The Party Facing the Unions during the Era of Imperialism Pt. 1

Following the complete Italian reproduction of our fundamental text The Party Facing the Unions in the Age of Imperialism, published in issue No. 10 of 1982 of our magazine Comunismo. We will now outline the parts of it that describe the history of the Party’s labor union activity starting from the period immediately after WW2.

These quotations highlight the continuity of the Party’s union activity, which persisted in spite of the different circumstances it was developed in. Over time, these circumstances produced tactical formulations. These were both long-term and immediate indications addressed to the class which our militants engaged in labor union activity translated into action.

This study will concentrate on the Party’s intervention in labor union issues in Italy. It is in Italy that it became possible for the party to develop such tactics. While this occurs in an extremely reduced form, it is nevertheless an activity that gives great lessons and is rich in significance.

The effect of the negative events that followed the defeat of the powerful proletarian movement of the first post-war period allowed „the worldwide transition from the class unions of the first post-war period to the “tricolor” (nationalistic, patriotic) unions of the second post-war period and of today.”

“[…] The precise trajectory of this involution should be studied with reference to each capitalistically advanced country. This is how the trade union question should be addressed in general: at a world scale, by analyzing the characteristics of the current trade unions in each country. Or, at the very least, in each geopolitical area the planet can be divided into. This is to arrive at a tactical solution that cannot but be diversified according to the particular situations of the various countries.

Such an analysis, however, is impossible today given our limited forces. This is because we cannot simply rely only on existing written materials, as well as the fact that we lack the direct presence of the Party in various countries.

In fact, tactics are also the result of the direct experience that emerges from practical work. This, or at least the possibility of this, allows one to perceive the situation’s fundamental features. Besides the nature and specific characteristics of the trade union organizations with which one must work, most important are the proletariat’s attitude toward the unions and in general its attitude and predisposition to struggle. This can only be correctly grasped by the physical presence of militants.

This does not exclude that it is possible to outline general tendencies valid for the whole of the capitalistically developed countries which—even if they do not delineate a specific tactic that is valid everywhere—allow us to emphasize the classical perspective lines of revolutionary Marxism. Such an outline also allows us to exclude that the dynamics of the future fire of the worldwide working class might follow unknown and original paths; paths that would modify the general practice of class conflict as Marxism describes it.

It is not by chance that our classic text Revolutionary Party and Economic Action (1951) very clearly states:

‘Apart from the contingent question of whether or not in such and such a country the revolutionary communist party should participate in the work of given types of union—or keep out of it—the elements of the question recapitulated so far lead to the conclusion that any prospect of a general revolutionary movement will depend on the presence of the following essential factors:

1) a large, numerous proletariat of pure wage-earners, 2) a sizeable movement of associations with an economic content comprising a large part of the proletariat, 3) a strong revolutionary class party, which, composed of a militant minority of workers, must have been enabled, in the course of the struggle to oppose, broadly and effectively, its own influence within the union movement to that of the bourgeois class and bourgeois power.’”

Since the time of the First International, the Party has recognized that „[…] communists must enter the unions to transform them into conscious instruments of struggle for the fall of capitalism.

[…] Communists must form everywhere, in the unions and factory councils, communist fractions. With the help of these fractions, they will take over the union movement and lead it.”

The Communist Party, with Marx and Lenin, in the Second and Third International, has always considered intervention in proletarian economic organizations to be central.

The Italian Communist Left and the Communist Party of Italy it led also acted in this way. Within the ranks of the CGL after World War I, the militant communist workers were organized in a fraction of the union, in the struggle against the reformist leaders. These were the same leaders who later became accomplices of fascism for the defeat of the proletarian movement and the sinking of its organizations.

Balance sheet of the Communist Left in the Union Field at the Beginning of the Second Post-war Period, on the Red Thread of Revolutionary Marxism

“[…] the Left places the unionism born from the resistance and democratic anti-fascism in an antithetical position to the first post-war period.

[…] “Tricolor” unionism was the worthy heir of fascist national-syndicalism, just as democracy, re-established by the bombers and cannons of the Allies, could only have been the continuation of fascist totalitarian reformism.”

The Party defined these post-war unions, as “organizations tailored on the Mussolini model.” We went on to quote a previous text that said

“[…] The salvation of the working class, its new historic rise after tremendous struggles and hardships […]does not lie with any of these bodies.”

We then commented:

“Implicit in this statement is the assertion that no matter how one would approach the CGIL from the tactical view (whether to work inside or outside), the attitude could not be similar to that of the communists towards the red unions after World War I.”

What exactly is the great and substantial difference between the red unions of the first period of imperialism and of the first post-war period, and the current ones?

though directed by reformist opportunism, the former were unions forged in the process of the progressive organization of the proletariat as a class fighting against capitalism. This was done in an attempt to overcome the divisions of factory, territory, and category.

They arose in the beginning of the century from the impulse of powerful class movements. They contained various political components—all conflicting with each other and allowed to act autonomously—that were calling out to the proletariat and had solid roots in it.

Certainly, the reformist and counter-revolutionary fraction had held the reins until then.

“The ‘unitary CGIL,’ born in ’45, has nothing in common with these features, besides the organizational form.

Instead of being a class organization controlled by opportunism, it is a union set up by a bloc of political forces united in national unity. Openly bourgeois and self-styled workers’ parties belong to it, all under the aegis of American imperialism and the blessing of the Church….”

In spite of all this, the Party did not deny then the need for communists to work within the post-war unions, in particular the need to work within the CGIL.

“Therefore, in order to decide whether or not to work in a trade union, it’s not enough to identify the historical tendencies of the trade union form and verify which are attributable to the organization in question.

That is, it is not enough to deduce the tactics from the political nature of this body. Above all else, it is necessary to see the attitude of the workers towards it.

As materialists, we do not attribute to the workers enrolled in a union the consciousness of what that union historically represents to Marxist analysis.

If the workers, or the majority of them (especially the most combative workers), see themselves represented in a given union, if they see a particular union as the instrument of their defense, and if they fight for it and with it, then our battle station has to be in that union.

This was precisely the inclination of the most combative working masses in Italy in the post-war years. Thus, the Party decided to work within the CGIL as an organized fraction.”

In 1951 we wrote:

“The union situation today differs from that of 1921 not only because of the lack of a strong Communist Party, but also because of the progressive elimination of the content of union action. Basic activity has been substituted for bureaucratic functions:

assemblies, elections, party fractions in unions and so on, from professional officials to elected leaders, etc.

Defended by the capitalist class so as to defend its interests, this elimination results—on the same historical line—in the following factors:

CLN-type corporatism, Di Vittorio or Pastore-type unionism.

This process cannot be declared as irreversible.

If the capitalists’ offensive is faced by a strong Communist Party, if the proletariat is torn away from the (syndicalist) CLN tactics, if it is torn away from the influence of current Russian politics, at time X or in country Y, classist unions can be reborn either ex novo or from the (perhaps violent) conquest of the current ones.

This cannot be historically ruled out.

Certainly those unions would be formed in a situation of advance, or of conquest of power” (Letter from 01/05/1951).

By classist unions we do not mean an economic organization necessarily controlled by the Party, but an organism in which there is the possibility of activity and movement for a fraction organized within it.

Putting the alternative in these terms, the Party could certainly not assume a cautious attitude. We will not wait for the knot to unravel throughout the course of events. Instead, where its very weak worker base allowed it, the Party gave the natural and obvious disposition to organize into a fraction within the CGIL.

“[T]he union cannot remain indifferent to the party which never gives up willingly to work there, which distinguishes it clearly from all other political groups who claim to be of the ‘opposition.’

The Party acknowledges that today, its work in the unions can be done but sporadically; it does not renounce however to enter into the economic organisations, and even to gain leadership as soon as the numerical relationship between its members and sympathisers on the one hand, the union members or a given branch on the other is suitable, so long as the union in question does not exclude all possibility of autonomous class action.”

(Characteristic Theses of the Party, 1951)

Why the CGIL and not the other “tricolor” or corporatist unions?

“[Because] the CGIL gathered the most combative part of the Italian proletariat, which saw it as a ‘red’ union, an acronym, the symbol of a tradition not yet extinguished.

[…] It was this state of mind of the Italian proletariat—and nothing else—that led us to consider the possibility of a violent reconquest of the CGIL with class leadership.

This reconquest could not be gradual, but would only be possible when a powerful proletarian movement took place, which would sweep away the opportunist leaders and break the structure they had set up.”

The Party referred to the tradition of the red CGL, which opportunists could not openly disavow at that time:

“In order to control and organize Italian workers, the opportunists had in fact been forced to refer to the words of the glorious traditions of past proletarian struggles, to wave the red flag every now and then.

We saw a positive element in this.

In order to fool the Italian workers it was necessary to wave the red flag. That is, the Italian workers were still moved by their flag.

For a large part of the Italian proletariat, the CGIL represented that symbol.

“Under that flag the workers unleashed strong strikes, sometimes going beyond the directives given by the opportunist leaders. With formidable courage, they clashed with the police who often proved unable to contain their fury. They faced dismissals, beatings, jail, and left hundreds of dead on the streets and public squares.”

However, in the advanced phase of imperialism, the conquest of that organization could only be understood as the destruction of the entire organizational framework of a union which is now tied by a thousand threads to the institutions of the class enemy. This destruction would have to come under the pressure  of the activity of a class resurrected for true anti-capitalist and anti-opportunist social struggle.

The eventual future ‘red’ CGIL could only have risen from the ruins of the one that the communists were facing.

[…] Our action was constantly based on a tactic linked to the general principles of the Party. Each time, we applied it to individual situations.

No action of sabotage or boycott of the union struggles and strikes organized and controlled by the unions. Participation in the unions while constantly denouncing the anti-worker policy of the union centers. Indicating to the proletariat the general class objectives on which to fight in order to unify all workers across all categories. Indication of the class methods of struggle, first and foremost the general strike without time limits and without notice. Constant connection of these immediate indications of objectives and struggle with the ultimate political aim of Party action.”

The Most Significant Struggles of the Party

“Our incessant work of denouncing union opportunism was always accompanied by constant participation in the workers’ struggles. Whenever the slightest opportunity arose, we attempted to organize workers’ forces on a class level in open opposition to the central unions.”

In the early ‘60s, the Party created the first specific organs for orienting its union activity.

“In November 1961, Tranviere Rosso was released. This was a bulletin of the ICP tram drivers within CGIL. The first issue said:

‘We international communists continue the glorious party of Livorno, the militant traditions of the union, and the proletarian organizations throughout the class. We have not ceased for a moment to challenge the current union leaders who come from opportunist parties, nor their ruinous work that destroys the class union.’

The Tramviere Rosso was the instrument of agitation and propaganda for our very small group of tram workers. It reported correspondence on specific problems of the trade,  as well as reports of meetings and strikes. It always exalted the combativeness of the workers and highlighted the betrayals of the piecards. It also contained general articles on all issues of interest to the workers.

Its publication lasted until 1963.

As the party’s trade union activity expanded in conjunction with large workers’ strikes, in May 1962 we began publishing Spartaco: Central Bulletin of Programmatic and Struggle Organ of the International Communists within the CGIL.

‘[…] If, therefore, today, we seek to extend and better coordinate this work, it is not because a particular “new and original idea” has crossed anyone’s mind. Rather, it is because the general situation and development—even if disorganized, of class struggles—and the process of consolidation of the party network have forced us to translate into action, one as continuous and systematic as possible, a permanent task of ours. This is the case even when events—not the will or decision of men—limited it (as they still partly limit it) “to a small corner of the overall activity.”

“This was the necessary response to questions that arose, both on the periphery and at the center of the party, from ongoing agitations. We can now give this response on a larger scale than in the past, precisely because, during the long and not yet completed phase of the ‘re-establishment of the theory of Marxist communism’ that occupied the last decade of our organizational life, the relationship between our ideologically strengthened network and the (still slender) strata of proletarians has been expanding and strengthening. This is not a ‘turning point’ but a continuation of work that never ceased, even when external circumstances—beyond the will or desires of even the most combative and enthusiastic militant—limited its scope.”

(Firm Points of Trade Union Action, Il Programma Comunista #19/1962)

This is how Spartaco introduced itself:

“We are fighting so that the traditional workers’ union, the CGIL, may be reborn as a class union. To become a union that exclusively affirms and defends—with no quarter—the life and interests of the proletariat. To become a union that never accepts subordination to the so-called higher needs of the company, the national economy, the fatherland, and much less to the defense of bourgeois institutions.”

(Spartaco #1/1962)

“In July 1968 we began printing Il Sindacato Rosso, the monthly organ of the Central Union Office of the International Communist Party.

It used the same masthead as the party’s labor union organ in 1921.

Created to coordinate and direct the Party’s union activity, it bore the following banner:

“For the class union!

“For proletarian unity against corporatist unification with CISL and UIL! 

“For the unification and generalization of workers’ demands and struggles, against reformism and splitting up the struggle!

“For the emancipation of the workers from capitalism!

“Let the organs of the party, the factory and union communist groups arise, for the revolutionary leadership of the working masses.”

“The Sindacato Rosso was the organ of agitation and propaganda of our workers’ groups. Both inside and outside the union, it was the only voice that stood against the betrayal of workers’ interests.

“In 1969, the piecards brought the dues checkoff—the mechanism by which the employer deducts all union dues from each worker’s pay-check and then sends the funds directly to the union—campaign to a conclusion by having a clause inserted into the contracts. This clause placed company management in charge of the collection of union dues.

“This act, which was of course presented as a victory, definitively sanctioned dues checkoffs as the only form of union membership.

“At that time, in all the workplaces we were present, we organized an energetic campaign that demanded the return to direct registration through the ‘collectors.’ We called on the workers to refuse the checkoffs, as we did ourselves.

[…] it was a very serious step towards the integration of the union structure into the state and employers’ machinery.

That is, it was a political act in the direction of fascist unionism.

Checkoffs also served to expel the most conscious revolutionaries and workers from the CGIL. This is because the piecards oftentimes refused to renew the membership of those who did not agree to sign the checkoffs agreement […]”

(The Party in the Face of the Unions…)

Refusing checkoffs does not mean leaving the union.

On the contrary, it means opposing the definitive degeneration of the CGIL….

No to dues checkoffs, yes to the class union!”

(Sindacato Rosso, #18, 1969).

“At the same time, this was  the period of the long contract struggles that marked the peak of the Italian union movement after World War II.

In this period, in several large factories, at Pirelli, FIAT, etc., the first Unitary Rank and File Committees were created. These were spontaneous workers’ organizations that attempted to bypass unions and, on some occasions, sought to replace them.

In the years immediately following the struggles of ’68-69, a process of  rapprochement between the unions and state institutions slowly emerged.

“This accelerating stroke did not happen by chance, but coincided with the beginning of the cycle of international crisis of capitalism […].”

(The Party in the Face of the Unions…)“The union is on its way to becoming a highly bureaucratized apparatus, removing any classist residue.

That little bit of union life, of the direct relationship between officials and members that still existed, and which had allowed or could have allowed a certain amount of internal work by communist militants, was definitively over.

The CGIL, as had already been the case with the CISL and the UIL, progressively became an organization resistant to any class stimulus. More often than not, the CGIL simply nipped class struggle in the bud. More and more apparent over the years, a slow but inexorable separation began between the union’s territorial structure and its members, who in previous years had generally followed the union’s directives with a certain conviction.”