|
e ) Activity of Parties and Unions in the Face of the Communist Perspective  1 ) On the labour market, unions increasingly become monopolies which buy and sell labour power. When it unified itself, capital unified the conditions of the sale of labour power. In modern conditions of production, the individual owner of labour power is not only forced to sell it to be able to live, but must also associate with other owners in order to be able to sell it. In return for social peace, the unions got the right to control the hiring of labour. In modern society workers are increasingly compelled to join the union if they want to sell their labour power. At the beginning of this century, unions were the product of gatherings of workers who formed coalitions to defend the average selling price of their commodity. The unions were not at all revolutionary, as was shown by their attitude in World War 1, when they supported the war both directly and indirectly. In so far as the workers were fighting for their existence as a class within capitalist society, the unions had no revolutionary function. In Germany, during the revolutionary upheaval of 1919-1920, the union members went to organisations which defended their economic rights in the general context of the struggle against capitalism. [10] Outside of a revolutionary period, the working class is nothing but a fraction of capital represented by the unions. While other fractions of capital ( industrial and financial capital ) were forming monopolies, the working class as variable capital also formed a monopoly, of which the unions are the trustees. 2 ) The unions developed at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century as organisations defending qualified labour power. This was particularly clear with the rise of the A.F. of L. in the U.S. Until World War ll ( or until the birth of the C.l.O. in the 1930's in the U.S. ) unions grew by supporting the relatively privileged sections of the working class. This is not to say that they had no influence on the most exploited strata, but this influence was only possible if it was consistent with the interests of the qualified strata. With the development of modern and automated industry, highly qualified workers tend to be replaced by technicians. These technicians also have the function of controlling and supervising masses of unqualified workers. Therefore the unions, while losing important sections of workers whose qualifications fade away, try to recruit this new stratum of technicians. 3 ) The unions represent labour power which has become capital. This forces them to appear as institutions capable of valorising capital. The unions have to associate their own development programme with that of industrial and finance capital if they want to keep "their" labour power under control. The representatives of variable capital, of capital in the form of labour power, sooner or later have to associate with the representatives of fractions of capital who are now in power. Government coalitions consisting of liberal bourgeoisie, technocrats, left political groups, and unions, appear as a necessity in the evolution of capitalism. Capital itself requires strong unions capable of proposing economic measures which can valorise variable capital. The unions are not "traitors" in the sense that they betray the programme of the working class : they are quite consistent with themselves, and with the working class when it accepts its capitalist nature. 4 ) This is how we can understand the relationship between the working class and the unions. When the process of breaking away from capitalist society begins, the unions are immediately seen through and treated in terms of what they are; but as soon as the process ends, the working class cannot help being re-organised by capital, namely by the unions. One may say that there are no "unionist" illusions in the working class. There is only a capitalist, namely "unionist," organisation of the working class. 5 ) The development of the current relationships between unions and bosses in Italy illustrates what has been said. The evolution of Italian unions should be closely watched. It is normal that in relatively backward areas ( from an economic point of view ) such as France and Italy ( compared to the U.S. ), the effects of the modernisation of the economy are accompanied by the most modern tendencies of capital. What happens in Italy is in many ways a sign of what is maturing in other countries. The Italian situation helps us understand the French one. In France the C.G.T. and the P.C.F. put up a reactionary resistance in the face of workers' struggles, whereas in Italy the C.G.I.L. and the P.C.I. have been able to re-shape themselves in terms of the new situation. This is one of the reasons for the difference between the French "May" and the Italian "May." In France, May 1968 happened suddenly and could be easily misunderstood. The Italian situation proceeds more slowly and ultimately reveals its tendencies. The first phase lasted from 1968 to the winter of 1971. The main element was the birth of workers' struggles independent of the influence of unions and political organisations. Workers' action committees were formed as in France, with one essential difference : the French ones were quickly driven out of the factories by the power of the unions, which in practice compelled them to have no illusions about the boundaries of the factory. In so far as the general situation did not allow them to go any further, they disappeared. In Italy, on the other hand, workers' committees were at first able to organise themselves inside the factories. Neither the bosses nor the unions could really oppose them. Many committees were formed in the factories, in isolation from each other, and they all began to question the speed of the line and to organise sabotage. This was in fact an alienated form of critique of wage-labour. Throughout the Italian movement the activity of extreme left groups ( gauchistes ) was particularly noteworthy. Their entire activity consisted of limiting the movement to its formal aspects without ever showing its real content. They bred the illusion that the "autonomy" of workers' organisations was in itself revolutionary enough to be supported and maintained. They glorified all the formal aspects. But since they are not communists, they were not able to express the idea that behind the struggle against the rhythm of the line and the working conditions lay the struggle against wage-labour. The workers' struggle itself met no resistance. This was in fact what disarmed it. It could do nothing but adapt to the conditions of capitalist society. The unions, for their part, altered their structures in order to control the workers' movement. As Trentin, one of the leaders of the C.G.I.L. said, they decided to organise "a thoroughgoing transformation of the union and a new type of rank-and-file democracy." They reshaped their factory organisations according to the pattern of the "autonomous" committees which appeared in recent struggles. The ability of the unions to control industrial strife made them appear as the only force capable of making the workers resume work. There were negotiations in some large concerns like Fiat. The result of these negotiations was to give the union the right to interfere in the organisation of the work ( time and motion, work measurement, etc. ). The management of Fiat now deducts the union dues from the workers' pay, which was already the case in Belgium. At the same time, serious efforts are being made to reach an agreement on a merger between the biggest unions : U.I.L. ( Socialist ), C.I.S.L. ( Christian-Democrat ), C.G.I.L. ( P.C.I. ). NOTE : The Italian example clearly shows the tendency of unions to become monopolies which discuss the conditions of production of surplus-value with other fractions of capital. Here are quotations from Petrilli, president of the State-owned l.R.I. ( State Holding Company ), and Trentin : Trentin : ". . . Job enrichment and the admission of a higher degree of autonomy in decision-making by the workers' group concerned ( in each factory ) are already possible. . . . Even when, because of the failure of the union, workers' protests lead to irrational and illusory demands, the workers express their refusal to produce without thinking, to work without deciding; they express their need for power." Petrilli : "In my opinion it is obvious that the system of the assembly line implies a real waste of human capacities and produces a very understandable feeling of frustration in the worker. The resulting social tensions must be realistically understood as structural rather than conjunctural facts. . . . Greater participation of the workers in the elaboration of production objectives poses a series of problems having to do less with the organisation of work than with the definition of the power balance within the firm." The programmes are identical and the aims are the same : increased productivity. The only remaining problem is the sharing of power, which is at the root of the political crisis in many industrial countries. It is likely that the end of the political crisis will be accompanied by the birth of "workers' power" as the power of wage-labour, under various forms : self-management, "popular" coalitions, Socialist-Communist Parties, left-wing governments with right-wing programmes, right-wing governments with left-wing programmes. Notes [10] Such as the Shop Stewards' Movement, the French Revolutionary Syndicalist Committees, and the German General Workers' Association ( AAUD ). |