Tweet
TRADE UNIONS’ FUNCTION.
Trade Unionism really represents in one sense an attempt to organise monopolies of labour power in order to break down the competition between the workers who in the labour market are commodities for sale and to establish monopoly prices for labour. The more Trade Unionism advances in this direction the more difficult it becomes for the Capitalists to make profit. Hence the everlasting cry of the Capitalists for “lower production costs†and its opposite the workers’ struggle for higher wages and improved conditions. This is the fundamental contradiction of Capitalist economy—a struggle between the two classes, the propertied class and the propertyless—which is inevitable so long as the private ownership of the means of production exists.
From this the Socialist draws the conclusion, therefore, that the class primarily interested in the change from private property to social property is the working class. The goal of Socialism as the classless society has its starting point in the propertyless condition of the working class which is also precisely the starting point of Trade Unionism. The Trade Unions represent the first weapons of the working class in the struggle against Capitalist interests; the Socialist’s goal represents the consummation of the struggle of the working class—its emancipation from the system which gives rise to that struggle.
Trade Unionism and Socialism have thus a common origin and the aim of Socialism is only possible of achievement by the working class becoming victorious in the struggle against Capitalism. Why then is it that Trade Unionists are not always Socialists?
People do not start their lives with fully developed theories about systems of society. Nor were Trade Unions formed to fight for Socialism. The workers formed them to defend and improve their immediate conditions of employment, their wages, their hours of labour and so on. This is clearly revealed by the way in which the Trade Unions have grown.
In the early days of Trade Unions, all concerned with the particular needs of occupations—miners, engineers, carpenters and so forth—were on a much narrower basis than to-day. Almost each craft or trade had its own particular union and their members were drawn from easily traversed localities. Only with the growth of industry, the development of transport and communications between cities and towns and villages did the unions become on the one hand national unions and on the other Trade Unions, combining various trades within an industry. Later still, when the unskilled workers began to organise, there were formed general labour unions which include workers of various industries. Whatever the general form of the unions, all are directly related to occupations, but the more industry develops the more the divisions by industry become apparent, and to-day, for example, in the railway industry there are now only three principal unions; in the mining industry there is a Mine Workers’ Federation of Great Britain formed of County Federations which cater for all the workers in and around the mines; the many cotton workers’ unions combine in federations covering the whole cotton manufacturing industry; and in the woollen industry the process of industrial consolidation is at work.
THREE TENDENCIES.
Throughout the history of the Trade Unions there have been three marked tendencies, first the break up of the crafts and trades into more simple forms of labour which brought in its trail the widening of Craft Unions into Trade Unions tending towards Industrial Unions; second, local and national combinations of all the unions into Trades Councils locally and the Trades Union Congress nationally, representing the merging of the many sectional interests into the common interests of all the Trade Unions—the gathering together of the working class; third, the political development of the workers’ movement, the formation of the Labour Party and Socialist parties and groups representing the growing consciousness of the working class of its independent interests and aims—in short, its approach to the Socialist conclusions arising from a recognition of the class divisions in society and the conflict arising therefrom. What was in its first stage an unconscious class struggle of the workers becomes increasingly a conscious class struggle.
An important hindrance to this development springs, however, from the limited character of the Trade Unions’ activities in relation to the occupations of the workers. The fact that the Trade Unions limited their industrial activities to measures on behalf of particular sections of workers meant that they adopted the method of striking bargains with particular groups of employers. To this has been given the name collective bargaining, the setting up of agreements between employers’ associations and groups of Trade Unions for limited objectives. There can, of course, be no complaint against such a procedure providing it does not become an end in itself but is regarded by the workers as a part of a continuous process in the developing of sufficient power and will to conquer the Capitalists when the time is ripe.
When, however, collective bargaining is accepted as a permanent procedure and becomes the first principle of action for the working class movement, then it involves the acceptance of Capitalism as a permanent form of society; and the unions will have to take just what the Capitalists can afford to give them. Here lies a central point of difference between Socialists and those Trade Unionists who regard Capitalism as permanent and the Trade Unions as permanent bargain-makers.
PRESENT DANGERS IN THE TRADE UNIONS.
The greatest danger for Trade Unionists and Trade Unions to-day arises precisely from the fact that Trade Union policy is too exclusively confined to bargain making and not directed to the Socialist aim of abolishing the economic system which gives rise to the struggle between workers and employers. Especially is this danger most apparent when the world has entered the period of history when Capitalism is breaking down. Already a sixth part of the earth has become Socialist and there, in the U.S.S.R., the Trade Unions have new functions, new tasks, and an entirely new outlook on society. For example, they are completely responsible for the administration of the social welfare of the members in sickness and in health. In co-operation with the Workers’ State they regulate the wages and hours of labour and control the condition and administration of industry. In the rest of the world there are chaos, unemployment, wage struggles, the lengthening of working hours, the smashing of Trade Unionism. Here in Britain itself there are over two million unemployed, intense competition between those who are fortunate enough to get work and a mad race of Capitalism towards another devastating war. All the signs in countries where Capitalism reigns reveal the increasing strains and stresses to which it is subjected, and the failure to find, save at the expense of the workers, any sure temporary stabilities.
And yet it is a fact that the bargain-making outlook is in command of the unions. So much is this the case that wage struggles are unco-ordinated, the Trades Union Congress is committed to all kinds of plans for re-constructing Capitalism, “Roosevelt Plan for Britain,†and so on.
How much this is the case was clearly demonstrated recently by the General Council of the T.U.C.’s rejection of the resolution of the Margate Trades Union Congress calling for the co-ordination of the wage struggles of the Trade Unions. The General Council stated that the Trade Unions had so many agreements terminating at different times; that the profitableness of industries varied so much, co-ordination was not deemed practical. Hence when the miners were demanding an improvement of their conditions the rest of the Trade Unions looked on and there was no preparation made to give support in the event of the miners being forced into strike action. The same applies to the many separate efforts of other Trade Unions at the present time.
Trade Unionism really represents in one sense an attempt to organise monopolies of labour power in order to break down the competition between the workers who in the labour market are commodities for sale and to establish monopoly prices for labour. The more Trade Unionism advances in this direction the more difficult it becomes for the Capitalists to make profit. Hence the everlasting cry of the Capitalists for “lower production costs†and its opposite the workers’ struggle for higher wages and improved conditions. This is the fundamental contradiction of Capitalist economy—a struggle between the two classes, the propertied class and the propertyless—which is inevitable so long as the private ownership of the means of production exists.
From this the Socialist draws the conclusion, therefore, that the class primarily interested in the change from private property to social property is the working class. The goal of Socialism as the classless society has its starting point in the propertyless condition of the working class which is also precisely the starting point of Trade Unionism. The Trade Unions represent the first weapons of the working class in the struggle against Capitalist interests; the Socialist’s goal represents the consummation of the struggle of the working class—its emancipation from the system which gives rise to that struggle.
Trade Unionism and Socialism have thus a common origin and the aim of Socialism is only possible of achievement by the working class becoming victorious in the struggle against Capitalism. Why then is it that Trade Unionists are not always Socialists?
People do not start their lives with fully developed theories about systems of society. Nor were Trade Unions formed to fight for Socialism. The workers formed them to defend and improve their immediate conditions of employment, their wages, their hours of labour and so on. This is clearly revealed by the way in which the Trade Unions have grown.
In the early days of Trade Unions, all concerned with the particular needs of occupations—miners, engineers, carpenters and so forth—were on a much narrower basis than to-day. Almost each craft or trade had its own particular union and their members were drawn from easily traversed localities. Only with the growth of industry, the development of transport and communications between cities and towns and villages did the unions become on the one hand national unions and on the other Trade Unions, combining various trades within an industry. Later still, when the unskilled workers began to organise, there were formed general labour unions which include workers of various industries. Whatever the general form of the unions, all are directly related to occupations, but the more industry develops the more the divisions by industry become apparent, and to-day, for example, in the railway industry there are now only three principal unions; in the mining industry there is a Mine Workers’ Federation of Great Britain formed of County Federations which cater for all the workers in and around the mines; the many cotton workers’ unions combine in federations covering the whole cotton manufacturing industry; and in the woollen industry the process of industrial consolidation is at work.
THREE TENDENCIES.
Throughout the history of the Trade Unions there have been three marked tendencies, first the break up of the crafts and trades into more simple forms of labour which brought in its trail the widening of Craft Unions into Trade Unions tending towards Industrial Unions; second, local and national combinations of all the unions into Trades Councils locally and the Trades Union Congress nationally, representing the merging of the many sectional interests into the common interests of all the Trade Unions—the gathering together of the working class; third, the political development of the workers’ movement, the formation of the Labour Party and Socialist parties and groups representing the growing consciousness of the working class of its independent interests and aims—in short, its approach to the Socialist conclusions arising from a recognition of the class divisions in society and the conflict arising therefrom. What was in its first stage an unconscious class struggle of the workers becomes increasingly a conscious class struggle.
An important hindrance to this development springs, however, from the limited character of the Trade Unions’ activities in relation to the occupations of the workers. The fact that the Trade Unions limited their industrial activities to measures on behalf of particular sections of workers meant that they adopted the method of striking bargains with particular groups of employers. To this has been given the name collective bargaining, the setting up of agreements between employers’ associations and groups of Trade Unions for limited objectives. There can, of course, be no complaint against such a procedure providing it does not become an end in itself but is regarded by the workers as a part of a continuous process in the developing of sufficient power and will to conquer the Capitalists when the time is ripe.
When, however, collective bargaining is accepted as a permanent procedure and becomes the first principle of action for the working class movement, then it involves the acceptance of Capitalism as a permanent form of society; and the unions will have to take just what the Capitalists can afford to give them. Here lies a central point of difference between Socialists and those Trade Unionists who regard Capitalism as permanent and the Trade Unions as permanent bargain-makers.
PRESENT DANGERS IN THE TRADE UNIONS.
The greatest danger for Trade Unionists and Trade Unions to-day arises precisely from the fact that Trade Union policy is too exclusively confined to bargain making and not directed to the Socialist aim of abolishing the economic system which gives rise to the struggle between workers and employers. Especially is this danger most apparent when the world has entered the period of history when Capitalism is breaking down. Already a sixth part of the earth has become Socialist and there, in the U.S.S.R., the Trade Unions have new functions, new tasks, and an entirely new outlook on society. For example, they are completely responsible for the administration of the social welfare of the members in sickness and in health. In co-operation with the Workers’ State they regulate the wages and hours of labour and control the condition and administration of industry. In the rest of the world there are chaos, unemployment, wage struggles, the lengthening of working hours, the smashing of Trade Unionism. Here in Britain itself there are over two million unemployed, intense competition between those who are fortunate enough to get work and a mad race of Capitalism towards another devastating war. All the signs in countries where Capitalism reigns reveal the increasing strains and stresses to which it is subjected, and the failure to find, save at the expense of the workers, any sure temporary stabilities.
And yet it is a fact that the bargain-making outlook is in command of the unions. So much is this the case that wage struggles are unco-ordinated, the Trades Union Congress is committed to all kinds of plans for re-constructing Capitalism, “Roosevelt Plan for Britain,†and so on.
How much this is the case was clearly demonstrated recently by the General Council of the T.U.C.’s rejection of the resolution of the Margate Trades Union Congress calling for the co-ordination of the wage struggles of the Trade Unions. The General Council stated that the Trade Unions had so many agreements terminating at different times; that the profitableness of industries varied so much, co-ordination was not deemed practical. Hence when the miners were demanding an improvement of their conditions the rest of the Trade Unions looked on and there was no preparation made to give support in the event of the miners being forced into strike action. The same applies to the many separate efforts of other Trade Unions at the present time.
Comment