Ask a Red III

[ParkCungHee]

Do you believe it's possible for labor unions to be organized regressively?

If they do, what is their role in the class system?

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah, I think that's entirely possible, and in fact has been the predominate form of trade unionism in the developed world from 1945 onwards.

It's uncontentious enough to say that the function of the trade union is not simply to represent labour to capital, but to function as part of an apparatus of mediation between labour and capital. The function of the union is not prosecute class struggle, but to achieve a "class peace" on what are percieved as equitable terms. To labour, they offer improved wages, conditions, etc., and to capital they offer workplace discipline.

The ultimate interests of the working class, however, are not to pursue a nicer wage-labour, but to abolish wage-labour as such, and that means challenging the employing class for control over production. This is something that obviously involves what the employer would see as not a little ill-discipline, and the union is held accountable for preventing this from happening. This is achieved by integrating workers into the union apparatus, control of which lies not in the hands of the workers but of the bureaucracy. The ability of the union to secure day-to-day demands more effectively than independent organisation would keeps workers obedient to the union, and allows rank-and-file militants to be marginalised as troublemakers.

Obviously, this sort of integration prevents the sort of independent working class organisation that we see as necessary for working class emancipation. It becomes necessary to challenge the hegemony of the union bureaucracy, either from within (rank-and-fileism) or without (independent organisation). (Speaking only for myself, I tend to be sceptical of the former, because I think that the problems are so deeply structural as to be effectively irresolvable. I think that the latter is the way to go, although I'm critical of the narrow focus of traditional syndicalism, because I don't think that class struggle can be understood as a workplace-only affair.)

 

[ParkCungHee]

So essentially, the modern union fulfills the role of the Pinkertons.

 

[Traitorfish]

Pretty much. It's especially true with the decline of old patterns of industry, in which the militant traditions and self-concious economic clout of certain key sectors held the unions more strongly to account. Now the large unions sell themselves to employers as much as to the workers, acting more as a third-party agency than a labour organisation.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Yeah, I think that's entirely possible, and in fact has been the predominate form of trade unionism in the developed world from 1945 onwards.

It's uncontentious enough to say that the function of the trade union is not simply to represent labour to capital, but to function as part of an apparatus of mediation between labour and capital. The function of the union is not prosecute class struggle, but to achieve a "class peace" on what are percieved as equitable terms. To labour, they offer improved wages, conditions, etc., and to capital they offer workplace discipline.

The ultimate interests of the working class, however, are not to pursue a nicer wage-labour, but to abolish wage-labour as such, and that means challenging the employing class for control over production. This is something that obviously involves what the employer would see as not a little ill-discipline, and the union is held accountable for preventing this from happening. This is achieved by integrating workers into the union apparatus, control of which lies not in the hands of the workers but of the bureaucracy. The ability of the union to secure day-to-day demands more effectively than independent organisation would keeps workers obedient to the union, and allows rank-and-file militants to be marginalised as troublemakers.

Obviously, this sort of integration prevents the sort of independent working class organisation that we see as necessary for working class emancipation. It becomes necessary to challenge the hegemony of the union bureaucracy, either from within (rank-and-fileism) or without (independent organisation). (Speaking only for myself, I tend to be sceptical of the former, because I think that the problems are so deeply structural as to be effectively irresolvable. I think that the latter is the way to go, although I'm critical of the narrow focus of traditional syndicalism, because I don't think that class struggle can be understood as a workplace-only affair.)

Or, in other words:

It's important to note the difference between craft (also called "trade") unions and industrial unions. Craft unions are products of the early industrial era, designed to protect craftsmen in ways that the newly outlawed guild system otherwise would have. Industrial unionism is a class movement against capital, uniting whole industries, not just tradesmen.

So essentially, the modern union fulfills the role of the Pinkertons.

A better way to say it would be that modern independent unions are now no different from company-created unions, but I would not correct you if you stood by your initial statement.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Why is the Left so sectarian?
What course, in your option, the Left should pursue towards paternalist leftish leaders like Chavez?
What, in your option, should be the Left position on the national liberation struggles?

 

[Tahuti]

Yeah, I think that's entirely possible, and in fact has been the predominate form of trade unionism in the developed world from 1945 onwards.

It's uncontentious enough to say that the function of the trade union is not simply to represent labour to capital, but to function as part of an apparatus of mediation between labour and capital. The function of the union is not prosecute class struggle, but to achieve a "class peace" on what are percieved as equitable terms. To labour, they offer improved wages, conditions, etc., and to capital they offer workplace discipline.

The ultimate interests of the working class, however, are not to pursue a nicer wage-labour, but to abolish wage-labour as such, and that means challenging the employing class for control over production. This is something that obviously involves what the employer would see as not a little ill-discipline, and the union is held accountable for preventing this from happening. This is achieved by integrating workers into the union apparatus, control of which lies not in the hands of the workers but of the bureaucracy. The ability of the union to secure day-to-day demands more effectively than independent organisation would keeps workers obedient to the union, and allows rank-and-file militants to be marginalised as troublemakers.

Obviously, this sort of integration prevents the sort of independent working class organisation that we see as necessary for working class emancipation. It becomes necessary to challenge the hegemony of the union bureaucracy, either from within (rank-and-fileism) or without (independent organisation). (Speaking only for myself, I tend to be sceptical of the former, because I think that the problems are so deeply structural as to be effectively irresolvable. I think that the latter is the way to go, although I'm critical of the narrow focus of traditional syndicalism, because I don't think that class struggle can be understood as a workplace-only affair.)

Aren't you effectively claiming that the dominant economic system in the West (at least in Western Europe, as unions aren't that powerful in the Anglosphere) is basically Corporatist rather than Laissez-Faire?

 

[Traitorfish]

I wouldn't describe it as corporatist, because that implies that labour organisations play a significant role in the economic decision-making process, which is quite rare these days. The unions primarily serve as intermediaries between labour and capital rather than participants in capital.

 

[innonimatu]

I wouldn't describe it as corporatist, because that implies that labour organisations play a significant role in the economic decision-making process, which is quite rare these days. The unions primarily serve as intermediaries between labour and capital rather than participants in capital.

That's nothing new. The late 19th century anarchists and later the "anarchist" unions were formed as a reaction to the "milder" unions fighting within the liberal systems just for improved working conditions. So we're back to that. And we may go back to having reactions against that. In some ways politics can seem cyclical...

 

[caketastydelish]

As a communist, which do you think are hotter? Polish girls or British girls?

Spoiler :

feel free to ignore the joke question.

Here is my own opinion:

While Karl Marx did say religion is the "opium for the poor" (or something like that) my opinion is that while times are changing, the end result is precisely the same. This is what I mean:

In western countries, the population is getting more and more secular and generally less religious. However, the class struggle still exists and not much seems to being done about it. This is my theory on that: Just as religion was once the opium for the poor, now other things are replacing it, such as literally opium and other drugs itself (ironically enough) sex, video games, other things.

Now poor people have other means to be preoccupied so as to prevent them from realizing the injustice of capitalism, that is, that the wealth is so unevenly distributed. It used to be religion, but now it's more secular means of being kept artificially content.

Would you agree with me or disagree?

 

[Takhisis]

Television and other forms of entertainment being used as an opium-like force? Of course! Now that religion has been separated from the state you need something else to keep the masses in check. Why else would Jerry Springer and other televised crap like TMZ proliferate? In banana republics, instead of having it be done by private companies (for another example, American Idol), you just run non-stop propaganda, like Chávez's Aló Presidente.

Of course, Tf or Cheezy can do it with far many more words.

 

[aelf]

While Karl Marx did say religion is the "opium for the poor" (or something like that) my opinion is that while times are changing, the end result is precisely the same. This is what I mean:

In western countries, the population is getting more and more secular and generally less religious. However, the class struggle still exists and not much seems to being done about it. This is my theory on that: Just as religion was once the opium for the poor, now other things are replacing it, such as literally opium and other drugs itself (ironically enough) sex, video games, other things.

Now poor people have other means to be preoccupied so as to prevent them from realizing the injustice of capitalism, that is, that the wealth is so unevenly distributed. It used to be religion, but now it's more secular means of being kept artificially content.

Would you agree with me or disagree?

Yeah, one of the main arguments of the Frankfurt School was essentially this. You should read The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.

 

[caketastydelish]

Yeah, one of the main arguments of the Frankfurt School was essentially this. You should read The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception.

Damn, I thought I had an original idea.

 

[Takhisis]

Of course, Tf or Cheezy can do it with far many more words.

I'd forgotten aelf.

 

[Ajidica]

Who is more awsome: Emma Goldman, Rosa Luxemburg, or someone else entirely?

 

[Takhisis]

Emmanuel Goldstein.

 

[caketastydelish]

Emmanuel Goldstein.

Are you a communist?

 

[Takhisis]

He helps you tell the difference between people who appear to espouse leftist ideals just for the sake of power (duckspeak for one) and people who are usually more quiet and try to bring about real change, just for starters.

 

[caketastydelish]

He helps you tell the difference between people who appear to espouse leftist ideals just for the sake of power (duckspeak for one) and people who are usually more quiet and try to bring about real change, just for starters.

No. I was asking you personally, Takhsis. I was not asking about Goldstein.

Are you a communist?

 

[Takhisis]

I'm the Žižek-type lefty who doesn't quite agree with most of the usual definitions of Socialism/Communism.

He is persistently anticapitalist, but often disagrees with other leftists about how to defeat capitalism and what to do next.

Full Communist? probably not, the Soviet Union and Red China are enough to show that it doesn't work. Call it a Socialist then.