Syndicalism: Is revolution through unionisation desirable or practical?

One typically views a union as a group of unified masses of all different ages, backgrounds and occupations all standing together on a picket line much like the image above of members of Unite in the UK mobilised in London. All sexes, political orientations and cultures choose to mobilise this way. At first glance, it seems like the ultimate display of unity and collective society and the ultimate means by which a true community-led revolution can succeed. It can even, perhaps, be seen by some as a parallel or potential alternative to state centralisation of political power, and instrumental in the formation of a proletarian-led anarchy. However, it is also through this means of mobilisation that the state can further flourish as can other vanguardist and authoritative means of accumulation of power and resources amongst the masses, as well as equally appearing to further promote alternative pseudo-fascist authoritarian right wing ideology (the AFL CIO is an example of this, as were many unionist Falangist movements). Moreover, the wide and all-encompassing nature of many unions giving representation of multiple political groups of varying positions on the political spectrum would mean that they would have limited core motives to stand for, and so would be unlikely to drive the state to bring about any real political change once they have succeeded in gaining influence.

While skilled artisans of a specific trade may value specific forms of craft unions as a means of gaining support and unity with other individuals of this trade so as to preserve it and agitate for improved pay, conditions and support within the workplace, unions can also be instrumental in assisting the mobilisation low-skilled blue collar workers (who could have very clear working class values on any part of the political spectrum). This can be observed when referring Jeff Schurke's idea of a "blue collar empire". With this it would be seen that unions would be heavily instrumental in promoting a sense of solidarity within these communities of workers in the US during the Soviet era in fighting against the supposed threat of communism and its potential influence on them. This threat would be minimised through the boycotting of any Soviet trade unions and the formation of their own separate alternative as in the AFL-CIO. The view was that these far left unions would function as “totalitarian governments enslaving their people” and rivals to Nazi leadership, if anything, the Nazis appearing to have been somewhat more moderate with regard to their methods and organisation. The first right wing AFL-CIO unions were major advocates of traditional society and preservation of the existing economic conditions, thus making them direct polar opposites to the more progressive rank-and-file systems that the unions on the far-left favoured, in which agitation against the bureaucracy through greater emphasis on the general public and grassroots interests were seen as core values in dismantling existing economic conditions and striving for change within the workplace. The far-right unions also appeared to be a lot more sectarian and motivated by organisation in relation to the specific hard to replace crafts and skills one had so as to make them appear as such, as opposed to supporting more collective industrial action through mobilisation of the proletariat as with the more left-wing unions. Craft unions, however, also could potentially be seen to remain quite popular in principle from a socialist perspective, in that there is opposition to the key capitalist of the mechanisation of industry (which would prove to increase efficiency and productivity, as well as reduce the cost of the production- with the workforce being reduced in size and paid less). A craft is essentially a skill that requires use of the hands and that cannot be mechanised. Because of this, it would be considerably more labour intensive and less economical to supply for growing economic demands than mechanisation and modernisation of industry if this was preserved as a substantial part of the economy. It can thus be seen that there are two similar attitudes in favour of craft unionisation, although with different methods and reasoning behind them, on both the left and the right wing.

However, although appearing very much contradictory to the leftist ideology and core principles, the far-right Falangist movement in Spain during the 1930s adopted some strikingly similar positions on the matter to the left. They appeared to show strong disapproval of the changes in industry under capitalism, seeing that it “disregards the needs of the people, dehumanises private property and transforms the workers into shapeless masses that are prone to misery and disrepair”. With this, clear parallels to the Marxist ideology are apparent, as are other socialist principles in relation to social restructuring, addressing rural inequalities, and improving wealth distribution for the net benefit of society, in Jose Antonio Primo de Riveras’ 1934 manifesto. An anti-vanguard sentiment can also be noted here, with class struggle being seen as something that needs to be abolished, and the operation of the proposed syndicalist aims not relating to the comparative strength and stability of the individuals of whom the Spanish proletariat consisted, intending to reduce infighting and develop greater cooperation and collaboration amongst the workers. Advocacy for unity and bringing together all unions, as one would see with national federations of unions, is the preferred means of addressing this, seemingly going against the sectarian nature of many other unions globally. However, this and the forms of unionism that developed from these principles appeared to present nationalism as the main priority and reasoning behind them, so as to use the economic and social power they have accrued to their benefit, increasing their prominence in Europe and developing their influence as an imperial power. Similarly, these principles were also applied to the advocacy for the Spanish Armed Forces and military establishment of the time, so as to protect their political sovereignty and territorial integrity.

With this in mind, whilst it can be seen that, superficially, all unions are homogeneous in nature and focus on emancipation of workers and restructuring of society based off of anti-sectarian and socialist principles, it is clear that this is far from the truth, and not a purely leftist position to take. It is because of this sheer breadth of demographics, political leanings and ideologies associated with the unions, very little can be seen to suggest potential change to society (not to mention greater division and conflict in interest amongst individual unionised workers). This would present the syndicalist movement as an ironically very sectarian approach and a breeding ground for internal conflict and infighting amongst those involved. This is along with the huge potential for vanguardist sentiments to arise through this, undermining the democratic and socially oriented motives of unionisation.

https://spartacus-educational.com/SPfalange.htm#:~:text=6.,Cortes%20as%20we%20know%20it.

Schurke, J., (2024). Blue Collar Empire: The Untold Story of US Labour’s Global Anticommunist Crusade. Verso Books. DOI: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=5ZAgEQAAQBAJ&pg=PA1910&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false