The capitalist\nclass understands that the class struggle cannot be wished away. If they want\nto keep control of society it is therefore necessary for them to try and manage\nit. They are prepared to use force and violence to do this. In the 2012\nmineworkers\u2019 strikes the ANC government declared a state of emergency across\nthe platinum belt, deployed heavily armed police and shot dead 34 mineworkers\nat Marikana. To think that this was an exceptional tragedy that could never be\nrepeated would be a dangerous mistake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Organised\nviolence against workers is routine under capitalism. Even taking part in a\nlegal strike does not always give protection from police intimidation,\nharassment or even assault. Sometimes the bosses will use hired-thugs to attack\nworkers and the \u2018neutral\u2019 state turns a blind-eye. But wherever possible the\nbosses prefer to disguise the violence of their system. Capitalism\u2019s stability is\nat risk if its brutality is too obvious. Moreover, it is expensive to suppress\nthe working class by force. So the capitalist class has developed methods of control\nfor \u2018normal times\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The capitalist\nclass\u2019s economic dictatorship gives them enormous power to shape \u2018public\nopinion\u2019 through their control of the media and the education system; the\nfamily and religion are used to encourage the \u2018virtues\u2019 of hard work, obedience\nand acceptance of authority. The capitalist class use these levers to try and\nlower the temperature of the class struggle and avoid provoking a head-on\nconfrontation between the classes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Reforms<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The struggle for\nthe fullest possible political freedoms and democratic rights has always been a\npart of workers\u2019 struggles. The struggle to end apartheid and win basic\npolitical freedoms and democratic rights were hard fought in South Africa. The\nright to vote, to form political parties and trade unions, freedoms of speech,\nassembly and movement are very important tools that workers can use to\norganise. The very fact that today we are able to organise trade unions openly\nis a debt owed by workers to all those who struggled before them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With\norganisation workers can force the capitalist class to make democratic\nconcessions. At other times the bosses and the capitalist politicians recognise\nthat it is in their interests to grant workers and their trade unions certain\nlegal rights to stop a conflict from starting. From this combination of mass\npressure and political calculation, laws like the Labour Relations Act and\nBasic Conditions of Employment Act have been passed, and special courts like\nthe CCMA and Labour Court created. On paper at least, these place some limits\non the bosses\u2019 right to exploit workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But workers face\nenormous obstacles in exercising their rights. The bosses find legal tricks to\nwin cases. They have the money to hire lawyers to create endless delays. They use\nthe time that they \u2018buy\u2019 to demoralise workers into giving-up. Other\n\u2018pro-worker\u2019 reforms are no better than window-dressing. The 2015 law requiring\nall workers under labour-brokers to be hired as permanent staff after three\nmonths was simply ignored by the bosses. After more than three years the\nConstitutional Court has upheld the law \u2013 but even this is being challenged. The\nANC government has done nothing about the bosses\u2019 defiance. If they were\nserious about ending the super-exploitation of labour broking they would have\nhired thousands of new labour inspectors to enforce compliance. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When past\nconcessions to workers become inconvenient the capitalist class will try and take\nthem back. For example in 2018 new amendments to the Labour Relation Act were\npassed by the ANC government with the support of other capitalist political\nparties that make a legal strike more difficult to organise.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Economic Dictatorship<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Democracy and the freedoms and rights mentioned have not been sufficient for the working class majority to end poverty, inequality and unemployment. If anything things are moving in the opposite direction. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The young age of South Africa\u2019s democracy is not the issue. Across North America and Europe democracy is decades, even centuries old. But poverty and inequality continue to exist there too. The enormous burden that corruption places upon state institutions is likewise more symptom than cause. Corruption is endemic to capitalism and has been excused, dressed-up and justified in different ways as long as capitalism has existed (see There Can Be No Capitalism without Corruption<\/a><\/em> and other material on the MWP website). Rather, there is a more fundamental contradiction between democracy and capitalism. <\/p>\n\n\n\n We have already\nseen that the bosses cannot allow workers a real say in the workplace. It would\nmake exploitation impossible. But the same is true across the economy as a\nwhole. This too must be placed beyond the control of the majority. The result\nis a limited capitalist democracy (or bourgeois democracy as Marx called it)\nwhere institutions that appear highly democratic \u2013 one person, one vote, a parliament,\na constitution, courts etc. \u2013 exist side by side with an economic dictatorship<\/em><\/strong> of\nthe capitalist class. This contradiction demands strict limits on the\ndemocratic rights and individual freedoms of workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example,\nimagine a group of 100 workers. They are unhappy that the time of their lunch\nhour has been changed. If one worker walks out alone the boss might complain,\nbut he will likely agree it is their right to quit if they want to. Even if\ntwo, three, four or five workers did this. But if all 100 workers walk out\ntogether to demand that the boss changes their lunch hour back the boss will\nhowl about an \u2018illegal\u2019 or \u2018unprotected\u2019 strike. He will say that workers are\n\u201cholding him to ransom\u201d. It is likely that the police will be called to deal\nwith the workers. The boss may decide to fire every worker on the spot for\n\u2018gross misconduct\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the point of view of the workers their\nactions were democratic. By walking-out they have exercised their right to\nprotest. To make their views known they have\nused their freedom of speech and their freedom of association (i.e. to\norganise). But when the police arrive it is the workers who will be arrested,\nnot the boss. From the point of view of the bosses and the defenders of\ncapitalism it was \u2018mob-rule\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course workers\ncan organise to defend themselves from the most arbitrary treatment. But democratic\nmass organisations like trade unions are a problem for the capitalist class\u2019s\neconomic dictatorship. So everything possible is done to strangle the class independence\nof trade unions and co-opt them within the framework of the capitalist state. From\nthe bosses point of view the legal framework of the capitalist state is\norganised according to the principle, \u201ckeep your friends close and your enemies\ncloser\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the surface\nSouth Africa appears to give organised workers and their trade unions\nsignificant status and power. For example, trade unions can appeal to the\ncourts if an employer refuses to recognise them. Different collective\nbargaining forums allow trade unions to influence the wages of entire\nindustries. But the price of the appearance of power is an unspoken agreement\nto \u2018play the game\u2019 according to the bosses\u2019 rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, as\nwe have explained above, industries are divided into many rival companies. They\nare all competing with each other meaning huge waste. Will the representatives\nof the so-called \u2018neutral\u2019 capitalist state ever point their finger at this?\nWill they ever recommend that the state intervenes and forces the consolidation\n(i.e. merger) of an industry to maximise economies of scale, reduce waste and free\nthe resources necessary to raise wages? If a trade union were to raise such a\nbold proposal they will be told that it is \u201coutside the mandate\u201d of the forum.\nAnything that truly challenges the bosses\u2019 control of the economy is\noff-limits.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Often the more\ngenerous a concession appears, the greater the deception it hides. For example,\nthe constitution upholds the freedom of association \u2013 i.e. the right to\norganise \u2013 of both workers and employers. The right to strike is also recognised,\nthough it is subject to heavy control. But the bosses\u2019 right to lock-out\nworkers is also recognised. This means that the constitution assumes private\ncapitalist ownership of the economy. The constitution\u2019s formal equality before\nthe law is in reality a defence and recognition of the bosses\u2019 economic dictatorship\nand a cover-up of the huge inequality of power between exploiter and exploited.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Karl Marx\nexplained that, \u201cThe executive of the modern state is nothing but a committee\nfor managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie [capitalist class].\u201d Under\ncapitalism the reality is that even the most \u2018democratic\u2019 state is not neutral\nin the class struggle. The capitalist class uses it to defend their control of\nsociety. But to disguise this they present the state as an \u2018honest broker\u2019\nbetween different but equal \u2018stakeholders\u2019. Lenin pointed out that,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cA democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell \u2026 it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.\u201d<\/p> The State and Revolution<\/em>, 1917 <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n But always, behind the \u2018democratic\u2019 appearance, lies the threat of the organised violence of the capitalist state. If the bosses are unable to keep us busy chasing our tails they will crack our heads. Indeed, the legal framework of capitalism allows the bosses to appeal to \u2018law and order\u2019 as a justification to supress workers\u2019 struggles when they step outside of what the law sanctions \u2013 and the law sanctions only that which does not challenge capitalism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Capitalist Politics<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The capitalist political\nparties play an important role in this too. They act like there is no\nalternative to capitalism. If they do talk about an alternative to capitalism\nit is consciously left fuzzy and undefined with the idea encouraged that it\nwill somehow be created via their party\u2019s control of the capitalist state.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The most radical\ncapitalist political parties may talk about expropriation of land or\nnationalisation of key industries. But this does not mean they are calling for\na challenge to capitalism as a system<\/em><\/strong>. For example, if\nexpropriation of farms swaps white capitalist farmers for black capitalist\nfarmers, private ownership of the economy has not been changed. There has just\nbeen a re-division of ownership within<\/em><\/strong> the capitalist class. If\nnationalised industries are \u2018owned\u2019 by the capitalist state and run by capitalist\npoliticians they will use nationalisation to promote and defend their class\ninterests. For example, by subsidising privately owned industries, as Eskom\ndoes for the mine bosses by charging lower tariffs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All the politicians and political parties that agree that capitalism is the \u2018only\u2019 way to run society ultimately have to accept and defend the bosses\u2019 economic dictatorship. This is why the trade union movement cannot be neutral or stand aside from the question of politics. There are important discussions taking place among organised workers on this issue. The question of Cosatu\u2019s Alliance with the ANC is again rising to the surface. Within Saftu there is a debate about launching a workers party. The MWP is of the firm view that the organised working class must be at the forefront of building a socialist mass workers party. Trade unions challenge the bosses\u2019 control of the workplace every day by independent working class organisation. Why would we leave their political control of society unchallenged? The struggle against the bosses on the shop floor must be extended into every corner of society. (See Struggle for a Mass Workers Party<\/a><\/em>.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n Workers often\nview capitalist politicians with suspicion even at the best of times. But the\nleaders of the trade unions are far closer to workers\u2019 day-to-day lives. The\nbosses can have no better allies if those who lead the organisations that are\nmeant to fight capitalist exploitation agree to defend it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This requires weakening\nmembers\u2019 control over their leaders; of making the leaders vulnerable to\npressure from the bosses and shielding them from the pressure of the workers.\nLeon Trotsky explained that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026the whole task of the bourgeoisie [capitalist class] consists in liquidating the trade unions as organs of the class struggle and substituting in their place the trade union bureaucracy as the organ of the leadership over the workers by the bourgeois state.<\/p> Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay, 1940<\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The co-option of\nleaders is not always done through corruption, though this is often an\nimportant part of it. Brown envelopes of cash are in fact the least reliable\nmethod for co-opting the workers\u2019 movement. If it is exposed the corrupt leader\nquickly loses influence over workers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n A far more\nreliable method is to change the outlook of workers\u2019 leaders \u2013 for workers\u2019\nleaders to convince<\/em><\/strong> themselves<\/em><\/strong> that there is no\nalternative to capitalism. This outlook can be encouraged from the \u2018harmless\u2019\nstep of the shop steward attending the manager\u2019s private Christmas party, to\nthe integration of the unions into the capitalist state through the various\nbargaining forums, parliamentary committees, courts and \u2018dispute resolution\u2019\nlaws we have already mentioned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n All of this\nopens up workers\u2019 leaders to the influence of an entirely different milieu (or\nenvironment). Here they are exposed to \u2018sensible\u2019 middle class opinion which agrees\non the \u2018proper place\u2019 of trade unions in society \u2013 they can complain, protest\neven, but never challenge the foundations of capitalism. This is the viewpoint\nof those with certain privileges under capitalism. It is the milieu from which\nthe bosses recruit the managers, HRs, lawyers, and accountants that will sit\nacross the table from shop stewards. These people are far removed from the\nmines, the factories, the workshops, the cleaning trolleys, the kitchens and\nsecurity parades of raw class exploitation. What is out of sight is out of\nmind. From this middle class point of view capitalism may not be perfect but it\nworks well enough because<\/em><\/strong> it works<\/em><\/strong> for them<\/em><\/strong>. The middle\nclass plays an important role for capitalism. They help to dress-up and justify\nit as \u2018natural\u2019 and \u2018normal\u2019 \u2013 as \u2018just the way things are\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The boardroom will\nbe very strange environment for a shop steward newly elected and sent for a\nweek of negotiations. It is easy to get lost in such a hostile landscape. Our\nshop steward will be told by capitalism\u2019s representatives that the existence of\nthe class exploitation that yesterday he or she took for granted, is in fact\nall a big misunderstanding. The company is actually one big happy family\nworking together for the mutual benefit of all. But returning to the shop floor\nand the day-to-day reality of class exploitation can keep shop stewards\u2019 feet\non the ground.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Privileges<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n But the bosses\nfind ways to try and stop workers\u2019 leaders\u2019 feet from ever landing back on the\nground. The starting point for this co-option is encouraging privileges that no\nother worker could ever dream of \u2013 privileges enormously over-and-above what is\nactually required to be an effective workers\u2019 leader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The struggle for\nworkers\u2019 rights has always included correct demands for full-time shop stewards\npaid their normal wage by the boss. Workers rightly see it as a sign of\nprogress when their union has the funds to open offices, hire full-time\norganisers and for certain elected leadership positions to become full-time\nposts. All of this is necessary for building a strong trade union. For most,\nbeing the shop steward is the hardest and most demanding job there is in the\nworkers\u2019 movement. Only the bravest and most self-sacrificing workers would\neven be willing to do it, normally pushed into the position because they have\nthe confidence of other workers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the bosses\u2019\nfind ways to make progress in the strength of trade union organisation work for\nthem too. The bosses \u2018re-tool\u2019 measures originally necessary to build the\nworkers\u2019 movement as an opportunity to co-opt it. So the shop steward is\nreleased permanently from the hard and boring work of the shop floor. He or she\nis given their own office, additional allowances, an expensive cell phone, a\nnew car. The bosses of some companies automatically put shop stewards on\nmanagement pay grades. The bosses try and create as much distance as possible\nbetween workers and their leaders in order to isolate the leaders and \u2018soften\nthem up\u2019 to their point of view. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The granting of\nspecial privileges can be extended into the trade union structures by those\nwhose appetites have grown with eating. They want to feel the \u2018social equals\u2019\nof the middle class representatives they sit opposite in the boardroom. They\nwant to present the union general secretary as equivalent to a CEO. So full-time\nofficials\u2019 salaries and perks can grow and grow and grow. They are freed from\nusing public transport because they can afford their own cars. They no longer\nhave to rely on under-funded public hospitals or government schools for their\nchildren because they can go private. Eventually, they move out of working\nclass communities and move in next door to the bosses and their managers in the\nsuburbs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These trade\nunion leaders become lifted into the middle class. The milieu they are exposed\nto in the boardroom becomes the norm of their personal life too. They no longer\nmove in working class circles or mix with working class crowds. They start to\nview the world as the middle class does. They start to think that, \u201cyes,\ncapitalism is bad, but it is not that bad, after all, it works for me now too<\/em><\/strong>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The interests of\nsuch privileged trade union leaders are no longer the same as the interests of\nthe workers. They want to enjoy their privileges. The class struggle can become\na nuisance to them. If it threatens to get \u2018out of hand\u2019 it can even become a\nthreat to their privileges \u2013 a strike could end in defeat and job losses\ndamaging the union\u2019s finances. This gives them an interest in limiting struggle\n\u2013 they become conservative and scared to \u2018rock the boat\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From here, it is\nnot a great leap to start looking beyond their union\u2019s risky \u2018core business\u2019 of\nthe class struggle to all sorts of \u2018get rich quick\u2019 schemes such as union\ninvestment funds. These introduce severe conflicts of interest and tie trade\nunions ever more closely into dependence on capitalism. Trade unions cease to\nbe the thorn in the side of the class enemy but become the \u2018partners\u2019 of big\nbusiness and the launch pad for trade union leaders\u2019 business careers. For\nexample, chemical workers\u2019 union CEPPAWU, alongside the Nactu federation, both\nbecame shareholders in Sasol in 2008 \u2013 a company they both had members in. The former\nCEPPAWU general secretary used fake documents to win contracts worth R300\nmillion before his fraud was discovered. The Coastu-affiliated mineworkers\u2019\nunion NUM has a long standing 50\/50 partnership with the Chamber of Mines in\nUbank \u2013 a short-term money lender, in effect a loan-shark, targeting\nmineworkers as its main customer base. This gave the NUM a vested interest in\nlow wages as this would keep their lending services in high demand among\npoverty-stricken mineworkers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When enough\nworkers\u2019 leaders have been co-opted in this manner, what started as necessary\nadministration has become something else \u2013 bureaucracy<\/em><\/strong>.[1]<\/a>\nWhereas workers see trade unions as a vehicle to take forward their struggles\nfor better wages and working conditions the trade union bureaucrat views them\nas the source of their privileges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When bureaucracy\nbecomes institutionalised (i.e. a permanent part of the \u2018culture\u2019 of a trade\nunion) careerism takes root. The type of shop-steward we described earlier is\npushed-out by those wanting to climb on the gravy train \u2013 opportunism replaces\nprinciple. This leads to destructive rivalries between unions to dominate an\nindustry, collect workers deductions and control investment funds. Within\nunions a thuggish fight for positions can take hold. To create the space to\nplay these games bureaucrats must suppress democracy and workers control and replace\nit with corruption, intimidation and even violence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Results<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Now the bosses\ncan let the workers\u2019 leaders police the workers\u2019 movement for them. This\n\u2018outsourcing\u2019 of the defence of capitalism is the best possible scenario for\nthem. What better friends could the bosses have than shop stewards, trade union\nofficials and trade union leaders who do not believe there is any alternative\nto capitalism? Or worse, do not want an alternative to capitalism? They will\nenter every negotiation, campaign and strike looking to<\/em><\/strong> compromise<\/em><\/strong>.\nWith no belief that anyone other than the capitalist class can run society\ntrade union bureaucrats run in terror when they are accused of \u2018politicising\u2019 a\nstruggle. They easily accept the limitations that the capitalist state places\non the workers\u2019 movement and instead of challenging it they beg for its co-operation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are however\nlimits to how far this agenda of co-option and control can be pushed. A trade\nunion is nothing without its members. Ultimately even the worst trade union\nbureaucracy needs to keep the workers\u2019 movement alive as the source of their\nprivileges. Although some trade union bureaucracies have stretched this to its\nlimits by basing their privileges more and more on the union investment funds we\nhave already mentioned and other corporate sponsorship. But they can never\ncompletely break their dependence on workers without the union ceasing to be a\nunion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite all of these pressures, many shop stewards, trade union officials and leaders never surrender to the bosses or capitulate to bureaucratic pressures. But there is not a single trade union or federation that exists that is not vulnerable to co-option. The danger comes from the very nature of capitalism. But it is possible for workers to defend against it. This requires organisation around the programme of revolutionary trade unionism. It is a programme that has a clear alternative to capitalism that can help workers avoid the traps created for them.<\/p>\n\n\n\nPart II: The Trade Union Bureaucracy<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Continue to Socialism and Revolutionary Trade Unionism<\/a><\/h4>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"