Re: role of unions--history/developement

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

I think you have to distinguish between the trade union bureaucracy
and the trade union membership.

It is true that in both world wars the trade union bureaucracy became
totally integrated with the state. Yet the main resistance to the
imperialism during these wars came from workers organised in trade
unions. In WW1, Engineering workers were on strike in Germany and
Britain at the same time.

The Trade Union Bureaucracies in both countries supported the war
and opposed the strikes. The rank + file workers, certainly in
Britain, had to create shop stewards committees in order to defend
their wages and conditions against the bosses. Nevertheless, these
rank + file committees were NEVER anti union - if they had been,
they would never have been able to lead a significant number
of workers into action.

The recent strikes in France were lead by trade union members. Why
was this ? Those workers who join Trade Unions in France are the most
class conscious. They understand the need to build organisations at
the workplace which defend their wages and conditions. In some
places, rank + file committees ( "coordinations" ) emerged to
challenge the Bureaucracy's leadership. These committees were
organised by people who were trade union members, and the
delegates were overwhelmingly trade union members, as they
were in Italy, Germany, Britain, and Russia during and soon after
WWI.

In every non unionised workplace, there is a division between
union members and non union members. The union members are the
ones who see at some basic level a class difference between
themselves and the bosses. It is amongst these people that
it is easier to put arguments against racism, Imperialism, or
whatever, since they already have a basic class understanding.
If I say "I oppose racism because it divides us" or "I oppose
the war in the Gulf because it's not in our interests" it helps
if I don't have to explain first what "us" or "our interests"
mean.

I speak here from experience. During the Gulf War I was trying
to build a union where I worked. In fact, we had more people in
the "committee to stop the war" than there were in the union.
But the core, active membership of the committee were without
exception union members. This same political core was also
part of the Anti Nazi League and Anti Poll Tax movement.
When the situation changed, the union was able to grow quickly.
This political core of union members was able to expand the union
membership rapidly.

Eventually, the union was beaten, basically because the recession
forced us to fight before we were really ready for it. But the
result is that the political core of people there now is larger
than it was before the whole process began, and means it is
more likely to succeed next time round. This is the case
because we built on political and "bread and butter" issues
( maternity / paternity leave, flexitime, wages ) simultaneously.

Adam.

PS

The following is completely outrageous :

"Now i know there are  minor  differences between an industrial  union headed by
Phil Murray/ John L. Lewis of the CIO and the Democrats   and the unions
(company union  labor syndicates) headed by Dr. Ley of the  Nazi 3rd Reich."

The differences are not minor. In fact, the differences go to the heart of the
difference between Capitalist Democracy and Fascism. In effect you're saying
there's no difference. This must have come as a surprise to all those
Trade Unionists who died in the concentration camps.

Adam Rose
SWP
Manchester
UK


---------------------------------------------------------------


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------