The Party Facing the Trade Unions in the Era of Imperialism Pt. 2

TOWARDS THE PROSPECT OF A “NEW” REBIRTH

In the 1970s, the further rapprochement between all kinds of Italian trade union leaderships and the institutions—and the needs of both the capitalist companies and the state that administers their interests—continued. On the contrary, with the season of struggles being over, this process continued with the definitive consolidation of

“the dues checkoffs arrangement; the strengthening of the bureaucratic apparatus of professional trade unionists—now considering themselves officials at the service of the State receiving a regular paycheck; the implementation of police-like strike regulations; the well-established practice of all sorts of contractual or corporate dispute coming to a close only under the supervision of state ministers (in perfect fascist style); the co-optation, inside the union, of police representatives; […] accusations of terrorism and pro-terrorism against all militant workers; the formal (already a de-facto) acceptance of classic capitalist postulates such as tying the workers’ conditions to the profits of the companies; the necessity of cutting labor-power down in the factories; the increase in the plants’ runtime and the increase of the productivity of labour of which the union itself has become the guarantor; openly organizing scabs against the spontaneous strikes of the groups of workers acting outside of rigid union control.

The union structure has become increasingly rigid: closed off to workers, it is increasingly in the hands of careerist civil servants. This has made the road towards the unions’ eventual reconquest—on a class-based line—impracticable […].

It’s more and more obvious to workers the contrast between their own vital needs—that is, defending their wages and employment—and the openly renunciatory and collaborationist attitude of the official trade unions of all colors. […] From the situation that has emerged in recent years, it is now clear—not only to us, but also to an ever wider array of workers—that no serious defense of the most basic life and work needs is possible under the protection of the current trade union centers. No action of struggle carried out consistently on the class level is possible except outside of their organizational framework. In recent years—in some sectors—the most exploited groups of workers have struggled for the first time in open contrast with the directives of the union piecards. They even managed to give rise to significant strikes and to form organisms in open contrast with the organizational structures of the unions (railway workers in 1975, hospital workers in 1978).”

It became clear that the defense of the workers’ condition could only be fulfilled outside and against the current union structures. The transition from widespread apathy to mobilization on the class struggle terrain took place in opposition to the regime union, albeit in a non-linear and even contradictory way. Steps both forward and backward were taken, and the involvement, at the local level, of even the rank and file sectors of the confederal structure was not ruled out a priori.

The hospital workers’ struggle was emblematic in this respect. The 35-day struggle at FIAT in the fall of 1980, crushed by the confederal union just as it was finally taking on the classic characteristics of a real class struggle, was certainly no less significant.

In the hospital workers’ case—a struggle that started in Tuscany and spread throughout Italy—the latter struggled on a class-based line in opposition to the confederal union organization, which took a frontal stance against the strikes. Eventually, the union managed to retake the reins of the movement, and then crushed it in the end. After negotiating and reaching an agreement with state representatives, the official unions—in the spirit of  true regime unions—were falsely recognized by the bosses as representatives of the struggling workers. That was in spite of the fact that its officials were chased away and rejected by the workers every time they tried to contain the ongoing mobilization.

FIAT’s struggle, despite its spontaneous and decisive nature, did not take on an organizational form opposing the piecards, as was the case of the hospital workers or flight attendants’ struggle. The CGIL, participating in the struggle committee, managed to “ride the tiger” until the strike threatened to turn into an open clash with the police—who, on the judges’ orders, were determined to break up the picket lines by force. At that point, with the struggle confined to just one company (the unions had formed a cordon sanitaire around the struggle), the union negotiated a surrender by signing a draconian agreement. One that would pave the way for future layoffs and that was, either way, strongly contested in the factories (see the workers’ assault on the company union headquarters).

“From an immediate point of view, this points out to the proletariat the necessity of organizing independently from the present trade unions, in the perspective of reconstituting a class-based organizational network. We are aware that this is a process that can only be done by the proletariat itself. Therefore, as long as the proletariat does not take part in class struggle in a generalized and non-episodic way—and as long as the Party has but a marginal influence on it—no call for the sabotage of the current struggles can be made in the immediate future. This no matter how much these struggles are directed towards increasingly anti-worker objectives, unless we are faced with the explicit will on the part of vast strata of workers to actively rebel against such a direction. Nor can the explicit call to leave the “tricolor” (nationalistic, patriotic) unions can be made, since there is no alternative, organized “agent” today capable of catalyzing the workers’ will to struggle.

What does it mean to ‘immediately start working towards the perspective of the ex-novo rebirth of a class-based economic organization’? It certainly cannot mean passively waiting for spontaneous proletarian movements. […] Proletarian militants must therefore work to direct and, when objective conditions are met, organize workers on class-based terrain. In other words, as we have pointed out on other occasions, the Party has the task of helping concretely—by making its proletarian forces available—the workers’ tendency to organize themselves for the defense of their class interests. It has the task, during action and on the organizational level, of making available the ability of its militants to provide a direction, one that comes from having possession—which the Party and the Party only can have—of the historical background of the past experiences of proletarian struggles. At the same time, it has the task to bring consciousness to the workers about the precariousness of the struggles that are fought for exclusively economic defensive purposes, and the necessity of embracing the perspective of the revolutionary communist program as the definitive, historical solution to their condition of exploited class.

Another point to consider is union membership. In relation to—and as a consequence of—the above mentioned situation, we communists are inclined not to join the tricolor unions. This attitude does not come from reasons of principle, nor from union splitting tendencies—which have always been denied and fought by the Communist Left. It comes from a simple, practical observation. The tricolor union apparatus—in its vertical organizational structure—is now, at the top as well as at the rank-and-file level, a bureaucratized organism impervious to the internal action of a working class fraction that is autonomously organized on a class-based terrain while still adhering to the official union structures. This is because there is no longer that internal union life allowing even minimal work—of entering and influencing the rank and file—to be carried out, as the officials’ apparatus and the basic structures of the union are becoming increasingly distant from rank and file members. Under these conditions, union membership—regardless of the issue of union checkoffs—is no longer useful, as the means available for organizing the rank-and-file members become no greater than those available for organizing non-members. Thus, applying for union membership would simply amount to the financing of bodies completely subservient to the capitalist regime. However, precisely because this attitude is not motivated by reasons of principle, in some possible and specific situations—most likely at the small business level where non-membership would compromise the work of our militants in the struggle from which a positive result could follow—the question of whether applying for union membership or not will be addressed by the Party. After all, only the Party and not the individual militant is entitled to a final decision in such situations. 

When it comes to factory bodies directly elected by the workers—the factory councils and the likes—the issue takes on a different character. These bodies are almost entirely controlled by the unions. Indeed, these bodies are almost entirely controlled by the unions. In large factories, they often serve as the true backbone of the union, managed jointly by the external organization. Their internal life is frequently sclerotic and apathetic, and their activity reduced to the tired ratification of decisions made by executive bodies that are themselves offshoots of the local union apparatus. Nevertheless, these structures are composed of delegates elected by the workers and keep in direct contact with them. As such, they are still susceptible to the influence of events that lead to stronger agitations and an increase of the workers’ willingness to fight. Moreover, in small and medium-sized companies—where the grip of trade union opportunism tends to be weaker—Works Councils often enjoy a degree of autonomy and are more readily permeable to class-based positions. For all these reasons, we cannot a priori exclude the possibility of engaging in propaganda and agitation within these bodies. In general—and without ruling out exceptions in particular cases—we support internal work, provided that we are elected by workers who recognize in our militant a combative figure. One prepared to fight uncompromisingly against the bosses and, as such, against the formidable barrier posed by union opportunism and collaborationism. Of course, we cannot provide a definitive list of ready-made responses for every situation on this issue. The case of militant workers elected as delegates must be rigorously assessed by the Party, and any decision must take into careful account the specific circumstances surrounding the election.

In any case, the conduct of our militant must be characterized by consistent and public disaffiliation—before the workers—from any decision taken by the Factory Council that diverges from a genuine defense of class interests. The same goes for any collaborationist, pro-company initiative framed in terms of the “proper functioning of the factory” or any acknowledgment of its productivity needs. The militant’s activity must also involve the unwavering and unambiguous denunciation of the actions and draconian agreements brokered by Factory Councils under opportunist control.”

Text No. 10 ends by indicating the future perspective in which the Party’s action will take place:

“In the imperialist phase of capitalism, the existence of ‘free’ trade unionism is no longer possible. That is, trade union organizations which—though not guided by a revolutionary line and led instead by reformist or petty-bourgeois parties—might nonetheless consistently carry out struggles on the economic front. In the imperialist era, economic struggles transform—far more rapidly than in the past—into political ones, as their very development and generalization come into direct conflict with the foundations of the capitalist regime. As a result, any trade union organization is immediately confronted with the question regarding its relation to the State. It must either accept to limit proletarian struggle within the bounds of legality—thus restricting and stifling it for the sake of preserving the existing order—or it must break through the limits of bourgeois legality and enter the revolutionary field. That entails extending, intensifying, and generalizing the workers’ struggle in defense of their living conditions.

This reality implies that all political parties and tendencies committed to the preservation of the capitalist regime are necessarily opposed to a broad and consistent emergence of the proletarian economic struggle. Only the revolutionary class Party stands as its most unwavering advocate. According to our Political Platform of 1945 the trade union function is only complete and integrated when the class political party leads the trade union organizations. There is, in fact, no other path.

The conclusion to be drawn, therefore, is not that trade unions are no longer necessary or that the trade union struggle can no longer exist. On the contrary: the proletariat will return to the struggle to defend its economic conditions, and in doing so will rebuild the forms of organization adequate to this task—the class unions. Due to the situation, these unions—by definition open to all proletarians, organizing them not on the basis of consciousness but of material necessity—will have to face two alternatives. Either to fall once again under the control and influence of the state—which is to say, under the control of opportunist, bourgeois, and petty-bourgeois parties—or to shift their action onto the terrain of illegality, submitting themselves to the only, truly illegal political direction: that of the revolutionary class party.

In our view, the existence of class unions in the imperialist era is even more vital than it may have been in earlier phases of capitalism. In the past, it was possible to divert the economic struggle of the proletariat from the goal of the ultimate revolutionary conquest—to the point of using economic struggles as an obstacle against it. In the imperialist era, this diversion is no longer possible and the transition from a class union to a red union—one influenced and led by the Party—is far more immediate. This transition must happen even at the risk of proletarian economic organizations losing their class connotations, effectively abandoning the elementary function for which they came into being.

Within the economic organizations that the working class will be compelled to recreate in its return to battle, a struggle will emerge between those seeking to confine—and therefore stifle—the action within the bounds of bourgeois legality and the directive of the Party, which, by working to extend and generalize the proletarian struggle, will pull these very organizations onto the revolutionary path.”