For a Clear Distinction Between Unions and Political Parties

We want to begin this assembly by returning to talk a little about our Coordination.

Ours is not the only initiative that calls for unity. And it is certainly not our intention to compete with other initiatives similar to ours, which would be in blatant contradiction with our raison d’être.

There are, however, characteristics that we believe distinguish our Coordination from most other similar initiatives. We would like to emphasize and explain these differences, not for the sake of distinguishing ourselves, but because we believe that they are the right way to achieve the common goal that we all demand: the unity of the workers.

In the meantime, it is appropriate to say that the word “unity” is one of the most abused and therefore dangerous. It must always be made clear what kind of unity we are talking about.

Typically, in the face of economic crisis, employers call for national unity, that is, unity between the workers and their exploiters, in order to pass on the effects of the crisis to the workers and defend their social privilege and political domination.

National unity is also the dogma of collaborationist trade unionism: the most recent example is the call for a “social contract” by the Secretary General of CGIL. From the years of post-war reconstruction to the supposed post COVID-19 revival, the litany has always been that of the “social pact” between workers and bosses in “defense of the national economy”.

But collaborationist trade unionism also evokes another type of unity: that of trade unions. This means unity between the three great trade unions of the regime: CGIL, CISL and UIL. This unity has as its objective the recognition on the part of the employers of the exclusive right of these unions to negotiate, and it contains a promise of social peace -in other words, the control that these unions have over the workers to prevent their fight.

Class unionism promotes the unity of the working class in terms of struggle, a struggle which, being directed against the ruling class and its political regime, breaks national unity.

Also for this reason, our Coordination speaks not of mere “unity of the workers” but of “unity of action of the workers and of combative unionism”. Workers’ “unity of action” because, for example, we believe in general (but not absolutely) that this must be pursued also with those workers who still follow the mobilizations promoted by the regime’s trade unions. This is in order to relate with them and bring them to the point of real struggle.

The “unity of action of combative trade unionism” is an indispensable took to achieve the highest degree of unity of action among workers. Not through a mere summation of acronyms – according to a weak criticism that has been addressed to us several times – but by fighting for this objective “from below”. We have learned from decades of  militance that the majority of union leaders are opposed to it.

And here we come to the last important distinction that is necessary when we speak of unity, and which characterizes our Coordination and the road we propose. We argue that this unity of action should be sought among workers and among the forces of combative, class-based trade unionism, and not in the sphere of political parties. In other words, we believe that a Coordination, a United Front, must be of a trade union nature and not a trade union-party one. This is not because we support apolitical union action. Not at all. On the contrary, every trade union action has a political value. But political militants who are also workers active in the trade union struggle must be able to demonstrate the validity of their political orientation, to point out the most suitable practical means to fight for the immediate objectives that are of interest to workers. That is to say, they must act in the trade union struggle, which does not feed on political programs but on economic objectives and “short-term” gains in working and living conditions.

If, on the other hand, a party or an alliance of parties are included among trade union forces, the result is to inhibit workers of different political orientations, or without a political orientation, from approaching the group; and on the other hand, to provoke a boycott of the initiative by those trade union groups directed by political forces opposed to those included in the trade union-party front or coordination.

In a nutshell:
     – If all the political militants who are workers make the effort to translate their political guidelines into practical terms of trade union struggle, and in this way – certainly hard and tiring – they try to gain the trust of the workers, then, on the one hand, the unity of trade union forces is possible, certainly not excluding debate and confrontation between the various directions of immediate struggle that are proposed, and on the other hand the conditions are guaranteed so that we can address a wider audience of workers.
     – If, alternatively, we choose the path of mixed trade union-party fronts, what will be reflected in them will be the inevitable divisions on the party level, with the result of generating as many coordination, fronts, and pacts “for the unity of the workers” as there are parties.

This approach of ours also determines the modalities of our relationship with other initiatives that refer to the objective of unity of action of the workers, but pursue it in both trade-unionist and partisan fields. We have affirmed, and confirm again, our willingness to cooperate with these initiatives wherever and for as long as they act in the union field.

As the comrades after me will state in a more complete way, our coordination moves substantially within it limits and respecting its own strengths. That is, we responsibly avoiding taking on commitments that we are not able to handle.

On the one hand, we are promoting work on two specific topics and related initiatives, to which we invite delegates of combative trade unionism and workers who are members or non-members of trade unions. These areas are health and safety in the workplace, and the health issue.

On the other hand, our comrades fight within their respective trade union organizations for the unity of action of combative trade unionism.