💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emile-pouget-what-is-the-union.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:45:57. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: What is the union? Author: Émile Pouget Date: 1905 Language: en Topics: syndicalism, unions Source: https://libcom.org/library/what-union-emile-pouget
Property and authority are merely differing manifestations and
expressions of one and the same "principle" which boils down to the
enforcement and enshrinement of the servitude of woman. Consequently,
the only difference between them is one of vantage point: viewed from
one angle, slavery appears as a property crime, whereas, viewed from a
different angle, it constitutes an authority crime.
In life, these "principles" whereby the peoples are muzzled are erected
into oppressive institutions of which only the facade had changed over
the ages. At present and in spite of all the tinkering carried out on
the ownership system and the adjustments made to the exercise of
authority, quite superficial tinkerings and adjustments, submission,
constraint, forced labour, hunger, etc. are the lot of the labouring
classes.
This is why the Hell of Wage-Slavery is a lightless Gehenna: the vast
majority of human beings languish there, bereft of well-being and
liberty. And in that Gehenna, for all its cosmetic trappings of
democracy, a rich harvest of misery and grief grows.
The union association is, in fact, the only focal point which, in its
very composition, reflects the aspirations by which the wage-slave is
driven: being the sole agglomeration of human beings that grows out of
an absolute identity of interests, in that it derives its raison d'etre
from the form of production, upon which it models itself and of which it
is merely the extension.
What in fact is the union? An association of workers bound together by
corporative ties. Depending on the setting, this corporative combination
may assume the form of the narrower trade connection or, in the context
of the massive industrialisation of the 19th century, may embrace
proletarians drawn from several trades but whose efforts contribute
towards a common endeavour.
However, whatever the format preferred by its members or imposed by
circumstance, whether the union combination is restricted to the "trade"
or encompasses the "industry," there is still the very same objective.
To wit:
1. The offering of constant resistance to the exploiter: forcing him to
honour the improvements won; deterring any attempt to revert to past
practice and also seeking to minimise the exploitation through pressure
for partial improvements such as reduction of working hours, increased
pay, improved hygiene etc., changes which, although they may reside in
the details, are nonetheless effective trespasses against capitalist
privileges and attenuation of them.
2. The union aims to cultivate increasing coordination of relations of
solidarity, in such a way as to facilitate, within the shortest time
possible, the expropriation of capital, that being the sole basis which
could possibly mark the commencement of a thoroughgoing transformation
of society. Only once that legitimate social restitution has been made
can any possibility of parasitism be excluded. Only then, when no one is
any longer obliged to work for someone else, wage-slavery having been
done away with, can production become social in terms of its destination
as well as of its provenance: at which time, economic life being a
genuine sum of reciprocal efforts, all exploitation can be, not just
abolished, but rendered impossible.
Thus, thanks to the union, the social question looms with such clarity
and starkness as to force itself upon the attention of even the least
clear-sighted persons; without possibility of error, the association
marks out a dividing line between wage slaves and masters. Thanks to
which society stands exposed as it truly is: on one side, the workers,
the robbed; on the other, the exploiters, the robbers.
However superior the union may be to every other form of association, it
does not follow that it has any intrinsic existence, independent of that
breathed into it by its membership. Which is why the latter, if they are
to conduct themselves as conscious union members, owe it to themselves
to participate in the work of the union. And, for their part, they would
have no conception of what constitutes the strength of this association,
were they to imagine that they come to it as perfect union members,
simply by doing their duty by the union financially.
Of course, it is a good thing to pay one's dues on a regular basis, but
that is only the merest fragment of the duty a loyal member owes to
himself, and thus to his union; indeed, he ought to be aware that the
union's value resides, not so much in the sum of their monetary
contributions as in multiplication of its members' coherent endeavours.
The constituent part of the union is the individual. Except that the
union member is spared the depressing phenomenon manifest in democratic
circles where, thanks to the veneration of universal suffrage, the trend
is towards the crushing and diminution of the human personality. In a
democratic setting, the elector can avail of her will only in order to
perform an act of abdication: her role is to "award" her "vote" to the
candidate whom she wishes to have as her "representative."
Affiliation to the union has no such implications and even the greatest
stickler could not discover the slightest trespass against the human
personality in it: after, as well as before, the union member is what
she used to be. Autonomous she was and autonomous she remains.
In joining the union, the worker merely enters into a contract “ which
she may at any time abjure “ with comrades who are her equals in will
and potential, and at no time will any of the views she may be induced
to utter or actions in which she may happen to participate, imply any of
the suspension or abdication of personality which is the distinguishing
characteristic and badge of the ballot paper.
In the union, say, should it come to the appointment of a union council
to take charge of administrative matters, such "selection" is not to be
compared with "election": the form of voting customarily employed in
such circumstances is merely a means whereby the labour can be divided
and is not accompanied by any delegation of authority. The strictly
prescribed duties of the union council are merely administrative. The
council performs the task entrusted to it, without ever overruling its
principals, without supplanting them or acting in their place.
The same might be said of all decisions reached in the union -- all are
restricted to a definite and specific act, whereas in democracy,
election implies that the elected candidate has been issued by her
elector with a carte blanche empowering her to decide and do as she
pleases, in and on everything, without even the hindrance of the quite
possibly contrary wishes of her principals whose opposition, in any
case, no matter how pronounced, is of no consequence until such time as
the elected candidate's mandate has run its course.
So there cannot be any possible parallels, let alone confusion, between
union activity and participation in the disappointing chores of
politics.
Socrates's dictum "Know thyself!" is, in the union context, complemented
by the maxim: "Act for yourself!"
Thus, the union offers itself as a school for the will: its preponderant
role is the result of its members' wishes, and, if it is the highest
form of association, the reason is that it is the condensation of
workers' strengths made effective through their direct action, the
sublime form of the deliberate enactment of the wishes of the
proletarian class.
The bourgeoisie has contrived to preach resignation and patience to the
people by holding out the hope that progress might be achieved
miraculously and without effort on their part, through the State's
intervention from without. This is nothing more than an extension, in
less inane form, of millenarian and crude religious beliefs. Now, while
the leaders were trying to substitute this disappointing illusion for
the no less disappointing religious mirage, the workers, toiling in the
shadows, with indomitable and unfailing tenacity, were if, building the
organ of liberation to which the union amounts.
That organ, a veritable school for the will, was formed and developed
over the 19th century. It is thanks to it, thanks to its economic
character that 6 the workers have been able to survive inoculation with
the virus of politics and defy every attempt to divide them.
It was in the first half of the 19th century that s associations were
established, in spite of the interdicts placed upon them. The
persecution of those who had the effrontery to unionise was ruthless, so
it took ingenuity to give repression the slip. So, in order to band
together without undue danger, the workers disguised their resistance
associations behind anodyne exteriors, such as mutual societies.
The bourgeoisie has never taken umbrage with charitable bodies, knowing
very well that, being mere palliatives, they cannot ever offer a remedy
for the curse of poverty. The placing of hope in charity is a soporific
good only for preventing the exploited from reflecting upon their dismal
lot and searching for a solution to it. This is why mutual associations
have always been tolerated, if not, encouraged, by those in charge.
Workers were able to profit from the tolerance shown these groups: under
the pretext of helping one another in the event of illness, of setting
up retirement homes, etc., they were able to get together, but in
pursuit of a more manly objective: they were preoccupied with bettering
their living conditions and aimed to resist the employers' demands.
Their tactics were not always successful in escaping the attentions of
the authorities which, having been alerted by complaints from employers,
often kept these dubious mutual aid societies under surveillance.
Later, by which time the workers, by dint of experience and acting for
themselves, felt strong enough to defy the law, they discarded the
mutualist disguise and boldly called their associations resistance
societies.
A splendid name! Expressive and plain. A program of action in itself. It
is proof of the extent to which workers, even though their associations
were still in the very early stages, sensed that had no need to trot
along behind the politicians nor amalgamate their interests with the
interests of the bourgeoisie, but instead should be taking a stand
against and in opposition to the bourgeoisie.
Here we had an instinctive incipient class struggle which the
International Working Men's Association was to provide with a clear and
definitive formulation, with its announcement that "the emancipation of
the workers must be carried out by the workers themselves."
That formula, a dazzling affirmation of workers' strength, purged of all
remnants of democratism, was to furnish the entire proletarian movement
with its key-note idea. It was, moreover, merely an open and categorical
affirmation of tendencies germinating among the people. This is
abundantly demonstrated by the theoretical and tactical concordance
between the hitherto vague, underground "unionist" movement and the
International's opening declaration.
After stating as a principle that the workers should rely upon their own
unaided efforts, the International's declaration married the assertion
of the necessity of the proletariat's enjoying autonomy to an indication
that it is only through direct action that it can obtain tangible
results: and it went on to say:
Given,
That the economic subjection of the worker to those who hold the means
of labour, which is to say, the wherewithal of life, is the prime cause
of political, moral and material servitude;
The economic emancipation of workers is, consequently, the great goal
towards which every political movement should be striving (. . .)
Thus, the International did not confine itself to plain proclamation of
workers' autonomy, but married that to the assertion that political
agitations and adjustments to the form of the government ought not to
make such an impression upon workers as to make them lose sight of the
economic realities.
The current unionist movement is only a logical sequel to the movement
of the International -- there is absolute identity between them and it
is on the same plane that we carry on the endeavours of our
predecessors.
Except that when the International was setting out its premises the
workers' will was still much too clouded and the proletariat's class
consciousness too under-developed for the economic approach to prevail
without the possibility of deviation.
The working class had to contend with the distracting influence of seedy
politicians who, regarding the people merely as a stepping-stone,
flatter it hypnotise it and betray it. Moreover, the people also let
itself be carried away by loyal, disinterested men who, being imbued
with democratism, placed too great a store by a redundant State.
It is thanks to the dual action of these elements that in recent times
(beginning with the hecatomb of 1871) the union movement vegetated for a
long time, being torn in several directions at once. On the one hand,
the crooked politicians strove to bridle the unions so as to tie them to
the government's apron strings: on the other, the socialists of various
schools beavered away at ensuring that their faction would prevail.
Thus, one and all intended to turn the unions into "interest groups" and
"affinity groups."
The union movement had roots too vigorous, and too ineluctable a need
for such divergent efforts to be able to stunt its development Today, it
carries on the work of the International, the work of the pioneers of
"resistance societies" and of the earliest combinations. To be sure,
tendencies have come to the surface and theories have been clarified,
but there is an absolute concordance between the 19th century union
movement and that of the 20th century: the one being an outgrowth of the
other. In this there is a logical extension, a climb towards an ever
more conscious will and a display of the increasingly coordinated
strength of the proletariat, blossoming into a growing unity of
aspirations and action.
Union endeavour has a double aim: with tireless persistence, it must
pursue betterment of the working class's current conditions. But,
without letting themselves become obsessed with this passing concern,
the workers should take care to make possible and imminent the essential
act of comprehensive emancipation: the expropriation of capital.
At present, union action is designed to win partial and gradual
improvements which, far from constituting a goal, can only be considered
as a means of stepping up demands and wresting further improvements from
capitalism.
The union offers employers a degree of resistance in geometric
proportion with the resistance put up by its members: it is a brake upon
the appetites of the exploiter: it enforces her respect for less
draconian working conditions than those entailed by the individual
bargaining of the wage slave operating in isolation. For one-sided
bargaining between the employer with her breast-plate of capital, and
the defenceless proletarian, it substitutes collective bargaining.
So, in opposition to the employer there stands the union, which
mitigates the despicable "labour market" and labour supply, by
relieving, to some extent, the irksome consequences of a pool of
unemployed workers: exacting from the employer respect for workers and
also, to a degree proportionate with its strength, the union requires of
her that she desist from offering privileges as bribes.
This question of partial improvements served as the pretext for attempts
to sow discord in the s associations. Politicians, who can only make a
living out of a confusion of ideas and who are irritated by the unions'
growing distaste for their persons and their dangerous interference,
have tried to carry into economic circles the semantic squabbling with
which they gull the electors. They have striven to stir up ill-feeling
and to split the unions into two camps, by categorising workers as
reformists and as revolutionaries. The better to discredit the latter,
they have dubbed them "the advocates of all or nothing" and they have
falsely represented them as supposed adversaries of improvements
achievable right now.
The most that can be said about such nonsense is that it is witless.
There is not a worker, whatever her mentality or her aspirations, who,
on grounds of principle or for reasons of tactics, would insist upon
working ten hours for an employer instead of eight hours, while earning
six francs instead of seven. It is, however, by peddling such inane
twaddle that politicians hope to alienate the working class from its
economic movement and dissuade it from acting for itself and
endeavouring to secure ever greater well-being and liberty. They are
counting upon the poison in such calumnies to break up the unions by
reviving inside them the pointless and divisive squabbles which have
evaporated ever since politics was banished from them.
What appears to afford some credence to such chicanery is the fact that
the unions, cured by the cruel lessons of experience from all hope in
government intervention, are justifiably mistrustful of it. They know
that the State whose function is to act as capital's gendarme, is, by
its very nature, inclined to tip the scales in favour of the employer
side. So, whenever a reform is brought about by legal avenues, they do
not fall upon it with the relish of a frog devouring the red rag that
conceals the hook, they greet it with all due caution, especially as
this reform is made effective only if the workers are organised to
insist forcefully upon its implementation.
The unions are even more wary of gifts from the government because they
have often found these to be poison gifts. Thus, they have a very poor
opinion of "gifts" like the Higher Labor Council and the labour councils
agencies devised for the sole purpose of counter-balancing and
frustrating the work of the s associations. Similarly, they have not
waxed enthusiastic about mandatory arbitration and regulation of
strikes, the plainest consequence of which would be to exhaust the
workers' capacity for resistance. Likewise the legal and commercial
status granted to the workers' organisations have nothing worthwhile to
offer them, for they see in these a desire to get them to desert the
terrain of social struggle, in order to lure them on to the capitalist
terrain where the antagonism of the social struggle would give way to
wrangling over money.
But, given that the unions look askance at the government's benevolence
towards them, it follows that they are loath to go after partial
improvements. Wanting real improvements only. This is why, instead of
waiting until the government is generous enough to bestow them, they
wrest them in open battle, through direct action.
If, as sometimes is the case, the improvement they seek is subject to
the law, the unions strive to obtain it through outside pressure brought
to bear upon the authorities and not by trying to return specially
mandated deputies to Parliament, a puerile pursuit that might drag on
for centuries before there was a majority in favour of the yearned-for
reform.
When the desired improvement is to be wrested directly from the
capitalist, the industrial associations resort to vigorous pressure to
convey their wishes. Their methods may well vary, although the direct
action principle underlies them all: depending on the circumstances,
they may use the strike, sabotage, the boycott, or the union label.
But, whatever the improvement won, it must always represent a reduction
in capitalist privileges and be a partial expropriation. So, whenever
one is not satisfied with the politician's bombast, whenever one
analyses the methods and the value of union action, the fine distinction
between "reformist" and "revolutionary" evaporates and one is led to the
conclusion that the only really reformist workers are the revolutionary
syndicalists.
Aside from day to day defence, the task of the unions is to lay the
groundwork for the future. The producer group should be the cell of the
new society. Social transformation on any other basis is inconceivable.
So it is essential that the producers make preparations for the task of
assuming possession and of reorganisation which ought to fall to them
and which they alone are equipped to carry out. It is a social
revolution and not a political revolution that we aim to make. They are
two distinct phenomena and the tactics leading to the one are a
diversion away from the other.
Taken from Le Syndicat 1905.