Wednesday, October 26, 2005
Unions for the impatient
In discussion with a friend recently, the topic of unions & radicalism arose. If, as radicals, we want to crush capitalism, aren't we contradicting ourselves by working for unions? Unions exist to make wage labour better, not to abolish it. Are labour activists just 'beautifying' the jail cell, instead of calling into question why we're imprisoned?
I think this question can't be argued in the abstract, but only by referring to specific historical examples. Class struggle - the working class raising demands that the capitalists refuse to meet - increases during economic recovery. The North American social movements of the 1930s didn't arise in '30-'31, when people were starving; they hit their stride mid-decade, when it was obvious that profits were rising and workers weren't sharing in them. Metaphorically, people don't resist when they're being kicked; they need a little time to recover.
Using what they've got - Korean transit workers on strike, 2003
'Tearing the veil' of capitalist ideology is a complex process, and I think we need ways to talk about it that doesn't count anything less than revolutionary as reactionary from the outset. If we accept that change has to start somewhere, then the question is: where does that change begin, and how can we encourage it?
Change begins in the organizations people have built themselves to resist capitalist degradation. That means unions - struggles to build them, and to democratize them. People's ideas change through struggle, and we can acknowledge that process while not settling for reforms as an end in themselves.
This is why, for instance, socialists have worked to both radicalize the unions, and build political organizations apart from the unions. They recognize unions are the ground level of class consciousness, but on their own, unions won't break from capitalism. This is why we need political organization, to encourage unions to radicalize (by educating and empowering key militants), and to promote the creation of new, more radical organizations as the class struggle develops.
I think this question can't be argued in the abstract, but only by referring to specific historical examples. Class struggle - the working class raising demands that the capitalists refuse to meet - increases during economic recovery. The North American social movements of the 1930s didn't arise in '30-'31, when people were starving; they hit their stride mid-decade, when it was obvious that profits were rising and workers weren't sharing in them. Metaphorically, people don't resist when they're being kicked; they need a little time to recover.
Using what they've got - Korean transit workers on strike, 2003'Tearing the veil' of capitalist ideology is a complex process, and I think we need ways to talk about it that doesn't count anything less than revolutionary as reactionary from the outset. If we accept that change has to start somewhere, then the question is: where does that change begin, and how can we encourage it?
Change begins in the organizations people have built themselves to resist capitalist degradation. That means unions - struggles to build them, and to democratize them. People's ideas change through struggle, and we can acknowledge that process while not settling for reforms as an end in themselves.
This is why, for instance, socialists have worked to both radicalize the unions, and build political organizations apart from the unions. They recognize unions are the ground level of class consciousness, but on their own, unions won't break from capitalism. This is why we need political organization, to encourage unions to radicalize (by educating and empowering key militants), and to promote the creation of new, more radical organizations as the class struggle develops.
