💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › scott-nappolas-anarchism-and-the-unions.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:06:29. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-06-20)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anarchism and the unions Author: Scott Nappolas Date: May 3, 2013 Language: en Topics: union organizing, Errico Malatesta Source: Retrieved on 2020-04-09 from http://libcom.org/library/anarchism-unions-critique-malatestas-ahistorical-perspective
There is an old argument amongst anarchists. The argument starts with
the nature of unions, and ends with the conclusion that revolutionaries
shouldn’t attempt to build libertarian alternatives outside the unions,
and instead should enter into the established unions and agitate for
anarchism there. Though the argument doesn’t derive from Malatesta, he
wrote it most succintly and is an inspiration for many. Looking at the
argument we can see the missing pieces, and why this orientation towards
unions is mistaken.
Malatesta’s argument goes as follows.
A union is set up to improve working conditions. In order for it to make
good on their demands, the unions have to bring together large enough
groups. If workers must be anarchists before they join then, it would be
unnecessary since the workers are already revolutionary, and could just
launch a revolution. The union would just be a duplicate of a political
organization. The members would merely be anarchists on paper. Assume
that the union has a revolutionary program. In times when it is
inactive, it is possible for active revolutionaries to maintain the
program. In times when the union is active and attracts large numbers,
there will be a number of conflicting ideas. Short term interests will
be more expedient and win more gains, and thereby win out over the
program.
The conclusion of the argument is the anarchists should not form unions
built on anarchist principles (even ones built on a libertarian
character without anarchist ideology). “In general to me it seems better
that the anarchists remain, when they can, within the largest possible
groupings” (Malatesta 1926[1]). Within the unions anarchist argue for
anarchist tactics and ideas, and organize against cooptation and
authoritarian currents.
The structure of the argument then is to begin with the nature of the
union [“a union is set up to defend the day to day interests of the
workers and to improve their conditions” (Malatesta 1925[2]).],
elaborate the anarchist’s goals in unions [“in the labour movement I see
only a means of raising the morale of the workers, accustom them to free
initiative and solidarity in a struggle for the good of everyone and
render them capable of imagining, desiring and putting into practice an
anarchist life” (Malatesta 1925b[3]).], derive a contradiction between
an anarchist union and a union’s nature [“A labour organisation that
were to style itself anarchist, that was and remained genuinely
anarchist and was made up exclusively of dyed-in-the-wool anarchists
could be a form... of [an] anarchist grouping; but it would not be the
labour movement and it would lack the purpose of such a movement, which
is to attract the mass of the workers into the struggle, and... to
create a vast field for propaganda and to make new anarchists”
(Malatesta 1925b)], and conclude that we should organize within the
biggest non-ideological unions.
Malatesta’s conclusion is actually ambiguous. Within the same paragraph
he asserts
“The whole point at issue is whether it suits our aims, in terms of
action and propaganda, for the labour organisations to be open to all
workers, irrespective of philosophical or social creed, or whether they
should be split into different political and social tendencies”
and finishes with the prior quoted
“In general to me it seems better that the anarchists remain, when they
can, within the largest possible groupings” (Malatesta 1926).
He somehow misses the logical leap between the largest unions, and
unions merely open to all workers. The CNT and the IWW of the time had
policies of being open to all workers willing to join, though having
revolutionary ideology. The issue is further confused when he agrees
with Vittorio when the author states ““I disagree that the National
Confederation of Labour (CNT) in Spain should directly call itself
anarchist, when, unfortunately, the immense majority of its members do
not know what this means, what libertarian ideology is about.””
(Malatesta 1926[4]), and yet does not call for the CNT to dissolve and
enter into the UGT.
There are three main errors in Malatesta’s argument that will lead us to
different conclusions. Malatesta botches the role of history in union’s
structure, the function of struggle in transforming the consciousness of
its participants, and the variations in the forms of workers
organizations.
In his reply to de Santillan, Malatesta claims he recognizes this point.
It may be that he did, but he fails to see the problem for his argument.
The basic idea is that unions can be revolutionary to the extent that
the class or sections of the class are revolutionary. This is a
historical matter. History and society develops unevenly, there will
always be sections of the working class moving into and away from
various revolutionary praxis embedded in their organizations. Likewise
the success and failure of these movements depend on their context, i.e.
The ruling class, the other workers organizations, the region’s position
in global capital, etc. When we move away from the abstract and timeless
perspective Malatesta uses, one leg of his argument crumbles (that it is
not possible to have mass unions that have revolutionary ideas and
practice).
consciousness.
This makes growth without watering down principles possible, since
workers in participating can be radicalized (not saying it will, just
that it is possible, which destroys the fork in his argument). This is a
similar issue as above with Malatesta’s lack of understanding of
struggle across time. Workers’ ideas are not static, but rather shift in
a dynamic between the notions they have, their activity, and the ideas
they encounter. Throughout history workers have built libertarian
organizations not necessarily from anarchist agitation within movements
so much as being radicalized by the dynamics of struggle itself (though
of course there are other examples too). This means that it is also
possible for workers in libertarian unions to develop revolutionary
consciousness without being required to be anarchists before joining.
Since libertarian unions’ structure/principles are voluntarily built,
there is always a struggle around the orientation of the union. That
doesn’t mean however (as Malatesta argues) that unions by their nature
will cease being revolutionary when struggle progresses. Otherwise we
would not have seen libertarian institutions grow at all, they would
have turned reformist while growing and never had the chance to be
repressed. This isn’t negated by the fact that the CNT or whoever did in
fact turn towards reformist activities, since in fact that was true by
default. All revolutionary movements either produced reformism or were
destroyed. There are other factors that explain cooptation (and this was
not in fact Malatesta’s argument, he argues unions will become reformist
before reaching revolutionary conclusions).
It is also worth pointing out that alternative libertarian institutions
such as anarchosyndicalist unions, workers councils, militias, peasants’
councils, etc., formed perhaps the only significant anarchist movements.
Given this history, the burden of proof falls on those who claim
Malatesta’s strategy, which as of yet has no significant historical
precedent.
Since Malatesta died before seeing the integration of unions into the
social partnership of the state and capital, it is not useful to view
Malatesta’s unions as identicle to ours. For that reason, it is likewise
naĂŻve to think that one can merely exist within organizations that are
setup for and schooled in repressing radical organizing and carry out
propaganda effectively. Over 80 years of communist infultration into the
unions failed to produce any significant shifts in the unions nor
revolutionary movements. Again the burden of proof lies with anarchists
who think otherswise, and who have next to nothing to show for anarchist
attempts at such.
Malatesta’s arguments rely on the idea that all unions are the same,
some just want ideology. But in fact the structure, methods, and aims of
unions vary considerably. The fundamental division in our time is
between unions (or workers’ organizations) that seek to mediate between
capital and workers, and those that are spaces for autonomous organizing
that don’t exist beyond the activities of workers. The former is the
traditional American union, which exists mostly as a bureaucratic layer
of paid staff with specialized skills who negotiate a contract for the
workers. The contracts exchange workers control for largely economic
gains. Workers interact with the unions, and struggle for changes
through (and sometimes against it), but the union remains a third party
with seperate interests of its own. The 20^(th) century is filled with
examples of the unions are highly efficient repressive organizations for
class cooptation and collaboration.
We can likewise show our own fork. If you try to bore within the
existing repressive unions, either you do so autonomously (with workers’
own seperate structures to organize with) or you don’t. If you work
within the union’s framework, you work on their terms and must fight
against their superior resources both economically and in alliance with
the boss and the state if you are successful. If you build a parallel
structure, then you are pursuing what Malatesta argued against, it is a
union of one form or another.
The conclusion we should draw is that we need our own autonomous
organizations built on a libertarian basis. Like Malatesta though I have
some skepticism about organizations that are built to win reformist
gains within capitalism. This is why there has been recent debate within
the present day anarchosyndicalist movement around the structure of
anarchist unions. Instead of trying to be bodies that represent the
workers and that try to become the institutional framework for
boss-worker relations, the union should be the vehicle of struggle of
the workers but not for the workers. We should build workers
organizations that (a) build consciousness through struggle itself, (b)
can initiate and widen struggle, and (c) create a framework for
workers/community councils. The union is the historical memory of our
experiences in struggle, maintaining resources for learning from
struggle and pushing further fights, and for defending against the
coordinated attacks of the capitalists and state. These conclusions are
not far from what the councilists came to from similar premises that
Malatesta has. What sets anarchosyndicalists apart from others is our
belief that it is possible to build libertarian mass organizations that
will prefigure and train us for the task of constructing a new society
from the ashes of the old.
[1] Anarchism and Labour Movement,
[2] Syndicalism and Anarchism,
[3] Labour Movement and Anarchism,
[4] Ibid.