On the struggle in the unions
Communist Organisation October of Spain

"... The development of the proletariat has not been brought about and has not been able to be brought in no country but by means of the unions and by their joint action with the party of the working class. There have to be taken any sort of pains and overcome obstacles in order to carry out a tenacious, persistent and systematic propaganda and agitation just within those institutions, clubs and unions, no matter how reactionary these are, where there exist proletariat or semi-proletarian masses..." (Lenin)
The Organisational Commission for the Third International Meeting of Unionists held in Madrid, rendered some documentation regarding the effects over the Spanish working class of the policy applied by the European bourgeoisie as a whole.
These results: unemployment, job uncertainty, flexibility of the labour market, cuttings on social benefits, privatisation on a large scale, and so on can be generalised, we believe so, to every country in the EU that is to say, though there are differences on the rhythm and intensity, the policies of the capital tend to be deeply regressive everywhere.
The Spanish capitalist economy, owing to various factors that are not relevant for this study, is a weak economy and extremely dependent on foreign investment and, therefore, subject to the changes of the economical cycles which have given rise to many contradictions unresolved. For this reason, the aggression to the interests of the workers from the bourgeoisie takes such an intensity in Spain as nowhere else in the capitalist Europe.
The unemployment, stagnant for years at the rate of 20% (22% at present), doubles and triples, it depends on sectors, the average of that of EU's; job uncertainty is over 37% and it is growing (in the first four months in this year, 92% of contracts signed have been temporary jobs: and it has been the best rate since 1994!)
Besides the successive labour reforms have made the situation with social benefits even worse: pensions have been cut, only 40% of the unemployed get any kind of social benefit and these have been also cut.
Hence, the contradiction between the aggressiveness of the capitalist policies and their disastrous consequences for the standard of living of the popular classes and the low level of political response, can be explained mainly by the role played by the unions and their political leadership, the social democrats or opportunist, who as always happens in times of capitalist crisis, they have withdrawn their "social" disguise in order move openly to the side of the bourgeoisie.
But this happens because the stand of the communists with regards of politics and unions are very weak; because we have been and are incapable of changing the present situation. Therefore the point is how to improve out work, by other words, although we do not diminish the significance of any broad front nor any other form organisational form. The point is to study how to work in the workers movement in a more efficient way.
The question that we ask ourselves, and also many honest union affiliates who defend class positions, is whether the role that is being played by central unions, as a transmission belt for the rightist sectors of opportunism and for the social democracy , is disabling them as useful instruments for the organisation and struggle of the proletariat, as a first stage necessary for the organisation of all toilers
We understand that they are not anymore. No wonder the workers movement is very broad and allows certain autonomy of action. It is true that there are other forms that we should take advantage of. But essentially is in the unions where the mass of workers is mostly concentrated, where we should focus our work, because it is there where, besides, battle, crucial for our class is being waged among the various sectors of the social democracy and of opportunism; a battle that we should be able to profit from in order to reinforce the consequent class unity. In our country (and we do not think it is an exemption), despite being discredited, there has not been a single mass poetical activity, also at a national level, including the five general strikes held between 1985 and 1994, that was not led by the two main unions (CC.OO and UGT)
There have existed and still exist attempts, even coming from class, lest positions to build structures capable of making up a new unionism. But the truth is that none of them has succeeded. There has always attempts confined geographically or only to one economic sector, or even, as in most of the cases, to one single company, or a section of a given company. The growing degree of autonomy of the workers movement with respect to the unions should also become subject. This issue has been raised in late struggle. This is no doubt that the experience in other countries, for instance, South Korea and specially France (November - December 1995 mobilisations) point out to this. But we understand that even in these cases where the autonomous forms of organisation and action of the workers movement acquired a more general and militant character, this autonomy did not determined the appearance of new lasting organisational forms.
At a lower level, in Spain too, the pressure from the workers made the union leadership, then clearly committed to take sides with the plans of the bourgeoisie, call for a general strike in 1994. Nevertheless, this spontaneous expression from the Spanish workers did not, however, question its control by the opportunists, for there was no serious class alternative with a strong base, sop as to dispute important sections in the workers movement. We had to wait for the break out of political tensions within CC.OO in order to be able to regard an incipient class trend in this union.
That is to say, the proletariat can occasionally begin the struggle in a spontaneous way, apart from and even against unions, which are objectively on the side of the enemy of the working class.
But this does not change a fundamental status, for the action itself is not at stake but the leadership, the unity and the organisation of workers actions. For this reason, the opportunists do not see the kind of struggle aforementioned as a threat to their control of unions and they can lead again and drive it eventually towards an institutional aim, acceptable for the bourgeoisie, though at the beginning the actions of masses might have gone beyond union limit.
Why does this happen? Why the working mass has not turned their backs to the unions yet despite the fact that these unions are discredited? Because workers need strong organisations.
Life and struggle have taught workers that in order to fight the bourgeoisie, they need to unite their forces, set up organisations that go further up rather than their being just assigned to their work scope, capable of giving sense to their class demands.
This need is growing at present as the structural changes being implemented in the production systems by the bourgeoisie are causing divisions among workers, forcing them to sell their force of work under growing competitiveness. And this also increases the dispersion (in Spain, for example, in 1996, 94.7 per cent if enterprises had less than 20 workers while only 0.3 per cent of them had more than 200) and segmentation (unemployed, temporary, permanent, etc.) of the proletariat to a large extent.
When more and more mechanisms intend to break up the immediate interests of the class, so workers find themselves more and more scattered in small-size production units, these may be part of multinationals or big-size companies, though they appear with their own entity and independent from each other as far as immediate union activity is concerned.
At this moment, well, when the conscious elements and forces bearing class awareness are weak, it seems to us a simple matter of maturity to understand that forces must not be broken up.
Another fact is that unions are controlled by the most right wing sections of social democracy and opportunism, which proves the interest of the bourgeoisie to convert unions into motor belts for their policy within the working class, for the bourgeoisie is fully aware of this being paramount at the first stages in the workers organisations.
As we agree that the present frame which the struggle develops in asks for a bigger and more serious organisation so that the divisions of forces be avoided. We can conclude that we must double our effort to work within the unions.
Lenin wrote about this matter: "In more developed countries than Russia, it has been noticed certain reactionary spirit in unions... Western Mensheviks have trenched themselves fore firmly in the unions... There is no question about this... The struggle against the Gompers, Jouhaux, Henderson, Merrhimen, Legien and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks. It is necessary to fight relentlessly and go on with it in a compulsory way, as we have done, until we are able to pillory the incorrigible bosses of the opportunism and social chauvinism and throw them out of the unions..." ("Left Communism: An Infantile Disorder", Collected Works, p.377)
However, is it possible to bring about class currents within institutionalised unions, reactionary and tightly controlled by the opportunism and the social democracy?
Despite the very positive experiences of comrades from Turkey, Ecuador, Dominican Republic and others in disputing important sections in the union leadership, it may seem, form the point of view of Western Europe, somewhat secondary, even unnecessary, for her the institutional control exerted by the bourgeoisie over the unions has attained its maximum development, making our work within the unions extremely difficult, apart from the fact that unions have discredited themselves in workers' eyes.
Yet a new factor arises that must be taken into account as it may facilitate the political action: In Western Europe, the social democracy has had an ample range of manoeuvring since the end of the Second World War. During these years the bourgeoisie has allowed social democrats to play their being "socialists", safeguarding some social progress in bourgeois states in return for the essence of the capitalist system being out of question. It seemed to may that the capital had accomplished such a degree of development that they were able to do away with contradictions and capitalism overcome itself. The exploitation of the proletariat, mitigated, appeared as an inevitable requirement on the road to the ideal capitalist society. Hence the revolution was unnecessary.
Today, the development of new way of production, the increment of the capitalist competition to a world-wide scale, the economic globalisation and the absence of a revolutionary threat (not in the near future at least) together with a crisis that drags on for years have compelled (and allowed) the European bourgeoisie to remove their "social" mask and demand the proletariats to surrender their social gains. Today, the massive unemployment of structural kind is a growing reality in Western Europe.
Yesterday, the social democracy boasted about the welfare state being their work, a product of their political intelligence; it was not a concession from the capital. It is the social democracy itself that heads in many cases, and justifies in all, the measures which prepare its own distraction.
This political experience has to have consequences on the immediate struggle within the unions. In this present situation, the social democracy and the right wing opportunism are obliged to burn down their political gains, even taking sides with social cuts policy, and they do so by means of unions, because in this way they can achieve some social legitimacy. The contradictions that this situation generates have caused very serious tensions within the very structures of the unions and the social democrat or reformist forces in Spain (and again we think we are not before an isolated case, though it may be more acute). There are many rank and file who are watching the way events occur, whether class currents emerge.
Undoubtedly, the political struggle in the mass unions takes place within the boundaries set by the social democrats, for they have to defend the bourgeois social state. No wonder whatsoever taking into consideration that the most active rank and file have been influences by social democrat ideas for years, far form the influence of communists.
Yet it is also true that these tensions enable us to go forward towards the class unity. The battle waged in CC.OO by the so-called critic sector is an example: It has been the first time in many years that workers and leaders of various ideological trends or currents agree to a common programme to defend class unionism. The presence of the "United Left" deputy and CPE's leader, Angeles Maestro, at the Third International Meeting of Trade Unionists is quite meaningful, so as to indicate that the debate in the class unity is on the agenda, not only for Marxist-Leninists but also for a great number of conscious fighters.
There are today many more unionists willing to struggle for the defence of the class unionism. And we must feel this and lead the combat for this unity.
We must keep this thought in mind, firstly communists, and we must also transfer it to the class unionists in future meetings.