of our forerunners
in the First International that "The emancipation of the working
class can only be brought about by the working class themselves". It
is only the self-activity of the mass of workers that is capable of
mounting an effective challenge to the bosses and their State. The
trade union movement is the most important mass movement the working
class has built. For anarchists, activity within the unions should be
one of the most important ongoing activities.
The bureaucracy
As all trade union activists know, the unions are dominated by an
all-embracing bureaucracy. This is a collection of (usually
unelected) full-time officials with too much power and undue
influence. They are only responsible to the members in the most
formal sense. They may - when it suits them - take the side of the
members, but they do not have to. They are not under the control of
the members, they earn much more than those they 'represent' (Billy
Attley, general president of SIPTU(2)
earns £85,000 per annum, while a SIPTU member in the catering
industry can earn as little as £3.50 an hour). Or they may sit
alongside the bosses and the government on commissions and on the
boards of semi-state companies (Philip Flynn, former general
secretary of Impact(3), has been
appointed by the government as chairman of the state-owned ICC Bank;
David Begg, general secretary of the CWU(4), is a member of the board of directors of
the Central Bank). In short, they enjoy a lifestyle quite different
to that of the people they are supposed to be working for.
More and more, the job of a trade union official is seen as a
career, with many of the newer officials having come through college
with a degree in 'industrial relations' and never having worked in an
ordinary job. More than a few of them change sides during their
careers, taking jobs with employers' or state organisations. For
example, the chief executive of the Labour Relations Commission,
Kieran Mulvey, is a former general secretary of the Association of
Secondary Teachers of Ireland (ASTI). These officials - especially
now in the context of 'social partnership' - see their role as that
of conciliator, "fixer", negotiator - the term representative does
not seem to appear in the job description. Peter Cassells, ICTU
general secretary, is regularly called in to disputes to force a
settlement on workers. This was most clearly seen in the TEAM Aer
Lingus dispute in 1994.
Members of the bureaucracy rarely lead or initiate strikes but are
more often found pulling out all the stops to avoid any action. They
will drag groups of workers back and forth to the Labour Court, the
Employer-Labour Conference, the Labour Relations Commission, Rights
Commisioners and every other talking shop they can find. They will
negotiate forever in the hope of finding a 'reasonable' solution.
Striking, in their book, is very much a last resort. Indeed Joe
O'Toole, general secretary of the INTO(5), is on record as saying that he views it
as a defeat to have to resort to the strike weapon. And, of course,
unofficial action - action which has not been sanctioned by them -
will be condemned out of hand by all bureaucrats.
It is not that the current crop of officials are a nasty bunch of
individuals. Rather the old adage comes into play : "Power corrupts
and absolute power corrupts absolutely". The structure of the unions
gives far too much power to the bureaucrats and it is inevitable that
no matter how radical or left-wing they might be when they get the
job their role sucks them into the business of conciliation. After
all, the officials must be able to prove that they control their
members - in other words, stop them fighting the bosses - if they are
to have anything to sell at the negotiating table. If such control
cannot be promised, why should an employer bother to negotiate?
As a whole, the bureaucracy swings between the position of
mediator and that of defender of the status quo. As a grouping they
can't obviously go over completely to defending the bosses'
interests. To at least some degree they have to respond to the
members' demands because they are after all employed by workers'
organisations. Likewise, they cannot become totally responsive to
their members' demands because that would see the end of their role,
their power and their careers. There may be a few individual
exceptions to this rule but, as a collective grouping, this remains
the case. By its very nature, the bureaucracy has to be opposed to
workers' self-activity on most occasions. It is without doubt
authoritarian in its very structures.
How to respond
Several different solutions/responses to the problem of
bureaucratic strangulation of the trade union movement have been put
forward. The most often heard of these is propagated to varying
degrees by almost all of the 'left' - from social democrats to
Stalinists to Trotskyists. According to this theory what we have to
do is to elect and/or appoint 'better' officials. They see the
problem primarily in terms of the individuals who hold the posts.
This view of the situation stems directly from their conception of
socialism. They see socialism as some sort of giant state enterprise
bureaucracy where things are done 'for the workers'. They see the
role of socialists/socialist organisations as being to organise a
revolution/change of society on behalf of the working class. Workers'
self-activity occupies no leading role in their scheme of things,
just as real workers' control is not part of their plan for a
'socialist' society. According to this theory, if the officials were
more 'left-wing' they would be more willing to fight for the demands
of their members. The theory ignores however the fundamental core of
the problem - it is not the individuals but the structures which are
at fault.
Another view which is sometimes put forward is that new
'left-wing' unions should be formed by breakaway groups of radical
workers. The principal effect of this, however, would usually be to
take the minority of combative/radical workers out of the old union
leaving it totally at the mercy of the bureaucrats whose antics had
initially provoked the split. Such radical workers would use their
energies much more effectively by staying within the union and
fighting to win over the broader membership to their radical ideas.
At any rate, breakaway unions offer little alternative in the long
run with the problems which led to their formation soon appearing in
the new union. There are numerous examples of this in Ireland's
labour history. The ITGWU(6), the
FWUI(7) - both of which merged to form
SIPTU(8) - and the NBRU(9) were all born as 'left breakaway' unions.
Ultimately, of course, it is the workers themselves who have the
right to make the decision on such an issue, but without a radical
overhaul of the structures the breakaway will soon become a smaller
mirror image of its parent.
Anarcho-syndicalism
Syndicalism, and especially anarcho-syndicalism, has been and
remains an important current within the trade union movement,
particularly in Southern Europe and Latin America. The basic ideas of
syndicalism revolve around the organisation of all workers into 'one
big union', the maintenance of control in the hands of the
rank-and-file and opposition to all attempts to create a bureaucracy
of unaccountable full-timers. The principal difference between
anarcho-syndicalist unions and other trade unions is their belief
that the union can be used not only to win reforms from the bosses,
but also to overthrow the capitalist system. They further believe
that the principal reason why most workers are not revolutionaries is
because the structures of their unions take the initiative away from
the rank-and-file. The alternative, as they see it, is to organise
all workers in one big union in preparation for the revolutionary
general strike. The biggest problem - according to this analysis - is
the structure of the existing unions.
As unions, syndicalist organisations have certainly proved
effective. This is why people join them. They have proved themselves
to be democratic, radical and combative. In fact there has been a
considerable growth in membership of syndicalist unions in recent
times. In France, for example, the syndicalist CNT-F witnessed a
rapid growth in membership following the December '95 strike.
It is as a form of political organisation that syndicalism fails
the acid test. Syndicalism creates industrial unions - not
revolutionary organisations. The anarcho-syndicalist union organises
all workers regardless of their politics. This obviously leaves open
the possibility of the appearance of reformist tendencies within the
ranks of the organisation. The weaknesses which anarchist-communists
see in syndicalism have been dealt with in detail on many
occasions(10) and it is not proposed to
outline them again in this article. We do, however, recognise that
the syndicalist unions, where they exist, are far more progressive
than any other union. Not only do they create democratic unions and
establish an atmosphere where anarchist ideas are listened to with
respect but they also organise and fight in a way that breaks down
the divisions into leaders and led, doers and watchers.
Political levy
In Ireland - and indeed in many other countries - the trade unions
have formal links with social democratic parties. The largest general
unions in Ireland are affiliated to the Labour Party. In truth
however the Labour Party has never enjoyed the electoral support of
the majority of trade unionists. Properly speaking it is the party
not of trade unionists but of the trade union bureaucracy.
Such political affiliation usually has the effect of aiding and
abetting passivity, with the union leaderships unwilling to take
action against a government such as the current coalition because of
the Labour Party's position in government. During times when the
Labour Party is in opposition they can argue against taking up issues
outside the workplace on the grounds that 'that is what the Labour
Party is for'.
The concept, however, of a political levy is not one with which we
would disagree. However, instead of being paid into the coffers of a
political party which does nothing to advance the interests of the
working class, the money raised by this levy should remain under the
control of the rank-and file to be used to fund direct action on
political issues. We seek at all times to mobilise the strength of
the trade union movement on such issues. This involves the raising of
political issues at section and branch level through arguing for
sponsorship of/support for specific demonstrations. It also means
proposing resolutions on issues such as repressive
legislation/Travellers' rights/gay rights, etc. This has the dual
effect of raising issues, thus confronting some of those
misconceptions/conservative ideas which many trade union members
might have on some of these issues, and also raising the profile of
particular campaigns. It might prove easier to build support for a
particular demonstration/picket, for example, if it has the formal
backing of a local Trades Council. It is important however that the
raising of such issues does not become a ritualistic game between
competing left groups each trying to 'out-radical' the other. Such
resolutions should be linked to some action, no matter how minimal it
may be.
Building opposition
As I have said earlier in the article, WSM members see trade union
activity as one of our most important ongoing activities. Our
perspectives for activity within the unions are centred on
encouraging workers to take up the fight against the bosses , against
state interference and against the trade union bureaucracy. Therefore
the most important area of our activity is at rank-and-file level. No
member of the WSM would, for example, accept any unelected position
which would entail having power over the membership. Members who are
elected as shop stewards view that role as that of delegate rather
than 'representative' and would look for a mandate from the members
on all issues.
Within the current structure of the trade union movement, the most
effective way of building an effective opposition to the bureaucrats
is through the building of a rank-and-file movement - a movement
within the unions of militant workers who are prepared to fight
independently of the bureaucracy and against it if necessary. Such a
movement cannot however be willed into existence. If it could be so,
or if ritualistic calls for its creation were sufficient, a
rank-and-file movement capable of taking on the bureaucracy would
surely exist in Ireland. Practically all groups/parties on the left
have at one time or another issued strident calls for the creation of
a rank-and-file movement. However, particularly at times such as this
when the level of rank-and-file activity is probably at an all-time
low, there is a need to do more than simply issue calls for its
creation.
What is needed in the here-and-now is the building of a solidarity
network, in essence the laying of the foundation for a rank-and-file
movement. A political reality which is often ignored is the fact that
a rank-and-file movement - one with real bite and a genuine base -
only comes about as a result of rank-and-file activity and
confidence, not the other way around.(11)
To sum up, trade unions are not and were never set up to be
revolutionary organisations. However, from within trade union
struggle will arise the embryo of the workers' councils of the
future. Towards this end we push all the time for rank-and-file
independence from the bureaucracy.
We see our role in trade union struggle as being working for the
unification of the different sectional struggles into an awareness of
the overall class struggle. Further tasks are to act as a collective
memory for the movement (i.e., learning from and being able to
explain the lessons of past struggles), to challenge the politics of
reformism and Leninism within the movement and to explain and
popularise anarcho-communist ideas. In addition, we extend solidarity
to groups of workers in struggles, at all times encouraging
self-activity and helping to develop workers' confidence in their own
abilities. In short, our role is that of a 'leadership of ideas', as
opposed to a leadership of elite individuals.
Footnotes
(1) Quoted in "Anarchism" by Daniel Guerin, P.34
(2) SIPTU = Services Industrial Professional Technical Union,
Ireland's largest trade union
(3) Impact = Ireland's largest public sector trade union
(4) CWU = Communications Workers Union
(5) INTO = Irish National Teachers Organisation
(6) ITGWU = Irish Transport and General Workers Union
(7) FWUI = Federated Workers Union of Ireland which split from the
ITGWU in 1922. The ITGWU and the FWUI merged to form SIPTU in 1990
(8) SIPTU is the most bureaucratic and least democratic union in
Ireland, its formation in 1990 was a model in how it should be done -
from the bureaucrats' point of view!
(9) NBRU = National Bus and Railworkers Union
(10) See, for example, "Syndicalism - its strengths and
weaknesses" in "Red and Black Revolution 1" (October '94)
(11) For a fuller analysis of our position on this, see "Trade
Union Fightback - the lessons to be learned", in "Red and Black
Revolution 1"
