There is currently a fashionable theory among certain elements of the U.S. left that unions have become inherently conservative institutions whose role is to integrate workers into monopoly capitalist society. At best, unions can be a form of social insurance against arbitrary wage cuts and similar practices, but never organs of struggle according to this view. This is true, it is argued, because (A) unions can never become more than economic defense mechanisms of workers, (B) union contracts must guarantee legality on capitalist terms because the contract is inherently a legal document, and (C) through an automatic check off of dues from workers’ paychecks, through a bureaucratic and hierarchical grievance procedure which removes grievances from the control of the rank and file, and through control over information, resources, etc., a bureaucracy inevitably develops and maintains itself largely insulated from the rank and file. Thus, the unions are structurally an appendage of the monopoly corporations; the attitude of Marxist-Leninists and other radicals therefore must be to build dual forms of struggle such as wildcat strikes, shop committees, etc., rather than attempt to reform or democratize the unions from within – so goes this theory.
While there is a great deal of truth in the above picture as a description of the practices of present day trade unions in the U.S., we disagree profoundly with the idea that this state of affairs is inevitable in a monopoly capitalist society. The present sorry state of the union movement in the U.S. is more a product of the relatively low level of class consciousness of the entire working class at this time than it is an inevitable structural fact about unions. Under conditions of greater class consciousness and class struggle, even “backward and bureaucratic unions have often been transformed into genuine instruments of struggle and political education. The present ferment and change in the union movement in Puerto Rico, or even the limited degree of the positive political character of the trade unions in the Quebec region of Canada or in several European countries (where general strikes, even over explicitly political issues, are fairly frequent), demonstrates that unions need not be a mere structural appendage of the corporations under monopoly capitalism. And of course further politicization than this within the unions is a necessary and possible step, but it will only occur with the general radicalization of the class as a whole.
There is this degree of truth in the position we are disputing: unions are indeed first and foremost economic defense mechanisms of the workers – their most natural and comprehensive form of organization.
It is also true that unions cannot take the place of a vanguard whose task is to lead the entire class in the conquest of state power. Unions are to some extent limited by the legal nature of collective bargaining and contracts – although much less in times of acute struggle where there is a corresponding reliance on rank and file power. And the necessary development of a professional trade union machinery within the unions makes the growth of a bureaucracy a constant tendency which will always be with us and which will always have to be struggled against – even in the most democratic of unions.
But despite these limitations, unions – even unions which presently are reactionary – are very important arenas for Marxist-Leninists to work in. This is true for a number of reasons: (A) to refuse to work within the unions is to abandon them to the reactionary leadership of the present AFL-CIO bureaucrats, (B) unions are by their very nature working class in their composition, containing especially the industrial and strategic sectors of the class, (C) in areas where few unions exist (in the South and among large sectors of women and Third World workers), the organization of unions is a necessary first step in the development of class consciousness, (D) unions are inevitable in a monopoly capitalist society (short of forcible suppression such as fascism) given the objective need for workers to organise to secure even minimal protection and security, and (E) they can potentially serve as major “transmission belts” between Marxist-Leninists and the class as a whole, serving to spread in a mass way the political understanding and practical perspective necessary to move the class forward to its complete emancipation while keeping Marxist-Leninists in touch with the day to day needs of the mass of the working people.
To understand what is the possible role which trade unions can play in the class struggle, we must be very clear about what their limitations are and what is the material base for these limitations. The first limitation is the almost universal tendency towards bureaucratization. Even the most advanced and democratic unions in countries with a fairly militant and class conscious working class exhibit a bureaucracy, although one which is more sophisticated than the one which presently controls the U.S.-labor movement.
Bureaucracy grows from a number of factors. As usual, errors by the left in paying insufficient attention to measures designed to curb bureaucracy play a role, but this cannot in any way explain the whole phenomena. Neither can the low level of class consciousness within the U.S. working class fully explain it, for bureaucracies also control the trade unions in other countries. There are two factors which make a certain degree of bureaucracy virtually inevitable: (A) the inherently unequal position of the working class and the capitalist class under capitalism, making the actual ability, knowledge and time necessary to genuinely and democratically control institutions or to effectively participate in politics difficult if not impossible for the average worker, and (B)the fact that, under all but the most extraordinary circumstances (that is, an immediately pre-revolutionary situation), the capitalist class controls nearly all of the most important resources which make or break the career of an individual labor leader. Through wealth, prestige, a certain degree of power within bourgeois electoral politics, etc., a vested interest in maintaining one’s position within the union bureaucracy is created. This will slowly happen by a natural process to even the best, most honest worker who rises from the ranks through the union hierarchy. Only a class conscious Marxist-Leninist, organizationally and politically responsible to an organized rank and file caucus and without a highly privileged salary and status is likely to be wholly immune to these pressures.
Thus, bureaucracy – the development of a professional core of trade union administrators – is to a certain extent inevitable under capitalism. But this tendency is encouraged by individual capitalists and by the state as a whole. This is because bureaucracy serves to insulate the leadership from the mass of workers and brings them closer to the capitalist class. Through the intervention of the state in the “bargaining process” and through pressure brought to bear upon individual bureaucrats, the natural tendency towards bureaucratization becomes a vehicle for the introduction of capitalist ideology into the ranks of the workers’ movement. Hence, the development of bureaucracy goes hand in hand with the development of a philosophy of cooperation with the bosses and looking out for yourself rather than for the broader interests of the workers and minorities as a whole. The rank and file movement must constantly develop strategies to enable them to maintain control over their own bureaucracies.
This problem has been compounded by the growth and development of imperialism, which has pushed this bureaucratic and narrow opportunism in the labor movement to an all time high. When U.S. capitalism became monopoly capitalism, economic investment abroad became a fundamental feature of the system. The excess profits made from these exploitative investments (“superprofits” above and beyond the normal profit rates) are partly shared with an extreme upper layer of the labor force, thus bribing them into an alliance with the capitalist class. This was a conscious strategy on the part of the capitalist class. It served to provide a secure base for the cooperative “labor spokesmen” like George Meany of the AFL-CIO, lent apparent validity to the myth that “mature and reasonable” bargaining policies gave more benefits to the workers than class struggle tactics, prevented the organization of large sectors of the working class and perpetrated internal divisions within the class, such as racism.
The creation of this “aristocracy of labor” meant the development of a sector within the working class, with interests which are different from those of the mass of workers. Because their privileged position is paid for out of the superprofits of imperialism, they have – at least in the short term – a real interest in maintaining the capitalist system, and in maintaining racism and other reactionary policies. It is this sector which forms the material base for the present “leadership” of the U.S. labor movement.
Today, the aristocracy of labor consists only of the most highly paid, privileged sectors of the workforce, and is mostly based within the AFL craft unions. It has been particularly prominent in the building construction trade unions, which have actively promoted and practiced racism, beaten up anti-war demonstrators, and carried out similar actions which have given rise to the “hardhat” image.
In general, the conditions of life of the labor aristocracy include the following: (A) privileged conditions of work and control over the labor process to a degree which sets them apart from the typical worker a great deal, (B) such excellent pension, retirement, etc., funds that they have a great deal to lose if their present cozy relationship with the union bureaucracy and the bosses should be upset, (C) a labor market which is closed to the great majority of working people, which discriminates on the basis of race, sex and ethnicity and which operates on the basis of favoritism, giving the bureaucrats almost total say in who will and will not become a member of the aristocracy. Secondarily, members of the labor aristocracy usually have a pay scale in excess of $l7-$20,000 per year (although this is not a primary aspect and should not be applied to certain non-aristocracy sectors where the workers have, through militant struggle, won high wages). Such privileged conditions can only be maintained by paying salaries and benefits well above what can normally be paid under capitalism. In exchange, the labor aristocracy supports U.S. imperialism abroad (such as Meany’s support of the Vietnam War, or the AFL-CIO participation with the CIA in the overthrow of the Allende regime in Chile) and supports racism and other reactionary policies at home which benefit the ruling class.
Even though small in numbers (it constitutes less than 5% of the labor force), the labor aristocracy has an influence all out of proportion with its actual size. Non-aristocracy sectors of the labor movement (for example, virtually all of the CIO unions) have fallen under the influence of the aristocracy. The bureaucrats in non-aristocracy unions, such as the United Auto Workers, the United Steel Workers, etc., find their natural allies for their own careerist interests in the labor aristocracy and its unions. While the membership of these unions is not bribed, its present leadership, of course, is.
However, these bureaucrats are much more vulnerable than are their counterparts within the labor aristocracy sectors (such as the construction trade unions) since they have little material basis within the membership of their unions for their opportunism. Leonard Woodcock or I.W. Abel are much more vulnerable to rank and file pressure and discontent than George Meany or Peter Brennan of the N.Y. Building Trades Council.
Although a real aristocracy to back up the bureaucrats is lacking in most unions, there is, nevertheless, a core of older, better-paid, often white workers within even the non-aristocracy unions which presently tends to support the present leadership of the unions. Despite their lack of militance, these workers should in no way be seen as part of the labor aristocracy. Their objective interest is in class struggle and ultimately revolution, but at this point such workers are slower to move in the direction of confrontation and class struggle. This is usually due to heavy financial and family obligations plus a certain degree of security and pensions which the union and its present leadership has won for them. This sector of workers will only move decisively against the present bureaucratic leaders when they are shown that class struggle methods will benefit them on a long term basis, and not just sporadically as now occurs. They must be shown that class struggle unionism will not wreck the union and the few meagre gains that they have won. They will in time become class conscious militants if a class conscious alternative to the present sell-out leadership can be built.
While imperialism and the development of a labor aristocracy make trade union work more difficult, they by no means make it hopeless. We will always have problems of this nature, even as U.S. imperialism declines and begins to attack even the labor aristocracy to a certain extent. But these are problems built into the overall conditions of monopoly capitalism and we will not avoid them by avoiding union work. Instead, we will be abandoning the masses of workers within the organized labor movement to the class collaborationist bureaucrats who presently run it.
Given the above-mentioned limitations, and within the context of the concrete situation within the U.S. (which is decidedly a non-revolutionary situation), we see that unions have a possible positive role to play in class struggle in five different ways:
1. Defend the economic Interests of their membership. This is the most “natural” function of the union and one which even the bureaucrats are presently forced to carry out in at least some minimal fashion. A class struggle policy could of course carry It out better than the present class collaborationist policies which presently characterize the unions, but this is usually the most narrow and least political of all the unions’ possibilities. Therefore it is the one which even the bureaucrats (and the capitalist system as a whole) are most likely to allow. However, this function must be linked with the struggle for rank and file democracy and control over the policies of the union. (By “class struggle policy” we mean relying on the working class and its own struggles to win anything that is gotten} “class collaboration policies” are those which rely on “cooperation” and “collaboration” with the bosses and the capitalist class to ensure the worker’s interests.)
2. Organize the unorganized. This is a critical task which only a class struggle leadership will pursue aggressively. Organizing the unorganized is important for a variety of reasons including the breakdown of differences within the class or between regions, and the general beginning of class consciousness which union organizing generally brings – even if only at the lowest level.
3. Fight Racial and Sexual Discrimination. From the point of view of the entire working class, this task is absolutely essential} and of course it will never be taken up as long as the present leadership has control of the unions. This too is a struggle to break down the differences within the class and is of absolute importance not only to the specially oppressed sectors, but to the class as a whole. As the most powerful and natural forms of workers* organizations, the unions are especially suited to take up these struggles.
4. Take Up Questions of International Solidarity. This includes preventing war moves and imperialist aggression by the U.S. government, solidarity with the working class struggles in other advanced capitalist countries, and support for national liberation struggles. Very recent examples include union participation in the anti-war movement, the Rhodesian chrome boycott, and the struggles to stop Imports of South African coal. Many other issues, such as Puerto Rico solidarity work, Chile solidarity work and support for the working class in recent struggles in Portugal are also examples of what could and should be done. Such issues will only be take up by the unions on a consistent and sustained basis when a class struggle leadership basing itself on a class analysis has replaced the present class collaborationist leadership.
5. Political Education and Independent Political Activity. This would include consistent political education on all of the above four areas, written propaganda on the major struggles of the day, stressing class-wide unity and a union stance on the necessity to break away from the two major capitalist parties (Democrat and Republican). Under advanced conditions where a vanguard Marxist-Leninist party exists, unions can even be won to accept political leadership from it. But the degree of political activity of the unions is somewhat limited and in no way can it take on all the issues that a vanguard party must take on. However, limited political involvement on a broad class basis (such as an instrumental role in the creation of a labor party) could indeed fall to unions, especially as class consciousness grows.
Given the above potential of unions in this historical period, we must then begin to formulate a concrete strategy to transform the unions so that they correspond to their potential. A class struggle policy must replace the class collaboration policy which presently characterizes the labor movement. Such a policy has two corollaries: the development of a Marxist-Leninist party which bases itself primarily among the most advanced elements of the working class, and a general raising of class consciousness among the mass of working people. It is not enough for militants to merely assume leadership of the present unions and implement progressive policies. Such a process must take place within the general revolutionary strategy of a Marxist-Leninist party and with the support, involvement and understanding of the rank and file.