WORLD WORLDWIDE ARGENTINA News Journal Update - (en) Argentina, FORA, Organizacion-Obrera #96: THE WORKER ORGANIZATION FROM YESTERDAY TO TODAY (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

The transformations produced from the industrial revolution were considerable.
Among them: the growth of production and trade, the expansion of cities and the
emergence of technological innovations at a breakneck pace. But this productive
change also produced the crystallization of the two social classes that began to
coexist in workshops and factories: the working class and the bourgeoisie. ----
To the extent that the new productive system was altering the previous modalities
of community aid, industrial workers found themselves unprotected before the law
of the free market and the labor regulations imposed by the bourgeoisie. The
discomfort accumulated by the mistreatment and the terrible working conditions
gave rise to the eruption of worker protests in the 1830s. Expressions of
spontaneous rebellion, but without a stable organization that could track the
claims in an articulated way over time.

In the heat of the first mobilizations carried out by the workers, the first
labor organizations in England (Trade Unions) began to be formed. The outlined
objectives were to improve the condition of the proletariat, but his way of
proceeding kept a moderate character. At first they rejected the concept of class
struggle and the general strike as a fighting tool, seeking to achieve
improvements through political reforms enacted by the British Parliament. To
achieve this objective, they dedicated themselves to formulating their claims
through letters that they sent to parliamentary representatives. Hence it was
given the name "chartists". In addition to seeking to improve working conditions,
this movement called for a democratic opening that would allow this social sector
to participate in politics.

Parallel to the consolidation of the Trade Unions, the first socialist ideas
developed. The "utopian socialism" as it was later called by the Marxists. The
truth is that the "utopian" character for which the positions of Saint Simon,
Fourier, Blanc and others were criticized is due to the fact that they consider
that social change could be carried out without unleashing the class struggle,
that is to say, by appealing Due to the rational nature of the holders of the
means of production, the economy could be organized in a more rational way. As
expected, these first socialist trends failed to establish a close connection
with the world of workers, since they did not consider it the primary subject for
social change, but rather its just beneficiary.

In the 1840s, other socialist approaches emerged in France that directly
questioned the workers, such as the mutualism put forward by Prohudon or the
insurrectionalism of Blanqui. Professional organizations, that is, those
institutions that were in the transition between medieval guilds and modern
unions, spread throughout Europe hand in hand with industry, and with the
exception of the most irate expressions of the "Luddists"[1], the majority of the
proletariat still identified with the political postulates of republicanism.

The revolutionary wave unleashed in Europe in 1848 tried to carry out the
unfinished political transformations of the previous stage. Bourgeois and workers
wanted to put an end to the privilege of the restored nobility, and to a large
extent they succeeded. But the most important thing in this process was the
divorce between the bourgeoisie and the proletarians, since the former took the
reins of the new government, excluding the workers. From this moment on, the
socialist and anticlerical positions gained followers among the workers, who saw
in the liberal and republican postulates the face of the bourgeoisie that
betrayed them.

After the worst repressive moment of the 1950s had passed, the workers'
associations recomposed themselves and gained ground in other European countries,
even taking their first steps in the American continent. The internationalist
vision of revolutionary socialism gained momentum and managed to establish an
alliance between different trade union entities in Europe. From this process the
International Workers Association was born, also known as the First International
for being the first organizational experience of this type. It is known that as a
result of the debates held within this association, the two main tendencies of
modern socialism crystallized: Marxism and anarchism. As well as that their
differences were the ones that caused the split and subsequent dissolution of the
International in the 1970s. Unions from all over the world began to dispute their
political orientation between these two strands of socialism, together with the
most reformist expressions, such as English laborism[2].

As a corollary, the industrial system also creIn the stage after the First
International, the growth of socialist political parties or workers' identity can
be observed, which sought to influence the electoral dispute and establish
themselves as political representatives of the workers. The union of the
different national parties ended up constituting the Second International in
1889. Within this entity, debates took place on the strategies and means to be
implemented by these party organizations, causing a highly relevant fracture
within Marxism and giving rise to to the social democratic current. The link that
this tendency managed to establish with the workers' organizations was
consolidated at the turn of the century in northern Europe, resulting in a
greater political integration of the proletarian sector. On the contrary, the
Latin zone of that continent remained under a strong anarchist influence,
therefore, reluctant to political participation.

Hand in hand with the actions displayed by social democracy and some reformist
currents of the bourgeoisie, national states began to pay more attention to labor
regulation and social legislation. The objectives of these political sectors were
not the same, since some sought to improve the situation of the workers to raise
their quality of life, while the bourgeoisie moved after the objective of
avoiding social conflict. An emblematic case of this procedure was represented by
the creation of the ILO (International Labor Organization) in 1919 after the
scare caused worldwide after the triumph of the Russian revolution. This
organization committed the different member nations to advance in the matter of
labor rights, and in this way, avoid the irruption of revolutionary movements.

Throughout the 20th century, it can be observed how the union organization gained
ground in the different salaried economic activities. Especially those in the
urban area. From the organization by trades, it went on to larger entities that
covered the entire branch of the corresponding industrial activity. As the number
of unions and affiliates grew, the ideological dispute within the labor movement
settled around integrationist positions (to the state-bourgeois order) vs. those
revolutionary tendencies and refractory to class collaboration. Basically, what
this global and polyphonic debate showed is that the class condition of the
proletariat did not naturally mean its rejection of the capitalist system, but
could also channel its actions towards political-citizen integration. The
revolutionary sectors maintained, and maintain, that the same class division is
sufficient reason to seek a radical transformation of the socioeconomic system.

This historical logic makes us see that the labor organizations have as a common
factor the search for a better life for their members. But the objectives pursued
by the different political-ideological trends have very relevant differences, and
may be guided by socialist, Catholic, nationalist, anarchist or other premises.
These differences have unleashed hegemony disputes within the unions, which are
often not understood from the standpoint of socialism. Pointing out "deviation"
or "betrayal" to working-class trends that do not agree with the ideas of the
left is the product of a historical misinterpretation. Labor, or Peronism, was no
less worker than French revolutionary syndicalism or Spanish anarcho-syndicalism.
What changes are the objectives that the workers themselves have given themselves.

In this sense, it can be affirmed that the questioning of the workers, as a
social subject, continues to constitute an essential element for a transformation
of an egalitarian nature. But, as we portray it in this brief historical journey,
it is not the class condition that determines that emancipatory objective, but
the projection and the tireless search for an anti-capitalist social
transformation, promoted by men and women full of contradictions, not by
mechanical laws. of history. Does the labor movement seek to emancipate itself
from the domination of capital? Seen from the short term, this does not seem to
be the case, but what can be assured is that the path towards anarchist harmony
can only be paved.

[1]This movement was characterized by its protest methodology, consisting of
destroying the machines in the factories. His position did not correspond to a
rejection of technological advances, but to the consequences that the industrial
production system imposed on the workers, such as the accelerated and continuous
pace of production, the recurring accidents and the pollution emanating from
them.ated the divorce between the producer and the product, generating an
abstraction about the task performed, and consequently, the alienation of the
workers.
[2]The British Trade Unions organize their own political space, the Labor Party.
 From that moment on, the political participation of the workers began to be
represented in parliament through this party.

https://organizacion-obrera.fora.com.ar/2023/03/06/la-organizacion-obrera-de-ayer-a-hoy/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca