💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › sam-weiner-ethics-and-american-unionism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:11:40. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Ethics and American Unionism
Author: Sam Weiner
Date: 1958
Language: en
Topics: trade unions, syndicalism, USA, ethics, Libertarian League
Source: Retrieved on 15th August 2020 from https://waste.org/~roadrunner/ScarletLetterArchives/Topics/SamWeiner.shtml
Notes: Published by the Libertarian League

Sam Weiner

Ethics and American Unionism

PRELIMINARY REMARKS

Fears, tensions and insecurity are sapping our vitality; they are

beclouding and twisting our lives. There is a growing realization that

nuclear war may soon annihilate us all. This colossal waste of the

earth’s riches, this criminal perversion of human life and human labor,

violate the deepest, noblest feelings of humanity. Millions of men and

women everywhere are today questioning the sanity of the social systems

that make such catastrophes possible.

Those who had hoped that Russia might lead the way to a better and freer

world have been bitterly disappointed. Khrushchev’s “exposures” of

Stalin have not deterred him from following the same general course. The

revolts in Eastern Europe, the unrest in China and in Russia itself, and

above all, the bloody suppression of the Hungarian Workers’ Revolution

by the armies of ‘Soviet” imperialism, have had tremendous

repercussions, not only in the Russian empire but throughout the world.

Illusions have been shattered_ Authoritarian solutions to social

problems are no longer acceptable. Many thinking people are discarding

ideas and beliefs that they had always taken for granted. A new interest

in libertarian principles is developing, not only abroad, but in this

country also.

In the countries of the West, governmental regimentation is increasing.

Bureaucracy permeates every cell oŁ American society and threatens to

swamp all spontaneity and freedom. This is a particularly grave matter

when it affects the labor movement.

We have made the labor unions the subject of our first pamphlet because

we feel that the power of the organized workers represents the best

hope, possibly the only alternative to the destruction of humanity by

the armed might of States. The Libertarian League holds that an inspired

and informed labor movement can and must do away with all oppressive and

exploitative forms of social disorder; that it will, in solidarity with

other movements of the people, build the free world of the future.

Our view of the aims and functions of the working class.is but the

reflection of our broader social concepts and the ethical values that

underlie them. To define these values and these concepts in their

application to labor is the purpose of this message.

I. ETHICS AND THE UNIONS

Ethics are the morals, the concepts and ideals that men live by. The

progress of a society cannot be measured solely by the extent of its

technical development. Economic realities are of fundamental importance,

but if the ethical values of a society do not measure up to its

technology, then this technology may become an instrument for mass

suicide. The paramount problem in this atomic age is an ethical one.

There is an ethos underlying every group in society, which determines in

large part the manner in which it deals with its political,

economic,social and cultural problems. Even common thieves, business men

and hoodlums have their unwritten codes.

Within the labor movement there are — broadly speaking — two main

tendencies. These are as far apart as two worlds — the world of the

slave who strives to be free and the world of the master who wants to

keep him in chains- What is ethical for the one is not ethical for the

other. What is right for the master is wrong for the slave. One is

conservative and opportunistic while the other is dynamic and

revolutionary.

The ethics of the labor bureaucrats are those of the business community

of which they consider themselves a part. With its huge membership, its

bulging treasuries and its political influence, business unionism, as

represented by the AFL-CIO is an unhealthy movement. Since its officials

are the masters and not the servants of the membership, it is

essentially an anti-working class movement.

There was a time when the American labor movement was inspired by a

noble revolutionary ideal-- the emancipation of the workers from

wage-slavery. Union men were inspired by the -vision of a free

cooperative commonwealth dedicated to the happiness and free creative

development of every human being. Labor was most militant when it was

invigorated by these ideals. Its ethics were those of a revolutionary

movement striving for a better world. These ethics and these ideals are

as valid today as they were yesterday and will be tomorrow.

The contrast between the revolutionary labor movement and the

capitalist-minded defenders of “business unionism” can be seen in the

following quotations. In the Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the

World (IWW) we re ad..

“The working class and the employing class have nothing in common... the

trade unions aid the employing class to mislead the workers into the

belief that the working class has interests in common with their

employers... The army of production must be organized, not only for the

everyday struggle with the capitalists, but also to carry on production

when capitalism shall have been overthrown. By organizing industrially

we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the

old.”

The self-identification of the business unionist with the rest of the

capitalist system was summed up as follows by the AFL president William

Green in 1935:

“The majority of employers sincerely and honestly wish to maintain

decent wage standards and humane conditions of employment. They neither

seek the exploitation of labor, nor the exploitation of the consuming

public. They are inspired by a Keen sense of justice and are influenced

in all their business dealings by a spirit of fair-dealing and

fair-play.”

This attitude has been reaffirmed in the constitution of the AFL-CIO. IL

has also been expressed by David Dubinsky, who once told reporters that

“Labor needs capitalism like a fish needs water.” (The New York Times,

June 9, 1957)

The American labor movement, asit exists today, is the result of the

interaction over many decades of business unionism and revolutionary

union-ism- Its major defects stem from the former and its constructive

tendencies come from the latter. It is necessary to examine the

revolutionary tradition of the American labor movement to understand the

path that must be followed for its regeneration and further progress.

II. AMERICAN BUSINESS UNIONISM

The American Federation of Labor — Congress of Industrial Organizations

(AFL-CIO) has been called the “United Nations of Labor.” The analogy has

considerable value especially since the “United Nations” is an

association of sovereign states and not a true community of the peoples

that these states are supposed to represent. As in the United Nations,

the labor rulers in these unions have staked out their particular fields

of jurisdiction which they jealously guard. As in the United Nations,

each distinct entity tries to grab by trickery or by force, whatever it

can from the others, while within the organization itself, power blocs

contend for over-all control. In the AFL-CIO 0, behind the artificial

unity imposed from above, is the struggle of bureaucratic cliques for

control over the membership and for the power and benefits to be derived

from that control.

Bureaucracy, graft and corruption — all of the vices that permeate our

exploitative and statist society — are faithfully reproduced throughout

the labor movement, from the smallest union local up to the supreme

governing bodies of the “International” Unions. The exceptions are so

rare that they can be regarded as sociological curiosities. To say that

“management” is not better, or even worse, merely affirms that they are

birds of a feather.

The principal business before the Second Convention of the AFL-CIO was

the expulsion of corrupt unions and the adoption of a “Code of Ethics.”

Events at this Convention demonstrated that when the labor bureaucracy

proclaims that there is no fundamental conflict between the workers and

their employers, they surrender the independence of the labor movement,

making it impossible for it to act as a lever for social change. The

very nature of such a movement makes it incapable of correcting its

organic deficiencies or performing even the few constructive tasks that

it sets for itself.

The attitude of the affiliated unions to the expulsion of the Teamsters’

Union revealed the power struggles that rack the organization. A meeting

of the Building and Construction Trades Council which controls three

million members had voted unanimously against the proposed expulsion of

the Teamsters’ Union. At the Convention however, most of them yielded to

pressure and reversed themselves. Of all the Building Trades, only the

Carpenters’ Union actually voted in support of the Teamsters.

Altogether, twenty-one International Unions opposed the expulsion of the

Teamsters while four others split their votes. Another eight delegations

showed their sympathy for the Teamsters by leaving the hall before the

vote was called. The president of the Steelworkers, which is a key

union, surprised the Convention when he walked over to the Teamsters’

delegation and expressed his regrets, When there is so much disagreement

on a question of such magnitude we can only conclude that the so-called

“house of labor” is indeed a very rickety structure, built on shifting

sand.

The organization of the Convention itself exposed the undemocratic,

unethical and hypocritical character of the AFL-CIO. How democratic is

an organization that permits one thousand delegates to vote for twelve

and a half million members and decides crucial issues without a

referendum vote? How many of the delegates had been instructed by their

membership on how to vote? Very few, if any. John F. English, the

secretary- treasurer of the Teamsters’ Union, told the Convention that

he doubted if there were even five unions that come up to the standards

of the AFL-CIO Ethical Practices Committee. He predicted that many of

those who voted against the Teamsters will soon be facing the same

charges and getting the same treatment from the Senate investigators. In

effect, Mr. English was telling the judges that they were a hunch of

hypocrites. No one contradicted him.

There is every reason for believing that the accusations against the

teamsters’ Union were true. As long ago as 1937, this union, then under

the administration of Dan Tobin, was considered one of the most corrupt

in the country. It was the main support of racketeering in the trucking,

laundry, poultry, and in the cleaning and dyeing industries. Dave Beck

was trained for his job by Dan Tobin, who appointed Beck as his

successor.

But the Teamsters were by no means alone in this corruption. In 1932,

the AFL admitted that 28 of its Chicago unions were controlled by

gangsters of the Al Capone type. Of the fifteen members of the AFL

Executive Board in 1937, six of them beaded admittedly corrupt unions.

The colossal corruption in the Building Trades was common knowledge.

Racketeering and corruption were greatest in the very organizations that

in numbers and resources, constituted the backbone of the Federation —

the Teamsters and the Building Trades

The Teamsters’. Union was in the AFL for 54 years. Without its support

no one could sit on the all-powerful Executive Council. Nor could Meany

have become president of the AFL without their backing. It is

inconceivable that Mr. Meany, who had long been an official in one of

the Building Trades organizations (the Plumbers’ Union) was unaware of

these things. Now Meany pretends that he is “shocked” by the scope of

the rackets?

In view of the fact that the leaders of the AFL-CIO knew that the

Teamsters and other unions were and are corrupt, why did they admit them

into the “new”, unified labor movement in the first place? Why did they

wait until the labor-baiting Senate Investigating Committee Look the

steps that the “labor statesmen”had failed to take? Only when their hand

was forced. was an “Ethical Practices Committee.” appointed. It is

obvious to any thinking person that the labor bureaucrats are afraid to

do more than scratch the surface. They shrink from making a thorough and

honest investigation into the corruption in the American labor movement

because such an investigation would prove that business unionism is

rotten to the core and that the AFL-CIO as a whole must share

responsibility for the character and conduct of the accused unions.

Not all American unions are totalitarian or infested with racketeers and

other Corrupt elements. A few organizations, such as the International

Typographical Union, can be considered free of this taint. The United

Automobile Workers (UAW) and the International Ladies Garment Workers

Union (ILGWU) do not compare with the Typographers in this respect

although they do meet the standards set by the AFL-CIO Code of Ethics.

But the problem is really much deeper, since the concept of ethics held

by even the best leaders of the, best unions is not a genuine working

class ethical concept. These leaders, almost without exception, identify

themselves and their interests with the business and bureaucratic world

around them.

In the Preamble to the Code of Ethics written by the Executive Council

and adopted at the Second Convention of the AFL-CIO, it is stated that;

“Freedom and democracy are the essential attributes of our movement...

Authoritarian control, whether from within or without the labor movement

or imposed from without by Government, is contrary to the spirit, the

traditions and the principles of our movement.”

But the behaviour of the Executive Council and the Convention has been

in flat contradiction to these fine sentiments. Without consulting the

membership, these leaders have imposed their own “Code of Ethics.” The

Executive Council tells the affiliated unions and the members what they

may do and what they may not do, If the leaders can force the members to

obey their arbitrarily imposed rules, they have a free hand to run the

unions to suit themselves. This can only serve to reinforce one of the

root causes of corruption — the monopoly of power. Permitting such a

monopoly is clearly unethical because it makes possible the domination

of man over man.

At the aforementioned Second Convention, delegate Randolph of the

Inter-national Typographical Union and delegate Gorman of the

Meatcutters’ Union emphasized these points. (These two unions are among

the most ethical and democratic in the country.) Randolph accused the

Executive Council of imposing its tailor-made codes on the whole

organization, and interfering with the autonomy of the affiliated

unions. He said:

“Now I call to your attention that the scope of these codes is not only

wide. I say that it is complete in its attempt to control the internal

affairs of the International Unions and the National Unions. It is a

complete reversal of the -basic and fundamental right of the

International Unions to control their own internal affairs.... They (the

Executive Council) undertook to set up a dictatorship of thirty men over

the American labor movement that you will never get out of if you adopt

it here. The point is this, that any reformation that can last at all in

any circumstances where reformation is needed, that reformation will

have to come from the bottom and not from a mandate at the top that

will, skim off a few crooks, allowing opportunity for more crooks to

grow up underneath it...”

To illustrate our point -Article Eleven of the code perpetuates

“authoritarian control... from within the labor movement.” it reads:

“The AFL-CIO and affiliated National and International Unions shall have

the power to institute disciplinary and corrective proceedings with

respect to local and other bodies, including the power to establish

trusteeships where necessary.”

Nothing is said of the power of the members to discipline the elected or

appointed officials. This is not mentioned because no such power exists.

Every dictator rides into power under the banner of freedom. He promises

to correct abuses and punish offenders. History demonstrates that this

power is then almost invariably used to choke off all opposition. In the

labor movement this pattern has been repeated with disgusting

regularity. In coping with one glaring abuse, the guardians of

righteousness create a hundred new ones.

What the Code of Ethics does not mention is more important than what it

does. Nothing is said about narrowing the gap between the big salaries

of many union officials and the low wages of the dues-payers. Nothing is

said about the reaching of binding, long-term agreements with the bosses

without the opportunity of a referendum of the membership. Nothing is

said of the power to call or forbid strikes or of the general attitude

of “buddy buddy” between the bosses of the unions and the bosses of

industry. Nothing is said about the endorsement of political candidates

or the support of the foreign policies of the State.

It is little wonder that such spokesmen of big business as the New York

Times have enthusiastically praised the AFL-CIO Code of Ethics as a

model of “labor statemanship.” This is a capitalist code. It is

unethical for labor, because its ethics are the ethics of capitalism.

Two of the prominent “labor statesmen” who helped draw up this Code of

Ethics are David Dubinsky, President of the ILGFU and Walter Reuther,

President of the UAW. Erring unions and erring union leaders have often

‘been urged to emulate the high ethical standards of these two men. A

few examples will serve to bring out the ethical concepts of the two

outstanding business unionists.

The New York Post of May 1, 1957, carried the following dispatch

“LAMAR, MO. — The white frame house where Harry S. Truman was born on

May 8, 1884, was purchased yesterday by the United Automobile Workers

which plans to make it into a shrine.”

The gentleman who gave the word to drop the first atomic bomb in history

on defenceless civilians, who, in a sense, inaugurated the period of

greatest danger and insecurity ever known, is thus honored by the

leadership of the UAW. What are the ethical implications of such

expenditures of union funds?

A public Review Board” has been created by the UAW leadership. This

board is supposed to be a public watch-dog over the union, and it is

controlled by outsiders with authority to render full and final

judgement and prescribe penalties for alleged offenders. Its powers

would in certain respects be greater than that of the General Executive

Board of the Union. One of the members of this Review Board is Monsignor

Higgins of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. At a recent Convention of the

UAW, this “impartial” character stated that the leadership of the UAW

“...is a little bit better than the rank and file deserve.”

The official organ of the UAW, “The Automobile Worker” (May 14,1957),

said that, “He (Monsignor Higgins) called for a ‘profound renewal of

moral and spiritual values in all workers.’ This, he said, ‘will never

come about unless the rank and file get down on their knees with

regularity and say heir prayers.’ ”

Reuther opens the door and the “servants of the Lord” step right into a

workers’ organization and make themselves at home. From this sort of

thing an come the gradual penetration and eventual control of the unions

by the Church. It has happened frequently in Europe and could happen

here.

The alternative to democratic self-rule--in unions as well as in society

at large--- is the dictatorship of a minority. Every leader is a

potential dictator, and once they get sufficient power they will not let

it lip from their hands. They create a “machine” to help them stay in

office. No matter how bad a situation may be they do not want the

members to do the house cleaning, as it might go “too far” and sweep

them out of office. They much prefer to share the power with a “Public

Review. Board,” with the government or with some other outside agency.

The relations between the members and their leaders in these centralized

business unions is a disrupted, unhealthy one. In the beginning, when a

union is young, this may not be noticed, the seeds of degeneration need

time to sprout and grow. Gradually the union develops something

resembling a military-type caste system. Any organization where

decisions are made at the top, transmitted through a chain of command,

and obeyed by the ranks below as in an army, is essentially

totalitarian. It is not a community of labor which implies an

association of equals making decisions and carrying them out jointly.

Union leaders themselves are neither better nor worse than other men .

They may.have the best of intentions, but the exercise of power over

others corrupts them it erodes their personalities. The original leaders

may. still retain some honesty and principles, being still emotionally

attached to the rank and file from which they have lately emerged. But

as time goes on they --or in any case, their successors--become

decisively influenced by the company they keep. They improve their

economic status; they enter into friendly personal relations with the

employers, and they unconsciously absorb the ideas and the ethics of

capitalist society, very few individuals are able to resist the

temptations of power and prestige, and these few never become good

business unionists.

As the original leaders die out or retire, they arc succeeded by

professional careerists and union politicians who are promoted from the

lower ranks of the officialdom or brought in from outside. These are

even further removed from the men on the job and are still more cynical.

The process of degeneration continues until it is interrupted or broken

by a revolt in the ranks.

The careers of David Dubinsky and Walter Reuther illustrate how this

process works. In 1957, the New York post published a series of

biographical articles on David Dubinsky. The fourth article in the

series (May 9^(th)) reveals that Dubinsky had been appointed

Secretary-Treasurer of the lLGWU in 1929 and President in 1932, having

held both of these posts ever since. The N.Y. Post interviewer, Irwin

Ross, records his conversation with Dubinsky on this point. as follows:

“I asked Dubinsky whether he was not troubled, at least philosophically,

by such a concentration of power. It is characteristic of him that he

was completely untroubled.

“‘Sure,’ he concerned, ‘with a crooked president, it’s good to have an

independent secretary-treasurer. But in an honest union, what’s the

problem?’

“He has a similar lack of anxiety about the ease with which the General

Executive Board can relieve local officers. Every paid official, prior

to assuming his duties, has to submit an undated resignation to

international headquarters. It can be accepted at any time by a

two-thirds vote of the GEB. The purpose of this provision is to simplify

the ouster of dishonest officials — and it has been so employed.

“One need not be a legal expert to see that this provision could easily

be misused to victimize a dissident faction in the union, The fact that

this has not happened under Dubinsky does not relieve apprehensions

about the future.

“Dubinsky says he was not concerned: ‘Can it be misused Sure, sure! I

agree with you, I concede the point! But I’m not worried about my

successor — I’m worried about my successor’s successor!”

Dubinsky, it appears, has already picked his successor!

In the October 1957 issue of the Auto Worker, official organ of the UAW,

there appears, on page one, a photo of Reuther holding a diagram,

contrasting the huge profits of the industry with the low wages paid to

the workers. On page two of the same issue, in heavy type, is found an

interesting item which we quote in part:

“PROPHET OF CAPITALISM

“Blackpool, England: Newspapers of every shade of opinion agreed that

Reuther had roused a normally unemotional audience to cheers with an

exposition of the virtues of American private enterprise in implied

contrast with British socialism

Then, in still heavier type and in a separate paragraph:

“THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS MUST BE FLABBER-GASTEDI!!!!”

In the same issue of the Auto Worker, on page 3, there appears the

digest of an article by Monsignor Higgins which had appeared originally

in a Detroit Catholic publication. In this article, Higgins went out of

his way to defend Reuther against charges that the latter is a

socialist. He demonstrates that Reuther’s policy of peaceful

co-existence among “management,” government and labor is good Catholic

labor doctrine. The charge that Reuther is a socialist is unjust and he

deserves the respect and cooperation of every Catholic priest and

layman!

Both Dubinsky and Reuther were at one time socialists. Together with

scares of their fellow workers they were beaten up by paid company goons

and were persecuted by the police l and the courts. In the earlier

.period o f the UAW, Walter Reuther had even been shot- These two

leaders both emerged from the rank and file. They attained leadership of

their unions because their fellow workers felt that they would in fact

and in spirit carry forward the aspirations of the membership. ft. was

essentially their socialist ideas that brought. these two men to the top

in the labor movement, but once there they have become capitalism’s

staunchest supporters. The examples of Reuther and Dubinsky could be

multiplied a thousand-fold. On the one hand their individual

capitulation reflects the logical degeneration of authoritarian

socialism; on the other it illustrates the manner in which power

corrupts the individuals who exercise it, herein lies much of the

tragedy of the world labor movement.

III. THE RISE OF WELFARISM

The Great Depression of the early thirties marked the collapse of the

system of “private enterprise.” It also sparked the spontaneous uprising

of the workers which culminated in the sit-down strikes of 1936–37, The

whole system of human exploitation was threatened. The political State

saved itself, and all that was essential to capitalism by doing what

“private enterprise” could not do. Concessions were made to the workers,

farmers and middle-class groups and the private capitalists were

deprived of some of their power.

In regulating the relations between the classes, the State increased its

own power and the foundations of state capitalist “welfarism” were laid.

The State could not have done this alone; it had to overcome the

resistance oŁ old-line capitalism and hence needed the cooperation of a

mass labor movement in order to control the restless masses. The

government of Franklin Delano Roosevelt enacted “favorable” labor

legislation and gave the “progressive” labor leaders a chance to fill

their treasuries with the dues and assessments of the newly organized

workers.

At first the labor fakers of the craft unions would not cooperate. They

resisted change because they shared the economic and social ideas of

private enterprise capitalism. On the other hand, the conservative

unions could not undertake an effective program of organizing the

unorganized because of their antiquated organic structure and the

jurisdictional problems it created. A split took place and the CIO was

born.

Time is a great healer and twenty years blurred the differences between

the rival factions. The CIO was now firmly established and the

conservative unionists had adjusted themselves to the fact that

“welfarism” was here to stay. They must learn to live with it, and those

who could not would be eliminated. Both cliques of labor misleaders came

to see the advantages and the need of peaceful co-existence. There were,

after all, no fundamental differences between them. The CIO admitted

craft unions and the AFL would accept dues from industrial unions. They

were as two thieves who had long fought over the loot and who finally

worked out a settlement. The united AFL-ClO is the result. Rival

capitalists will also form a trust when it pays them to do so. Greed and

jurisdictional conflict may divide them but enlightened self-interest

draws them together. Wolves may hunt either alone or in packs according

to circumstances. The “ethics” of expediency are flexible.

The character and function of the North American unions have changed

greatly. A State-regulated economy needs a State-regulated labor

movement. The government will help the unions so long as the leaders can

assure the smooth cooperation of a docile labor force. The “Welfare

State” has come to assume ever greater social functions and has

intervened on an ever greater scale in the control of economic and

social life. It regulates, and shows an increasing tendency to dominate

the whole field of social security, business, labor, crop and price

supports, public power, housing, etc.

This process was expanded and accelerated by World War II, the Korean

war, “defense” spending, foreign aid programs, and the prosecution of

the “cold war.” The bureaucratic administrative apparatus kept pace with

the expansion of governmental power. Individual liberty.and local

initiative have diminished as the State domination of society has

increased. The individual has had less and less to say about his own

life and interests as the Government prescribes, to an ever greater

degree, the conditions under which he must live. This process continues

inexorably, regardless of the political party in power.

A similar development has been going on in the labor organizations. As

the unions have increased in membership, as they have converted

themselves into job trusts and gone into the field of welfare, they have

established a similar system within their own domain. The administrative

machinery has grown in proportion. The labor bureaucracy--by itself or

jointly with the employers----controls an estimated 35 billion dollars

in welfare funds, which it uses to reinforce its positions and render

the membership ever more dependent upon them.

The dictatorship of the leaders over the workers has been further

increased by the vicious practice of industry-wide “collective

bargaining” on a national scale, long-term contracts and the power to

discipline dissidents among the members.

Just as the citizen’s rights are curtailed by the growing power of the

bureaucracy of the State, so the workers’ rights are curtailed by the

ever greater usurpation of power by the l labor bureaucracy. Subjected

to the triple exploitation and suppression by the employers, the State

and the union bureaucracy, the worker- has ever less to say about his

wages and his working conditions. Instead of fighting for shorter hours

and to wrest better conditions of life for himself and his family, he is

forced to seek more “overtime”. Or else he sends his wife out to work...

or both.

The merger oŁ the AFL and the CIO was an attempt to better fit the union

structure to the needs of state capitalist “welfarism,” which requires a

maximum centralization of control over the working class. A military

commander cannot tolerate jurisdictional disputes between sections of

the armed forces. The army must be firmly disciplined. It must obey as a

unit. A regimented labor movement is a civilian army and jurisdictional

disputes cannot be tolerated.

The State drives towards complete control of society. This is inherent

in its nature and especially so in such a period as the present. State

capitalist “Welfarism” is exploitation streamlined. AFL-CIO unionism is

business unionism streamlined. The groundwork is being prepared for a

future totalitarian society in the United States and the AFl-CIO already

plays the role of “tabor front” in the embryonic set-up. When the

process is completed, as it will be if not stopped by working class

resistance on a massive scale, the unions will end up by being as

impotent as are the unions in Russia. During the whole period of the

struggle against Fascism and “Communism,” the basic features common to

both of them have been or are being adapted for our own country.

IV. A FEW PAGES FROM LABOR HISTORY

No better summary of the meaning of business unionism can be found then

that given by “Mother” Jones_ This remarkable woman was one of the most

militant and selfless figures in the history of American labor. She

devoted most of her life to the organization of the miners. She

participated in the First Convention of the IWW. Her life-span (she was

well over ninety when she died) covered the most important period in the

development of American unionism. Her autobiography is an excellent

first-hand account of the history of that period. In her closing

chapter, entitled “Progress in Spite of Leaders,” she sums up her

impressions:

“As I look back over the long, long years, I see that in all movements

for the betterment of men’s lives, it is the pioneers who bore most of

the suffering. When these movements became established, when they became

popular, others reaped the benefits. Thus it has been with the labor

movement... Many of our modern leaders have wandered far from the thorny

path of these early crusaders. Never in the early days of the labor

struggle would you find leaders wining and dining with the aristocracy;

nor did their wives strut about like diamond bedecked peacocks...

“The wives of these early leaders took in washing to make ends meet.

Their children picked and sold berries. The women shared the heroism and

privation of their husbands...

“The rank and file have let their servants become their masters and

dictators. The workers have now to fight not only the exploiters but

likewise their own leaders, who often betray them, who sell them out,

who put their own advancement ahead of that of the. working masses, who

make of the rank and file political pawns.”

These remarks sound familiar. If “Mother” Jones were alive today she

would not have to retract any of her statements. The truth of her

contentions was confirmed in 1957 by Louis Hollander, President of the

New York CIO and Manager of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers’ New York

Joint Hoard:

“In many unions there is little sign that the leaders are even trying to

maintain contact with the membership. Some seem to feel that the union

shop contract and compulsory check-offs of union dues have made it

unnecessary for them to know what the members want and need. Too many

such leaders live in a world apart; a world in which the badges of

achievement are high salaries, expensive automobiles, membership in

country clubs, and other appurtenances of wealth.”

This helps to explain why the attitude of many workers to the leaders of

their unions is similar to their attitude towards the man in the White

douse, the governor in the State House, the mayor of the city or the

boss in his office. The fact that millions of workers are so

indifferent. Lo the affairs of the organizations which involve their

livelihood shows how deeply the corruption in our society has

penetrated.

The evils that afflict today’s labor organizations are not accidental

They have been transmitted and increased from one generation of labor

fakers to another. The evils that plague the. AFL-CIO can be traced to

its ancestor, the old nineteenth century American Federation of labor.

The real founders of business unionism were not Dubinsky, Reuther Meany

or nave Beck. They are only following in the footsteps of Samuel Gompers

and his disciples, John Mitchell, Matthew Woll, William Green, Dart

Tobin and John Lewis.

The AFL was founded in 1881 and reorganized in 1886-. Its first

president was Samuel Gompers who ruled over the organization for 37

years; his term of office expired with his death. William Green, his

successor then ruled until he died and was followed by George Meany,

whose term of office will probably only be limited by his lifespan. In

the more than seven decades since 1886, the AFL has had only three

presidents!

Many of the affiliated unions have adopted the same practice of lifetime

terms of office. The American Federation of Labor was one of the main

causes for the decline of the much more militant Knights of Labor. In

his book, “The IWW in Theory and Practice,” Justus Ebert points out that

the AFL allied itself with the capitalist who,

“...feared the working-class tendencies of the Knights of Labor, scabbed

the Knights of Labor out of existence. The brewing, cigar--making,

railroading, coal-mining and other industries are full of the history of

AFL scabbery against the Knights of Labor. This scabbery, logically,

developed in the AFL until, in alliance with the National Civic

Federation, the AFL was called by the Wall Street Journal, ‘the greatest

bulwark in this country against socialism.’” (page 42, 5^(th) Revised

Edition).

Samuel Yellen, in “American Labor Struggles,” tells how the AFL

sabotaged the 1894 Pullman strike of the American Railway Union,

imperishably associated with the name of Eugene Victor Debs:

“Even though the workers in both Chicago and St. Louis were in favor of

a general strike, many officials of the American Federation of Labor

failed to respond to Debs’ plea, and as a result of this conflicting

authority, confusion arose. At the request of Debs, a meeting of

twenty-five chief national officers of the Federation, among them Samuel

Gompers, was held in Chicago. He (Debs) urged the calling of a

sympathetic general strike.” Gompers refused.

“He advised the workers to give up the strike and to ‘seek correction of

industrial and economic ailments at the ballot box.’”

“Against the wishes of the rank and file, the leaders of the Chicago

unions called off the general strike, On his way to the meeting in

Chicago, Gompers had remarked, “I am riding to the funeral of the

American Railway Union.”’

Thus was crushed this heroic attempt to organize all the exploited

unskilled workers of a basic industry together with the skilled workers,

into non organization. It was this attitude of the AFL, expressed

repeatedly in different situations, which led to the formation of the

Industrial Workers of the World (IWW), with Debs’ participation.

In 1901, Gompers became vice-president of the National Civic Federation,

an organization of the period corresponding to the present National

Association of Manufacturers. It was dedicated to “the fostering of

harmony, between capital and organized labor,” Its leadership included

August Belmont, banker; Andrew Carnegie, steel magnate; and Marcus A.

Hanna, millionaire boss of the Republican Party. It was Hanna who first

described the AFL leadership as the “labor lieutenants of the capitalist

class.”

The AFL leadership fought the newly created IWW, as it had fought other

revolutionary unions, with all the weapons at its command. The part

played by the pro-capitalist union leaders in the Lawrence, Mass.

textile strike of 1912 is discussed by Yellen, who says, “The attitude

oŁ the strikers toward the craft unions was rather mildly expressed by

Mary K. O’Sullivan, who in 1892 had become the first woman organizer of

the AFL.” Yellen then tells us what she said:

“Nothing was so conducive to the organization of the Industrial Workers

of the World (IWW) as the methods used by the three branches of the

American Federation of Labor... Catholics, Jews, Protestants and

unbelievers--men and women of many races and languages---were working

together as human beings with a common cause. The American Federation of

Labor alone refused to cooperate. As a consequence the strikers came to

look upon the Federation as a force almost as dangerous to their success

as the employers themselves, and l violate no confidence in saying that

the operatives represented in the strike committee had more respect for

the mill owners than for the leaders of this antagonistic element within

their own ranks. A striker who went to the Federation for relief was

looked upon as a recreant to his cause and before the strike ended the

American Federation of Labor organizations, by openly refusing to give

help to anyone who refused to return to work, came to be looked upon as

a trap designed in the interests of the mills to catch any workers who

could be induced to desert their cause.”

It has been asserted that the misdeeds of the AFL were due to its

craft-union structure. This is not so. In spite of the fact that the

United Mine Workers was always an industrial union it has a long record

of corruption, less collaboration and disregard of the rights of the

membership every bit as shameful as any of the AFL craft-unions. The

miners’ union was affiliated to the AFL for many years and its

leadership was permeated with the spirit of Gomperism. Lewis became

president of the United Mine Workers in 1920. His machine has ruled the

organization ever since, ruthlessly crushing every opposition movement

often with the help of the mineowners.

A few examples will illustrate the Lewis brand of “Industrial Unionism.”

In the anthracite strike that began on Sept. 1, 1925 and was settled on

Feb. 12, 1926, Lewis demanded the establishment of the check-off system.

The latter was aptly described by Daniel de Leon as follows:

“The check-off turns the employer into a union officer. Seeing he checks

off from the pay envelopes, the dues, assessments and other money

obligations of the men to the union, and turns the same over to the

union treasury, the employer is turned into a sort of financial

secretary of the union, a self-elected one at that.”

In return for the check-off, Lewis signed a five-year no-strike

agreement, ignoring the demands of the members for more wages and better

working conditions. While the anthracite miners were on strike, the

soft-coal miners --members of the same union--were busy digging

bituminous coal which was used as a substitute!

Business circles reacted enthusiastically to the strike settlement.

Their organ, The New York Times, waxed lyrical:

“Strikes being virtually excluded, the operators have no objections to

the check-off; throughout, they have shown a willingness to strengthen

and build up the union in all its legitimate activities.”

The Times also carried the following dispatch:

“PHILADELPHIA, Feb. 12--A huge basket of roses was sent tonight to John

Llewellyn Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers, by Major W.W.

Inolis, chairman of the Anthracite Operators’ Negotiating Committee.

With the flowers was a card which pointed out that ‘besides marking the

end of the strike, it is the birthday of the miners’ leader and of

another great American, Abraham Lincoln.’”

Because Lewis was in the forefront of the fight for “industrial

unionism” and played a key part in the launching of the Congress of

Industrial Organizations (CIO), he is held in considerable esteem in

many progressive and even “radical” circles. Those who thought Lewis had

renounced business unionism when he founded the CIO were mistaken. At

the 1935 Convention of the AFL, Lewis had tried to convince the

craft-unionists that the industrial form of organization was necessary

for the preservation of business unionism. We quote him:

“The American Federation of Labor stands for that (the ‘protection of

our form of government and our established institutions’). How much more

security would we have in this country for our form of government if we

had a labor movement that represented, not merely a cross-section of

skilled workers, but that represented the men who work with their hands

in our great industries, regardless of their trade of calling?”

((All quotes relating to Lewis from JOHN L. LEWIS EXPOSED! by Eric Haas,

New York Labor News Go-, 2937))

V. THE REVOLUTIONARY TRADITION

We have delved into the past and sketched some highlights in the

evolution of American unionism because the business unionism of the

AFL-CIO is the product of this evolution. The understanding of a

movement requires the appreciation of the forces and events that shaped

it.

To the extent that business unionism dominates there is no genuine labor

movement today. Whatever vitality still exists within the unions stems

from the revolutionary tendencies and it is upon the encouragement of

these trends that its ultimate regeneration depends.

The labor movement in our country arose as a protest, a rebellion

against the very system to which business unionism has pledged its

allegiance. Its objectives were revolutionary and its methods of

struggle were in accord with these objectives. The Libertarian concepts

of the class struggle, direct action, local autonomy, federalism and

mutual aid are all deeply rooted in American labor traditions.

Our labor movement has a long record of heroic struggles. The great

railroad strikes of 1877, the movement for the eight-hour day which

culminated in the hanging of the Chicago anarchists and the general

strike on May First, 1886, now commemorated throughout the world as

International Labor Day, the Homestead steelworkers’ strike in 1892, the

epochal battle of the American Railway Union (referred to above), the

anthracite miners’ strike of 1902, the monumental strikes fought under

the banner of the IWW, “Bloody Ludlow” in 1914, the great steel strike

of 1919, the Southern textile strikes of 1929, the inspiring sit-down

strikes of the 1930s--these are milestones of the onward march of the

working class. It is these struggles, and countless other revolts that

have been responsible for every gain made by labor. Every advance was

bitterly fought by the employing class in the course of titanic class

struggles. The bosses were forced to negotiate and yield concessions

only because the workers went out on strike or threatened to do so.

The great railroad strikes of 1877 inspired Peter Kropotkin to write two

articles in the Bulletin of the Jura (Switzerland) Federation. Robert

Hun quotes him:

“This movement will have certainly impressed profoundly the proletariat

of Europe and excited its admiration. Its spontaniety, its

simultaneousness at so many different points, communicating by

telegraph, the aid given by the workers of different trades, the

resolute character .of the uprising from the beginning, call forth our

sympathies, excite our admiration, and quicken our hopes,.. Would that

this flowing of noble blood prove once again the blindness of those who

amuse the people with the plaything of parliamentarianism when the

powder magazine is ready to take fire, unknown to them at the east

spark.” ((VIOLENCE AND THE LABOR, MOVEMENT, The Macmillan Co.,1914))

The UAW--Ammunition of March 1957 was devoted to the twentieth

anniversary of the sit-down strikes referred to above. It pointed out

that in 1937 “close to 2,000,000 workers engaged in a total of more than

4,700 strikes.” This was a spontaneous mass movement of the workers and

Ammunition stated that:

“The workers were the dispossessed. Bitterness and hatred festered

within them, until it burst forth in 1937... all the gains made by the

industrial workers date from that year. Time and a half for overtime;

for work on the sixth day; double time for Sunday work; call-in pay;

paid vacations and holidays; control over speed-up; the right to file a

grievance. night shift differentials, pension; hospital, and medical

insurance; all without exception--derive from 1937, from the courage of

the men who sat down.” (page 11)

It is on the strength of such sacrifices by the working people that the

labor fakers have built up an empire. Only the strength of the rank and

file can shake these new parasites off their backs.

The American labor movement has its roots in a series of revolutionary

acts. its pioneers, whether they knew it or not., were revolutionists

and were so treated by the employers and by the State. The union

movement began as a natural and spontaneous revolt against the

employers- Revolutionary unionism and socialist ideas developed together

in the course of these struggles. The workers came to realize that

behind the boss stood the whole capitalist. system---the Stare, the

courts, the army, the police, the clergy, the schools and the press.

Thinking people saw that the old society should be. replaced by a new,

free and just world.

In the course of these labor struggles and in stressing the economic

demands of the workers, many radicals have under-estimated or ignored

the deeper strivings of the people involved. Behind the struggle for

bread lies the cry for justice. Behind the struggle for better working

conditions lies the demand for individual freedom and for human rights.

Solidarity on the job and on the picket line is the economic expression

of man��s inborn feeling of mutual aid. Union men call each other

brothers.

True socialism is much more than an economic doctrine. It is an ethical

ideas. It cannot be imposed by decree from above. It grows out of the

feeling of brotherhood and is forged in the common struggle for noble

aims.

That the capitalist system had outlived whatever socially useful

function it may have once had and was ready for the garbage can of

history was understood by thinking workers over a hundred years ago.

That a new social order in which the profit system, the exploitation of

man by man, would be replaced by one in which the means of production

would be commonly owned and administered by all and for all, was also

understood by many. These ideas were not cooked up in the heated

imaginations of a few “parfor pinks.” They grew out of the very real

experiences of the workers in the course of bitter class struggles.

Among these conscious, thinking people there was general agreement that

capitalism must be supplanted by a free, classless. society. But there

was great disagreement as to how this might he accomplished. It was only

natural that every shade and variety of socialist thought should be

found within the labor movement, not only abroad but also in this

country. These disagreements revolved around several fundamental related

issues — the aim and function of the workers’ organizations, the unions

under capitalism and their aim and function within the new socialist

society. Which way for the workers-parliamentary political action or

economic action-or a combination of both? Can capitalism be abolished by

a majority vote in Congress or by the direct action of the unions

through a general strike When a Workers’ Commonwealth is established,

who will run industry-the State or the unions?

Wherever the labor movement has allied itself with or come under the

control of a political party whose goal is the conquest of State power,

the statist principle has beer. introduced into the unions which have as

a result lost their freedom. A strong case car be made for the

proposition that “enlightened”political action by labor unions in

support of governmental welfarism or for the election of a government

that will be “friendly” to labor, constitutess greater danger to

unionism than does out-and-out racketeering. Open corruption can be seen

and fought, but the illusion that a State--any State-- can be friendly

to labor is hard to dispel. Governmental welfarism is a delayed action

bomb that will explode with disastrous effects for the working class.

This pernicious obsession led to the castration of the European labor

movement and serves always to pave the way for totalitarianism.

The American workers are already beginning to pay a heavy price for

allowing the union bureaucrats to lure then into the statist trap. The

bait was “favorable” labor legislation. First came the “pro-labor”

Wagner Labor Relations Act. This was followed by the “anti-labor”

Taft-Hartley law and the “right to work laws.” Now the government will

enact yet another maze of laws, the final result of which can only be to

strap the labor movement into the governmental strait-jacket.

The AFL-CIO and many regional and local labor bodies have accepted and

then welcomed the governmental investigations of corrupt unions and are

willing to accept “reasonable” legislation which will of course be

enforced by the police powers of the State. Tyranny is crafty; it

advances gradually but relentlessly. Step by step, the process of

governmental controls proceed until labor as a whole is bogged down in

legalistic quicksand.

The dictatorship of the State can be imposed just as readily by a “labor

party” or by “welfarism” as it can by a “dictatorship of the

proletariat.”

The differences will in the last analysis be superficial. Monopoly of

Power has its own logic; its own inexorable rhythm; it is not concerned

with labels.

The revolutionary direct action tendency in the American labor movement

has always rejected parliamentary action in favor of action on the

economic front. It rejected the idea of State control of industry is

favor of the concept of workers’ control of industry and oriented

towards the replacement of the State by the economic organizations of

the workers themselves, In his book, “The IWW--A Study in American

Syndicalism” (Columbia Univ., 2^(nd) Edit., 1420), professor Paul

Brissenden declares:

“There is no doubt that the idea of economic emancipation through

economic, as opposed to political channels, and to be achieved by all

classes of workers as workers, i.e. as human cogs in the industrial,

rather than the political State had been very definitely formulated

before the end of the last century Indeed the conception runs back well

towards the be-ginning of the nineteenth century. The ‘one big union’ of

which we now hear so much was surely in existence in England in the

early thirties. Robert Owen at that time outlined his great plan for a

‘General Union of the productive classes. Sidney and Beatrice Webb

report the establishment in 1834 of a ‘Grand National Consolidated

Trades Union.’

Under the system proposed by Owen (they say)... the trade unions were to

be transformed into ‘National Companies’ to carry on all the

manufactures. The agricultural union to take possession of the land, the

miners’ union of the mines, the textile union of the factories. Each

trade was to be carried on by its particular trade union, centralized in

one ‘Grand Lodge.’” (page 29)

“There is no doubt that all the main ideas of modern revolutionary

unionism as exhibited by the IWW may be found in the old International

Workingmen’s Association. The IWW organ, the Industrial Worker, asserts

that we ‘must trace the origin of the ideas of modern revolutionary

unionism to the International’ ?issue of June 18, 1910)..Many items in

the program originally drafted by the famous anarchist, Michael Bakunin,

for the International in 1868 were very similar to the twentieth century

slogans of the IWW.” (pages 36–37)

It is not to be inferred that the ideas of the IWW or of the

revolutionary labor movement in general, were imported from Europe and

grafted onto the American labor movement. The same principles and

tactics grew out of the experiences of American workers on American

soil; they were accepted because they corresponded to American

conditions. Brissendon emphasized this when he. pointed out that:

“In America the labor history of the seventies, and especially the

eighties, teems with evidences of the industrial form and radical temper

in labor organizations. The elements of IWWism were there; but they were

not often co-existent, in the same organization. “(page 27)

The constitutions of scores of unions and of the AFL itself, reflected

these radical, federalist and revolutionary tendencies of the early

labor movement. Many of them still paid lip service to these original

principles The fact that they have felt forced to do so reveals the

spirit of the times. Even the framers of the AFL-CIO Code of Ethics have

found it necessary to say something along these lines.

Like all great popular movements the unions could be built in only one

way--from below-- by the organization of the men on the job. Hence the

labor movement naturally took at its inception a decentralized federated

form, with the autonomous organizations of the workers in various shops,

localities, trades and industries, bonded together in solidarity for

mutual support. Within the local groups there was direct face-to-face

personal contact among the members. All decisions were arrived at openly

and by common agreement. Most of the organizational work was voluntary

and the few paid officials received no more than the average wage of the

members. Their termsofoffice were limited and they were required to go

back to work in production for a definite period before they were

allowed to run for office again.

Whether they were on the pay-roll of the union or not, all officials and

delegates had to carry out the instructions of the membership, by whom

they could be recalled. Decisions affecting large groups of workers were

decided by referendum of all the members. All negotiations with the

bosses, the calling and settlement of strikes, were matters to be

decided by the men on the job. The terms of the agreements were enforced

by the men themselves and grievances were settled by means of sit-downs,

slow-downs, boycotts, walk-outs, or whatever other means the workers

deemed advisable. These and many other safeguards against the usurpation

of power were developed by the workers in the course of their struggles.

The growth of the labor movement corresponded to the growing needs of

the workers for solidarity against the bosses and the boss-controlled

State ch opposed them at every turn. As local unions multiplied, they

federate with each other to form larger bodies. The first City Central

Council was set up in Philadelphia in 1827. The Mechanics Union of

Trades Associations was formed to achieve greater solidarity. When the

carpenters lost strike for the 10 hour day, it was realized that all

trades must cooperate if strikes were to be effective and the workers’

demands achieved. Inter-city, state and national federations were formed

to fill the need of greater coordination in the interests of the

workers.

The labor movement grew into a vast network of local bodies rooted in

the local communities throughout the country, and exercising a growing

influence in every community. And this early movement did not confine

itself to immediate economic issues and demands. Man is a social being.

Cooperation and solidarity are necessary to his survival and

development. The mutual-aid functions of the unions expanded and kept

abreast of the growing needs of the union members. Neither the

government nor the employers were concerned with the wants and feelings

of human beings which they considered as commodities. So the workers

helped themselves by helping each other they created a network of

cooperative institutions of all kinds ~- schools.

Summer camps for children and adults, homes for the aged, health and

culturaI centers, credit associations, insurance plans, technical

education and housing--all these and many other services were provided

by the people themselves long before the labor movement was corrupted by

business unionism; long before the government stepped in; before the

basic realities of the class struggle were abandoned.

As this revolutionary and libertarian spirit evaporated, as the unions

became “respectable,” many of them became electioneering agencies for

political parties--right, left and center. Others became increasingly

centralized and with the crystallization of a bureaucratic crust, the

cancer of business unionism took over. Then, as a reaction to this, the

revolutionary tendency again made itself felt. The workers were

compelled to establish new organizations that would fulfill their needs.

It was, for example, the failure of the AFL to organize the unskilled

workers, its capitulation to the employing class and its insistence on

creating an aristocracy of skilled workers, thus bringing into the ranks

of labor an artificial division, that led to the formation of the IWW.

The influence of the revolutionary unions of the past was not limited to

their own membership. They also fought bureaucracy, racketeering and

class collaboration within the opportunist; conservative unions, whose

leaders were constantly being exposed and forced to make concessions to

the opposition Over their heads there hung the ever-present threat of

“dual unionism.”

There are many indications that the period of complacency and apathy in

present labor movement is drawing to a close. The AFL-CIO has been

obliged to take disciplinary action against some of the more flagrant

violations of ethical conduct, not only because of the Senate

investigations or because of the partisan desires of a part of the

leadership to eliminate competitive cliques,within who seek to supplant

them. We are witnessing more than a simple power struggle. Hundreds of

union locals have protested. Tens of thousands of letters protesting

against the high-handed conduct of officials have been received at the

AFL-CIO headquarters. It is evident that the old-line class

collaborationist leaders will not and cannot do anything fundamental to

remedy the situation and the workers are finding this out for

themselves.

It is encouraging to note the increasing ferment in the ranks. There

have been numerous “outlaw” strikes in open defiance of the leadership.

“there has been unrest in the UAW, where the skilled trades demanded and

forced the leaders to grant them a measure of autonomy in the

formulation of demands and calling of strikes. In the New York City

transit system, the motormen and other groups of workers have been in

full revolt against the autocratic clique that rules the Transport

Workers’ Union--all these and many other signs point to a revival of the

direct action and libertarian tendencies in American Labor.

VI. THE FUTURE AND ITS TASKS

The AFL-CIO cannot be reformed from above. It must be revolutionized

from below. If, as appears likely, a mass opposition movement develops,

it can really succeed only to the extent that it remains true to the

revolutionary principles and ideals which inspired the early labor

movement. If it fails to understand and profit from the lessons of the

past or if it allows itself to be guided by those so-called liberals-and

socialists whose efforts are largely directed at making the unions the

“labor front” of the Welfare State, it will fail. Within the labor

movement there are the materials for “building the new society within

the shell of the old.” The workers can break out of that shell when they

become conscious of their power, but here, as elsewhere ethics and ideas

will be decisive if a new cycle of degeneration is to be avoided.

The history of the American labor movement has been largely a history of

rank and file revolts against opportunist class-collaborationist

policies and the centralization of power. Without an alert membership

and an active opposition, unions that were originally radical and

democratic lost their dynamism and became obstacles to progress. When

that happens a new housecleaning must take place. The revolutionary

tendency must restore the balance to make possible further progress.

Whenever and wherever this has been attempted, the progressive forces

have always been slandered and maligned as “irresponsible splitters,”

“subversives,” etc., but this must never be allowed to hinder their

struggle. An alert and articulate opposition is the conscience and

lifeblood of the labor movement.

Such a movement cannot t be artificially created. It will develop out of

the bitterness and discontent with union corruption and bureaucracy; the

impact of automation and the sacrifices that a permanent war economy

demand will rouse the workers from their lethargy and make them more

receptive to militant ideas and tactics.

The task of the revolutionary minority is to apply libertarian

principles to the realities of the modern labor movement. The role of

the unions in change and in the new society which they, together with

other organizations of the people will some day build, must be seriously

studied class-conscious workers, Strategy and tactics depend on a clear

understanding of ultimate objectives. No firm theoretical basis can be

laid without correctly evaluating the nature of the State, the part

played by ideas and ideals in shaping history, and the dynamic and

creative drives eh are responsible for all that is best, in human life.

The immediate practical problem facing the workers is to recapture their

own unions. This can only be done by the workers themselves from below.

Every movement of the rank and file that leads in this direction must be

encouraged. Revolutionary ethical concepts rooted in the natural human

sentiments of solidarity must be encouraged as an antidote to the

narcotic of class-collaboration which has for so long paralyzed the

labor movement.

Steps must be taken for the greatest possible de-centralization of the

administrative apparatus of the unions. ‘there must be an end to

industry-wide bargaining by the top leadership, to the check-off of

union dues by employers and to long-term contracts, no-strike pledges,

etc- Government supervision or intervention in union affairs, the

spending of union funds for political campaigns and support by labor

unions of the foreign policies of the State, must be fought and

eliminated.

Union welfare funds constitute one of the mainstays of present-day

business unionism. By this means the labor autocracy extends its control

over the workers, not only on the job and in the union but also over the

private life of the worker and in many cases of his family as well. The

union member comes to expect his union’s welfare department to furnish

medical attention, old-age pensions, accident and life insurance and

numerous other necessities and conveniences. The welfare department in

business unions is controlled by the labor bosses, which ties the worker

to his job and to the union bureaucrat and develops a servile attitude

on the part of many workers.

Thus the question of recapturing control of the unions by their

membership is inseparable from demanding the independent control by the

workers their own welfare. The emphasis on welfarism within the union

saps the revolutionary vitality of the working class.

Mutual aid and welfare arrangements are important, but it is advisable

that such matters be handled separately and apart from the union as

such. The decentralization of power and control of the union by the

workers is impossible unless this issue is faced squarely.

Salaries paid to union officials must be brought down to the same level

as those paid to the workers whom they represent, No paid union official

should remain in his post for longer than two years before returning to

his work in production. He must always be subject to immediate recall.

The workers should delegate no real power to any of their leaders--no

matter who these leaders may be; no matter how honest and selfless these

leaders may be or may appear to be.

The right to strike and the correction of grievances by the direct

economic action of the workers must be reasserted and re-won. Actions of

solidarity and protest through strikes and boycotts must be encouraged.

The new problems created by automation must be answered by a consistent

fight for shorter working hours, rather than relying on the expansion of

war industries and other stupidly wasteful and socially unnecessary

production.

Along these general lines a new revolutionary labor movement can be

forged. he building of such a movement is the great task to which the

advanced workers must dedicate themselves.