본문
혁명을 거역하는 노동조합
- G.무니스
경제적인 면과 정치적인 면 두 가지 사이에 가장 명료하게 유기적, 기능적인 구분을 가정한다고 할지라도, 그 둘 사이에 모순이란 존재할 수 없다. 어떠한 반동적인 개념이라 할지라도 이것은 사실이다. 따라서 오늘날, 경제적 조직인 노동조합과 이데올로기 기구인 정치적 정당사이의 상호소통, 동의와 협력은 한쪽이 다른 한쪽을 그리고 다른 한쪽이 그 한쪽을 중요하게 생각하는 두 가지 모두를 이해하는데 중요한 열쇠를 제공한다. 이러한 진술은 수천 년의 경험을 통해서 인간에 의해 검증되고, 이성에 의해 증명된다기보다는 오래된, 변하지 않는 원칙으로부터 나온다. : 모든 관념이나 정치적 행동은 경제적 기반으로부터 나오는데 이는 통제하고 결정짓는 역할을 한다. 이러한 작업의 과정에서 , 다른 측면에서, 우리는 정치학과 경제학 사이의 상호침투를 시험 할 것이며, 노동조합이 현재에 어떻게 기능하고 있는 지를 살펴봄으로써 노조를 평가할 것이다.
노동계급의 방어적인 조직으로써 처음 나타났던 노조들은 인간이하의 노동환경에 직면했고, 오래된 친목단체나 회사의 확장으로써의 산업적 측면에서 그들 자신을 드러내고 있다. 노조는 그들의 열망에 기반 해서 개량주의 수준에까지도 도달하지 않고 있다. 이데올로기적이며 경제적인 분석을 이용하자면, 개량주의는 혁명적인 행동에 대한 요구 없이 법적인 발전을 통해서, 자본주의적 민주주의 방식으로 사회주의를 달성하는 것이 가능하다는 것을 주장한다. 조합들에게는 발전이냐 혁명이냐에 대한 물음은 전혀 없었으며 더군다나 사회주의에 대한 물음조차 없었다. 노조는 착취당하는 노동자들을 위해서, 좀 더 참을만하고 덜 굴욕적인 노동환경을 얻으려 하는 것이 아니라, 시간이 증명해왔듯이, 자본에 좀더 적합한 노동환경을 얻으려는 시도에서 더 나아가지 않는다. 이러한 한계에도 불구하고 초기의 노조들은, 혁명가가 아니라면, 적어도 노동계급의식을 가지며 오늘날의 노조들의 왜곡된 계급의식, 타락과는 대비되는 건전한 구성을 가진 조직이었다.
19세기 후반, 20세기 초반에 소위 혁명적 조합주의(생디칼리즘)가 나타났다. 이는 상황에 맞는 취사선택 이론이었으며 , 맑시스트 개념으로부터 나온 소위 무정부주의적 정치주의와 오래된 노동조합부터 만들어진 엄격한 경제적 주장을 압도한다. 가장 위대한 흐름의 시기와 이러한 형태의 조합주의의 공세가 개량주의의 정점과 함께 나타났다는 사실에 역설은 없다.
소렐과 베른슈타인은 동시대인인데다가, 차이점보다 공통점을 더 많이 가지고 있었다. 소렐이 생디칼리즘에서 역사적 문제에 대한 해결책을 제안하는 데 반해, 베른슈타인과 그의 경향은 의회주의 안에서, 심지어 자본축적의 필요성 안에서 사회주의 사회에 대항하는 확실하고 조화로운 발전의 행복한 기계장치를 추구했다. 실제로 혁명적인 생디카리즘과 개량주의는 부르주아계급의 무서운 경제적 욕망과 관계있다는 점에서 같았다. 그 기간 안에 부르주아지는 그들의 개화가능성의 절정과 엄청난 크기의 자유의 부여, 좌파에 기대는 (그들의 이상적-경제적 관념으로부터 완전히 벗어나지 못한)사람들에 대한 환상을 달성하였다. 이러한 이유로 1914년의 정치적 파산은 생디칼리스트들, 개량주의자들과 함께 진행될 수 있었다. 비록 스페인의 군사적 중립이 프랑수의 C.G.T. 의 항복의 문서와 자세에 대해 자비를 베풀었지만 스페인의 C.N.T 조차 예외가 아니었다. ; 뒤에서 살펴보겠지만, 그것의 파산은 1936년과 1939년 사이에 프롤레타리아 혁명의 시기에 일어났다.
노동조합의 수치적인 증가와 사회적 힘은 1914년 이후 계속적으로 증가했으며, 프랑스와 같은 몇몇 나라에서는 만약 그들의 수치로 인한 힘이 지난 몇 년간 심각하게 줄어들었다면 그들의 중요성은 점차로 커져왔다. 노동조합들에게 1914년의 참사는 그들 자신의 것으로 들어가는데 있어서 필요한 사건이었다고 이야기 되어져왔다. 이것은 그때까지 자본주의가 노조를 파괴적인 힘으로 두려워했고 노조가 할 수 있는 협력적인 역할을(아마도 영국을 제외하고는)보여주지 않았기 때문이다. 그러나 1차 세계대전 이후로 공장에서의 “노동자들의 지배”라는 수많은 경험들은 자본가들이 만족할만한 효과에 의해 그들을 만족시켜왔다. “노동자들의 지배”는 자본에 대한 노동자들의 투쟁을 약화시켜왔고, 공장의 공정과정을 촉진시키고 있으며 무엇보다도 산출을 증가시키고 있다. 노동조합들은 (특별히 자본주의적인 총체인)조국의 방어자로서 뿐만 아니라 착취의 구조 그 자체 안에서의 효과적인 부역자로서 눈에 띄었다. 그것은 그들의 부를 만들었고 그들에 대한 의심되지 않는 지평으로서 열렸다.(?) 그러나 이는 노조가 그들의 결정적인 방향을 정했던 국제노동운동사안에서의 (여러 가지 이유로)매우 중요한 기점이었던 1936년과 1937년 사이의 일 이었다. 이 기간 동안 그들은 그들이 자본주의 사회의 가장 굳건한 기둥의 하나가 되어가는 데 대해 고마워하는 성질을 보여주었다.
20년의 시간이 러시아와 스페인의 혁명을 분리 시켰고, 이는 자본주의에 대항한 세계 프롤레타리아의 공격의 폭발의 처음이자 마지막이었고, 많은 나라 안에서의 부단한 공격에 의해 주목받는 공격이었다. 스탈린 관료주의가 국가자본주의의 건설을 완성하고 스페인 혁명이 최고조로 달한 그 순간, 스탈린주의자들은 모든 진정한 공산주의자들을 총과 온갖 중상모략, 비방을 통해 제거했다. 이것은 계급투쟁의 조직적인 요소들과 타락한 모든 이데올로기적 요소들을 결정적인 방법으로 변화시키기 위한 것이었다. 오랜 시간 동안 국제적인 노동운동에 대한 러시아의 간섭은 부정적인 것이었다. ; 스페인에서 ‘러시아지배 공산당’은 그 자신의 보존의 요구에 의해 질질 끌려 다녔고, 이는 원칙적으로 반혁명적인 경찰력이었음이 밝혀졌다. 1936년 7월, 대부분의 나라에서 군대를 파괴하려는 프롤레타리아의 반란을 방해하려는 시도는 (다행히도) 헛되이 끝났다. 1937년 5월 공산당은 프롤레타리아를 기관총으로 쏘려했는데 프롤레타이라는 C.P.의 반동적인 경찰에 대항해 반항하고 있었으며, 그것을 물리치고 무장해제 시켰으며 혁명을 부숴버렸다. 1936년에 군대가 하려다가 실패한 것을 스탈린주의는 10개월 후 이룩하였다.
처음에 모스크바는 그자신의 영역에서 벗어나 반혁명적인 힘으로서 직접적으로 행동했다. 현재까지 이사건의 엄청난 반동적인 결과에 대한 진정한 비판은 없었다. 그러나 이것은 다음에서 이야기하는 세계의 중요한 모든 행동들의 원천이었다 : 히틀러-스탈린 협정과 두 번째의 “위대한 전쟁”으로부터 “평화로운 공존”의 정책과 독일, 폴란드, 헝가리에서와 같은 반란까지. 후자는 1937년 5월의 스페인 프롤레타리아의 혁명과 같은 수준에서 일어난 것이 아니라 1936년 7월 폭동과 거의 같은 수준에서 일어난 것이었는데 이는 프랑코의 군대 안에서 스탈린의 군대와 경찰이 함께 했다. 헝가리에서의 Imre Nagy와 그의 동료들은 1936년 스페인의 ‘대중 전선’과 같았다. : 혁명적인 격변기의 부산물이지만 혁명의 핵심은 아니었다.
노조가 자본의 보조적 기관으로서 그들을 명백히 했던 잠재적 특성을 드러냈던 1936년 즈음은 중요하다. 그 과정에서 그 자신을 위해서 (영국과 미국의 노조의 예를 제외하고)노조 안에서 큰 흐름을 성취해낸 것이 스탈린주의라는 것은 당연하다. 자본주의의 경제적 경험론은 러시아의 반혁명적 경험주의 안에서 보다 높은 정치적 표현을 찾아냈으며 그것을 고무시켰고 동시에 완벽하게 했다. 이들 두 가지 요소는 좀 더 나은 사회적 환경을 창조하기 위해서 섞이고 병합되었다. 현재 이러한 환경은 다소간 완결된 형태로 존재한다. : 현 상태에서 “후퇴한” 나라를 포함하여 각각의 국가를 따져 봤을 때 이것은 독립된 하나의 경우가 아닌 세계체제전체의 일부분으로서 그것은 자본주의 이상은 아무것도 아니다.
우리는 파업할 권리에 대하여 좀 더 굳건하다고 자부하며, 그 자신의 민주주의에 대하여 자부심을 가진 서구를 살펴볼 것이다. 실상 이러한 권리는 노동자들에게 주어진 것이 아니라 법에 의해서 그들의 대표, 즉 노조가 가진 것으로 인식된다. 노동자 자신들에 의해 일어나는 파업은 그것을 파괴하려는 노조나 국가와의 제휴를 맞이하게 된다- 종종 노동자들의 직접적 패배에 의해서 혹은 노동자들에게 중재안을 받아들이게 함으로써. 1936년의 프랑스의 혁명적 파업이 공산당(토레즈:“누군가는 파업을 끝내는 법을 알아야한다.”)과 사회주의 정당(Blum 정부와 경찰은 “사회주의자들”에 의해 명령받았다.)에 의해(파업이 그들의 정치경제적 이해에 반대하기 때문에) 실패한 이후로, 거의 모든 나라는 파업이 노조에 의해 실패한다는 것을 알고 있다. 그러므로 실제적으로, 그리고 법적으로 파업은 노조에게 위임된다. 그러나 그것이 전부가 아니다. 항상 파업이라는 예외적 상황을 넘어서, 계급투쟁이 꾸준히 만들어지고 있는 - 자본과 노동의 일상적 관계 안에서 노조는 둘 사이의 완충장치로서만 역할을 하는 것이 아니라 자본으로부터 노동자로의 메신저로서의, 노동자를 자본의 요구에 적응시키는 것을 돕는 앞잡이로서 나타난다. 노조에 의해 독점되어버린, 자본에 대한 노동의 모든 투쟁의 표현은 자본의 이익을 위해 노동자들에게 등을 돌린다.
우리는 위에서 한 논증의 말들이 부인할 수 없는 확고한 사실이라는 것만을 상기해야만 한다. 공장위원회 뿐 만 아니라 매장, 상점 혹은 직업적 영역의 대표들은 국가에 의존하고 있다면 그들의 선출방식이 선거라 할지라도 노동자들의 자유의지의 표현이 아니다. 그들은 노조를 대표하고 있을 뿐이다. 그 안에서 노동자들은 그들이 원하는 누군가를 선출하는데 자유롭지 못하다. : 유명한 영국 상점의 지배인들이 산별노조의 동의를 원한다 할지라도. 대부분의 나라에서 법적으로 노조는 노동계급을 대표한다고 규정하고 있다. 그러므로 노동자들은 더 이상 자신들이 그들 자신들을 대표할 권리를 가지고 있지 못하며, 국가나 고용주들과의 협상을 하기위해, 그들의 투쟁을 지도하기 위해 노조 아닌 다른 기관을 만들 권리는 더더군다나 없다. 노동계급의 권리와 노조의 권리는 명백하게 둘로 나뉘며 상호 모순적이다. 이 때문에 노동자들과 공장위원회, 상점대표사이의 대립-잠재적인 형태로 늘 상 존재하는 대립-은 고용주와의 대립이 있을 때마다 첨예해지고 투쟁이 광범위해지면 직접적인 대립으로 변한다. 지난 20년간 이름 있을 만한 모든 파업은 노조의 의지에 반하고 공장안에서의 대표자들을 포위해야만 했다. : 노동자들 자신들은 파업위원회를 선출해야만 했다. 그러나 노동자들에 의해 선출된 공장위원회나 파업위원회는 매번 노조지도자들에 의해 그들 스스로 설득당하도록 허락했고 자본은 우위를 점했다.
단체 노동협약의 목적은 다양한 영역에서 고용주의 횡포를 제한하는 것이었다. : 노동조건과 근무시간, 착취의 강도(시간당 생산성), 범주에 따른 임금범위(상하관계), 고용과 해고, 정치적 권리, 발언의 자유와 공장안에서의 위원회, 공장규정 등등. 그러나 (법 아래에서 유일하게 협상하고 그것에 서명할 수 있는)노조의 손안에서의 단체협약은 보통 자본에 대한, 특이하게는 노조에 대한 프롤레타리아의 종속을 위한 무서운 제도가 되었다. 사실, 현재 노조는 부분적으로 혹은 종합적으로 착취의 대리인이 되었다. 사실 클로즈드 샵(조합원만을 고용하는 사업소)의 경우를 제외하고 해고와 고용은 거의 자본의 자비에 위임되어있으며 이것은 노동자들의 보증된 노동과는 거리가 먼 것으로 단순하게 말해서 노조에게 파산의 권리를 준 것이다. 이것은 우리가 아래 글에서 동구의 노조에 대해 이야기할 때 보게 될 최악의 종류의 반동적인 경제적 탄압이다.
노동계약은 임금의 차이와 노동자들 간의 범주적 ,기술적 기능과 관련된 적대감 때문에 노동계급의 서로 반대되는 그룹으로의 위계적 분화를 찬성하고 장려한다. 노조는 프롤레타리아가 자본에 대한 작은 블록을 형성할 때를 제외하고는, 그들의 본성 때문에, 본능적으로 위계적 기초에 의한 프롤레타리아의 분화를 돕는다. 위계적인 노동관계를 통한 프롤레타리아의 분화의 필요성과 그로인한 최상위층의 이해로부터의 소외의 필요성은 자본만큼이나 노조에게도 중요한 것이다. 한 세기 동안 노동운동은 그 자신안의 위계적 관계에 대항하여 싸워왔고, 넓은 영역에서 그 물적 기반을 제한하면서 위계질서에 찬성하는 편견을 깨부쉈다. 지난 몇 십년동안 노조와 그들의 정치적 격려자들은 폭넓게 위계적 적대감을 재구축하고 노동 영역의 숫자를 늘리는 데 성공하였다. 오늘날 대부분의 노동자들은 위계적 노동관계가 자연스럽거나 “정당”하다고 생각한다.
단체 협약의 본래적 이상이, 자본이 완전한 억압을 기대하는 동안 그것의 전횡을 억제하는 것이었다면, 오늘날 그들은 자본주의의 기능적 요구에 부합하는 자본주의 시스템을 통제하는 거의 완벽한 방법을 구성한다. 단체협약에서 협상과 서명을 하는데 노조는 생산수단을 독점한 그룹의 필수적인 일부처럼 행동한다. 미국과 다른 나라에서 많은 수의 노조는 회사 안에서 그들의 구성원을 착취하는 중요한 주주이다. : 이는 사회주의에 대한 기대와는 거리가 먼 것으로 가장 큰 경제적, 이데올로기적 개념 안에서 노조를 착취의 수익자로 변화시키는 것이다. 노조들은 노동자들에 대한 착취의 계획을 끌어내는데 실제적으로 참여하지 않는 곳에서 이러한 권리를 찾는다.
계급투쟁의 현장인 작업장, 특히 큰 공장은 가장 혁명적인 노동자들에게 영구적이며 원대한 실질적, 이데올로기적 활동을 줄 수 있다. 그러나 이러한 활동이 노조에 의해 만들어지는 것은 불가능하다. 빈번하게 단체협약은 어떤 노동계급의 활동에 서 필수불가결한 모임과 토론뿐만 아니라 공장안에서의 정치적 선전과 활동을 금지할 것을 규정한다. 여러 해 동안 노조는 고용주들과 함께 음모를 꾸며왔는데, 그때마다 혁명적인 노동자들을 축출하는 문제가 있었다. 이러한 해고는 현재 단체협약의 조항으로 합법화되거나 은밀히 인정되었는데 왜냐하면 이러한 조항은 모든 공장에서 고용주들에 의해 만들어진 법에 의해 만들어져있기 때문이다. 노조와 그들의 정치적 고무자들은 혁명적 전단을 살포하는 사람들에 대항하여 그들을 진압할 필요가 있다면 경찰로써 행동하는 임무를 맡아왔다. 이탈리아에서 스탈린주의 노조의 지도자들은 고용주들에게 경고 없이 혹은 보상 없이 전단지나 어떤 형태의 선동문구를 살포하는 죄가 있는 노동자들을 해고할 수 있는 권리를 주었다. 프랑스에서, 대부분의 공장법규는 노동자들의 생각을 제한할 수 있는 것을 허용하는 것만큼 대부분의 반항적인 노동자들이 그들 스스로를 표현하게 하는 것을 제한하게 하여 그들을 조용하게 했다. 독일, 영국, 미국에서의 상황역시 러시아나 스페인에서의 상황 이상으로 좋지 않았다. 그러므로 자본과 노조기구의 집중성 있는 행동에 감사하면서, 노동계급은 스스로 작업장에서조차 비밀스러운 행동을 줄였으며 작업장은 학대받고 착취 받는 공간이 되었다.
프롤레타리아는 그들의 정치적 자유를 회복해야만 한다. 그 자유는 현재의 고용주-노조라는 법적 테두리를 벗어던지지 않고서는 불가능하다. 노동의 실제적인 측면을 존경하는 사람들의 완전한 자유는 처음부터 미래의 혁명적인 민주주의와 공산주의를 포함한다. 오늘날 스스로를 공산주의자라고 부르는 사람들이 전혀 공산주의자가 아니고, 그들에 대한 정통성 있는 반감을 통해 진정한 공산주의자가 종종 공산주의를 주장하는 것을 피하기 때문에 우리는 공산주의를 말하고 있는 것이다.
엄밀하게 경제적 영역 안에서 노동계급의 상황은 결코 오늘날의 것보다 나쁘지 않았다. 4시간 혹은 5시간 노동에 의해 오래전에 바뀌었어야 하는 8시간 노동은 현재 종이위에만 존재한다. 많은 나라에서 기준시간 이상의 과다노동에 대한 거부는 곧바로 해고로 직결된다. 심사숙고하여 낮게 유지되고 있었던, 생산성 등에 기초한 소위 “기본급(러시아어로 norm)”과 보상금, 보너스는 노동자들에게 하루 10시간에서 12시간까지 일하는 것을 수용하게 강요할 뿐 아니라 가장 나쁜 노동(성과급이라는) 모든 형태의 노동조건을 새롭게 강요함으로써 사실상 일당, 시급을 폐지하였다. 이러한 발단이래로 노동운동은 가장 오래된 모든 형태의 이러한 착취를 끝내는데 노력해왔는데 이러한 착취는 노동자들을 육체적으로 지치게 하고 지적으로 우매하게 만든다.
유럽 대부분에서 이러한 성과급방식의 노동을 제거하는데 성공했다. 20년 전만해도 대부분의 노동자들은 어떤 종류의 성과급을 받아들이는 것이 품위를 손상시키는 것이라고 생각했다. 그러나 오늘날 성과급은 자본이 이를 강요했기 때문이라기보다 노조에 의한 사기극을 통해서 다시 규칙이 되었다. : 사실 이 부분에서 우리는 노조와 자본의 궁극적 친화성을 확인한다. 시간당, 개인당 생산성이라는 착취의 가장 깊은 면에 대하여 유념할 때 프롤레타리아는 끔직한 상황으로 그 자신이 강요받는 것을 발견한다. 그것으로부터 산출되는 생산성은 매일 엄청난 비율로 증가한다. 먼저, 기술적 혁신은 노동자들을 그들의 노동에 대한 어떠한 창조적인 개입으로부터 분리해내고 그의 움직임을 부차적이 것으로 측정하며 노동자들을 기계의 리듬에 맞게 종속된 살아있는 로봇이 되게 한다. 그다음, 흉악하고 불쾌한 올가미는 사람들을 동일한 도구로 동일한 시간동안 끝없이 일하게 강요한다. 마지막으로 각각의 기업에서의 훈련은 대변을 보거나 담뱃불을 붙이는 것과 같이 일에 대한 가장 작은 소홀함조차 감소시킨다. 이러한 방법으로 각각의 개인으로부터 산출된 생산물은 막대한 것이며, 따라서 같은 비율의 노동자의 정신적, 육체적 소모이다.
이러한 문제를 언급한다는 것은 누군가의 손가락을 현대사회와 그 일부분인 노조의 사악함 위에 놓는 것이다. 또한 이러한 문제는 생산과 분배사이의 현재적 관계를 벗어버리지 않고서는, 간단히 말해 혁명을 만들지 않고서는 해결할 방법이 없다. 그러나 이 의문점을 정확하게 다루기 위해서는 무엇보다 동구권전체의 모델인 러시아에서 노조가 무엇을 나타내는가와 그것을 넘어선 많은 나라에서 조차 무엇을 흉내 내야만 했는지를 봐야만 한다.
서구에서의 노조의 반동적인 일과 프롤레타리아 상황의 악화에 대하여 언급되어온 모든 것들은 러시아 세계에 대해서는 더욱 사실이다. 스탈린의 방패아래서 러시아의 국가 자본주의가 설립된 이래로 예전의 모든 부르주아 세계는 그것으로부터 착취에 대한 교육을 받았다. 이것들은 경찰진압과도 관련이 있다. 그러나 여기에서 우리는 노동과 자본사이의 특별한 관계와 노조의 역할에 대해서 이야기 하는 것으로 우리스스로를 한정시킬 것이다. 이와 같이, 만약 일반적으로 모든 곳에서 오랫동안 ,노조가 노동 계급 안에서 자본의 보조적인 힘이었다면, 노조에게 매우강한 힘을 주고 그들에게 매혹적인 예를 제공함으로써 스탈린주의의 반혁명은 노조의 본질적 운명을 폭로해왔다. 1936년 이후로 서구에서의 프롤레타리아에 대한 착취를 약화시키고 그것의 구체화를 강화하는 거의 모든 수단은 스탈린주의 러시아 안에서 그 모델을 찾았다.
정치적 권리와 공장 안팎에서 모임을 개최할 권리에 대한 완전한 억압 ; 고용주에 의해 강요된 초과노동이나 공식적 노동에 대한 부적합한 기본급(norm) ; 고용주의 결정에 따른 징계수단이나 벌금, 고용주는 또한 공장 법규를 명령한다. ; 시간동작연구와 무수히 많은 통제, 일한 분량에 따라 임금이 지급되는 노동, 기술적 “자격”과 임금에 기초한 프롤레타리아 내에서의 위계적 분화 ; 오직 자본에게만 이익이 되는 단체협약, 생산자들의 손해로 향하는 끝없는 생산성의 증가, 법에 의한 혹은 실제적인 파업금지 ; 짧게 말해, 서구에서 노조조직을 점점 더 부정적인 조직으로 이행하게 하는 모든 것은 1930년대 러시아로부터 강한 자극을 받았고, 전 세계적으로 자본과 노조에게 영향을 주었다.
적어도 러시아의 상황을 알고 있는 사람들에 의해서 만이라도 잘 알려져 있는 것은 , 기득권층과 피착취계층 사이의 경제적 불평등은 다른 범주간의 노동자들의 질적 차이처럼 다른 곳의 불평등보다 더욱 컸다. 자본주의의 원인이자 동시에 효과인 기득권층과 피착취계층 사이의 불평등은, 그것이 노조의 전망과 발전에 영향을 줄때에만 우리와 관계된다. 다른 나라에서와 마찬가지로 러시아에서 이러한 불평등이 노동자들에 의한 자본의 몰수에 대한 필요성을 높이며, 이는 모든 법체계와 공식적 정당을 포함한 현재의 국가 기관을 완전히 파괴하는 반란이 아니고서는 불가능하다. 이러한 순간에 대한 언급은 충분하다.
다른 어떤 부르주아지보다도 스탈린식 관료주의는 노동 주기의 가속화와 가능한 한 최대한의 직업분류로 프롤레타리아를 인도하는 것에 의해 착취를 증대하는 방법을 안다. 생산을 “촉진”하는 전통적인 자본주의의 방식은 프롤레타리아의 역사적 이윤의 동질성을 이질적인 즉각적 이윤의 다양성으로 치환시키는데 이는 일반적 혁명 활동을 방해하는 수많은 장애물인 것이다. 한 번 더 말하자며, 러시아 노조와 정치적 “장애물”은 그들의 서구식 상대방을 제압했다. 러시아에서 노동자 우두머리는 노동을 하고 있는 그들의 동료에 대한 착취로부터 가장 무시무시한 이익을 얻는다. : 스타하노프주의자들은 “기본급”을 능가하며 그들의 팀 안의 노동자들의 숫자 비율에 따른 보너스를 받았다. 그러므로 그들은 그들의 임금이 보통 노동자들에 대한 착취로부터 증대되는 것을 보며 그러므로 이 착취를 증가시키게 된다. 스타하노프주의자들은 그러므로, (임금이 고정된) 서구의 우두머리들 보다 더 분명하게, 노동에서 그들의 동료들의 적으로 변한다.
러시아에서의 모든 것은 그것의 반대로 변했기 때문에 이 모든 것에서 놀랄 것은 없다. 한때 혁명이 자본주의 독재국가인 반혁명에게 길을 내어주었을 때, 그 반혁명은 스스로를 선동적으로 프롤레타리아 독재라고 칭하며 사회주의자로써 가장 부패된 모습과 전통적 자본주의의 원칙을 보여 준다-실제로는 강요한다.1939년 통과된 노동법은 말한다. : 자본주의 국가 안에서의 임금을 특징화시키는 기본적 특징은 전문노동자와 비전문노동자사이의 임금에 서열화하는 것이다. 노동에 대한 보수로써 소부르주아의 서열화는 사회주의의 가장 큰 적이다. 수년 동안 마르크스주의-레닌주의는 그치지 않고 서열화와 싸웠다.
수년 동안 스탈린주의자들은 맑스 사상의 충실한 표현으로써 임금노동을 통한 산업발전을 제시함으로써 사람들을 끌어들이려 노력했다. 반대로 맑시즘은 임금노동의 폐지와 사회의 경제적 서열화의 폐지, 모든 개인적 요구의 무제한적 만족의 폐지, 개인적 집단적 만족에 필수불가결한 위대한 자유의 폐지를 확립했다. 우리가 만약 그것을 향하고 있지 않다면 , 혁명적인 어떤 것도 현재의 역사적 고비에 실현될 수 없다. 오래된 자본주의 국가에서 프롤레타리아 안에서의 임금차이는 자본과 노동사이의 직접시장관계에 의해 성립된 조건이다. 러시아에서 이러한 임금격차는 헌법에 의해, 원칙이라는 상태를 확보했으며 결국 이것에 대한 투쟁은 범죄가 된다. 부르주아가 ‘재산권’(사실상 재산은 우리가 재산이라고 생각할 때 그것과 반대로 밝혀지는데 노동의 도구나 생산의 수단이 아니라 물질적 소비와 각각의 인간들의 정신적 발전에 필요한 모든 것이다.) 이라는 거룩한 핑계를 통한 경우가 아니면 절대로 인간 대 인간의 사회적 관계로 인정하지 않는 자본과 노동사이의 전통적 관계는, 러시아에서, 다른 능력을 가진 사람들 사이의 자연스럽고 잠재된 관계로 전이된다. 그러므로 사회적 계급이나 한계가 있는 범주대신에 우리는 재능이나 특별한 기능에 기반 한 법에 의하여 한정된 계급을 가지고 있는 것이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 사실, 부에 기반 한 한정은 그것을 잃어버리는 것 대신에 중요한 것이고, 보다 나쁜 것은 인간에 의한 인간의 착취에 대한 생물학적 정당화의 기미가 있다는 것이다.
Grandizo Munis (스페인)
1912-1989
처음엔 볼셰비키-레닌주의자( Bolshevik-Leninista)였지만 이후 스페인의 좌익 반대파가 되었고, 나중엔 트로츠키의 아내 Natalia Sedova와 함께 좌익공산주의자가 되었습니다.
이후 그는 좌익공산주의 역사에서도 소개되는 Fermento Obrera Revolucionario (FOR)그룹을 주도합니다.
-무니스의 저서로는
The Bourgeois State in Crisis, 5 April 1937
The Road to Victory Begins with the Revolutionary Front of the Proletariat, 5 April 1937
The Bolshevik-Leninists of Spain Demand Your Aid in the Struggle for the Social Revolution, 29 May 1937
The Programme of the Spanish Bolshevik-Leninists, September 1937
Spain One Year After Franco's Victory, August 1940
Franco’s Dilemma, February 1941
Who Are Hitler’s Agents in Russia?, November 1941
Observations on the Guerrillas, March 1944
The Future of the Soviet Union And The Victories of the Red Army, October 1944
A Correction, March 1945
Defense of the Soviet Union and Revolutionary Tactics, March 1945
Unions against revolution - G. Munis
A critique of trade and syndicalist unions from a communist perspective by G. Munis.
No contradiction can exist between the economic and the political aspects of a revolutionary conception, even supposing the clearest organic and functional demarcation between them. The same is true for any reactionary conception. Hence the present inter-penetration, the agreement and collaboration between unions - economic organs - and political parties - ideological organs - gives us the key to understanding both, from whichever side one looks at the matter. This statement proceeds from an old and unalterable principle, more than proven by reason and verified by men in the course of a thousand years' experience: every idea or political action arises from an economic foundation which then plays both a controlling and determining role. In the course of this work we will examine, under different aspects, the inter-penetration of politics and economics and evaluate unions by taking a look at how they presently function.
Unions first appeared as defensive organs of the working class, faced with subhuman conditions of work, presenting themselves, on the industrial plane, as extensions of the old brotherhoods and corporations. On the basis of their aspirations unions do not even reach the level of reformism. Reformism, utilizing ideological and economic analyses, claims to demonstrate that, by means of capitalist democracy, it would be possible to attain socialism through a legal evolution and without any need for revolutionary acts. For unions there was never a question of either evolution or revolution, still less of socialism. Unions go no further than attempting to obtain, for the exploited worker, conditions of labor which are less intolerable and less humiliating, but also, as time has demonstrated, more profitable for capital. In spite of this limitation the early unions were organs which, if not revolutionary, at least had a working class spirit and a sound composition compared to the corruption and false class character of today's unions.
At the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century a so-called revolutionary unionism (syndicalism) appeared. This was an eclectic doctrine adapted to the situation then prevailing, drawn from the Marxist conception, the so-called a-politicism of anarchism, and the strictly economic claims made by the old trade unions. There is no paradox in the fact that the period of the greatest influence and the strongest thrust of this type of unionism coincided with the apogee of reformism.
Sorel and Bernstein, besides being contemporaries, had more points in common than differences. While Sorel offered, in syndicalism, the panacea to the problems of historical development, Bernstein and his tendency saw in parliamentarism, and even in the necessities of capital accumulation, the happy mechanism of a certain and harmonious evolution towards socialist society. In reality revolutionary syndicalism and reformism were united by the same bonds to the formidable economic drive of the bourgeoisie. This was the period in which the bourgeoisie attained the zenith of its civilizing possibilities, granting the greatest amount of liberty and illusions to those who, without completely escaping its ideo-economic complex, leaned to the left. For this reason the political bankruptcy of 1914 would carry with it the syndicalists and reformists. Even the Spanish C.N.T. was not an exception, although the military neutrality of Spain spared it the capitulatory phrases and attitudes of the French C.G.T.; its particular bankruptcy, as we will see later, took place at the moment of the proletarian revolution in 1936-1939.
The numerical strength and the social weight of the unions has' grown continually since 1914 and if in some countries, like France, their numerical strength has considerable diminished in the course of the last few years their importance has continued to grow. It has been said that the disaster of 1914 was necessary for the unions to really come into their own. This is because until that time capitalism feared the unions as a destructive force and had not yet seen - except perhaps in England - the collaborative role that unions could play.But since the end of the first world war numerous experiences of ''worker's control'' in the factories have surprised the capitalists by their satisfactory effects. ''Worker's control'' has attenuated the struggle of workers against capital, facilitating the operation of the factories and above all increasing output. The unions stood out not only as defenders of the fatherland - that specifically capitalist entity - but as effective collaborators in the mmechanism of exploitation itself. That made their fortune and opened as yet unsuspected horizons to them. However, it was during the years 1936-1937-years which for many reasons were a very important landmark in the history of the international workers' movement that the unions took on their definitive orientation. In this period they displayed the qualities thanks to which they have become one of the most solid pillars of capitalist society.
Twenty years separated the Russian and the Spanish revolutions, which were the first and the last explosions of the same offensive of the world proletariat against capitalism, an offensive marked by incessant attacks in many other countries. Meanwhile the Stalinist bureaucracy had completed the construction of state capitalism and just at the moment when the Spanish revolution was in full swing the Stalinists got rid of all those who were really communists with guns and slander. This was to modify in a decisive manner all the organic factors of the class struggle and corrupt all the ideological factors. For a long time Russian intervention in the international workers' movement had been negative; in Spain the Russian-controlled Communist Party, dragged along by the requirements of its own preservation, turned out to be the principal counterrevolutionary police force. In July 1936 it attempted-happily in vain to prevent the uprising of the proletariat which destroyed the army throughout most of the country. In May 1937 this same Communist Party would machine gun the proletariat, which was revolting against the C.P.'s reactionary policies, defeat it, disarm it and crush the revolution. What the military had failed to do in 1936, Stalinism accomplished 10 months later.
For the first time Moscow acted, outside its own territory, directly as a counter-revolutionary force. Up to now there has been no real appreciation of the immense reactionary consequences of this event. Yet this was the source of all the acts of world importance which followed: from the Hitler-Stalin pact and the second "great war" till the policy of "peaceful coexistence" and uprisings such as those in Fast Germany, Poland and Hungary. The latter must be situated, not on the level of the revolt of the Spanish proletariat of May 1937, but at the most on the same level as the July 1936 insurrection, this time with the Stalinist army and police in place of Franco's army. Imre Nagy and his friends were in Hungary what the popular front was in Spain in 1936: the by-product of a revolutionary upheaval but not the core of the revolution.
It is significant that it was around 1936 that the unions revealed all their latent characteristics, incontestably manifesting themselves as auxiliary organs of capital. That in such a development it was Stalinism which won for itself the greatest influence in the unions - with the exception of the English and American trade unions - is quite natural. The economic empiricism of capitalism found in Russian counter-revolutionary empiricism a higher political expression, one which inspired it and perfected it at the same time. Both of these elements were mixed and merged to create a more favorable milieu. Now this milieu exists under a more or less completed form: it is nothing other than capitalism at its present stage, taking each country, including the "backward" ones, not as an isolated case but as part of the world system.
We will look at the Western bloc which prides itself on its democracy and more concretely on its right to strike. In reality this right is given not to the workers but to the representatives which the law recognizes them as having: the unions. Every strike launched by the workers themselves has to face a coalition of state and unions which seeks to smash it-sometimes by the direct defeat of the workers, sometimes by making the workers accept arbitration. Since the French revolutionary strike of 1936 was smashed by the Communist party (Thorez: "One must know how to end a strike") and the Socialist party together (the Blum government and police commanded by "socialists") almost every country has known strikes led to defeat by the unions because they ran counter to their economic and political interests. Thus, the strike has been in fact and in law taken over by the unions. But that is not all. Beyond the always exceptional situation of a strike, in the day-to-day relations between capital and labor-which is where the class struggle is forged-the unions appear not only as buffers between the two camps, but as messengers from capital to labor and as agents who help to adapt labor to the requirements of capital. All the natural manifestations of the struggle of labor against capital, once monopolized by the unions, are turned against the worker for the benefit of capital.
We have only to recall certain facts to see that the above line of reasoning is undeniable. Factory committees as well as delegates from departments, shops or occupational categories are not the expression of the free will of the workers, whatever may be the mode of their election, depending on the country. They represent the unions, within which workers are not free to elect anyone they want: even the famous British shop stewards need the assent of the trade unions. In most countries the law has decided that the unions which it recognizes represent the working class. The workers therefore no longer have the right to represent themselves as they see fit, still less to create organs other than unions in order to direct their struggles and to deal with the employers or the state. The rights of the working class and the rights of the unions are manifestly two distinct and contradictory things. Because of this the opposition between the workers and the factory committees or departmental delegates-an opposition which is always present in a latent form-sharpens whenever there is a conflict with the employer and becomes a direct encounter if the struggle broadens. In the course of the last twenty years every strike which deserves the name has had to be called against the will of the unions and by outflanking its representatives in the factories; the workers themselves have had to elect strike committees. However, every time that these strike committees or factory assemblies, elected by the workers, have allowed themselves to be influenced by the union leaders, capital has gained the upper hand.
The goal of collective labor contracts was to limit the arbitrariness of the employers in various areas: working conditions and the length of the working day, intensivity of exploitation (hourly productivity), wage range by category (hierarchical relations), hiring and layoffs, political rights, freedom of speech and assembly within the factories, factory regulations, etc. However, collective contracts have become, in the hands of the unions, who alone under the law have the right to negotiate and sign them, a formidable instrument for the subjugation of the proletariat to capital in general and to the unions in particular. Indeed, unions have become, at present, partially or totally, agents of exploitation. Layoffs and hiring are most often entrusted to the mercy of capital, except in the case of closed shops, which far from guaranteeing work for the laborers, simply grants the right of adjudication to the unions. This is reactionary economic coercion of the worst sort, as we will see below when we discuss unions in the Eastern zone.
Labor contracts sanction and encourage the division of the working class into hierarchical groups opposed to one another because of differences in wages and the prejudices attached to the category and technical function of the worker. The unions instinctively, by their very nature, contribute to the division of the proletariat on a hierarchical basis, except for which the proletariat would form a compact bloc against capital. The necessity of dividing the proletariat through hierarchical work relations, and of thus alienating it from its highest interest, is as important for the unions as it is for capital. For a century the workers' movement fought against hierarchical relations within its midst, and in large part it destroyed prejudices in favor of hierarchy while limiting its material bases. In the course of the last few decades the unions and their political inspirers have succeeded in largely re-establishing hierarchical prejudices and greatly increasing the number of work categories. Most workers today, even the worst off, think that hierarchical work relations are natural and ''just.''
Lastly, if the original idea of collective contracts was to put a curb on the arbitrariness of capital while awaiting its complete suppression, today they constitute an almost perfect way to regulate the capitalist system in accordance with its functional requirements. In negotiating and signing collective contracts the unions behave as if they were an integral part of the groups who monopolize the means of production. In the United States and in other countries, many unions are important shareholders in the companies which exploit their own members; which, far from prefiguring a socialist society, transforms the union into a beneficiary of exploitation in the fullest economic and ideological sense of the term. Where the unions do not actually participate in drawing up plans for the exploitation of the workers they seek this right.
The work place, the large factories in particular, which are the scene of the class struggle, afford the most revolutionary workers a permanent and far-reaching practical and ideological activity. But this activity is made impossible by the unions. Frequently collective contracts stipulate that political propaganda and activity within the factory are prohibited, not to speak of discussions and meetings which are indispensable to any working class activity. For many years the unions have conspired with the employers every time there was a question of dismissing revolutionary workers. Such dismissals are now legitimized by a written clause in collective contracts or surreptitiously acknowledged, since they are covered by the rules made by the employers in all the factories. The unions and their political inspirers have undertaken the task of acting as policemen against those who distribute revolutionary literature, when necessary beating them up. In Italy, the Stalinist union leaders have granted to the employers the right to fire, without notice or compensation, workers guilty of distributing literature or any type of agitation. In France, most of the factory rules permit as much and the restrictions on thought go so far that even the most rebellious workers are afraid to express themselves and so keep quiet. The situation is no better in Germany, England or the U.S., no more than in Russia or Spain. Thus, thanks to the convergent action of capital and the union organisations, the working class finds itself reduced to clandestinity even at the work place, which is where it is exploited and fucked over.
The proletariat must recover its political freedom, which is impossible without throwing the present employer-union legal framework overboard. The complete freedom of people with respect to the exercise of their labor contains, in embryo, the future revolutionary democracy and communism. We say communism because those who today call themselves communists are not communists at all and through legitimate revulsion towards them, those who really are communists often avoid claiming the name.
In the strictly economic domain the situation of the working class was never worse than it is today. Everything said to the contrary is so much bullshit. The eight-hour day, which should have been replaced long ago by a four or five hour day, now exists only on paper. In many countries the refusal to work overtime is an immediate cause for dismissal. Everywhere the introduction of so-called "basepay" (norm in Russia) which is deliberately kept low, and rewards and bonuses based on productivity, etc., not only forces the worker to accept, "of his own accord," working days of ten to twelve hours but in fact abolishes daily or hourly wages by imposing anew the vilest of all types of labor: piece-work. Since its inception the workers movement has endeavored to put an end to this oldest of all forms of exploitation, which physically exhausts the worker and dulls him intellectually.
It succeeded in eliminating piece-work in most of Europe. Even twenty years ago most workers considered it demeaning to accept piece-work of any kind. Today, however, piece-work is again the rule, less because capital has imposed it than through the deceit of the unions: in fact we have here a proof of the ultimate affinity of unions and capital.
With respect to the most profound aspect of exploitation,productivity per person and hour, the proletariat finds itself forced into a terrible situation. The production that is extracted from it each day increases at an enormous rate. First, technical innovations take away from the worker any creative intervention in his labor, measure his movements to the second and transform him into a living robot subjected to the same rhythm as the machines. Then, time studies, that atrocious and repugnant snare, force people to work over and over with the same tools and during uniform periods of time. Finally, the discipline of each enterprise reduces to a minimum the slightest suspicious of work even the lighting of a cigarette or taking a shit. The output that is extracted from each person by these means is enormous and so, in the same proportion, is the worker's physical and psychic exhaustion.
To mention this problem is to put one's finger on the evil of modern society and of the unions which are part of it. Moreover, there is no way to resolve these problems without overthrowing the present relation between production and distribution, in short, without making the revolution. But in order to treat this question properly it is necessary to first of all see what unions represent in Russia which is the model that the whole Eastern bloc, and even many countries beyond it, must imitate.
Everything that has been said about the reactionary work of unions and the deterioration of the proletarian condition in the West is even more true for the Russian world. Ever since, under Stalin's aegis, state capitalism was established in Russia, the whole of the old bourgeois world has been learning lessons in exploitation from it. These pertain to police repression too, but here we will limit ourselves to speaking about the specific relations between capital and labor and the role of the unions. Thus, if unions in general have, everywhere and for a long time, been a complementary force to capital within the working class, the Stalinist counter-revolution, by giving unions a very strong push in this direction and by providing them with a tempting example, has disclosed the intrinsic destiny of unions. Almost all the measures which, since 1936, have aggravated the exploitation of the proletariat in the West and heightened its objectification, have their model in Stalinist Russia.
The complete suppression of political rights and the right to hold meetings inside or outside the factory; overtime imposed by the employer or the inadequate base pay (norm) for the official working day; fines and disciplinary measures at the discretion of the employer, who also dictates the factory rules; time studies and innumerable controls, piecework, hierarchical divisions within the proletariat based on wages and technical "qualifications"; collective contracts which only benefit capital, continuous increase of productivity to the detriment of the producers, prohibition of strikes in fact or by law; in short, everything which in the West transforms the union organizations into more and more negative institutions received a strong impetus from the Russia of the 1930's and was to inspire capital and unions throughout the world.
It is well known, at least by those who are familiar with the situation in Russia, that economic inequality between the privileged and the exploited is greater there than anyplace else, as are the me qualities between different categories of workers. Inequality between the privileged and the exploited, which is at the same time the cause and the effect of capitalism, only concerns us in this essay as it affects the evolution and the prospects of the unions. It is sufficient to note for the moment that this inequality raises in Russia, as in every other country, the necessity for the expropriation of capital by the workers, which is impossible without an insurrection which completely demolishes the present governmental apparatus including the official party and the whole body of law.
Better than any bourgeoisie, the Stalinist bureaucracy knows how to intensify exploitation by accelerating the rhythm of labor and by introducing into the proletariat the greatest possible number of job categories. The traditional means for capitalism to "stimulate" production is to substitute for the homogeneous historical interest of the proletariat a multiplicity of heterogeneous immediate interests, which are so many obstacles to a common revolutionary activity. Once again the Russian union and political "natchalniks" have outdone their Western counterparts. In Russia the worker foremen receive a direct profit from the exploitation of their comrades in labor: the Stakhanovists receive a bonus which is proportional to the surpassing of the "norm" and to the number of workers in their team. Thus they see their wages increase by the exploitation of the common workers and are therefore led to intensify this exploitation. The Stakhanovists are therefore, still more clearly than foremen in the West (with their fixed salaries), turned into the enemies of their comrades in labor.
There is nothing astonishing in all this, since everything in Russia has been turned into its opposite. Once the revolution gave way to the counter-revolution, a capitalist dictatorship, which demagogically calls itself a proletarian dictatorship, presents - in reality imposes - as socialist the most rotten features and principles of traditional capitalism. The labor law, approved in 1939, says: The basic feature which characterizes wages in the capitalist countries is the levelling of wages between specialised and non-specialized workers. In the remuneration of labor, petit-bourgeois levelling is the worst enemy of socialism. For many years Marxism-Leninism has unceasingly fought against levelling.
For many years the Stalinists have tried to take people in by presenting industrial development through wage labor as the loyal expression of Marxist thought. Marxism, on the contrary, establishes as its objective the abolition of wage labor, and the economic levelling of society, the unlimited satisfaction of all individual needs and the greatest freedom and liberty, which is indispensable to any personal or collective fulfillment. If we do not aim at that, nothing revolutionary can be done in the present historical juncture. In the old capitalist countries wage differences within the proletariat are a condition established by the direct market relation between capital and labor. In Russia these wage differences have, by constitutional law, acquired the status of a principle and consequently it is a crime to fight against them. The traditional relation between capital and labor, which the bourgeoisie never justified as a social relation of man to man but only through the subterfuge of the sacred right of property" which in reality is turned against it when we consider as property, not the means of production or instruments of labor but everything which is necessary to the material consumption and the full psychic development of each person-is transformed in Russia into a natural and permanent relation between people having different abilities. Thus, instead of social classes or categories delimited in fact by wealth we have classes delimited by law on the basis of their talents and special functions. Nonetheless delimitation in fact on the basis of wealth takes on importance instead of losing it, Worse still the whole thing smacks of a biological justification for the exploitation of man by man.
Let us further point out that the principle object of the labor contracts imposed by the Russian unions is to put the working class at the mercy of capital, even juridically, "by guaranteeing the fulfilment and over-fulfillment of the state production plan for the given establishment." It is a question of extracting higher and higher rates of production from labor: The main stipulation of the contracted obligation must be an increased demand from every worker. Without strengthening labor discipline and without ruthless struggle against the violators of state and labor discipline -grabbers and loafers there can be no real fulfillment of obligations laid down in the collective agreement.
The very word contract is a mark of servitude for the working class. Whether collective or individual, verbal or written, "free" or imposed, the labor contract is the legal symbol of its condition as a wage-slave class, to use Marx's term. This fact in itself is sufficient to expose the lies of the Russian exploiters. In a truly socialist economy neither capital nor wage labor would exist, and consequently the labor contract (the agreement for the utilization of the labor force) would disappear with the disappearance of the contracting parties. In a socialist economy, the means of production would cease to be capital and human labor power would cease to be a commodity for sale. United in one economic and social entity, they would be as free from any contractual obligations as an individual is toward himself. By its very existence, the Russian labor contract places itself within the framework of the social bonds characteristic of capitalism. But it is the ''innovations'' of the Russian system, particularly the completely overt way the unions assume the role of slave-drivers towards the workers, that reveal the ominous contours of a society in decline whose despots seem to be more capable than anyone else of checking proletarian resistance.
In effect, these contracts, whose main point is to extract the highest productivity possible from each worker, are drawn up by the unions and, after the formality of government approval, it is the unions duty to insure servility through promises of higher pay, by the use of threats or by turning over to legal prosecution those workers who do not go along with the demands of production. It is through union channels that the Russian government punishes, as if it were a crime, the struggle to work less and earn more (''The Right to be Lazy') which the world revolutionary movement has always considered to be a just claim of the working class and a progressive demand.
Thus in the eyes of the Russian workers the unions appear as the organization immediately responsible for their exploitation and for the cruelties characteristic of the counter-revolution. A great number of convincing documents (enough to fill several volumes) testify to this effect. It is impossible to list all of them here. One of the greatest weaknesses of the revolutionary movement, perhaps the cause of its limited support today, is the fact that it did not protest these ignominies. For the purposes of this article however it is enough to recall certain typically reactionary features of the Russian system: the laws forbidding workers to change jobs without the permission of the plant manager - laws which have long since been eliminated in older capitalist countries; laws establishing wages proportionate to the productivity of each individual worker (piece rates) not to mention bonuses for political servility; laws which punish absenteeism, lateness and other "disciplinary" infractions by fines, suspensions, firings and forced labor; laws which transform everything which revolutionary thought considers an outrage into something honourable and profitable; in short, all the laws which crush the proletariat as nowhere else are in Russia the direct work of the unions. This legislation is both proposed and carried out by the unions. Furthermore, the forced labor camps-' 're-education'' according to official jesuitry-the burial ground of workers and especially revolutionaries, the method deliberately chosen to lower wages and to be able to claim that unemployment is non-existent, are also "institutions" created on the initiative of the unions who share the advantages of this system with the state and with its essential instrument: the police.
One can argue that the Russian unions, as everyone knows, do not really act on their own initiative. But their repudiation by the workers is no less absolute. International experience indicates that unions in their structure and function vis-a'-vis the working class, always contained propitious elements for their transformation into a cog in the most centralized and absolute capitalist system.
Certainly the Russian unions blindly obey the orders of the government; they are only its vulgar instruments. But their own leaders are integrated into the highest levels of the Party and the state and thus become both "co-managers" ("co-owners") of an impersonal capital and at the same time "worker" leaders. Never could a company union dream of a more complete subjugation of the workers.
In Russia today the unions' function is part and parcel of the exploitative function of capital itself. The union is at the same time boss, foreman and policeman. In each factory it represents along with managers and technicians-all of whom are distinguished members of the union and of the "Communist " cell the same thing as Hitler's confidential councils (Vertrauenstrat). Furthermore, the complete intermixing of capital and Party-State has erased all trace of any union autonomy or protest activity. No one has to teach Russian workers this fact; they have cruelly suffered its consequences for many long years.
In the trajectory of Russian society, there is a definite break between the Soviet period and the period of the unions. Soviets were organizations which represented the workers, carried out their orders and those of the revolution. The unions on the other hand, are organizations of control over the workers executing the orders of the counter-revolution. The Soviets were paralyzed and finally disbanded while unions gained in importance and prerogatives as the bureaucracy increasingly revealed its counter-revolutionary nature. The proletariat was repressed to such an extent that today its subjection is nowhere as great as in Russia. Certainly it is not the unions alone which inspired the counter-revolution. They themselves are part of a whole series of bourgeois ideas and interests, vestiges from the tsarist period; its main basis was the high administrative bureaucracy, both technical and political, whose numbers and privileges have monstrously expanded. But in their turn the unions~mr if one prefers, their high-level leaders form an inseparable part of the whole category of state capitalists who rule the enormous corporation falsely called the "Soviet Union."
The interpenetration of the unions and the Russian counter-revolutionary bureaucracy was neither artificially imposed by the latter nor was it an accident. It is the spontaneous result of the intrinsic nature of unions from which the government assassinated or purged'' certain union leaders along with former revolutionaries.
The government eliminated them not for their union activities but for their communist attitude, either real or imagined. Because of their adaptive powers, the unions conformed perfectly to the specific aims and routine functioning of the counter-revolution. To understand this clearly, it suffices to examine the nature of unions.
Unions are totally inconceivable without the existence of wage-labor, which in turn presupposes the existence of capital. As long as capital is held by individual owners engaged in competition and represented by many individuals and parties in the government, unions are at least able to bargain for an improvement in the conditions of labor exploitation. Their function is to regularize the sale of labor power, a function which has become indispensable to the modern capitalist system. From this fact comes their importance as complementary structures of the state, if not part of the state itself, everywhere in the world today. But this very function, which in the past allowed unions to at least serve as instruments of the working class was also a narrowness indicating their limitations and reactionary future. Their existence as an organization is entirely dependent on the continued existence of the labor/capital duality. They would be immediately eliminated by the destruction of this duality. However, they can side with capital as much as they choose without destroying this duality. On the contrary, they become increasingly indispensable to the maintenance of the capitalist system. As a result, the more gigantic and anonymous the concentration of capital, the more the unions take the side of capital and consider their role to be directly determined by the great "national" interest. Even Stalinist union leaders in the West, agents of Russian imperialism, are careful to present their union policies as an element of national welfare. They are not lying; their only future is to establish themselves as the firmest bastion of statified capital.
All unions without exception are in the process of changing from the stage of ''free competition'' between the supply and demand of labor power between the working class and the bourgeois into the stage of the control of the supply by the demand: that is, the control of workers by monopolistic or state capital. In most cases the unions already participate, directly or indirectly, in the profits of capitalism or else they sense the opportunity to do so. In Russia this evolution was completed with the counter-revolutionary transformation of the country in general. The law bestows on the unions all power over the working class without leaving the smallest possibility for workers, collectively or individually to discuss, accept or reject the conditions of their exploitation. All working conditions-even what the workers should think -are directly dictated by the unions in the name of capital. As always, economics and politics intertwine and end up united in the most strict absolutism.
The historical examples of a truly working-class unionism were all the results of revolutionaries' activities and belong to an age (which ended with the Spanish Revolution) which allowed a certain margin for the class struggle within capitalism. But today revolutionaries who stubbornly persist in regarding unions as any sort of advantage for the future of socialism are condemning themselves to ineffectiveness or worse: betrayal. The past struggles of French, Spanish, or Italian syndicalism were the rest of the activity of revolutionary tendencies, either marxist or anarchist. The Spanish CNT would have been nothing without the FAI (Iberian Anarchist Federation) and it is the FAI itself which must be held responsible for the reactionary alliance with Stalinism during the Civil War. The year 1936 marks the bankruptcy of Spanish syndicalism comparable (in all ways) to the bankruptcy of the French CGT in 1914. Not only did the FAI-CNT voluntarily submit to Stalinism (a submission presented, as usual, in the interests of "national welfare") but it established an alliance with the leaders of the reformist UGT, an alliance which would have meant, in explicit enough terms, state capitalism. The CNT will never pick itself up after such a fall. Any revolutionary group coming from these roots must seek other horizons.
The collectivist experiences in Spain were only syndicalist by default. This movement was set off by the impetus of revolutionary militants and by highly radicalized sections of the masses; the unions found themselves faced with a fait accompli. The same can be said of the uprising against the military on July 19, 1936 and of the magnificent insurrection of May, 1937. When, after revolutionary action, the unions intervene and take over, the entire process is reversed: the activity of the proletariat and the participation of revolutionaries recedes and retreats-the prelude to defeat. In the same vein, the experiences of the strike in Nantes in 1956 should be remembered. The strike, the work of several revolutionary militants in the local union, was betrayed by the national union. Hundreds of similar examples can be found in any country in the world. Attempts to give unions a revolutionary content, through the use of internal oppositional caucuses or even by creating completely new unions, are doomed to failure. The only result of such "tactics" is to demoralize the revolutionary experience of those who attempt it or to turn them into simple bureaucrats. Unions bring to bear all the powerful, deformative forces of capitalist society which constantly eat away at men, changing and destroying even the best of them. There is about as much possibility of "changing" unions in a revolutionary direction as there is of "changing" capitalist society in general; unions use men for their own particular ends but men will never be able to make unions serve a revolutionary goal; they must destroy them.
Attempts to "change" unions are futile even from a practical point of view. In most countries workers are no longer in unions. Even if they still carry a union card in their pocket, whether voluntarily or because the law forces them to do so, the suspicion and disgust they feel for unions is no less strong. In countries which have had the most extensive experience with unions, workers have recourse to unions only if they feel that their "rights" under capitalist law are being flagrantly violated. This is a tedious formality but necessary, on the same level as going to the police when something is stolen. But everyone knows it is useless to go to unions to get something outside the limits of capitalist "law" because unions are a part of that law. Consequently, we see, in many cases, a decline in the number of union members and a general desertion from union meetings by the majority of workers. Unions, having a bureaucratic and legal life of their own, merely use the working class as a docile mass to manipulate in order to Increase their own power as a legal institution in our society. Unions and working people have completely different daily lives and motivations. Any ''tactical" work within unions, even if guided by the purest intentions, will impede the self-activity of the exploited class, destroying their fighting spirit and barring the way to revolutionary activity.
Lenin and Trotsky's position on revolutionary work within unions is entirely outside the realm of today's realities. Their position explicitly supposes that the proletariat, otherwise inexperienced and unorganized and full of illusions, meets in the unions where freedom of speech would permit revolutionaries to expose the opportunist leadership and thereby spread revolutionary ideas. In addition to the argument citing the prevalence of workers' illusions about unions, the key premise of the Leninist tactic was the fact that unions were considered as ideologically reformist and therefore supposedly interested in wresting concessions from the declining society by playing left-wing to the "liberal democrats" of an earlier age. These conditions no longer exist and those who continue to gear their activity towards them are acting in vain. Fifty times the proletariat has tried the experience of unions and of the parties which dominate them and they have changed in an undeniably reactionary direction. To act towards them as though they were still reformist is a ridiculous expression of today's opportunism.
The most solid basis for a revolutionary critique of unions concerns not tactical or contingent considerations but the question of principle and strategy. These questions had not been taken into account by Lenin and Trotsky probably because the changes in unions had not clearly developed until the last few decades. The fact is that unions and their political inspirers have been completely assimilated by the capitalist world, not as part of the "democratic wing" of the bourgeoisie but as henchmen for the exploitative society and for the new needs of the counter-revolution. The polemic between Lenin, Trotsky and Tomsky on the union question, which occurred before the sinister shadow of the Stalinist police had ravaged revolutionary thought, finds its synthesis after long periods of trial and error, in the political conclusions of this article.
There are still revolutionaries who refuse to see the problem and repeat like a credo: "since the conditions which gave rise to unions still exist, we do not see how today one can deny their utility." At the same time they postpone the elimination of unions until the moment when the ''specific characteristics of bourgeois society disappear,'' that is, when the separation between workers and instruments of production has disappeared. This is more sententious subterfuge than reasoned argument. In a sense this argument can be used against itself. If when we speak of conditions which have given rise to unions, we mean the purchase of human labor power by the monopolizers of the means of production, or in a more general way, the characteristic relations of capitalist society as a whole, then it is clear that unions are part of this whole network of relations and that unions continue to exist with it and for it. From this point of view, to attribute a useful function to unions in the revolutionary process is as unthinkable as seeing revolutionary potential in the stock market. Unions are as much a part of capitalist value production as the stock market, even if we examine only the aspects of the dealing and contracting of wage labor, aspects which are not unconnected to the values quoted on the stock market.
In addition to these conditions which gave rise to unions, conditions of a historically more limited nature must be dealt with. In the period of capitalist ascendancy, free competition, including free competition in the labor market, permitted workers to benefit from the greatest number of advantages compatible with the system. The regulation and administration of these advantages constituted the fundamental raison d 'etre of unions. However, with the system's transformation into giant trusts and state capitalism, the unions, which it nourished, naturally began to play a reactionary role. They could not continue to maintain their function without adapting themselves to changing market conditions now no longer free but controlled and despotic, indeed malthusian since it prevents the realization of human and economic potential.
Thus in a strict sense the conditions which gave rise to unions no longer exist; they died at the same time as that which justified the existence of capitalism as a historically progressive social form. Unfortunately it is the revolutionaries who are way behind in recognizing the facts and drawing the logical conclusions.
The reasoning of Programma Communista which offers the best theoretical justification for all tendencies (including anarchism) still clinging to an oppositional or revolutionary unionism, is in fact completely mistaken. Their reasoning is very dangerous especially in the event of a victorious revolution. The subterfuge of putting off the disappearance of unions until the obliteration of all traces of capitalism - until the advent of full communism - would give unions a harmful monopoly over the proletariat in the transitional period. Far from bringing society closer to communism, this would raise still another obstacle, and not a minor one, promoting the growth of state capitalism as it did in Russia. Bordiga 's analysis links the disappearance of unions to the disappearance of violence within the Society, meaning in fact the disappearance of the state. However, the withering away of the state and of all social violence can only be a consequence of a Preceeding disappearance of the exploitation of labor, wage labor to be exact. Unions are in complete contradiction to such a transformation, both in terms of interest and principle.
A century ago Karl Marx reproached unions for restricting their demands to questions of money, hours of work, etc., while they ignored the issue of the abolition of wage labor, the key to the destruction of capitalism. Today, Marx would be treated as a petty-bourgeois egalitarian by the men of Moscow and as a crazy ultra-leftist by those who believe they can reform unions. Marx did not see the elimination of unions as part of the far-distant future, well after the revolution, but as concomitant with the revolution or even its cause. He believed that already in his lifetime the industrialized countries disposed of sufficient material means to tackle the problem of revolution. We, revolutionaries of today, are able to add that unions stand in the way of every aim of social revolution because they have become an indispensable cog in the machinery of the exploitation of man by man. Their role in the present economy is comparable to that of the guilds in the age of small-scale manufacture - with this difference however: guilds proved unable to adapt to large-scale industry whereas unions adapt perfectly to the most resolute type of capitalism, the statified form. Unions will be destroyed only by the victory of the revolution; more precisely their destruction is a pre-condition for this victory, without which the unions will continue to grow into a huge coercive apparatus complementary to the state capitalist machine. That is the greatest counter-revolutionary danger of our time. If humanity proves unable to face this problem in the West as well as in the Stalinist East, it will witness the most ominous era of our history.
After the revolution, all workers (without need of any union affiliation whatsoever) must decide on the economic questions posed by society's progress towards communism. No organization, whether a union or a party can be identified wit the society as a whole or invested with its attributes. The existence of differing ideological currents (based on the foundations of the revolution) all competing for a majority will only further insure the possibility of direct participation of all in social decisions. But a union-style management of the economy will necessarily prove anti-democratic and stifling; it would exclude non-members and impose itself on everyone. Of course ideologies can degenerate or betray but only through the spread and growth of revolutionary ideas can man win his freedom. Even today the proletariat's immediate demands elude union formulations. Faced with exploitation heightened by technology, forced overtime, piecework, speed-up, etc., it is essential to demand a reduction of the work day to a maximum of five to six hours without reduction of wages or bonuses. On such a basis, demands for constantly decreasing work schedules in inverse proportion to technological progress are urgently neeeded. This is the way to challenge today's crushing work day and to prefigure a reorganisation of socially necessary work by eliminating the enormous amounts of waste production in industry as well as in the government and administrative bureaucracies.
The necessary complement to this demand is the refusal to go along with any increase in production, whether caused by improvements in machinery or by speed-up, unless the working class benefits; the working class represents the interests of society as a whole. This is an unlimited demand, not only against capitalism and its threats of constant war, but as an idea of the kind of considerations which would govern a future revolutionary society; underlying this demand is the necessity for the destruction of the present system.
Politically, workers must impose complete freedom at the point of production the rejection of all rules which have not been decided upon by workers' delegates democratically elected and approved in general assembly. In the case of problems or conflicts, workers' committees, elected outside of all union structures, are revocable at any time. Any agreement with management must have the consent of the interested parties themselves and not the unions even if they claim to represent the majority. Finally, co-ordination among the different workers' committees would prepare the way for the demand, as an immediately realizable objective, for workers' control of production and distribution.
A careful study of the problems which face the working class today would only reinforce these conclusions. The three types of problems, which encompass all the others, amply demonstrate the reactionary conservatism of unions and the fact that it is impossible for the workers to make a move ahead without coming up against them. Without getting rid of them, the proletariat will never get out of its present difficulties and will never have a revolutionary perspective.
The future of unions is indisputably linked with that of capitalism and not the revolution. Their ability to adjust to the reac-tionary transformation of society was largely overlooked by even the most far-seeing revolutionaries. An exception must be made for an almost unknown theoretician, Daniel DeLeon, whose thoughts on this subject have proven visionary. From 1905 DeLeon saw that unions and the "official" workers' parties harbored serious counter-revolutionary dangers. The work in which he succinctly expressed his ideas deserves the attention of all revolutionaries.
DeLeon's judgments are excellent historical analyses which he expresses with revolutionary passion. On the basis of international experience, particularly with the British and American trade unions and their respective labor leaders, he predicts that the victory of these organizations would kill any social revolution.
The present labor leaders represent a disguised position, a strategic point and a force sustaining capitalism and their true nature cannot but produce a disastrous de-moralization of the working class.
He compares the labor leaders and their organizations with the leaders of the plebs in Rome. Just as the pleb leaders used the plebeians to acquire the rights and privileges of the patrician class without giving anything more than crumbs to the dispossessed masses, modern labor leaders and their organizations use the proletariat to consolidate their economic and political position within the capitalist system of exploitation.
Like the leaders of the plebs,labor leaders are practical men as they boast; they do not live on visions or chase rainbows. Like the pleb leaders, labor leaders do not see any alternative to the existing social system, and they aim to put out the flame that devours the working class. Like the plebeian leaders of Rome, today's labor leaders, if we do not counteract them . ..they will nullify all the possibilities which our age offers: they will divert the important and powerful actions of the masses until they lose the name of action.
The aptness of the comparison between the leaders of the Roman plebs and our union (and party) bureaucrats is even clearer if we examine the role of the so-called plebeian party in Roman history. This party, born in the time of the Tarquins, supposedly in irreconcilable opposition to the patrician ruling classes, enjoyed its greatest influence during the Republican period. Its power did not serve the true plebs, the poor masses, either slave' or free, but worked to the benefit of a privileged minority which represented the plebs in name only and belonged to the plebeian class only by the accident of Roman legal definition. Caesar and Augustus, the founders of Empire, constantly used the trick of referring to themselves as originally "plebs" or "on the pleb side." Their victory, the high point of the party of the pleb leaders, destroyed forever all possibility of revolution in Rome. The plebeian usurpers replaced by and large the old patrician class. They did not open the way to a new or superior type of Society but merely prolonged the decadence of the ancient world over which they presided in its final stage.
Despite the great structural and ideological differences between Greco-Roman civilization and capitalist civilization, the analogy between the role of the pleb leaders and today's labor leaders is close Whether they call themselves apolitical, Communist or Socialist they have substituted for the principle contradiction of capitalism that which can only disappear with its destruction-another unessential contradiction inscribed within the functional necessities of capitalism and for which the ''Solution'' makes them indispensable to the exclusion of any revolutionary intervention of the worker’s.
The bourgeoisie and the proletariat are the human profile, the anthropomorphic image of the social contradictions between capital and wage labor. This contradiction is unresolvable except with the abolition of capital-an act which must Simultaneously abolish wage labor itself. Here ends capitalism and begins the social revolution: a new, unlimited horizon of a new civilization.
The Spirit of the so-called labor leaders as well as their organizations are absolutely incompatible with the solution of this contradiction. They attempt to resolve only a secondary contradiction within the framework of exploitation- that is, the anarchy of private capitalism with its cyclical crises which calls for an ordered plan of production and a severe regimentation of manpower, the unemployed included. In this way, the interests of the labor leaders coincide with that of big capital which every day demands more economic regulation, more concentration. In other words, that which they perceive and want to change are the difficulties which the System encounters on the road to one huge monopoly, not at all the difficulties which the system as a whole poses for the forward march of humanity towards communism. With the concentration of all the means of production in a huge state monopoly, labor-upon which depends consumption, liberty, culture, the whole life of human beings-appears as an element which is as subordinate to the exigencies of the plan as iron ore, leather or any other raw material. The elimination of the bourgeoisie does not in any way mean the elimination of capital or the proletariat. Capital is an economic function, not a proprietary function; in becoming an anonymous function it completes its oppression of man and bars his march to communism with new counter-revolutionary force. The use of the purely anthropomorphic representation of the contradiction between capital and wage labor (bourgeoisie and proletariat) gives the union and party leaders the opportunity to present the elimination of private capital as the elimination of capital in general and their economic and political management as the solution of social contradictions. They know from the experiences of the Stalinist counter-revolution and from Yankee and British trade unions that the more complete the concentration of capital, the bigger the share of profits for them to pocket.
The most menacing aspect of this tendency of the labor leaders is that it coincides with the law of capitalist concentration and with the development of material and ideological coercion which is its consequence. But they are really dangerous only because of the passivity of the proletariat, whom the revolutionaries, attached to the old ideas and tactics, do not know how to stir into action. Chained to the old formulae, they are cursed with sterility. But a careful look around suffices to realize that the human necessity of a total transformation challenges capitalism itself and the labor leaders, a challenge which will open an unlimited field to revolutionary action.
Humanity does not need technocratic plans in order to produce plans which are used for exploitation and war. The crisis which our civilization is living through will not find its solution until all of production is oriented towards consumption without regard to selling. All individuals by their very existence must be able to utilize the material and spiritual resources of the society. The marketing of one or the other leads to the dissatisfaction of the immense majority, the impossibility of individual fulfiflmnt and the venality of culture. Only the elimination of individual proprietors and the giant trusts will lead to the elimination of the proletariat: the class which does not consume but lives only on its salary. Thus it is wage labor which must be eliminated. In this way capital will necessarily be abolished as an economic function along with the exploiters, be they bourgeois or bureaucrats. Any plan for production must be established with regard to the non-mercantile needs of human consumption, with all that these words imply of political and cultural liberty. The true anthropomorphic aspect of the problem is the abolition of wage labor which will give to man the possibility of determining his own destiny. By substituting for this the idea of simply eliminating the bourgeoisie (and by putting themselves in its place) union leaders offer us a series of fetishes-the economic plan in place of God, father and judge of man with the big union and party bureaucrats playing the role of the priesthood.
Revolutionaries must expel from the factories and professional organizations all the union representatives; and all the Thorez', the Nennis and the Reuthers of all countries, with the Vatican crouching behind the Christian unions, will be paralyzed. The working class will have regained its freedom of thought and action and will be able to transform society from top to bottom. It will have gained the strength to wrest humanity from the mire of degradation.
최근 댓글 목록