Richard Hyman,

Marxism and the Sociology of Trade Unionism.

London: Pluto Press, 1971


Purpose:

To critically outline the optimistic (revolutionary) and pessimistic (non-revolutionary) potential of trade unions, and to consider their dialectical relationship in a synthetic analysis.

(see model in chart)



I. Optimistic Tradition: Marx and Engels


(see chart)

1) laws of supply and demand determine wages; in the face of this, all trade unions can do is to slow down the erosion of wages in the face of the onslaught of capital; this is a defensive position of unions. (p. 5).

2) political activity of the trade union is directed in an attack on competition among workers which is the cornerstone of bourgeois dominance; this is accomplished through the combination of workers; the destruction of competittion among workers means the destruction of the rule of property. (6).

3) Unions are a military school for class war, according to Engels.

4) Marx: unions are ramparts for workers in their struggle for social revolution against employers. (6).

5) industrial concentration brings about the combination of workers which runs counter to the competition among workers.

6). Unions are one stage in the transition from a class in itself to a class for itself (6-7).

7) Grave-diggers: bourgeoisie is its own grave diggers in the sense that capital accumulation brings abour industrial concentration, which in turn brings about the combination of workers with low wages, which struggles to overthrow private property to put an end to their enslavement. (8).

II. Later Reservations of Marx and Engels

(A) Lack of revolutionary ardor on part of British trade unions after mid-19th century caused Marx and Engels to reassess their optimistic view, but did not cause them to drop it as a general theory of the relation between trade unions and revolutionary struggle. Instead, they saw the developments in the british trade union movement as an aberration or deviation in an historical trend; the deviation they felt could be explained by a combination of three factors:

  1. Labour Aristocracy: the conservatism of the British trade union movement is reflective of the fact that the entire working class was not organized, but only a part of it, the most priveleged, skilled part, which took a moderate position. This part was able to win material concessions not won by the less skilled and as yet unorganized. They saw this as a temporary phenomenon.
  2. Corrupt Leaders: trade union movement was in the hands of leaders who were corrupt in a material and ideological sense. (9).
  3. Embourgeoisment based on imperialism: ie, the British nation was passing through an imperialist stage in which the British working class benefitted from Britain's monopoly capitalist position in the world. This also would pass once British imperialism declined. (9-10).

(B) Business Union Evidence: Some writings of Marx and Engels suggest that they were aware of the restricted nature of trade unions, of their sectional nature, of their defensiveness, of their attempt to cope with the effects rather than the causes of their problems. But they did not elevate these concerns to the level of general theory.

III. The Pessimistic Interpretation

(see pessimistic model in chart)
  1. Integration (Lenin)
  2. Oligarchy (Michels)
  3. Incorporation (Trotsky)
  4. Industrial Relations Orthodoxy which combines integration (# 1), oligarchy (#2), and incorporation (#3) in a 'maturation thesis'

All four of above in pessimistic tradition inhibit the challenge by trade unions to capitalism

Review and Critique: Hyman reviews each of these and later provides a critique.


1) Integration (Lenin):

(see integration model in chart)

Integration thesis states that trade unions, able to achieve their economic objectives within the structures of capitalism, become integrated into its institutions. (Hyman, p. 14). This is not an intentional on the part of anyone, but a product of the structures of trade unions and bourgeois societies; in contrast, Trotsky's incorporation thesis is a product partly of the intentional and deliberate actions of states and corporations which strive to coopt unions and their leaders in order to emasculate them and bend them in the service of bourgeois aims. (on this difference, see Hyman, p. 17).

a) Sectional nature of trade unions, organized along the lines of industry or occupation; or the tools of the trade. (also Gramsci argues this position).

b) economism: that trade unions are narrowly concerned with immediate economic issues, such as wages (the terms of the sale of labour power), working conditions, etc.

c) ideology: a rigid dichotomy exists between trade union consciousness and social democractic (ie, revolutionary) consciousness; the latter cannot develop within the proletariat, but must be imported into the proletariat from outside by bourgeois intellectuals. Trade union consciousness was " 'the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.' " (13) (from Lenin's What Is To Be Done, 1902).

d) politics: trade union politics is bourgeois politics, according to Lenin. (13). This contradicts Marx who thought that political action by trade unions was an indication of their political class struggle.

2) Iron Law of Oligarchy (Michels)

a) oligarchic tendencies of trade union leadership greater than in political parties; union leaders will attempt to perpetuate themselves in power, partly because of their manual origins; this means that they have no means of economic subsistence after they leave their leadership posts, and feel too embarrassed to return to their manual pursuits after having attained such relatively elevated positions of high esteem. (15).

b) impossibility of direct democracy;

c) bureaucratization of trade union structures, partly to cope with the technical requirements of collective bargaining and negotiations.

d) gap between leaders and mass rank and file: ideological differentiation between leaders and led.

e) technical expertise and experience required; this perpetuates or at least justifies in the eyes of the masses the continuation of the 'experts' in office.

f) apathy by rank and file perpetuates leadership.

g) size of union: the larger the union, the greater its bureaucratization.

h) conservatism: moderation and petty-bourgeois life style evidence by trade union leaders. Need for public approval also leads to a conservatism on the part of the leaders of unions.

i) institutional needs: union, to survive, must pay attention to the opinions of the government and corporate employers. (17).

3) Incorporation (Trotsky)

(see incorporation model in chart)

Incorporation Thesis: "that union leaders, having acquired authority over their members, are use to assist capitalism in controlling the workers." (18).

a) bourgeois, conservative ideology displayed by trade union bureaucrats (18).

b) contributor to the survival of capitalism: trade union bureaucracy has helped capitalism survive by supporting its structures. (18). Trotsky even looked upon British trade unions as the "backbone of British imperialism" (p. 18).

c) "lieutenants of capital" = trade union bureacurats = Trotsky's phrase (p. 18).

d) "political police" = trade union leaders acting to discipline their members on behalf of capital (p. 19; Trotsky's phrase).

e) State action: state attempted to incorporate unions into capitalist society on behalf of capital (19).

4) Recent Derivatives: Orthodoxy of Industrial Relations (20-25).

a) C. W. Mills:

i) joint bureaucratic discipline: amalgamation of trade union bureaucracy with corporation's bureacuracy (20). Mills: " 'Business-labor co-operation within the place of work...means the partial integration of company and union bureaucracies.... The union takes over much of the company's personnel work, becoming the disciplining agent fo teh reank and file... Company and union...are disciplining agents for each other, and both discipline the malcontented elements among the unionized employees.' " (21). (From Mills, New Men of Power).

ii) junior partnership enjoyed by trade unions within industry. Union derives union security, higher wages for its members, in return, the company receives peace and stability in its plants and higher productivity. (20).

iii) sympathy with basic Marxist orientation by mills sets him apart from the other orthodox interpreters of industrial relations. (21).

b) R. A. Lester and others: Maturation Thesis

Maturity thesis is demonstrated by the theories of Lenin, Michels, and Trotsky. Ie, the management of conflict by unions in peaceful ways simply indicates the maturation of the system of industrial relations, and of trade unions and their leaders. The union partakes in the managerial function of the control of union members. In return for its displining function, the union (and its leaders) receive union security from the company. (21-22).

Carried out on two levels:

  1. workplace;
  2. state institutions. (22-23).

c) Coser: Postive Functions of Social Conflict:

ie, it is in the management of conflict that both parties come out stronger (23-4).

d) Clark Kerr's Slowdown in Industrial Conflict

in higher stages of capitalism, contrary to Marx. (24).

e) Dahrendorf's institutionalization of industrial conflict

means that it becomes less prone to unpredictable violence, and it becomes more regulated (24).

f) Dubin's instititutionalization of industrial

conflict through collective bargaining (24).

g) Lipset: legitimacy of unions decreases likelhood of 'economic cleavages' and conflicts. (24-5).


IV) Pessimistic One-Sidedness: A Critical Appraisal (25-37).

i) one-sidedness: all of the pessimistic school has emphasized the one- sided interpretation of unions as anti-revolutionary, without taking into account the dialectical relation between its revolutionary and non- revolutionary roles (25). We must take into account the dialectical relation between trade unions and capitalist society. (25), especially the counter-tendencies to the integration of unions into capitalist societies.

ii) historical contingency: above can be forcefully argued by remembering that the integrationist arguments apply to some specific historical circumstances, but not to others.

1. Critique of Leninist Position of Integration (26-28)

Three factors (ability of capitalism to satisfy economic demands of workers; aspiration levels of workers; and, degree of organization of workers) can affect whether trade unions can be integrated into capitalism. Hyman argues that Lenin's thesis may not have absolute validity for all times and places. Where capitalism can no longer grant the economic demands of workers in the context of high aspirations for workers and great strength in their organizations, economic demands of workers may introduce a degree of instability into capitalism rather than supporting its structures, as in Britain in the early 1970s.

2. Critique of Michel's Iron Law of Oligarchy (28-33)

Hyman points out three counter-tendencies to Michel's iron law of oligarchy in trade unions:

  1. instrumentalism of rank and file: because the rank and file expect unions to deliver a package of economic goods, when these are not forthcoming, they may revolt against their leaders for economic reasons.
  2. democratic expectations: rank and file have democratic expectations of their leaders; the leaders often come out of democratic activism at the rank and file level. This democratic ethos acts as a constraint on the anti-democratic practices of union leaders. Thus, Gouldner argues that besides Michels iron law of oligarchy there is also in trade unions an iron law of democracy.
  3. level of organization: Michels focused on the national level of unions where bureacurcy and oligarchy are most developed; he did not focus on the local level and at the shopfloor-steward level where democratic practices are most developed.

3. Critique of Trotsky's Incorporation (33-35)

Hyman suggests that it is important to distinguish between the attempt by corporations and the state to incorporate unions into capitalist insitutions (on which Trotsky was probably correct), and the degree of sucess of this incorporation (on which Trotsky was less probably correct, given the current situation in Great Britain).

4. Critique of Industrial Relations Orthodoxy (35-37)

i) denial of history: industrial relations people deny the potential militancy of unions in today's society, despite the militant origins of present-day unions; thus, they deny that history can repeart itself, even in an altered way.

ii) misinterpretation of Mills: Mills' phrase 'manager of discontent' attribution of union bureaucrats has been taken out of context by current industrial relations orthodoxy. For Mills, this was only one side of trade union leaders; the other side, which coexisted at the same time, was a revolt againstg the strictures of capitalism. (36-7).

V) Conclusion: The Limits of Trade Union Consciousness (37-49)

a) Reaffirmation of a variant of optimistic interpretation: based on recent British experience, we cannot accept wholesale the pessimistic views of the integration, oligarchy, and incorporation theses; nor can we accept entirely the optimistic interpretation as originally advanced by Marx and Engels. (37).

b) Union challenges capitalism on two fronts:

c) gap between activity and consciousness: usually, activity runs ahead of consciousness which is infected by bourgeois ideology. Workers have a sectional consciousness in which they are more ready to condemn other workers' strikes than their own. (39).

d) continuity between workers' economic and political demands: see long excellent quote from Hobsbawm (pp. 39-40).

e) Middle ground between trade union consciousness and socialist consciousness in Lenin recognized by him in other writings, especially on the 1905 revolution written after what is to be done. In these writings, Lenin seems to recognize the political and socialist significance of economic trade union actions, such as the strike! (40-42) N.B.

VI) Some Implications

(good section). (see pp. 50-53).


VII) Implications for Dual Nature of Trade Unionism and Dual Systems Theory

double nature of trade unionism: contradictions of revolutionary vs. conservative traditions along:

The conservative/revolutionary dualism can therefore exist in both gender and in trade unionism. For an illustration, click HERE. This leads to a variety of types of trade unionism.

Is this dual systems theory in another guise?

Class
Revolutionary Conservative
Gender Feminism Socialist Feminist Working Class Unions Liberal Feminist Middle Class Unions
Patriarchy Male Industrial Syndicalist or Traditional Socialist Unions Business Unions: Male, Patriarchal, Pro-Business, Conservative

PREVIOUS START UNIT NEXT