Monday, June 13, 2005
Work comes first...
This is what I said an anti-capitalist movement should look like:
What about the workers?
However, socialists focus on the labour movement too. This is because workers can disrupt profit-making at its source: the workplace.
Workers are key in the revolutionary struggle. Not because they're more progressive than anyone else, but because workers' labour creates capitalist wealth.
Unions, as a form of workers' self-organization, strike at the grimy heart of capitalism. They negotiate a better rate at which workers sell their labour to capitalists. If they go on strike, work stops. The capitalists' coffers run dry. Then everything stops, and the very existence of capitalism is threatened.
Workers are not just white men in overalls. But some are.
Historically, unions have mobilized huge numbers of people against capitalism. The participants themselves weren't all socialists. But their demands put severe restrictions on capital accumulation. For example, the sit-down strikes in the Canadian & American auto industries in the 1930s, led to higher wages, benefits - all things the capitalists had to pay for. When those demands were met (because the capitalists were frightened enough to give in), often they led to more radical demands, as workers gained confidence. There were a number of city-wide general strikes in the U.S., even in places like Houston , Texas. (For more on this, check out Rainbow at Midnight: Labor and Culture in the 1940s, by George Lipsitz.) Capitalist power broke down, because unions - consciously, or in spite of themselves - challenged those power relations. In its place, mass democratic organizations sprang up.
What happened?
Few radicals can relate to the union movement today, because it seems like ancient history. This isn't a coincidence. The ruling class has worked very hard to subdue the union movement. Companies broke strikes, at times calling in the army to fight picketers. When the union movement refused to bow to violence, the ruling class tried to coopt it, red-baiting its most militant members as Communists, and trading higher wages for management control of the workplace.
Seattle General Strike, 1919
Unions are still recovering from that sorry legacy. Some radicals today see the union movement as privileged workers fighting to protect their turf, representing no one but themselves. But this is only part of the story (and a version the capitalist class is all too happy to live with.) Unions have been some of the strongest opponents of capitalism, and they have the potential to be so again. For example, check out Labor Notes, a grassroots organization dedicated to rebuilding democratic American labor unions.
In all these struggles, socialists have played a key part. If we're ever to mobilize the mass of society against capitalism, we'll have to reach people where they're at. Most people work, and whether they realize it or not, work is the key relation in capitalist society - what keeps the ruling class on our backs. There may be other ways to mobilize a mass, anti-capitalist alternative. But history has shown the labour movement is one of the most effective ways of both reaching people where they're at, and hitting the ruling class where it hurts the most.
The British Miners' Strike, 1984
Of course, this is only part of the question. The ruling class isn't just corporations: it's government, the media, the church, etc. How do you mobilize against them? That's a question of revolutionary organization, something Marxists love to talk about. Tomorrow.
any social movement – whatever it calls itself, and whatever issue it’s fighting on – can be anti-capitalist, to the extent it disrupts profit-making and capitalist social discipline, and builds people’s confidence to organize democratically, on a mass scale.This is true. It's why socialists have a long history of building many different social movements: feminist, gay liberation, anti-war, etc.
What about the workers?
However, socialists focus on the labour movement too. This is because workers can disrupt profit-making at its source: the workplace.
Workers are key in the revolutionary struggle. Not because they're more progressive than anyone else, but because workers' labour creates capitalist wealth.
Unions, as a form of workers' self-organization, strike at the grimy heart of capitalism. They negotiate a better rate at which workers sell their labour to capitalists. If they go on strike, work stops. The capitalists' coffers run dry. Then everything stops, and the very existence of capitalism is threatened.
Workers are not just white men in overalls. But some are.
Historically, unions have mobilized huge numbers of people against capitalism. The participants themselves weren't all socialists. But their demands put severe restrictions on capital accumulation. For example, the sit-down strikes in the Canadian & American auto industries in the 1930s, led to higher wages, benefits - all things the capitalists had to pay for. When those demands were met (because the capitalists were frightened enough to give in), often they led to more radical demands, as workers gained confidence. There were a number of city-wide general strikes in the U.S., even in places like Houston , Texas. (For more on this, check out Rainbow at Midnight: Labor and Culture in the 1940s, by George Lipsitz.) Capitalist power broke down, because unions - consciously, or in spite of themselves - challenged those power relations. In its place, mass democratic organizations sprang up.
What happened?
Few radicals can relate to the union movement today, because it seems like ancient history. This isn't a coincidence. The ruling class has worked very hard to subdue the union movement. Companies broke strikes, at times calling in the army to fight picketers. When the union movement refused to bow to violence, the ruling class tried to coopt it, red-baiting its most militant members as Communists, and trading higher wages for management control of the workplace.
Seattle General Strike, 1919
Unions are still recovering from that sorry legacy. Some radicals today see the union movement as privileged workers fighting to protect their turf, representing no one but themselves. But this is only part of the story (and a version the capitalist class is all too happy to live with.) Unions have been some of the strongest opponents of capitalism, and they have the potential to be so again. For example, check out Labor Notes, a grassroots organization dedicated to rebuilding democratic American labor unions.
In all these struggles, socialists have played a key part. If we're ever to mobilize the mass of society against capitalism, we'll have to reach people where they're at. Most people work, and whether they realize it or not, work is the key relation in capitalist society - what keeps the ruling class on our backs. There may be other ways to mobilize a mass, anti-capitalist alternative. But history has shown the labour movement is one of the most effective ways of both reaching people where they're at, and hitting the ruling class where it hurts the most.
The British Miners' Strike, 1984
Of course, this is only part of the question. The ruling class isn't just corporations: it's government, the media, the church, etc. How do you mobilize against them? That's a question of revolutionary organization, something Marxists love to talk about. Tomorrow.
