This is a 2002 article by Wayne Price published in The Northeastern Anarchist, the publication of NEFAC (Northeastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists), an anarcho-communist organization that operated in the northeastern United States and the Quebec and Toronto regions of Canada . ---- Today, among workers, there is a general unrest and anger, even though most still hold to the usual "American" views (support for capitalism, support for the two-party system, a degree of racism, patriotism, etc.). This unorganized discontent has led to a shift in the union hierarchy, a move towards a more liberal, more active bureaucratic group under the leadership of John Sweeney. The new leaders are worried about membership loss (bureaucrats who can't even maintain their dues base are quite pathetic). They have managed to connect with university activists (especially on wealthier campuses) to oppose sweatshop labor both inside and outside the US, and to incorporate environmentalism.
But a conscious movement of worker radicals will develop, against union officials (not the unions themselves) and also against capitalists and the State. It is important that the most radical, most militant activists connect with each other as the core of a broader counter-work. Union officials, even the most honest and upright among them, are a segment within workers' organizations that represents the interests of the capitalist class.
More precisely, union bureaucracy acts as a balance between workers and capitalists. It needs to achieve something for the workers (otherwise they lose their jobs), but to do so it tries to keep class conflict within limits. Anarchists must constantly challenge union officials and critique their actions from below. While cooperating with others on specific issues as much as possible, anarchists must also clearly state that their program is different from others. This program advocates for the complete self-organization of society. If anarchist militants clearly articulate their program, they are rarely elected to union offices outside the lowest level of workplace representation or factory committees. Anarchist militant workers competing with a radical program can only overthrow the top-level reformist union boss during periods of upheaval and tension when ordinary, traditionally minded workers take their full program seriously.
While it is impossible to lay out a complete program here for all recognized and unrecognized unions, some principles can be suggested. These general principles include militancy, the democratization of unions and the workplace, and solidarity.
Fighting involves being prepared for civil disobedience (breaking the law) when necessary. It is no coincidence that many of labor's most effective tactics are either prohibited by law or rejected by the courts. Even simple strikes are illegal for almost all public sector workers and are frequently prohibited by court order for many other workers. Even if a strike is permitted, an informational picket line may be allowed, but a mass picket line to prevent strikebreakers from entering is illegal. A fighting union may demand a boycott of the bosses' products, but organizing other workers to refuse to transport or process the products, or to refuse to bring in the necessary goods for the products, is illegal. These are "secondary" or "solidarity" strikes and harm other bosses (as if capitalists didn't support each other in a strike situation). Between contract negotiations, local grievances in a particular department should be handled through grievance arbitration, not through mini-strikes or actual strikes. Strikers can surround a factory with a picket line, but they shouldn't occupy the factory, as this would infringe on the owners' private property rights. As if the major industrial unions weren't founded in the 1930s precisely through sit-ins like this!
Workplace occupations are particularly effective because they prevent strike breakers from being brought in, block the use or even removal of machinery or offices, and limit violence due to the capitalists' reluctance to damage their mechanical property.
Therefore, opponents of authority should encourage tactics such as public sector strikes, mass strike lines, solidarity strikes, and especially factory occupations. None of these should, of course, be taken lightly. They require careful preparation beforehand to confront the state and employers with the greatest possible show of force.
Discussing solidarity strikes already raises the issue of solidarity. The willingness of all workers in a factory, an industry, or a city to stand together is the greatest strength of the working class. This is a counterbalance to the working class's main weakness: its divisions-racist, gender-based, occupational, etc. "Hurt to one is harm to all" should become the workers' slogan. Workers (as workers) should also support the struggles of all oppressed peoples and win the support of every community. This includes opposing all racist practices within the workplace, including, for example, support for "super-seniority" (affirmative action) for the advancement of Black workers, and opposing all racism outside the workplace. Unions facing multinational corporations need to organize internationally and be prepared to strike internationally.
A particularly powerful tactic is a general strike. If most of the workers in a city (or region) go on strike simultaneously, capitalists are severely weakened. Workers can decide what is allowed to continue operating (perhaps firefighters, food for shelters, or hospitals for emergencies. This does not include police unions, because while police are "public employees," they are not workers and will be used against workers. They should be replaced by worker and community patrols!). Enforcing court orders or strike ban laws would be very difficult, if not impossible. With public transport stopped, bridges removed, telephones down, and truck deliveries interrupted, middle-class white-collar workers would compromise with the organized working class. Computers could be shut down, and electricity could be cut off, all due to the influence of entry-level white-collar workers.
Such militant and unified tactics as workplace occupations and general strikes are potentially revolutionary. They raise the possibility that workers can not only effectively halt production but also restart it under their own control. Workers in an occupied factory might decide to restart it by producing useful things that people need, but first they need to negotiate with other factories to procure the necessary materials for their factory, and then organize the distribution of the product. In a general strike combined with factory occupations, workers can decide how to govern the entire city or region economically and politically. This could be the beginning of a revolution.
For these reasons, the capitalist class and the State have never accepted mass strikes, factory occupations, or general strikes peacefully. They would attack with the police, the National Guard, and private company police. All of these have been used repeatedly in US history. Workers must be prepared to defend themselves in an organized and effective way. This would be the beginning of a people's militia.
All this raises the issue of democratic organization. General strikes and international strikes will require a certain increase in centralization within unions, which must be balanced by increased local democratization. No strike should be undertaken without careful planning and organization (de facto sectoral strikes that can occur spontaneously might be a possible exception). If we are discussing potentially taking over factories and cities, we are thinking about a great deal of organization. Anarchists should want the democratization of both unions and industry.
Anarchists should demand democratic control of union branches and national (or international) unions, with all officials elected directly instead of being appointed from above. They should demand an end to the one-party system where union opposition is, at best, excluded from political life in the unions' internal publications, and at worst, faces violent suppression. They should demand rotational leadership (a different president every year or at some point, as is often the case in the professional organizations of doctors or psychologists). During strikes and even negotiations, they should advocate for the election of workers' councils in each workplace, with local decision-making authority and communication between councils. All agreements should be voted on by membership. If the union bureaucracy does not accept such democratic ideas, workers should still continue to elect local councils, support the rights of opposition members, elect local officials, etc.
Union bureaucrats and employers often negotiate long-term contracts, sometimes lasting several years, that include strike bans. The union then serves to impose workplace conditions on the workers. It would be a mistake to revert to the historical IWW opposition to all contracts; contracts can record gains for workers. Instead, militants should insist on annual contracts that include the right to strike based on local conditions. When employers drag negotiations beyond the expiration of the contract, radical workers insist, "No contract, no work." Contract negotiations should be seen not as customary, functioning agreements, but as campaigns in which workers are mobilized.
The specific issues on which unions organize or strikes are called will depend on the conditions in each workplace and each sector. There is no magic formula (like a Trotskyist "transitional program" or a Maoist "mass line") for shifting from the concrete needs of ordinary people to revolutionary demands. We simply have to keep working on it.
Of course, anarchists should be in favor of higher wages, better benefits, and shorter working hours. In principle, they demand a sliding scale of wages and working hours. That is, as inflation increases, wages should automatically increase as well. Furthermore, as unemployment increases, working hours should decrease without loss of wages. This is, in principle, the basis of a socialist economy: dividing the required amount of work by the number of available workers. This is a demand on the entire society, including the state, for public jobs for the unemployed.
But opponents of authority must also raise demands that imply worker control: demands about working conditions and quality of life. These demands challenge management's right to decide as it pleases about the working lives of its employees. They raise the question of how people are forced to work and how they could work differently, in a more humane way. Issues include assembly line speed, health and safety on the workshop floor, toilet breaks, the number of supervisors nearby, and even demands for better products (safer, longer-lasting, less polluting, cheaper). The peace movement has proposed working with arms manufacturers and their unions to plan a transition to peacetime production. This can be generalized; unions can work with public groups to plan a transition to a peacetime, non-polluting, "post-industrial" economy.
In this respect, unions of "professionals" (teachers, nurses, or librarians) are the complete opposite of most blue-collar workers. Blue-collar workers feel it's right to negotiate wages, but they generally accept that working conditions are "management's prerogative." But "professionals" are often uncomfortable demanding higher wages, yet they feel it's right to demand more control over "working conditions" (smaller class sizes, control over textbooks, a better nurse-to-patient ratio, etc.). Consider the American Federation of Teachers' slogan: "Teachers demand what students need." Why not "Steelworkers demand what society needs"?
The demand for worker control in industry does not mean endorsing management's various "equality circle" or "team" approaches. These are methods for workers and management to "work together." They deny the existence of a conflict of interest between workers and bosses. Activists should join these "teams" to show other workers that they are tools to increase exploitation.
Instead, we could advocate for a collective contract. Instead of capitalists hiring individuals, perhaps a union recruitment hall would hire a "team" or group. The bosses would provide the capital, machinery, and raw materials, as well as a target number of cars or parts to be produced. The workers would divide tasks among themselves and set their work schedules. The group could include technical experts, or experts (not the bosses) could be provided by management. The workers would elect their "supervisors" (coordinators) and discipline themselves. Unlike "team" approaches, there are no management supervisors on the workshop floor. Finally, the capitalists would pay the group a lump sum, and the workers would divide this payment among themselves according to whatever scale they agree upon.
Such methods have actually been used from time to time (for example, among car workers in Coventry, England), and elements of it, such as the union recruiting hall, have also been used in the US. In theory, it is not incompatible with capitalism and would increase productivity, but it is difficult to imagine capitalists adopting it widely. Collective bargaining directly exposes the superfluous role of capitalist management. Who needs them? That is precisely why anarchist workers should publicize this idea and demand steps in this direction (such as the election of foremen or the grassroots security committee, the location of factories, decisions on opening or closing factories, the type or price of products).
Questions arise as to whether anarchists should make demands on the State. Anarchists do not believe that the solution to capitalism's problems is for the capitalist State to take over the economy, and history has supported this view. But what if unions campaigned for public jobs for the unemployed or for public ownership of certain sectors (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority or the British coal industry)? In recent years, there has been an ongoing struggle over "privatization." The right wing has advocated selling off (privatizing) government-run services such as schools, transportation, sanitation, maintenance, and postal services. This is presented as a way to increase "efficiency." Since there is no magic alternative to teaching in schools or cleaning the streets, the only way for a private company to become more "efficient" is to cut workers' wages and increase their workloads.
Anarchists should oppose privatization and make demands on the State. The State claims to represent society. People should demand that it fulfill this claim. If it fails to do so, its true nature will be revealed: a bureaucratic-military agent of an oppressive minority, the capitalist class, and other oppressors. Anarchists should explain why workers should not trust the State, but they should also support the anti-privatization movement as a struggle to defend society and workers' rights.
Most workers in the U.S. do not support proposals for government takeovers of new industries, even in areas where it might make sense. The argument that public ownership is inefficient is largely accepted by U.S. workers. But they might accept the idea of taking industry away from the rich and powerful (through expropriation) and having it democratically managed by workers and local communities. There have been a number of instances where failed local industries have been taken over, or attempts have been made to take them over, by unions, local workers, or local communities. These efforts, in contrast to calls for nationalization, have generally received a great deal of public support.
Wherever possible, anarchists should promote non-state programs. For example, it is correct to support "single-payer" healthcare programs, often interpreted as government-run healthcare ("socialized medicine"). But anarchists could also call for healthcare run by a national federation of health consumer cooperatives (perhaps with state subsidies). Local health centers could be democratically managed by patients (everyone) and medical staff.
The issue of the state also arises when considering trade union democracy. Faced with a deeply entrenched trade union bureaucracy, liberal opponents have frequently resorted to the courts or government agencies to try to enforce democratic rights. Generally, these attempts have been fruitless. The government does not like to interfere with established trade union officials, and when it does, it acts with such bias and moves at such icy speed that very little is achieved.
However, there have been instances where the lack of democracy was so extreme and the political climate so favorable that the State intervened in union struggles to promote democratization. A well-known example occurred in 1972 when the State intervened in the United Mine Workers. The incumbent president, Tony Boyle, had his opponent, along with his family members, murdered shortly after the 1969 election. As a result of the government's oversight of the union election, Arnold Miller, leader of the reform group Miners for Democracy, became president.
Similarly, in the 1990s, the government leveled charges of racketeering against Teamsters union officials and decided to oversee the elections. Ron Carey, an upright reformer, was elected with the support of the Teamsters for a Democratic Union reform group.
It is a mistake to demand or support state intervention in trade unions. Despite its apparent advantages, this means allowing an agent of the ruling class to make internal decisions about workers' organizations. Trade union bureaucracy is also an agent of the capitalist class and the State, but the union is still one of the few organizations "owned" by the workers. Their aim should be to get rid of bureaucracy, not to increase state intervention. Instead of relying on reformist labor lawyers, grassroots organizations should be established to fight bureaucracy.
If the State intervenes, anarchists need to decide how to engage with union reformers. Whether the reformers are willing to use State intervention is one issue, but not the only one (given that the bureaucracy in power is also an agent of the capitalists). Often, we can support the opposition to open up the union and make room for more militancy and democracy, which should have been done in the aforementioned miners' and Teamsters' elections. But anarchists must warn the reformers about the limitations of their program (including, among other limitations, their support for the State).
The danger of trusting the state was demonstrated in the Teamsters Union. After helping Carey get elected, the government election auditor barred him from running in the next national election, despite him being arguably the most popular candidate. The pretext was that he had used some financial trickery to help him get re-elected-unpleasant but not uncommon in unions. This ensured the election of James Hoffa Jr., the candidate of the conservative bureaucracy. It was seen that the state could give with one hand and take back with the same hand.
In conclusion, from their inception, trade unions have had two potential directions. One is to integrate a minority of the working class into the capitalist system. This involves building a heavily bureaucratic class that profits from workers' struggles and collaborates with the ruling class to maintain social stability. In return, they obtain a certain degree of better job security and a better standard of living for their members, even within the confines of an oppressive society. However, employers see these labor unions, at best, as necessary evils to be crushed when times get tough. Workers' gains must be reversed whenever possible. We now see that unions are subjected to precisely such attacks, repeatedly defeated.
On the other hand, unions can also be seen as examples of the self-organization of the working class. They are potentially powerful weapons for workers. Even for workers who have never read a word of anarchism or Marxism, unions have political significance. The formation of unions implies that capitalists and workers have different and conflicting interests. Their existence implies that individuals cannot do this alone, by making personal deals with the boss, but must cooperate, stand in solidarity. Unions are certainly not the only form of popular resistance. They are not necessarily revolutionary either. But they will play a major role in the North American revolution. And if they don't, there will be no revolution.
https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/14/anarsist-bir-emek-programi-wayne-price/
_________________________________________
Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten