Pannekoek, Anton - Trade Unionism
Bestand:Pannekoek, Anton - Trade Unionism.pdf
Trade Unionism
Anton Pannekoek
This text is not verified.
This text first appeared under the pen name "J Harper" in the American journal International Council
Correspondence, Vol II No 2, Jan 1936.
This edited version is taken from the american journal Root & Branch (No 6 1978)
The e-version was copied from the John Gray Website - for communism.
The code and layout is changed by Kurasje (http://kurasje.tripod.com/.)
How must the working class fight capitalism in order to win? This is the all important question
facing the workers every day. What efficient means of action, what tactics can they use to conquer
power and defeat the enemy? No science, no theory, could tell them exactly what to do. But
spontaneously and instinctively, by feeling out, by sensing the possibilities, they found their ways of
action. And as capitalism grew and conquered the earth and increased its power, the power of the
workers also increased. New modes of action, wider and more efficient, came up beside the old ones.
It is evident that with changing conditions, the forms of action, the tactics of the class struggle have
to change also. Trade unionism is the primary form of labour movement in fixed capitalism. The
isolated worker is powerless against the capitalistic employer. To overcome this handicap, the
workers organise into unions. The union binds the workers together into common action, with the
strike as their weapon. Then the balance of power is relatively equal, or is sometimes even heaviest
on the side of the workers, so that the isolated small employer is weak against the mighty union.
Hence in developed capitalism trade unions and employers' unions (Associations, Trusts,
Corporations, etc.), stand as fighting powers against each other.
Trade unionism first arose in England, where industrial capitalism first developed. Afterward it
spread to other countries, as a natural companion of capitalist industry. In the United States there
were very special conditions. In the beginning, the abundance of free unoccupied land, open to
settlers, made for a shortage of workers in the towns and relatively high wages and good conditions.
The American Federation of Labour became a power in the country, and generally was able to
uphold a relatively high standard of living for the workers who were organised in its unions.
It is clear that under such conditions the idea of overthrowing capitalism could not for a moment
arise in the minds of the workers. Capitalism offered them a sufficient and fairly secure living. They
did not feel themselves a separate class whose interests were hostile to the existing order; they were
part of it; they were conscious of partaking in all the possibilities of an ascending capitalism in a new
continent. There was room for millions of people, coming mostly from Europe. For these increasing
millions of farmers, a rapidly increasing industry was necessary, where, with energy and good luck,
workmen could rise to become free artisans, small business men, even rich capitalists. It is natural
that here a true capitalist spirit prevailed in the working class.
The same was the case in England. Here it was due to England's monopoly of world commerce and
big industry, to the lack of competitors on the foreign markets, and to the possession of rich colonies,
which brought enormous wealth to England. The capitalist class had no need to fight for its profits
and could allow the workers a reasonable living. Of course, at first, fighting was necessary to urge
this truth upon them; but then they could allow unions and grant wages in exchange for industrial
peace. So here also the working class was imbued with the capitalist spirit.
Now this is entirely in harmony with the innermost character of trade unionism. Trade unionism is an
action of the workers, which does not go beyond the limit of capitalism. Its aim is not to replace
capitalism by another form of production, but to secure good living conditions within capitalism. Its
character is not revolutionary, but conservative.
Certainly, trade union action is class struggle. There is a class antagonism in capitalism -- capitalists
and workers have opposing interests. Not only on the question of conservation of capitalism, but also
within capitalism itself, with regard to the division of the total product. The capitalists attempt to
increase their profits, the surplus value, as much as possible, by cutting down wages and increasing
the hours or the intensity of labour. On the other hand, the workers attempt to increase their wages
and to shorten their hours of work.
The price of labour power is not a fixed quantity, though it must exceed a certain hunger minimum;
and it is not paid by the capitalists of their own free will. Thus this antagonism becomes the object of
a contest, the real class struggle. It is the task, the function of the trade unions to carry on this fight.
Trade unionism was the first training school in proletarian virtue, in solidarity as the spirit of
organised fighting. It embodied the first form of proletarian organised power. In the early English
and American trade unions this virtue often petrified and degenerated into a narrow craftcorporation,
a true capitalistic state of mind. It was different, however, where the workers had to
fight for their very existence, where the utmost efforts of their unions could hardly uphold their
standard of living, where the full force of an energetic, fighting, and expanding capitalism attacked
them. There they had to learn the wisdom that only the revolution could definitely save them.
So there comes a disparity between the working class and trade unionism. The working class has to
look beyond capitalism. Trade unionism lives entirely within capitalism and cannot look beyond it.
Trade unionism can only represent a part, a necessary but narrow part, in the class struggle. And it
develops aspects which bring it into conflict with the greater aims of the working class.
With the growth of capitalism and big industry the unions too must grow. They become big
corporations with thousands of members, extending over the whole country, with sections in every
town and every factory. Officials must be appointed: presidents, secretaries, treasurers, to conduct
the affairs, to manage the finances, locally and centrally. They are the leaders, who negotiate with the
capitalists and who by this practice have acquired a special skill. The president of a union is a big
shot, as big as the capitalist employer himself, and he discusses with him, on equal terms, the
interests of his members. The officials are specialists in trade union work, which the members,
entirely occupied by their factory work, cannot judge or direct themselves.
So large a corporation as a union is not simply an assembly of single workers; it becomes an
organised body, like a living organism, with its own policy, its own character, its own mentality, its
own traditions, its own functions. It is a body with its own interests, which are separate from the
interests of the working class. It has a will to live and to fight for its existence. If it should come to
pass that unions were no longer necessary for the workers, then they would not simply disappear.
Their funds, their members, and their officials: all of these are realities that will not disappear at
once, but continue their existence as elements of the organisation.
The union officials, the labour leaders, are the bearers of the special union interests. Originally
workmen from the shop, they acquire, by long practice at the head of the organisation, a new social
character. In each social group, once it is big enough to form a special group, the nature of its work
moulds and determines its social character, its mode of thinking and acting. The officials' function is
entirely different from that of the workers. They do not work in factories, they are not exploited by
capitalists, their existence is not threatened continually by unemployment. They sit in offices, in
fairly secure positions. They have to manage corporation affairs and to speak at workers meetings
and discuss with employers. Of course, they have to stand for the workers, and to defend their
interests and wishes against the capitalists. This is, however, not very different from the position of
the lawyer who, appointed secretary of an organisation, will stand for its members and defend their
interests to the full of his capacity.
However, there is a difference. Because many of the labour leaders came from the ranks of workers,
they have experienced for themselves what wage slavery and exploitation means. They feel as
members of the working class and the proletarian spirit often acts as a strong tradition in them. But
the new reality of their life continually tends to weaken this tradition. Economically they are not
proletarians any more. They sit in conferences with the capitalists, bargaining over wages and hours,
pitting interests against interests, just as the opposing interests of the capitalist corporations are
weighed one against another. They learn to understand the capitalist's position just as well as the
worker's position; they have an eye for "the needs of industry"; they try to mediate. Personal
exceptions occur, of course, but as a rule they cannot have that elementary class feeling of the
workers, who do not understand and weigh capitalist interests against their own, but will fight for
their proper interests. Thus they get into conflict with the workers.
The labour leaders in advanced capitalism are numerous enough to form a special group or class with
a special class character and interests. As representatives and leaders of the unions they embody the
character and the interests of the unions. The unions are necessary elements of capitalism, so the
leaders feel necessary too, as useful citizens in capitalist society. The capitalist function of unions is
to regulate class conflicts and to secure industrial peace. So labour leaders see it as their duty as
citizens to work for industrial peace and mediate in conflicts. The test of the union lies entirely
within capitalism; so labour leaders do not look beyond it. The instinct of self-preservation, the will
of the unions to live and to fight for existence, is embodied in the will of the labour leaders to fight
for the existence of the unions. Their own existence is indissolubly connected with the existence of
the unions. This is not meant in a petty sense, that they only think of their personal jobs when
fighting for the unions. It means that primary necessities of life and social functions determine
opinions. Their whole life is concentrated in the unions, only here have they a task. So the most
necessary organ of society, the only source of security and power is to them the unions; hence they
must be preserved and defended by all possible means, even when the realities of capitalist society
undermine this position. This happens when capitalism's expansion class conflicts become sharper.
The concentration of capital in powerful concerns and their connection with big finance renders the
position of the capitalist employers much stronger than the workers'. Powerful industrial magnates
reign as monarchs over large masses of workers; they keep them in absolute subjection and do not
allow "their" men to go into unions. Now and then the heavily exploited wage slaves break out in
revolt, in a big strike. They hope to enforce better terms, shorter hours, more humane conditions, the
right to organise. Union organisers come to aid them. But then the capitalist masters use their social
and political power. The strikers are driven from their homes; they are shot by militia or hired thugs;
their spokesmen are railroaded into jail; their relief actions are prohibited by court injunctions. The
capitalist press denounces their cause as disorder, murder and revolution; public opinion is aroused
against them. Then, after months of standing firm and of heroic suffering, exhausted by misery and
disappointment, unable to make a dent on the ironclad capitalist structure, they have to submit and to
postpone their claims to more opportune times.
In the trades where unions exist as mighty organisations, their position is weakened by this same
concentration of capital. The large funds they had collected for strike support are insignificant in
comparison to the money power of their adversaries. A couple of lock-outs may completely drain
them. No matter how hard the capitalist employer presses upon the worker by cutting wages and
intensifying their hours of labour, the union cannot wage a fight. When contracts have to be renewed,
the union feels itself the weaker party. It has to accept the bad terms the capitalists offer; no skill in
bargaining avails. But now the trouble with the rank and file members begins. The men want to fight;
they will not submit before they have fought; and they have not much to lose by fighting. The
leaders, however, have much to lose -- the financial power of the union, perhaps its existence. They
try to avoid the fight, which they consider hopeless. They have to convince the men that it is better to
come to terms. So, in the final analysis, they must act as spokesmen of the employers to force the
capitalists' terms upon the workers. It is even worse when the workers insist on fighting in opposition
to the decision of the unions. Then the union' s power must be used as a weapon to subdue the
workers.
So the labour leader has become the slave of his capitalistic task of securing industrial peace -- now
at the cost of the workers, though he meant to serve them as best he could. He cannot look beyond
capitalism, and within the horizon of capitalism with a capitalist outlook, he is right when he thinks
that fighting is of no use. To criticise him can only mean that trade unionism stands here at the limit
of its power.
Is there another way out then? Could the workers win anything by fighting? Probably they will lose
the immediate issue of the fight; but they will gain something else. By not submitting without having
fought, they rouse the spirit of revolt against capitalism. They proclaim a new issue. But here the
whole working class must join in. To the whole class, to all their fellow workers, they must show
that in capitalism there is no future for them, and that only by fighting, not as a trade union, but as a
united class, they can win. This means the beginning of a revolutionary struggle. And when their
fellow workers understand this lesson, when simultaneous strikes break out in other trades, when a
wave of rebellion goes over the country, then in the arrogant hearts of the capitalists there may
appear some doubt as to their omnipotence and some willingness to make concessions.
The trade union leader does not understand this point of view, because trade unionism cannot reach
beyond capitalism. He opposes this kind of fight. Fighting capitalism in this way means at the same
time rebellion against the trade unions. The labor leader stands beside the capitalist in their common
fear of the workers' rebellion.
When the trade unions fought against the capitalist class for better working conditions, the capitalist
class hated them, but it had not the power to destroy them completely. If the trade unions would try
to raise all the forces of the working class in their fight, the capitalist class would persecute them
with all its means. They may see their actions repressed as rebellion, their offices destroyed by
militia, their leaders thrown in jail and fined, their funds confiscated. On the other hand, if they keep
their members from fighting, the capitalist class may consider them as valuable institutions, to be
preserved and protected, and their leaders as deserving citizens. So the trade unions find themselves
between the devil and the deep blue sea; on the one side persecution, which is a tough thing to bear
for people who meant to be peaceful citizens; on the other side, the rebellion of the members, which
may undermine the unions. The capitalist class, if it is wise, will recognize that a bit of sham fighting
must be allowed to uphold the influence of the labor leaders over the members.
The conflicts arising here are not anyone's fault; they are an inevitable consequence of capitalist
development. Capitalism exists, but it is at the same time on the way to ruin. It must be fought as a
living thing, and at the same time, as a transitory thing. The workers must wage a steady fight for
wages and working conditions, while at the same time communistic ideas, more or less clear and
conscious, awaken in their minds. They cling to the unions, feeling that these are still necessary,
trying now and then to transform them into better fighting institutions. But the spirit of trade
unionism, which is in its pure form a capitalist spirit, is not in the workers. The divergence between
these two tendencies in capitalism and in the class struggle appears now as a rift between the trade
union spirit, mainly embodied in their leaders, and the growing revolutionary feeling of the
members. This rift becomes apparent in the opposite positions they take on various important social
and political questions.
Trade unionism is bound to capitalism; it has its best chances to obtain good wages when capitalism
flourishes. So in times of depression it must hope that prosperity will be restored, and it must try to
further it. To the workers as a class, the prosperity of capitalism is not at all important. When it is
weakened by crisis or depression, they have the best chance to attack it, to strengthen the forces of
the revolution, and to take the first steps towards freedom.
Capitalism extends its dominion over foreign continents, seizing their natural treasures in order to
make big profits. It conquers colonies, subjugates the primitive population and exploits them, often
with horrible cruelties. The working class denounces colonial exploitation and opposes it, but trade
unionism often supports colonial politics as a way to capitalist prosperity.
With the enormous increases of capital in modern times, colonies and foreign countries are being
used as places in which to invest large sums of capital. They become valuable possessions as markets
for big industry and as producers of raw materials. A race for getting colonies, a fierce conflict of
interests over the dividing up of the world arises between the great capitalist states. In these politics
of imperialism the middle classes are whirled along in a common exaltation of national greatness.
Then the trade unions side with the master class, because they consider the prosperity of their own
national capitalism to be dependent on its success in the imperialist struggle. For the working class,
imperialism means increasing power and brutality of their exploiters.
These conflicts of interests between the national capitalisms explode into wars. World war is the
crowning of the policy of imperialism. For the workers, war is not only the destruction of all their
feelings of international brotherhood, it also means the most violent exploitation of their class for
capitalist profit. The working class, as the most numerous and the most oppressed class of society,
has to bear all the horrors of war. The workers have to give not only their labour power, but also their
health and their lives.
Trade unions, however, in war must stand upon the side of the capitalist. Its interests are bound up
with national capitalism, the victory of which it must wish with all its heart. Hence it assists in
arousing strong national feelings and national hatred. It helps the capitalist class to drive the workers
into war and to beat down all opposition.
Trade unionism abhors communism. Communism takes away the very basis of its existence. In
communism, in the absence of capitalist employers, there is no room for the trade union and labour
leaders. It is true that in countries with a strong socialist movement, where the bulk of the workers
are socialists, the labour leaders must be socialists too, by origin as well as by environment. But then
they are right-wing socialists; and their socialism is restricted to the idea of a commonwealth where
instead of greedy capitalists honest labour leaders will manage industrial production.
Trade unionism hates revolution. Revolution upsets all the ordinary relations between capitalists and
workers. In its violent clashings, all those careful tariff regulations are swept away; in the strife of its
gigantic forces the modest skill of the bargaining labour leaders loses its value. With all its power,
trade unionism opposes the ideas of revolution and communism.
This opposition is not without significance. Trade unionism is a power in itself. It has considerable
funds at its disposal, as material element of power. It has its spiritual influence, upheld and
propagated by its periodical papers as mental element of power. It is a power in the hands of leaders,
who make use of it wherever the special interests of trade unions come into conflict with the
revolutionary interests of the working class. Trade unionism, though built up by the workers and
consisting of workers, has turned into a power over and above the workers, just as government is a
power over and above the people.
The forms of trade unionism are different for different countries, owing to the different forms of
development in capitalism. Nor do they always remain the same in every country. When they seem
to be slowly dying away, the fighting spirit of the workers is sometimes able to transform them, or to
build up new types of unionism. Thus in England, in the years 1880-90, the "new unionism" sprang
up from the masses of poor dockers and the other badly paid, unskilled workers, bringing a new
spirit into the old craft unions. It is a consequence of capitalist development, that in founding new
industries and in replacing skilled labour by machine power, it accumulates large bodies of unskilled
workers, living in the worst of conditions. Forced at last into a wave of rebellion, into big strikes,
they find the way to unity and class consciousness. They mould unionism into a new form, adapted
to a more highly developed capitalism. Of course, when afterwards capitalism grows to still mightier
forms, the new unionism cannot escape the fate of all unionism, and then it produces the same inner
contradictions.
The most notable form sprang up in America, in the "Industrial Workers of the World." The I.W.W.
originated from two forms of capitalist expansion. In the enormous forests and plains of the West,
capitalism reaped the natural riches by Wild West methods of fierce and brutal exploitation; and the
worker-adventurers responded with as wild and jealous a defence. And in the eastern states new
industries were founded upon the exploitation of millions of poor immigrants, coming from countries
with a low standard of living and now subjected to sweatshop labour or other most miserable
working conditions .
Against the narrow craft spirit of the old unionism, of the A.F. of L., which divided the workers of
one industrial plant into a number of separate unions, the I.W.W. put the principle: all workers of one
factory, as comrades against one master, must form one union, to act as a strong unity against the
employer. Against the multitude of often jealous and bickering trade unions, the I.W.W. raised the
slogan: one big union for all the workers. The fight of one group is the cause of all. Solidarity
extends over the entire class. Contrary to the haughty disdain of the well-paid old American skilled
labour towards the unorganised immigrants, it was these worst-paid proletarians that the I.W.W. led
into the fight. They were too poor to pay high fees and build up ordinary trade unions. But when they
broke out and revolted in big strikes, it was the I.W.W. who taught them how to fight, who raised
relief funds all over the country, and who defended their cause in its papers and before the courts. By
a glorious series of big battles it infused the spirit of organisation and self-reliance into the hearts of
these masses. Contrary to the trust in the big funds of the old unions, the Industrial Workers put their
confidence in the living solidarity and the force of endurance, upheld by a burning enthusiasm.
Instead of the heavy stone-masoned buildings of the old unions, they represented the principle of
flexible construction, with a fluctuating membership, contracting in time of peace, swelling and
growing in the fight itself. Contrary to the conservative capitalist spirit of trade unionism, the
Industrial Workers were anti-capitalist and stood for Revolution. Therefore they were persecuted
with intense hatred by the whole capitalist world. They were thrown into jail and tortured on false
accusations; a new crime was even invented on their behalf: that of "criminal syndicalism."
Industrial unionism alone as a method of fighting the capitalist class is not sufficient to overthrow
capitalist society and to conquer the world for the working class. It fights the capitalists as employers
on the economic field of production, but it has not the means to overthrow their political stronghold,
the state power. Nevertheless, the I.W.W. so far has been the most revolutionary organisation in
America. More than any other it contributed to rouse class consciousness and insight, solidarity and
unity in the working class, to turn its eyes toward communism, and to prepare its fighting power.
The lesson of all these fights is that against big capitalism, trade unionism cannot win. And if at
times it wins, such victories give only temporary relief. And yet, these fights are necessary and must
be fought. To the bitter end? -- no, to the better end.
The reason is obvious. An isolated group of workers might be equal to a fight against an isolated
capitalist employer. But an isolated group of workers against an employer backed by the whole
capitalist class is powerless. And such is the case here: the state power, the money power of
capitalism, public opinion of the middle class, excited by the capitalist press, all attack the group of
fighting workers.
But does the working class back the strikers? The millions of other workers do not consider this fight
as their own cause. Certainly they sympathise, and may often collect money for the strikers, and this
may give some relief, provided its distribution is not forbidden by a judge's injunction. But this
easygoing sympathy leaves the real fight to the striking group alone. The millions stand aloof,
passive. So the fight cannot be won (except in some special cases, when the capitalists, for business
reasons, prefer to grant concessions), because the working class does not fight as one undivided unit.
The matter will be different, of course, when the mass of the workers really consider such a contest
as directly concerning them; when they find that their own future is at stake. If they go into the fight
themselves and extend the strike to other factories, to ever more branches of industry, then the state
power, the capitalist power, has to be divided and cannot be used entirely against the separate group
of workers. It has to face the collective power of the working class.
Extension of the strike, ever more widely, into, finally, a general strike, has often been advised as a
means to avert defeat. But to be sure, this is not to be taken as a truly expedient pattern, accidentally
hit upon, and ensuring victory. If such were the case, trade unions certainly would have made use of
it repeatedly as regular tactics. It cannot be proclaimed at will by union leaders, as a simple tactical
measure. It must come forth from the deepest feelings of the masses, as the expression of their
spontaneous initiative, and this is aroused only when the issue of the fight is or grows larger than a
simple wage contest of one group. Only then will the workers put all their force, their enthusiasm,
their solidarity, their power of endurance into it.
And all these forces they will need. For capitalism also will bring into the field stronger forces than
before. It may have been defeated and taken by surprise by the unexpected exhibition of proletarian
force and thus have made concessions. But then, afterwards, it will gather new forces out of the
deepest roots of its power and proceed to win back its position. So the victory of the workers is
neither lasting nor certain. There is no clear and open road to victory; the road itself must be hewn
and built through the capitalist jungle at the cost of immense efforts.
But even so, it will mean great progress. A wave of solidarity has gone through the masses, they
have felt the immense power of class unity, their self-confidence is raised, they have shaken off the
narrow group egotism. Through their own deeds they have acquired new wisdom: what capitalism
means and how they stand as a class against the capitalist class. They have seen a glimpse of their
way to freedom.
Thus the narrow field of trade union struggle widens into the broad field of class struggle. But now
the workers themselves must change. They have to take a wider view of the world. From their trade,
from their work within the factory walls, their mind must widen to encompass society as a whole.
Their spirit must rise above the petty things around them. They have to face the state; they enter the
realm of politics. The problems of revolution must be dealt with.
Anton pannekoek