Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa

Citation preview

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa

Trade Union Theory from Marx 11

to Walesa

John A. Moses /

BERG New York I Oxford I Munich Distributed exclusively in the US and Canada by St Martin's Press, New York

First published in 1990 by Berg Publishers L imited Editorial offices: 165 Taber Avenue, Providence, R I 02906, USA 1 50 Cowley Road , O xford OX4 lJJ, UK W estermiihlstraBe 26, 8000 Miinchen 5, FRG ©John A . Mo>es 1 990 All rights reserved . No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any means without the written permission of the publishers.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Moses, John Anthony, 1 930Trade union theory from Marx to Walesa I John A. Moses . p. cm . Includes bibliographical references . I S B N 0-85496-1 86--0 1 . Trade-unions and communism- History. 2. Socialism-History. I . Title. HX544.M67 1990 331 . 88'0 1-dc20 89-39266 CIP

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Moses, John A. Qohn Anthony) 1 930Trade union theory from Marx to Walesa. 1. Trade unionism . Theories, history I. Title 331 . 88'0 1 ISBN 0-85496- 1 86--0

Printed in Great Britain by Billing & Sons Ltd, Worcester

Contents

Abbreviations

Vll

Preface

vm

Introduction

1

1

7

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements

The Condition of the Working Class in England 7 The Poverty of Philosophy 1 7 The Manifesto of the Communist Party 21 Wage Labour and Capital 23 Inaugural Address 32 Wages, Price and Profit 33 The Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council 43 Capital, Volume I 44 Marx and Engels Contra Anarchism and Anarcho-Syndicalism 51 2

3

Trade Union Independence: The Reception of the 'Hamann Interview'

59

The Main Implications

76

The Marxist Theory of Wages 76 Trade Unions and Labour's Claim to Power Trade Unions and Class Consciousness 94 The Party-Union Relationship 1 08 4

85

Conflicting Interpretations I: From Eduard Bernstein

1 13

to Hermann Muller

5

Conflicting Interpretations II: Rosa Luxemburg

1 29

contra Eduard Bernstein -v-

Contents 6

Conflicting Interpretations III: From Lenin to Lozovsky

141

7

The Dual Character of Trade Unions

155

8

Christianity and Trade Unionism

165

Introduction 165 Christian Socialism 9

166

The Polish Trade Union Movement between Moscow

198

and Rome

The Historical/Economic Context of Solidarity 199 Trade Unions in Real Existing Socialism (RES) 201 The Economic Conditions of RES and the Rise of Solidarity 203 Solidarity's Response: The 21 Demands (Gdansk Agreement) and the Organisational Statute 212 The Programme 222 227

Conclusions Appendices

I II

The Twenty-One Postulates of the Gdansk Inter-factory Strike Committee 232 Solidarity's Programme Adopted by the First N ational Congress 234

Select Bibliography

241

Index

251

-

VI

-

Abbreviations

ADGB ADAV

DGB DGB

Allgemeiner Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (General German Trade Union Federation 1919-1933) Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverband (General German Workers' Association - founded in 1863 by Ferdinand Las­ salle) Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (German Trade Union Feder­ ation [Christian] 1919-1933) Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (The Trade Union Federation of the Federal Republic of Germany)

EMCWS

Encyclopedia of Marxism, Communism and Western Society

ILO IWMA

International Labour Organization The International Working Men's Association - The First International 1864-1876 Social Self-Defence Committee (circle of Polish intellectual opposition and ally of Solidarity) Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands (Communist Party of Germany) Marx and Engels, Ober die Gewerkschaften Marx/Engels Collected Works, i.e. the complete works of Marx . and Engels in English Marx/Engels Werke, i.e. the complete works of Marx and Engels in German Mehrheitssozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Majority Social Democratic Party of Germany) Nationalsozialistische Arbeiterpartei (i.e. the Nazi Party) Polish United Workers' Party Real Existing Socialism Rote Gewerkschaftsopposition (Red Trade Union Opposition at the time of the Weimar Republic 1928-1933) Sozialdemokratische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei (Social Demo­ cratic German Workers' Party) Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Social Democratic Party of Germany) Unabhangige Sozialdemokratische Partei Deutschlands (Inde­ pendent Social Democratic Party of Germany)

KOR KPD MEG MECW MEW

MSPD NSDAP PUWP RES RGO SDAP SPD USPD

-

vu

-

Preface

In my book Trade Unionism in Germany from Bismarck to Hitler, 1 a chapter was devoted to trade union theory to show the various and conflicting roles assigned to trade unions by those socialist thinkers who had most influenced the German movement, namely Ferdinand Lassalle (1 825-64) and Karl Marx (18 1 8-83) . There existed in fact much confusion within the overall Social Democratic movement about the precise function of trade unionism. Indeed, this was the source of major internal debates and an underlying cause ultimately of the fateful split in German Social Democracy during the First World War. Further, my chapter in that work sought to point out that German socialist politicians and trade union leaders were eclectic with regard to the 'theory' they tried to implement in the daily political and economic struggle. They often selected parts of Marx's theory - he was the sole official authority after 1 89 1 - and applied these in a given situation, or at least adduced them to justify their policies and actions. For example, Marx in 1869 had report­ edly insisted that trade unions had always to maintain independence from political parties; this notion was re-invoked vigorously in 1932/3 when it was feared that if N ational Socialism came to power in Germany the trade union movement would be banned because of its historic association with Social Democracy, which the Nazis and o ther rightist groups regarded as being traditionally an unpatriotic movement. In that situation it had been deemed prudent by the trade union leaders to appeal to an early statement by Marx which was taken to imply that unions could continue to fulfil their function no matter what kind of regime was in power, and still not betray the socialist cause and its long-term historic goal of the liberation of the proletariat from wage slavery. The point is twofold: first, unions emerged to protect the work-force before there were any socialist theorists, and they continued to perform this primary function regardless of what later

1. London and New York , 1982. -v111-

Preface theorists said about it. Second, some labour leaders (both political and industrial) did acquaint themselves with some of the theory, and this they applied in an ad hoc way whenever it appeared expedient to do so. Consequently, persons of conflicting views in party and in unions could in good conscience call themselves Marxists since somewhere in the corpus of Marx's and Engels' writings there appeared to be a justification for their policy or action. It is doubtful whether any labour leader in Germany, or any­ where else for that matter, during the nineteenth and early twen­ tieth centuries could ever have acquired a complete knowledge and understanding of Marx's and Engels' voluminous works. For one thing they were not all available together since they appeared piecemeal over a very long period, and some appeared posthum­ ously only in the twentieth century. Authorities such as Karl Kautsky (1854-1938) and Eduard Bernstein (1850-1932) did lay claim to an extensive knowledge and understanding of the 'canon' of Marxist writings. However, even these men from the same p arty differed fundamentally in their interpretations of what Marx and Engels really meant, as the debates unleashed by Bernstein's revisionism around the turn of the century indicated. 2 When Bernstein advanced his 'revisionist' analysis of Marxism, Kautsky had felt bound to champion an 'orthodox' Marxist position. In­ deed, Kautsky enjoyed the honour of being Marx's most authentic interpreter before 1914. Thereafter, of course, Marxist-Leninists repudiated Kautsky, and more recently others have shown that Kautsky had really converted Marxism into 'Kautskyism' :3 It is therefore not surprising that pragmatically inclined trade union leaders with little time for abstruse study became, at best, eclectic Marxists . The purpose of this introductory book is, first, simply to locate those key statements of Marx and Engels which had clear implica­ tions for the trade union movement and to outline those theories of central relevance to trade unionism which Marx and Engels derived from their analysis of capitalism. Secondly, it seemed appropriate to trace through the influence those writers had on later theorists of socialism and to note the divergences in both theory and practice which have arisen in various parts of the world, and which can be ·

2. John Plamenatz in his German Marxism and Russian Co��unism, London, 1954, _ was pp. 1 7 1-2, strongly implied that it was scarcely surpnsmg that Bernstem accused of misunderstanding Marx. 'Everyone who has read Marx has often misunderstood him , for when a man writes as he did there are often several different and equally plausible interpretations to be put on his words.' 3. See Erich Matthias, Kautsky und der Kautskyanismus, Tiibingen, 1 957. -IX-

Preface seen to be operating at the present time. In doing this I have been guided by a series of earlier studies which are now out of print or have never been translated into English. 4 The�:e were all written for either apologetic or polemical reasons, and as such were excellent examples of the conflicting interpretations that can be placed on any body of literature by rival groups, each claiming to have inherited the right to be the 'orthodox' spokesmen. In addition, a collection of M arx's and Engels' references to trade unionism has been pub­ lished in the German Democratic Republic, and this has proved to be a most useful guide through the widely scattered material. 5 Further, the work of Professor Rainer Zoll of Bremen, entitled Der Doppelcharakter der Gewerkschaften, has been a most fruitful source of questions and ideas . 6 He has approached the question as a Marxist-inspired Social Democrat who sees possibilities of mobil­ izing the trade union movement not only for the struggle within capitalism but also against it - in a non-violent, constructive way. Zoll affirms that the capitalist wages system is still oppressive, and elicits from the writings of Marx and Engels ideas for the renewal of the trade union struggle towards fulfilling its original purpose, namely the elimination of the commodity character of labour­ power within modern industrial society. The same can be s aid of the work of Dr Gerhard Beier, who has advanced some of the most imaginative and fruitful ideas for the revitalizing and re-orientation of trade unionism in the West. To him I owe a special debt of gratitude for his cheerful and enthusiastic readiness to share both his ideas and his encyclopaedic knowledge. Finally, I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the Alexan­ der von Humboldt Foundation, which enabled me to spend p art of my study leave in Germany during brief periods in 1980 and 1984 when the research for this book was begun. Completion was greatly assisted by a visit to Berlin as guest of the Historische Kommission there, from December 1988 to January 1989, during which time many of the issues raised by the Polish Solidarity movement were clarified in long discussions with Dr Peter Raina 4. These were: ( 1 ) Herman Muller, Karl Marx und die Gewerkschaften, Berlin, 1 9 1 8; (2) Nelli Auerbach, Marx und die Gewerkschaften, Berlin, 1 922; (3) A . Lozovsky, Marx and the Trade Unions, originally published, Moscow, 1 933; English t ransla­ tion, London, 1 935. 5. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Ober die Gewerkschaften (East Berlin, 1 97 9) . This is a collection of virtually all refe rences made by Marx and Engels to t he trade union question. It gathers together numerous sources otherwise only accessible wit h difficult y. 6 . Der Doppelcharakter der Gewerkschaftrn: Zur Aktualitat der Marx'scl1en Gewerk­ schaftstheorie, Frankfurt am Main, 1976 . -

x

-

Preface and other 'Poland-watchers'. Also, Mr Henry Sikora of the NSZZ Solidarnosc Information Bureau in Australia has been most helpful in providing English language translations of several Solidarity documents and much other relevant information. This book is dedicated to the memory of my parents, Wilhel­ mina (nee Macfarlane) and Anthony Moses . John Moses Brisbane, 1989

-XI-

Introduction

An introductory handbook for the undergraduate or interested lay person on the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels and the various theorists whom they inspired on trade unionism seems at the present time to be desirable since the subject is one of inter­ national relevance. Although Marx and Engels, the two dominant ideological authorities in the intellectual history of socialism and revolution, did not invent trade unionism, it was a form of militant labour organization in the emergent industrial society of the nine­ teenth century which they analysed at great length and around which they constructed their theory of revolution. The latter has been, and is, a phenomenon of not inconsiderable relevance to the lives of many millions of human beings . It is, therefore, appropri­ ate to identify what Marx and Engels actually wrote on trade unionism, and to trace through the impact it has had on those who might justifiably be called 'their warring disciples'. This exercise seems doubly justified since neither Marx nor Engels ever sat down to write, between the covers of one book, their theory of trade unionism. Their collected works encompass, in the official Mo scow edition in the original German language, some thirty-nine volumes but the student will not find one with the title Trade Unionism. The subject is touched upon at various stages over a period from 1845 to the 1890s, so the implications of the general theory for trade unionism have to be culled out and collated so that its evolution might more easily be traced. And as may be expected from a system of thought developed and published piecemeal over such a long period there are aspects of it which gained more popular currency than others on the one hand, and aspects which were left 'hanging in the air', on the other. Consequently there has been, not surprisingly, both an uneven reception of the ideas as well as divergent interpretations . This handbook locates the 'key statements' of Marx and Engels on trade unionism and then traces the effect these have had on their most influential followers. Broadly, there are two main streams of advo­ cates of trade unionism which spring from the common Marxist -1-

Introduction source: these are the Bernsteinian revisionist stream and the Marxist-Leninist stream. And because the former has been es­ poused by modern Social Democrats, and the latter b y inter­ national communism, there is the interesting and important debate between the two conflicting groups, both claiming allegiance to Marx and Engels (as will be shown) , but drawing diametrically opposed conclusions. Clearly, there exists a great difficulty for the disciples of any cause to acquaint themselves with the fundamental theoretical elements and to comprehend these within a total intellectual frame­ work of explanation. Just as, say, practising Christians normally cannot give a fully satisfactory theological explanation for what they do and believe, so it is with practising socialists of the various political persuasions. Like Christians (as Alexander Gray once observed) , the socialists 'believe' their cause to be right because charismatic personalities have purportedly demonstrated its right­ ness. It is sufficient for militant workers to accept even at second or third hand the findings of colleagues who have taken the trouble 'to read, mark, learn and inwardly digest' the original or some dis­ ciple's commentary. And evidence of the apparent validity of the theory seems readily available because it looms up in their daily experience of the apparent rapaciousness of capital, of class struggle and of the pauperization of workers and their families . That this debate between the 'warring disciples ' is of fundamen­ tal significance to the world might be illustrated by the events which began in Poland during August 1980 when, in a communist­ ruled country (under the system of Real Existing Socialism - RES) , a vigorous 'free' trade union movement rose up which, within the course of a year, had challenged the sole authority of ' the revol­ utionary party of the proletariat' on a whole range of questions affecting the life of the working population. This phenomenon, which sees the working class refusing to bend under the leadership of those who exert the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, really demands that the student of labour history 'get back to the sources' to discover precisely what Marx and Engels did say (or imply) about the role of trade unions, and to explain how their 'warring disciples ' came to occupy their respective positions . However, Marx and Engels are not the sole source of theories about emancipation of the work-force from 'wage-slavery'. There is another countervailing tradition which is very effective in countries where there are large numbers of Roman Catholics in the popu­ lation, and this applies to most of the great industrial nations of Europe in particular. Accordingly, this book will remind the -

2

-

Introduction student that the Church of Rome, challenged as it was by the ideas of atheistic communism, has developed a formidable body of doctrine about labour generally and about trade unionism in par­ ticular. Indeed wherever one looks in the industrial world, from the Ruhr in Germany to Pittsburgh in the United States, from Gdansk in Poland to Woolongong in Australia, the ideas of Marx and Engels will be in evidence, but so also will those of the great social teachers of the Roman Church such as Bishop Emmanuel von Ketteler and Father Heinrich Pesch, although very few of the Catholic workers will have necessarily heard ofthese fig4res from the past. Consequently this book takes on the following form. First, the so-called 'key statements' by Marx and Engels on the subject of trade unionism are identified and explained. This section is rounded off by an investigation of Marx's and Engels' repudiation of an­ archism and anarcho-syndicalism and the role imputed to trade unions by its chief protagonist, Bakunin. The second chapter is devoted to an investigation of the famous 'Hamann Interview' in which Marx allegedly spoke out strongly for trade union auton­ o my or independence from party-political tutelage. Thirdly, the main implications of the theoretical edifice of Marx's analysis of capitalism are spelled out. Clearly, it is essential to have an appreci­ ation of Marx's theory of wages and his labour theory of value in order to comprehend his advocacy of the trade union struggle and their claim for power. By the same token the role imputed by Marx to trade unions in raising the class consciousness of the working class also must be examined as well as the controversial question of the party-union relationship. Fourthly, the issue of conflicting interpretations has to be con­ fronted, and in doing so, first the impact of Eduard Bernstein's revisionism is examined. This is followed by a discussion of the polemical ideas of Rosa Luxemburg against Bernstein and, finally in this section, the doctrines of Lenin and his Stalinist successors are outlined. The discussion is then augmented by a summary of the ideas of Gerhard Beier, perhaps the leading trade union historian of the Federal Republic of Germany. He has reflected on the role and functions of trade unions within the pluralistic industrial society, and draws attention to the potential that trade unions might have for improving the general quality of life not only for their own members but also for the community at large. The justification for choosing to examine the views of a West German authority here lies in the fact that the Federal Republic is heir to a long tradition of trade union struggle, first against the oppressive Wilhelmine -3-

Introduction Empire to 1 9 1 8, then within the ill-fated Weimar republic with its insuperable economic and political difficulties, followed by the Third Reich, which tried to crush organized labour, and finally, the Federal Republic itself, which has seen the more or less free devel­ opment of economic forces within the framework of a 'planned market economy'. A summary of the experience of trade union activity there must prove instructive to all concerned to learn from outstanding historical examples. Next, addressing the question of Christianity and trade union­ ism, the social teaching of the Church has to be outlined since it has crucial implications for the nature of the trade union struggle. Indeed its teaching operates precisely to resist Marxist-Leninist infiltration of the labour movement. The book concludes with an analysis of the 'Solidarity' free trade union movement which sprang up with su ch energy in Poland after August 1 980 and which here serves as a case study. The efforts of organized labour in a Marxist-Leninist ruled country not ju st to improve the quality of life but simply to guarantee what Marx would have termed the price of their labour-power constitutes a movement of historic importance, because there in Poland up to the time of the final victory of Solidarity we had an instance of the revolutionary party of the working class in power, but failing to carry out the fundamental objectives of working-class government. The situation in Marxist-Leninist terms is a paradox in which we saw an example of a working class suffering under the mismanage­ ment not of grasping capitalists but of the administration of the communist authorities who had allowed inflation to deprive the population of the ability to reproduce its labour-power. The ensu­ ing protest, as well as its political implications, will be traced and examined. An appendix furnishes extracts of some of the key documents illustrating Solidarity's struggle. A number of editions of Marx's and Engels' works have served as the basis for this introductory guide. Since it is in the English language it is logical to employ as far as possible the authoritative English translation of the collected works of which, at the time of writing, the first nineteen volumes were available. This is the translation based on the German edition, Marx/Engels Werke (here­ after ME W) produced by Dietz Verlag in East Berlin. Where reference is made to the English translation of this edition (pub­ lished by Lawrence and Wishart in London) it will be by the recognized abbreviation, MEC W (i.e. Marx/Engels Collected Works), followed by the volume number and page. In the case of volume I of Capital, the edition used for quotations was that produced by -

4

-

Introduction Lawrence and Wishart in 1961. For Wages, Price and Pro.fit, the most recent English language edition was used. Full publication details are given in the Bibliography.

-

5

-

-

1

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements

The Condition of the Working Class in England This famous work of Friedrich Engels was written between Sep­ tember 1844 and March 1845 and was published in German that year in Leipzig. During that time Engels had investigated at first hand the working and living conditions of the proletariat in the British Isles. He was a perceptive observer when he wrote: 'The condition of the working class is the real basis and point of depar­ ture of all social movements of the present because it is the highest and most unconcealed pinnacle of the social misery existing in our day. '1 And at that time the social misery was most acute in Britain because there the industrial revolution had had its beginning and was by the 1840s in a highly advanced phase. Commenting on this Engels noted, 'England is the classic soil of this transformation [i . e. the industrial revolution] which was all the mightier, the more silently it proceeded; and England is, therefore, the classic land of its chief product also, the proletariat. Only in England can the proletariat be studied in all its relations and from all sides. '2 Engels had set out to comprehend the state of the proletariat 'in all its relations and from all sides'. The result of his studies is a classic of social historical writing. In it is depicted with great sympathy the abysmal plight of the British poor. But the study is not just description and statistics; it is also an analysis of what the proletariat had done to defend itself from the deleterious social consequences of the industrial revolution. Out of this analysis emerged the beginnings of a theory of trade unionism. Engels explained at length how the proletariat was created in

'!'

1. See prefa ce to The Condition of the Working Class in ME�W, vol.. 4, p. 302.. his . volume of Marx's and Engels' c ollected works m English contam s the wn tm gs for the years 1 844-5. The Condition of the Working Class in England takes up pp. 295-596 . 2. Ibid. , p. 307. -

7

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa Britain as a consequence of the competition among producers of cloth (weavers) that developed when the wages of weavers rose in accordance with the increased demand for woven goods. This induced the weavers, who had been traditionally small farmers as well, to abandon their peasant life-style and try to earn more money at their looms . Peasant farming, thus neglected, was ab­ sorbed into a large farming system requiring the peasants to mi­ grate to the newly emerging centres of industrialization to look for work. Out of their ranks emerged the original proletariat. The motor of the social movement was the drive for survival and profit - competition as Engels called it: 'the completest expression of the battle of all against all which rules in modern civil society' . 3 And the industrial workers were not exempt from the functioning of this principle. They, too, like the bourgeoisie, were in constant competition among themselves . This arose inexorably out of the laissezjaire system which meant, for example, that the hand-loom weaver was trying to compete with his counterpart in the new power-driven workshops. The latter's job was coveted by the worse-off weaver, whose position in turn was coveted by the unemployed weaver, so that each one was competing for the other's job. It was this competition of workers among themselves which gave the owners of the means of production an unbeatable advantage over the proletariat. The owners (or the bourgeoisie) had a monopoly of all the means of existence, and this resulted in the working class being virtually reduced to a slave-like dependence upon the employer class. 4 The laissezjaire system assumed the free play of economic forces . In practice this meant that the owners were free to offer employ­ ment to whomsoever they pleased on whatever terms they pleased, while the workers had the speciously free choice to accept work on the owners' conditions or not. However, the choice, as Engels stressed, was for the worker at best academic. He had no alternative but to accept it or to starve. And here Engels made an acute observation: 'If all the proletarians announced their determination to starve rather than work for the bourgeoisie, the latter would have to surrender its monopoly. '5 But of course this was an impossible situation, and so the bourgeoisie maintained its mon­ opoly over the means of existence. The only modifying factor in this was that an employer could not pay a worker a wage below 3. Ibid. , p. 375 . 4. Ibid. 5 . Ibid. , p. 376 .

-8-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements that which would maintain him and his family at a subsistence level. If accepting work at a wage less than that meant starvation, a man would prefer to starve as a free man than as a wage slave, that is, unemployed. This meant that there had to be a minimum or subsistence wage, although, as Engels acknowledged, this lower limit could fluctuate a great deal. For example, if workers became available who were used to a lower standard of living than the local ones then they would be ready to accept an even lower subsistence wage. This was an issue when Irish immigrants came to England and swelled the ranks of the proletariat. They were unwittingly aiding and abetting the bourgeoisie by allowing the minimum wage to be lowered to the detriment of the whole work-force. The consequence of this was that workers had to be content to accept a diminution of wages and living standards rather than be totally destitute. The trivial sum that he got then, 'this something more than nothing, is the minimum wage'. 6 There was, however, at the other end of the scale a maximum wage which was determined by the competition of the bourgeoisie among themselves in commerce. To carry on his enterprise the owner needed workers . There was even an indirect need for workers when a capitalist operated only by investment. It was commerce and manufacture - a process requiring workers - that made all profit possible. Workers were a means of profit. As Engels observed: So the bourgeois certainly needs workers, not indeed for his immediate living, for at need he could consume his capital, but as we need an article of trade or a beast of burden - as a means of profit. The proletarian produces the goods which the bourgeois sells with advantage. When, therefore, the demand for these goods increases so that all the competing working men are employed, and a few more might perhaps be useful, the competition among the workers falls away, and the bourgeoisie begin to compete among themselves. 7

It was the competition for workers in times of high demand for goods that caused wages to rise. The manufacturer naturally wanted to take advantage of this demand and increased production, for which purpose he needed workers, and while he was achieving profits he was quite happy to pay higher wages. But, of course, the governing factor was the demand for goods . When this slackened and profits diminished, the consequence would be wages reduced 6 . Ibid., p. 377. 7. Ibid. -

9

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa to the average level, and if profits dropped below the average level, then the laying-off of workers would occur. In times of steady demand, however, when the competition among manufacturers on the one hand and that among the workers on the other were at their lowest point, only the average wage would be paid, i. e. somewhat above the minimum. 8 Engels in his explanation of the fl u ctuation of wages was always acutely aware of the variety of influencing facto rs . As already pointed out, the minimum wage would vary according to the lowest level of subsistence that a community would accept, i . e. the standard of civilization. If, for example, workers of a region were accustomed to a particular higher protein diet, then the wages there would have to be sufficient to enable them to continue on it - provided of course there was no influx of ' cheap labour' , when naturally the worker would have to accept less. On the other hand, under average market conditions when capitalists were not competing among themselves for workers, the wages would not rise above the average because the entrepreneurs would not have to o ffer the work-force any special inducements. 9 However, because of the unpredictability of the market, wages, like prices, go up and down. And the worker was completely at the mercy of this because his value rose and fell like that of the goods he produced. Indeed, the worker, as Engels observed, was reduced to being a mere commodity item in the overall economic process. Naturally, the entrepreneur could not retain his workers if he was unable to sell the goods they produced, and so they were laid off. It was a system more brutal in practice than that of old-fashioned slavery, because under laissezjaire capitalism the employer could lay off workers at will, whereas under the slave system the owner would still be responsible for the subsistence of his slaves even if they brought him no further profit. The laissezjaire system would simply abandon the unemployed to their fate - indeed to starve to death. 1 0 These reflections by Engels, who had studied the works o f Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus on economics and population respec­ tively, caused him to recoil from the apparently clinical lack of humanity evident in their detached portrayal of the movement of economic forces . Smith had ob served, for example, that the de­ mand for men was like that of any other commodity and that this 8. Ibid., p. 378. 9. Ibid., p. 379. 10. Ibid., pp. 379-80 . -

10

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements regulated the production of human beings . 1 1 Whenever there was a demand for workers, wages went up so more worker marriages took place, hence more workers would be produced. When wages slumped there was a corresponding decline in the working-class population. But this decline was not due solely to the decline in the number of worker marriages and birthrate; the surplus workers around in times of low demand were simply left to starve to death. This was because the existing poor law and charitable institutions were too inadequate to meet the demand imposed. Malthus for his part had claimed to recognize that there was always a surplus population which could not be sustained from the available resources. Engels challenged him on this stating that 'surplus population is engendered rather by competition of the workers among themselves, which forces each separate worker to labour as much each day as his strength can possibly admit'. 12 This was enforced by the manufacturer, who wanted to extract the maximum productivity from as few employees as possible at the lowest possible wages . This meant that he would always be ready to discharge workers as soon as his profit margin threatened to narrow as a consequence of market forces. The significance of this situation for the workers was that each one strove to achieve maximum productivity, thus stimulating competition among the work-force. This was made more acute by the introduction of machinery and other technical advances which rendered human labour less necessary. So, Engels observed, there arose an army of starving ex-workers who were excluded from the production process. But of course this process was merely changing its person­ nel in accordance with the fluctuations in the economy. To quote Engels again: 'The introduction of industrial forces already referred to [machinery etc. ] for increasing production leads, in the course of time, to a reduction of prices of articles produced and to consequent increased consumption, so that a large part of the displaced workers finally, after long suffering , find work again. '13 But this, even despite the rapid expansion of British industry in the first part of the nineteenth century to supply both the colonial and overseas demands, did not eliminate the surplus proletariat. This was be­ cause, with the demands for hands, the population rapidly in­ creased; the surplus was thus constantly being maintained and so the competition among workers for jobs was always greater than 1 1 . Ibid., p. 380. 12. Ibid. 13. Ibid., p. 381 . -

11

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx· to Walesa the competition among employers to recruit labour. Engels queried why this had to be so, and answered by stating that it was because of the nature of industrial competition and commercial crimes that were endemic to the system. Where goods were produced not to supply needs but for the profit of the manufacturer, disruption would inevitably occur because the sys­ tem encouraged speculation on the part of the producer so that overproduction could easily result, causing gluts which in turn caused economic dislocation with attendant evils for the working population. So there was always a fluctuation between prosperity and economic crisis. During times of crises factories might even close completely, thus swelling the surplus proletariat, who were then compelled to survive as best they could. But there is always a surplus proletariat which not even the most spectacular period of prosperity could provide with work. This , what Engels has called the 'reserve army, which embraces an immense multitude during the crisis and a large number during the period which may be regarded as the average between the highest prosperity and the crisis, is the "surplus population" of England . . . '14 The inventiveness and resourcefulness of this 'reserve- army' of unemployed fascinated Engels. They could be observed in all manner of menial and demeaning tasks, both honest and criminal, in order to survive, and that included being degraded to beggary. 'When these people find no work and will not rebel against society, what remains for them but to beg? And surely no one can wonder at the great army of beggars , most of them able-bodied men, with whom the police carries on a perpetual war. '15 This sort of thing was understandably worse during economic depres sions , but to some degree it was a permanent feature of the new English indus­ trial society. And the consequences of it for the proletarian popu­ lation were hundreds of thousands of broken lives . That is to say, even if people survived the privations of inadequate food, clothing and housing with appalling sanitary conditions they were often left with permanent physical, not to mention psychological, afflic­ tions. 16 Above all, the human wreckage, the evidence of which was statistically researched by Engels , using in addition government reports, caused him so much revulsion that he came to regard the bourgeoisie as arrogant and heartles s, grasping and incorrigibly selfish. .

1 4. Ibid., p . 384. 1 5. Ibid., p. 385. 16. Ibid., pp. 394-5 .

- 1 2-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements It would have been strange had the working class as a whole submitted abjectly to this situation. Naturally, there were forms of protest and resistance, and Engels devoted an important section of his study to describing the emergence of labour movements. It is from this analysis and assessment of the capitalist system that both Engels and Marx began to develop their trade union theory. The thrust of Engels' study was to show that the proletariat as a class was suffering in an intolerable situation and that this was inexor­ ably driving it forward, compelling it to struggle for its total emancipation, despite the many setbacks it had to endure. The struggle which Engels describes, however, is one of extreme viol­ ence not only against property (machines in factories , for example) but also against individuals both in management as well as in the ranks of labour. The latter were, of course, the forerunners of the modern day 'blacklegs' or 's cabs', i.e. strike-breakers and the like. So intense and widespread was this struggle that Engels called it social warfare. 17 And while this had its beginnings in the sporadic criminal acts of individuals who had been driven by the extremes of despair to react against the hopelessness of their situation, there soon emerged signs of worker organization. After the repeal of the Combination Laws in 1824 the workers received the right of free association. As a result, 'In all branches of industry Trade Unions were formed with the outspoken intention of protecting the single working man against the tyranny and neglect of the bourgeoisie. Their objects were to deal en masse, as a power, with the em­ ployers ; to regulate the rate of wages according to the profit of the latter; to raise it when the opportunity offered, and to keep it uniform in each trade throughout the country. ' 1 8 What Engels relates here concerning the objects of early trade unionism in Britain indicates that principles and objectives have changed little in over a century. They specifically sought to nego­ tiate with management a wage scale which was to be universal for the industry throughout the country, and to force owners to adhere to it by using the strike weapon if the scale were arbitrarily lowered. In addition, the early unions sought to limit the number of apprentices in order to keep the demand for skilled labour high . They resis ted the introduction of labour-saving machinery, and finally they set up funds to assist unemployed members . As indi­ cated, the early unions suffered many setbacks mainly because of strike failure. This would have been due to the fact that insufficient 1 7. Ibid., p. 5 1 2 . 1 8 . Ibid . , pp. 503--4 .

- 13-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa workers were organized to make a strike completely effective. Unemployed workers could be readily recruited by employers to act as strike-breakers . There were, however, incidental victories to encourage the movement. But as Engels observed: 'All these efforts naturally cannot alter the economic law according to which wages are determined by the relation between supply and demand in the labour market. Hence the unions remain powerless against all great forces which influence this relation . ' 1 9 When Engels wrote this he was still under the influence of the ideas of David Ricardo, the famous English economist. As a consequence Engels at that time still believed that wages were determined simply by the laws of supply and demand. However, after further study with Marx this view was significantly revised, as shall be seen . Nevertheless, when writing before 1 845 Engels was on the right track in seeking to illustrate the limitations of the struggle of organized labour within the capitalist system. In a depression, for example, the union itself suffered a loss of mem­ bers, frequently not being able to sustain itself in existence. But on the other hand, in times of high demand for labour, unions would be able to 'fix the rate of wages higher than would be reached spontaneously by the competition of capitalists among them­ selves' . 20 And in another important aspect the unions were highly significant, in that their very existence prevented the employer from contemplating the gradual reduction of wages. All employers in competing with each other tried to reduce wage costs, but the competition among employers to do so, wa s, as Engels noted, under average conditions, 'somewhat restricted by the opposition of the working-men' . 21 The fear of strikes and their consequences thus had the effect, usually, of maintaining the price of labour. The effect of spreading union organization, then, was to push up the price of labour as far as the market could stand it because they had eliminated, virtually, the competition of workers among them­ selves for j obs. That is to say, unionism reduced the numbers of workers available to a manufacturer to enter employment solely on his terms . Unfortunately, however, this was about the limit of union effectiveness. More often than not strikes ended in defeat for the unions because in times of market slumps the unions could do little for their members . Strikes at such times were pointless because 19. Ibid . , p. 505. 20 . Ibid . 2 1 . Ibid .

-14-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements funds would soon be depleted and the workers driven to return to work on the owner's conditions simply to avoid starvation. Often, too, unions went on strike at times when owners forced a wage reduction, and such strikes would also be futile. However, as E ngels observed, the unionists still felt they had to strike on principle against all reductions merely to protest at the sub-human conditions being imposed on them. Inaction, it was believed, would be a tacit recognition of the status quo, 'an admission of the right of the bourgeoisie to exploit the workers in good times and starve them in bad ones ' . 22 Engels was emphatic that unionism was of limited efficacy on behalf of the working class but he made some incisive observations about its fundamental importance. The effect of union organization and action in the first place was to hold the rapaciousness of the capitalist class within certain bounds. Beyond that unionism fired the resistance of the proletariat against the universal power of the bourgeoisie. And from that it taught the working class that something additional was required than mere trade union action in order to dislodge the bourgeoisie from their dominant position in society. Further, and here is the basic signifi­ cance of unions for Engels in 1 845, they were 'the first attempt by the workers to abolish competition'. 23 Unionism demonstrated that the power of the bourgeoisie was based entirely on the com­ petition of workers among themselves, and it thus taught that if worker solidarity could be extended to the fullest, the basis of the capitalist system could be shattered. Having drawn these conclusions, however, Engels observed that the abolition of worker competition was but the first stage in the process of destroying the inhuman political economy of capitalism. The laws governing the level of wages would come again into effect if the working class did not go further and abolish not only the one kind of competition but competition itself entirely. What E ngels clearly meant by this was that the woking class would proceed to change the social-political order altogether. He saw the trade union movement as a learning process for the working class in which they were coming to see, in the daily struggle for survival with capitalism, how the factor of competition was affecting them far more deleteriously than it was the bourgeoisie. In the countless struggles between capital and labour born of repeated acts of incredible injustice, Engels perceived a veritable social war going on in which the unions were the vanguard of the working class. As 22. Ibid., p. 506 . 23. Ibid., p. 507.

- 1 5-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa he wrote commenting on the number of struggles : 'The incredible frequency of these strikes proves best of all to what extent the social war has broken out all over England. '24 And he went on to say: 'These strikes, at first skirmishes, sometimes result in weighty struggles; they decide nothing it is true, but they are the strongest proof that the decisive battle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat is approaching. They are the military school of the working-men in which they prepare themselves for the great struggle which cannot be avoided. '25 So intense was the class struggle being waged in the 1840s that Engels could only conclude that it was but the prelude to violent revolution. At the time there were few employers indeed who had any sympathy with the demands of organized labour, and the vast majority resisted compromise with what they regarded as rabble­ rousing agitators . 'When such insanity prevails', wrote Engels, 'in the property-owning class, when it is so blinded by its momentary profit that it no longer has eyes for the conspicuous signs of the times, surely all hope of a peaceful solution of the social question for England must be abandoned . The only possible solution is a violent revolution, which cannot fail to take place. '26 That a social revolution did take place in England cannot be denied, but it took on a peculiarly English character, not to be compared with the upheavals on the Continent in 1 848 and sub­ sequently in 1 905 and 1 9 1 7 (in Russia) or 1 918/19 (in Germany) . Nevertheless, the union movement to this day continues its class warfare to a degree that cannot be ignored ; indeed in some countries, notably Great Britain, the intensity of industrial unrest at stages reaches such a peak that the eruption of violence on a wider scale often seems imminent. And Engels ' observations written so long ago formed the basis of the sophisticated trade union theory that both he and Marx were to evolve over the ensuing decades . Certainly, The Condition of the Working Class in England was the point of departure for what was to become the most persuasive revolutionary doctrine of all time. To recapitulate Engels ' lessons: he noted first and foremost that in the capitalist society the working class was being ruthlessly exploited by the bourgeoisie, and that it was the principle of competition of the workers among themselves that allowed this exploitation to take place. When the workers understood this they banded together in trade unions to reduce the level of worker 24. Ibid . , p. 5 1 2. 25 . Ibid . 26 . Ibid . , p. 547.

- 16-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements competition and so were able in 'normal' times to keep the price of labour above the minimum. Unfortunately, however, the business cycle in capitalism, prone to crises as it was, did not allow the unions (through use of the strike weapon) any major degree of success in the long term. Despite this, however, the workers still persisted in j oining unions and the unions still determined to strike whenever the employers reduced wages or arbitrarily altered con­ ditions to the detriment of labour. This urge to strike was seen by Engels as a protest against the inhuman conditions that the prop­ ertied classes wished to impose on the proletariat. Further, although strikes were of limited success, unions constituted the 'military school' of the proletariat which was preparing the workers for the violent overthrow of the dominance of the bour­ geoisie. Indeed, the trade union movement taught the workers the advantages that could be achieved through solidarity. Total soli­ darity would eliminate the evils resulting from workers competing against one another - a situation which advantaged orily the bourgeoisie. But beyond this the union movement brought home to the working class that more than the mere economic struggle was needed to eliminate the evils of capitalism - an entirely new social-political order would have to be created in which compe­ tition was rendered unnecessary. Finally, in this examination of Engels' assessment of trade unionism, it needs to be stressed that he was still very much influenced by the doctrine that, in the final analysis, it was merely the question of supply and demand in the labour market that determined the level of wages. Admittedly, Engels had observed the existence of the reserve army of unemployed that was perma­ nently available to influence the labour market. However, it was left to Marx to draw more refined conclusions from Engels' pion­ eering findings. Out of Marx's conclusions, then, the fully fledged trade union theory was developed.

The Poverty of Philosophy The next major s tatement bearing clear implications for trJde union theory was this famous polemic by Marx against Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1 809-65) , a French publicist, sociologist and economist who is regarded by Marxists as an ideologue of the petite bour­ geoisie and one of the theoretical founders of anarchism. 27 Proud27. Marx/Engels, Ober die Gewerkschaften (MEG), p. 567.

- 1 7-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa hon had written a work entitled Systeme des contradictions economiques, OU Philosophie de la misere in 1 846. The fallacies dis­ covered by Marx in Proudhon's thought moved him to respond with his La Misere de la Philosophie (i. e. The Poverty of Philosophy) in 1847. Actually, this early work by Marx contains the theoretical bolstering of the platform of the Communist Party which was in the process of evolution at that time, and as such it contains key passages of relevance to the trade union struggle. Engels actually referred to The Poverty of Philosophy as containing 'our programme' . 28 Proudhon had argued among other things that in the economic struggle against poverty, organizations of the working class would be of no avail. This was because whenever a strike succeeded in forcing up wages , the advantages to the workers would inevitably be cancelled out by the increase in prices that must follow. Hence trade union activity was pointless. Against this naive assumption, Marx levelled his penetrating refutation. Proudhon asserted un­ equivocally that it was impossible for strikes which won increased wages not to culminate in a general rise in prices; Marx emphati­ cally denied this and set out to demonstrate its falsity. As he observed, if the price of everything doubled at the same time as wages , there was no change in actual price, only a change in terminology. 29 Marx continued his refutation of Proudhon by noting that a general rise in wages could never produce a more or less general rise in prices . Indeed, Marx observed that there would be no alteration in prices if each industry employed the same number of workers in relation to their fixed capital or plant in use. Then a general rise in wages would produce a fall in profits only. How­ ever, because the proportion of labour to fixed capital varied from industry to industry, 'all industries which employ a relatively greater mass of fixed capital and fewer workers will be forced sooner or later to lower the price of their goods ' . 30 If, on the other hand, they had more workers in relation to their fixed capital, and 28. MEC W, vol. 6, p. 672. Note 7 1 . Engels expressed this opinion to none other than Louis Blanc, one of the ed itors of the French socialist newspaper La Riforme in the autumn of 1 847 j ust after the publication of The Poverty of Philosophy in French. 'Marx's followers saw it as a theoretical substantiation o f the platform of the proletarian party which was taking shape at that time . ' The complete English language text of this early work by Marx takes up pp. 105-2 1 2 of volume 6, which incorporates the publications for the years 1 845-8. 29. Ibid . , p. 206 . 30. Ibid . , p. 207 .

- 18-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements the price of their product was maintained, their profits would actually rise above the general rate. And in those industries which were more highly mechanized (since machines are not wage earners) any rise in wages would affect them even less. Then, however, the effect of competition tended to keep the profit rate fairly level because unusually high profit rates were only tempor­ ary. So Marx concluded, in contradiction of Proudhon, that apart from minor variations a general rise in wages as a result of strikes would not cause a general price-rise but actually bring about a partial fall, i . e. 'a fall in the current price of the goods that are made chiefly with the help of machines'.31 This led Marx to enunciate a key principle in his theory of wages which later played a decisive role in his theory of pauperization or immiseration ( Verelendungstheorie) : 'The rise and fall of profits and wages expresses merely the proportion in which capitalists and workers share in the product of a day's work without influencing in most instances the price of the product. '32 And Marx bolstered his refutation of Proudhon further by observing that strikes - as experience showed - led to the increased invention of machines and their use in industry . Indeed, as Marx expressed it, machines were the weapons employed by capitalists to subdue the militancy of skilled workers . And Marx further observed: 'If combinations [unions] and strikes had no further effect than that of making the efforts of mechanical genius react against them, they would still exercise an immense infl u ence on the development of industry. '33 And of course the effect of more machines was that wages could be actually higher, so strikes had indeed a beneficial result for the workers . Further, Proudhon had asserted that wage rises as a consequence of strikes could also produce a general shortage of goods, and this, too, Marx refuted. Productivity rose naturally as a consequence of the increased mechanization which strike action provoked. Prior to Marx, both the traditional school of economics deriving from Adam Smith, Malthus and Ricardo, as well as the numerous 'non-scientific' socialists of the day were agreed in their assessment of trade unions: they were at best useless in aiding the working class, at worst unwelcome sources of economic disruption. As far as the economists were concerned they believed that unions hindered industrial progress by preventing manufacturers from 3 1 . Ibid . 32. Ibid. 33. Ibid . , p. 208.

- 1 9-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa fulfilling their contracts. Trade was thereby thrown out of gear, and the result was the introduction of more machines by manage­ ment to offset the effects ot worker militancy. If labour were to be well advised, they would forget about trade unionism because in addition, regardless of what unions did, wages would be deter­ mined by the most fundamental law of economics , namely that of supply and demand, in this case the number of workers required by industry in relation to the number actually available. As has been seen, Marx had demonstrated this to be fallacious. 34 Similarly, Marx refuted the non-scientific socialists of his day. They applied the unsophisticated economics of the traditional school just characterized, and asserted that unionism was not worth the effort and expense of organization and administration. Given the laws of economics there was no way in which unions could improve the lot of workers . Reality, however, as Marx noted, had proved this kind of socialis t wrong. Indeed, the level o f union organization in a country was a measure of the degree of industrial progress it had made. The British example had proved this . There, where industry was most advanced, existed the biggest and best organized unions . 35 What had been said by both Marx and Engels to date had shown clearly that they saw the formation of combinations of workers for strike purposes as a natural response of the proletariat in protesting against the imposition of sub-human conditions . To quote Marx: Large-scale industry concentrates in one place a crowd of people un­ known to one another. Competition divides their interests . But the maintenance of wages, this common interest which they have against their boss, unites them in a common thought of resistance combination . Thus combination always has a double aim, that of stopping compe­ tition among the workers, so that they can carry on general competition with the capitalist. If the first aim of resistance was merely the mainten­ ance of wages, combinations, at first isolated, constitute themselves into groups as the capitalists in their turn unite for the purpose of repression, and in face of always united capital, the maintenance of the ass ociation becomes more necessary to them than that of wages. 36 -

This latter point is the ultimate dis prover of the traditional econ­ omic theorists. Marx and Engels both saw that the union struggle was only of limited economic advantage to the workers - at this stage - but conceded by virtue of their insight into human nature. 34. Ibid . , p. 209. 35. Ibid . , p. 210. 36 . Ibid . , pp. 210-1 1 .

- 20-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements confirmed by years of close observation of worker behaviour, that the union became an end in itself as the fighting body of the proletariat in the veritable civil war with capital. Indeed, as Marx pointed out, the maintenance of the association became more necessary to the members than the wages which caused them to coalesce and strike in the first place; and once this point was reached the union movement took on a political character. 37 Marx concluded his polemic against Proudhon by pointing out that the study of strikes and the early forms of proletarian organiz­ ation fo r struggle against capitalist oppression was the beginning of the process of working class emancipation and the formation of an entirely new society . Already, then, it is quite clear that Marx and Engels saw in the activity of trade unions the unfolding of the fo rces of history. For them the study of human society throughout history had illustrated that it was a series of massive and prolonged class struggles, in which an oppressed class struggled to liberate itself from its oppressors. The bourgeoisie had done this against the feudal lords and monarchs; now that class was in the ascendant and it oppressed the working class . The first stirrings of the latter's will to be emancipated was the trade union movement. Unions were in fact the beginning of the efforts of the oppressed class to emancipate itself; in short the unions were an essential expression of the antagonism which existed between proletariat and bourgeoisie. It was this antagonism which would lead to total revolution, after which all classes and all oppression would be abolished. 38 Already, then, in The Poverty of Philosophy the programme of the Communist Party was adumbrated as Engels had said. It remained to be spelled out in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, which statement had central implications for the role of the trade union movement.

The Manifesto of the Communist Party The significant section of the Communist Manifesto (published first in January 1 848) for the trade union movement alludes to the process of evolution of the proletariat, and makes the point that when it was born as a class the struggle with the bourgeoisie began . The early stages of this are sketched. Essentially, workers could be seen trying by force to restore the vanished dignity of the craftsmen 37. Ibid. , p. 2 1 1 . 38. Ibid., pp. 2 1 1-12.

-21 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa of the Middle Ages . 39 However, their efforts proved futile due to the lack of coherent organization and because as yet industry had not begun to concentrate workers in large numbers in one place. After that, as Marx observed in The Poverty of Philosophy, the strength of proletarian organization grew. This was partly due to the levelling of worker interests that took place in the factory situation. Indeed, the more machines were involved in production the faster any distinction between types of craftsman disappeared; the result of this was a virtually universal uniformity of low wages . But not even these wages were stable. The vagaries of capitalist production (based on the profit motive and not on real needs) caused wages to be 'ever more fluctuating', and the constant introduction of technological improvements made the job situation increasingly unpredictable. 40 Out of this instability resulted the fierce industrial conflicts that were in fact the collisions between two classes . 'Thereupon', ob­ served Marx and Engels, 'the workers began to form combinations [trade unions] against the bourgeois; they club to gether in order to keep up the rate of wages; they found permanent associations in order to make provision beforehand for the occasional revolts . Here and there the contest breaks out into riots. '41 At this point it was reiterated that the union struggle was only occasionally suc­ cessful, but that the valuable result of the confl i ct was not so much in the immediate outcome but in the ongoing spread of worker organization which as a result of modern communication, es­ pecially railways, was reaching out beyond the boundaries of isolated regions to encompass the entire country. This organization process was causing the proletariat to gel into a class out of which would emerge a political party. Unfortunately, however, this process was continually being disrupted because of the remaining competition among the workers who were as yet still unorganized. Nevertheless , the process could not be held back, and by becoming a reality the unions had to be recognized by legislation as were the specific demands of organized labour, for example in the passing of the famous Ten Hours Bill by the British parliament in 1 847. 42 Clearly, the central importance of unions as the rallying points for proletarian resistance was being stressed by Marx and Engels, though in so short a document as the Communist Manifesto there was 39. Ibid . , p. 492. The Manifesto of the Communist Party is located on pp. 477-5 1 9 of vol. 6. 40 . Ibid . 4 1 . Ibid . , p. 493. 42. Ibid .

-22-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements insufficient space to spell out all the theoretical implications of this. Indeed, as shall be seen, the Man ifesto contained other points relating to the union movement within the communist revolution­ ary schema which gave rise to future misunderstanding and debate. A crucial issue here was the notion of pauperization or immisera­ tion as explained in the Man ifesto, which seemed to imply that worker degradation would become absolute instead of relative. Another point was the relationship of the broad union movement to the political party. As yet these concepts were somewhat vague and thus became the subjects of future pronouncements by Marx and Engels . Certainly, the cursory way in which the union move­ ment is dealt with in the Man ifesto should not be taken to imply that Iv1arx and Engels thought of it as being only of secondary import­ ance. Indeed, what has been elicited from the statements up to 1 848 indicates unequivocally how fundamental the trade union move­ ment was to the entire edifice of revolutionary theory as evolved by both Marx and Engels. They were, of course, to focus much more attention upon the union issue but to treat it primarily as a central component within the framework of wider questions . Above all it should be understood that the trade union theory as such was evolving as part of the overall analysis of the capitalist system.

Wage Labour and Capital This short but fundamental statement by Marx was originally delivered as a series of lectures to the German Workers' Society in B russels in the second half of December 1 847. They were later published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung (New Rhenish Gazette) as a series on 5, 8 and 1 1 April 1 849 in a revised form. It had been M arx 's intention to expand on them but this was never done. The purpose in publication (in Colo gne) was to prepare the proletarian readers 'for the solution of the task that had become urgent by that time - the creation of a mass workers ' party, and also to define the so cial aims set by the revolutionary organ which he [Marx] edited'. 43 Indeed, Wage Labour and Capital contained a number of new concepts which Marx had clearly thought out prior to the composition of the Manifesto but which got wider confirmation in 43. MECW, vol. 9, p. 560 . Note 183. 'By publishing this work, M arx wished to prepare the proletarian readers of Die Neue Rheinische Zeitung for the solution of the tasks which had become urgent by that time - the creation of the mass workers' party . . ' Wage Labour and Capital occupies pp. 1 97-228 of volume 9. This contains the writings of Marx and Engels for the year 1 849. .

-

23

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa printed form only after the latter statement had appeared. It was in Wage Labour and Capital that Marx first characterized labour as a commodity through the sale of which the worker was exploited by the capitalist. Marx here had set out to answer the basic questions: What are Wages? What is Price? How does the growth of productive capital affect wages? Marx established that the employer actually purchased labour with money. Workers in fact sold their labour to him in exchange for money . The amount which procured the labour of one man for a set time could have purchased a definite amount of any other commodity, so labour was in reality a commodity measured in time whereas other commodities were measured on scales. The actual money received was then capable of purchasing commodities needed by the worker. As Marx said, by giving the worker a set sum for a set time of work the employer had given him so much food, clothing, fuel and so on with which to continue living. So the money received as wages expressed the ratio in which labour was exchanged for other commodities, the exchange value of the worker's labour. And it was this exchange value of a commodity calculated in money which was called price; and so, as Marx observed: 'Wages are only a special name for the price oflabour, for the price of this peculiar commodity which has no other repository than human flesh and blood. '44 M arx then went on to lay the foundations of his theory of surplus value. He posed the question whether the wages of a linen weaver, for example, represented a share in the linen he produced. This was not the case because long before the employer took the product and sold it, he had paid the worker. That is to say, the worker was paid before any profit was realized on the sale of the goods. So the employer was not paying wages out of the money he got from the sale of the goods, but with money he already had in reserve. A further significant point was that in the case of the weaver, for example, the loom and the yarn were commodities supplied by the employer. In other words the mea11s of production were the em­ ployer's, not the employee's. Likewise, the com modity which the employee sold to the employer, i.e. labour, for the purpose of buying other commodities with which to live, became the property of the employer. Here Marx was at pains to stress the unique character of labour what he later called labour-power (Arbeitskraft ). It was an essential component in the production process, and he summed it up by 44. Ibid. , p. 20 1 . -

24

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements observing that the employer o r capitalist had purchased the trades­ man's labour-power in the same way as he had acquired the tools and the raw materials - out of his available capital. And Marx then made the point that when the product was sold, normally at a profit, the worker had as little share therein as the instruments used to make it. So, Marx concluded, wages were not the worker's share in the commodity produced by him. Instead, 'Wages are part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys for himself a definite amount of productive labour' . 45 And labour­ power, by the same token, may be defined as a commodity which the wage labourer sold to the capitalist in order to live. A further incisive observation by Marx here was that the exercise of labour-power by the worker was in fact his life-activity which he had to sell to the capitalist in order to acquire the means of subsistence; so the life-activity of the worker was for him only the means to enable him to exist. It was not part of his life but the sacrifice of his entire life. The worker had in fact abandoned his commodity of labour-power to another human being. Thus what he actually produced was not the articles he made, but wages, which in tum he converted into the means of subsistence. That indeed was the condition of wage labour. Marx then went on to pose the further question whether the worker who put in twelve hours producing something considered this activity as constituting part of his life. He answered: 'On the contrary, life begins for him where his activity ceases, at table, in the public house, in bed. The twelve hours ' labour on the other hand has no meaning for him . . . but as earnings which bring him to the table, to the public house, into bed. '46 It was these unique circumstances of wage labour that caught Marx 's attention; it was a mere commodity like any other, and that was degrading for the worker. During the hours of work, the worker virtually belonged to the employer. And although an individual might quit one employer to work for another - not being bonded to one owner like a slave - he had to seek employ­ ment within the same system in order to subsist. Therefore the worker was virtually bonded to the capitalist class - the bour­ geoisie. And in that system wages were merely the price of the co mmodity labour-power. And so, Marx concluded, wages were determined by the same laws that determined the price of every other commodity. 47 45. Ibid . , p. 202. 46 . Ibid . , p. 203. 47. Ibid . , p. 204. -25-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa Marx demonstrated next that the price of commodities was basically determined by competition. This took place on three levels : among sellers who vied with each other to sell as cheaply as possible to corner markets, and the result of this was to keep prices down; among buyers who in their bidding for the desired goods pushed up prices; and finally between buyers and sellers , where the one wanted to buy as cheaply as possible and the other wanted to sell as dearly as possible. The outcome of this las t competition would depend on the relative strength of the competition between the group of sellers on the one hand and the group of buyers on the other. 4 8 So the price fluctuation of a commo dity will be caused by the ever-changing relation of demand and supply. And this obser­ vation caused Marx to note that the current price of a commodity was always either above or below its cost of production. 49 The cost of production determined price. This perhaps mundane observation by Marx was, however, qualified as follows : The determination of price by the cost of production is equivalent to the determination of price by the labour time necessary for the manufacture of a commodity, for the cost of production consists of (1) raw materials and instruments of labour, that is of industrial products the production of which has cost a certain amount of labour days and which, therefore, represent a certain amount of labour time and (2) of direct labour, the measure of which is, precisely, time. so

Wages, the price of labour, were also regulated by the same general laws . They rose and fell according to the relationship between supply and demand between the buyers of labour, the capitalists, and the sellers of labour, the workers . Further, as the vagaries of the market brought about fluctuations in the prices of commodi­ ties , there were corresponding fluctuations in the price of labour. Marx then pondered the question, since labour-power was a sale­ able commodity, what the cost of production of labour-power was . And he supplied the answer by saying that it was the cost incurred in maintaining the worker and for training him as a worker. Unskilled workers obviously required less time to train so their ' cost of production' was lower than, for example, skilled workers who have had to go through a long apprenticeship period. So for the totally unskilled labourer the only real cost was the cost 48. Ibid . , p. 205. 49. Ibid . , pp. 207-8. 50. Ibid . , p. 208. -

26

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements of maintaining him as a labourer, and that meant only his subsist­ ence. Consequently his wages would be just sufficient to cover his subsistence but not as a single man, rather as a married man with a family because the cost of production of labour-power had also to include or allow for the cost of reproduction. Obviously, men wear out like machines, so allowances must also be made for their replacement, and the only source of replacement of workers was the worker's family. It followed that even the subsistence wage of the unskilled worker must contain sufficient for him to marry and rear a family - the cost of production and reproduction of workers. This was the general rule for the entire working class. 51 In this way Marx sought to establish the broad general principles which determined wages in the capitalist system. He then at­ tempted to define what capital was by demolishing the traditional concept of it as accumulated labour. 52 Marx obviously considered this a very naive definition of capital, and so he proceeded to subject the entity capital to a most penetrating analysis. First he established that all production took place within a structure of social relationships, and these changed with developments in the means of production. The capitalist form of production (as distinct from those of ancient or feudal societies) was determined by the rapid advances in the instruments of production, that is, the means. New mass-producing machines had been responsible for converting craftsmen into pro­ letarians during the industrial revolution. This had resulted in massive social change, so the capitalist or bourgeois so ciety emerged. And capital was the specific bourgeois production relation. 53 This assertion is backed up by the observation that every compo­ nent of capital, the raw material, the instruments of labour, the means of subsistence derived their unique characteristics from the social conditions under which they were produced and accumu­ lated. Each component stood in a fixed social relationship to the other for the purpose of producing more capital. And the way in which these components produced ever-increasing capital was by virtue of their exchange values. That is to say, the individual com­ modities in the system each have their own exchange values , and capital consisted in the sum of these which were in fact social magnitudes. To make clear what he meant by this Marx gave the illustration of an isolated machine for spinning cotton. On its own it produced 5 1 . Ibid . , p. 209. 52. Ibid . , p. 21 1 . 53. Ibid . , p. 2 1 2. -

27

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa nothing; but brought into relation with the production process, fed with raw materials by a worker, it became in fact capital. It was the same for all these components; they became capital only in a working relationship with each other. So capital was defined as a sum of commodities which have exchange values. But how does this become capital? Marx said: 'By maintaining and multiplying itself as an independent social power, that is, as the power of a portion of society, by means of its exchange for direct, Ii ving labour [power] . The existence of a class which possesses nothing but its capacity to labour is a necessary prerequisite of capital. •S4 Here Marx focused upon the inhumanity of capital by enquiring what took place in the exchange between capitalist and wage labourer. Having observed that capital was made up of accumu­ lated labour being served by living labour in order to multiply the exchange value of accumulated labour, Marx noted that the worker received only a means of subsistence for his contribution of labour­ power. The capitalist on the other hand disposed over the worker's productive activity. Now it was this that the capitalist really sold for profit. Out of that gain he was able to pay the wo rker his subsistence, i.e. replace what he consumed of the commodity labour-power, and with the remaining profit added to the value of his accumulated labour. The wo rker for his part had contributed his productive activity for which he received his wage, i . e . sub sist­ ence. This he consumed in order to survive, and was then left with nothing, unless, as Marx pointed out, he used his spare time to produce a new means of subsistence. So the worker surrendered his productive activity to capital in exchange for the mere means of subsistence, which of course he continued to do as long as his health stood up to the rigours imposed upon his body. Thus, Marx concluded, capital presupposed wage labour, and wage labour presupposed capital. There was a reciprocal relationship between the two; indeed an interdependent relationship. The worker was in fact a producer of capital which could only be increased by ex­ changing itself for labour-power, and the labour-power of wage labour could only be exchanged for capital by increasing capital. 'Hence, increase of capital is increase of the proletariat, that is of the working class . •SS Finally, in this section dealing with the relationship between capital and wage labour, Marx stressed the interdependence of the two . In this system the most tolerable situation for labour was the 54. Ibid . , p. 213. 55. Ibid . , p. 214.

-28-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements fastest possible growth of productivity. The latter was defined as the growth of accumulated labour over living labour, which in practical terms meant the increase of the domination of the bourgeoisie over the working class . In short, wage labour pro­ duced the wealth of those who ruled over it; a situation which was as absurd as it was unjust. Marx then addressed himself to the question of real wages. And here he touched on the issue of relative pauperization. The point is made that in times of rapid capital growth and general prosperity, the work-force shared by virtue of higher wages and fuller employ­ ment in the overall economic growth. This , however, should not delude the worker into believing that his real wages had improved. Indeed, although in times of prosperity the worker may enj oy more goods than before, the social satisfaction that they gave fell in comparis on with the increased enjoyments of the capitalist, which were inaccessible to the workers . 5 6 In other words , despite the increase in nominal pay, the worker's status in relation to his employer was no better off, indeed worse. Wages might rise nominally but they did not coincide 'with the sum of commodities which is actually given in exchange for wages ' . 57 So nominal wages were only the sum of money for which the worker sold himself to the capitalist; real wages were the sum of commodities which could be purchased for this money. And further, real wages actually expressed the price of labour in relation to the price of other commodities . But even this was complicated by the fact that real wages went down in relation to the profit of the capitalist. Indeed, ' the value of capital relative to the value of labour has risen' . 5 8 In short, as Marx expressed it: 'The division of social wealth between capital and labour has become still more unequal. '59 Under these circumstances the subjugation of labour to capital could only become greater. In the final section of Wage Labour and Capital Marx examined the consequences of the upward spiral in productive capital: 'How does the growth of productive capital affect wages?' 60 What obviously excited Marx's attention at the time of writing was the wild anarchy of capitalist economics. It was a fierce fight for survival in the world of entrepreneurs whose spirit of competition drove them on and on to accumulate ever more capital and to expand. The 56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

Ibid. , Ibid. , Ibid . , Ibid . , Ibid . ,

p. p. p. p. p.

218. 217. 218. 216. 222. -

29

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa effect of this on the work-force was Marx's first concern. He observed that if a capitalist wanted to survive in this fierce compe­ tition he had to produce goods more cheaply. This he sought to do by raising the productive power of labour, i.e. by a greater division of labour. 61 The way to do this was by the introduction of more effICient machinery which in turn enabled the capitalist to produce more goods more cheaply. But having done so he was compelled to enlarge his market, and this he did by reducing the market price of his products . By virtue of the repetition of this process many times over by many competing entrepreneurs , the result was an inexorable up­ ward spiral in which the more successful drove the weaker com­ petitors from the field. However, the advantage of the most successful was not of long duration because, in time, his inno­ vations, which first gave him the edge in competition, soon were adopted by his rivals, and the process began anew. 'The division of labour and the application of machinery, therefore, will go on anew on an incomparably greater scale. ' 62 The effect of this ongoing division of labour or mechanization on the work-force was to enable one worker to do the work which formerly many more would have done. And this factor intensified the competition of workers for jobs. In addition labour became more and more simplified because there was less and less demand for the skilled worker. In general then the proletarian became transformed 'into a simple monotonous productive force that does not have to use intense bodily or intellectual faculties' . 63 This meant that he could be replaced by anyone and so the number of com­ petitors for his job was infinitely great, and this reduced the price of labour, 'for like the price of every other commodity, they [wages] are determined by the cost of production'. 64 This scenario of ever-expanding capital resulting in increased production which brought about a greater division of labour pro­ ducing an ever-impoverished proletariat could, according to Marx, result in the wage labourer dying out. 'If', wrote Marx sarcasti­ cally, 'the whole class of wage-workers were to be abolished owing to machinery, how dreadful that would be for capital, which without wage labour, ceases to be capital! ' 65 But this did not happen because unemployed workers were absorbed in part by 61. 62. 63. 64. 65.

Ibid. Ibid . , p. 224. Ibid . , p. 225 . Ibid. Ibid . , p. 226. -

30

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements new industry, but of course inevitably lower or worse paid than before. 66 In summing up this dismal prospect, in 1 847 /8 Marx had noted: 'The more productive capital grows, the more the division of labour and the application of machinery expands . The more the division of labour and the application of machinery expands , the more competition among the workers expands and the more their wages contract. ' 67 And finally, the consequence of this was that 'if capital grows rapidly, competition among workers grows in­ comparably more rapidly, that is, the means of employment, the means of subsistence, of the working class decrease proportionately so much the more, and nevertheless, the rapid growth of capital is the most favourable condition for the wage labourer' . 68 The paradox, already noted, which is contained in Marx's last statement makes sense only if it is understood to mean that in times of the highest capital growth more workers are employed at the highest wages possible within the system. This, however, was never a stable situation, and would inevitably be followed by commercial crises with the consequent disadvantages for the work­ force. Marx never completed the article series which made up Wage Labour and Capital, but the outline of his massive study Capital is already perceptible here. Neither was there any mention of trade unions in Wage Labour, but it is evident that Marx was here establishing the parameters within which worker organizations could be effective both in defending themselves from wage-slavery and in ultimately changing the system . In the period after Marx had been in Cologne editing the New Rhenish Gazette (1 848/9) he had begun in earnest the reflections that were to lead to the composition of Capital almost twenty years later. These earlier reflections were not published (in German) until 1 939, and only appeared in English in 1 973 under the title Grund­ risse - Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy. 69 Since this represents Marx's economic thought of the late 1 850s it is interest­ ing as a significant milestone in Marx's development; but it was, of course, not available to the public in that form in the years prior to the appearance of volume I of Capital. The only clues to Marx's thinking on trade unionism at that time were contained in general 66 . 67. 68. 69.

Ibid. , p. 227. Ibid. Ibid. , p. 228. Translated by Martin Nicolaus in the Penguin Books edition, 1 973 (reprinted 1 974, 1 977).

-31 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa terms in his Inaugural Address of the Working Men 's International Association ( 1 864) , more specifically in the address Wages, Price and Pro.fit (June 1 865) and in the Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council composed at the end of August 1 866.

Inaugural Address Here Marx surveyed the situation o f the working masses, particu­ larly in England, from 1 848 to 1 864, and depicted their virtually hopeless condition despite the fact that the British government had managed to treble its total import and export trade between 1 843 and 1 863. 70 This remarkable prosperity had not served to abolish the poverty of the working class. And further, the efforts o f organized labour, the Chartist Movement i n Britain, and prolet­ arian activism on the Continent had all fizzled out. But despite this dismal performance, Marx averred that there had been significant compensations. The first of these had been the 1 847 Ten Hours Bill in Britain. This Marx saw as the triumphant result of a thirty years' struggle by the English working classes . Indeed, Marx became quite eloquent in his praise of this achievement: 'The immense physical, moral, and intellectual benefits hence accruing to the factory operatives , half-yearly chronicled in the reports o f the inspector of factories, are now acknowledged on all sides . '71 Marx went on to observe that this legislation had been copied in some form or other by most of the Continental states, and that its introduction had debunked the bourgeois belief that 'any legal restriction on the hours of labour must sound the death-knell of British industry'. 72 Marx had j ust quoted the official figures of the spectacular progress in British trade over a period of about twenty years, so the shorter working day since 1 847 had clearly had no negative effect on productivity. It is worth quoting Marx in full on the factory legislation of 1 847 because what he said about it in 1 864 was remembered for decades subsequently, especially in Germany, and adduced as proof that trade unions could, within capitalism, achieve highly significant social-political concessions . Thus Marx: 'Hence the Ten Hours' Bill was not only a great practical success; it was the victory o f a principle; it was the fi r st time that in broad daylight the political economy of the middle class succumbed to the 70. Documents of the First International 7 1 . Ibid . , pp. 28�. 72. Ibid., p. 284.

1 864-1 866,

-32-

London (no date), p. 277.

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements political economy of the working class. '73 However, in ad dition to the Ten Hours Bill, Marx praised even more the growing cooperative movement. This was a great social experiment that showed it was possible for labour on its own initiative to get on with production on a large scale. The great advantage of the movement was the absence of a 'class of masters employing a class of hands'. It demonstrated that 'labour need not be monopolized as a means of dominion over, and of extortion against, the labouring man himself', and furthermore that wage labour was therefore destined to disappear. 74 So both the Ten Hours Bill and the cooperative movement were the result of what Marx termed cooperative labour, a term that clearly included trade unionism as the major form. But overall the period 1 848 to 1 864 had been one of setbacks for the proletariat. The period had proved that wherever cooperative labour restricted itself to the 'narrow circle of casual efforts of private working men' , it would never be able ' to arrest the growth in geometrical progression of monopoly, to free the masses, nor even to perceptibly lighten the burden of their miseries' . 75 Again, while Marx acknowledged the fundamental importance of labour self-help within capitalism, he stressed its limitations as a means of overthrowing capitalism. That task would only be accomplished through the conquering of political power by the working class. 76

Wages, Price and Profit In this very much ad hoc statement Marx had felt himself called upon to refute the naive concepts of an English colleague, John Weston, 77 who was seeking at the time to popularize the view that increased wages did not benefit the working class since manufac­ turers would simply raise their prices. Hence strikes and the trade unions which organized them were in fact counter-productive. This provoked Marx to deliver two very analytical lectures to the General Council of the I nternational Working Men's Association in London on 20 and 27 June 1 865. In a sense these two papers form 73. 74. 75. 76. 77.

Ibid. Ibid . , p. 285. Ibid. Ibid., p. 286. John Weston was a carpenter whose views on socialism had been influenced by the ideas of the British socialist Robert Owen. Weston was a founding member of the IWMA and a member of its General Council (1 864-1872). -

33

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa the sequel to the Wage Labour and Capital lectures of 1 847 in Brussels, and which were never really concluded when published in the New Rhenish Gazette the following year. In Wages, Price and Profit , which of course was delivered in English, Marx rehearsed some of the main ideas contained in the earlier series , but developed a clear-cut statement about the precise role of trade unions within capitalist society. Indeed, it was the firs t time that most of the members of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association had heard the fundamentals of important docu­ ments of Marxism concerning the basic principles and tactics to be applied in the trade union struggle. The lectures fall broadly into three sections whereby the first is essentially a refutation of Weston's unsophisticated notions about how wages were determined. As such it served also to refute the similar ideas of Proudhon once more, and also the doctrines of Ferdinand Lassalle concerning the so-called iron law of wages . 78 The second section is an extensive presentation of Marx's theory of value and of his concept of labour-power. In the third section Marx instructed the members of the First International as to what con­ clusions might be drawn from the economic laws of capitalism for the struggle of organized labour, especially trade unions . It is this aspect that requires examination here, for it makes the very import­ ant point that the function of trade unionism was to make sure that the price of labour did not sink below the value of labour. 79 Here is the fundamental principle in Marx's trade union theory, and he arrived at it by enunciating his theory of surplus value which he spelled out here for the first time; it is this novel idea that separated Marx from the classical economists such as Adam Smith, Ricardo and Malthus . Marx's main thesis, the thrust of which was derived from these predecessors, was that the real value of commodities depended exclusively upon the amount of labour involved in their pro­ duction. Here, of course, the concept of labour is an abstract one like 'horse-power' , and, as we have already seen, Marx came to call 78. Lassalle exerted great organizational influence on the early German socialis t labour movement and was really responsible for setting up the first viable workers' political party in Germany in 1 863. The doctrine of the 'iron law' of wages (which he took over from the English economist Ricardo) formed the basis of his socialist activism. According to the 'iron law', wages always oscillated around the subsistence minimum, and any increase won by s trikes would be eaten up by the inevitable rise in prices. Thus strike action was futile. The main object was for workers to influence legislation and get control of production by political means. 79. Wages, Price and Profit, p. 44.

-34-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements it 'labour-power' rather than simply ' labour'. As G. D. H. Cole has commented on this: All actual labour, it is argued, can be resolved into so much of this abstract labour, skilled labour counting as a multiple of it, so that an hour's labour of a skilled craftsman may count for, say, two hours of abstract labour. Secondly, the 'amount of labour' that enters into the 'value' of commodities is not the actual amount expended on the production of each commodity, but the amount that is 'socially necess­ ary' - the amount required to produce the commodity under the average conditions prevailing at the time and place in question. The socially necessary amount of this abstract labour is the sole factor that can influence the value of any commodity. 80

The concept of surplus value which Marx derived from this is really the basis of his critique of capitalist economics . When he stated in Wages, Price and Pro.fit that a commodity had a value because it was the crystallization of social labour, he was affirming that the mag­ nitude of its value depended upon the quantity of labour-power required to produce it. He then observed that the reward for labour and the quantity of labour were quite separate. Wages could of course not exceed the value of the commodities which the earners of those wages produced, but they could 'be less in every possible degree' . 81 Or, expressed another way, wages were limited by the value of the products, but the values of the products would not be limited by the wages . And furthermore, and most important, said Marx, values of commodities were determined without any regard whatever to the value of labour employed, in other words to the wages . 82 So the p rice that an item was sold for had nothing to do with the wages paid to its producer. Price, as Marx reiterated, was simply the monetary expression of value, and he enquired then as to the relation between value and market prices. The latter were the same for all commodities of the same kind. However, conditions of production might differ for the individual producers. And so the market price expressed only an average amount of the social labour-power required under average production conditions to get a certain product on to the market. This meant that the market p rice of a commodity coincided with its value, but as a consequence of swings in prices, situations could 80. See G. D . H . Cole's introduction to the Everyman edition of Capital I, London, 1 930, p. xxi. 8 1 . Wages, Price and Profit, p. 26. 82. Ibid., p. 27. -

35

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa arise in which the market price was sometimes above and some­ times even below the value of a commodity. Nevertheless, quoting Adam Smith, Marx affirmed that the price of a commodity always tended to settle around a mean between two extremes, the so-called natural price. As Marx stated, supply and demand would corre­ spond with their values, i . e. with the amount of labour-power required for their production. 83 This led Marx to a discussion on the determination of the value of labour as one of many commodities . And logically, Marx stated that the value of labouring-power could only be determined by the quantity of labour necessary to produce it. Clearly, the labour­ power of a person existed in his or her ' living individuality' . And first, to produce that individuality a whole series of 'necessaries' had to be consumed to enable him or her to grow up and not only maintain existence but also have the material means ofbeing able to reproduce. This was crucial, because, like machines, workers grew old and wore out, and so had to be replaced. These were, however, just the basic necessaries for the production of labour-power. In addition, because there were various levels of skill to be acquired, some workers took much longer than others to acquire their labour-power. So, as Marx summed up, ' the value of labouring­ power is determined by the value of the necessaries required to produce, develop, maintain, and perpetuate the labouring power'. 84 From this point Marx launched into an explanation of the pro­ duction of surplus value which he illustrated as follows. He asked his listeners to suppose that the average amount of the daily necessaries of a worker required six hours of average labour for their production. And further, it was supposed that six hours of average labour were to be realized in a quantity of gold equal to three shillings. These three shillings would be the price, i.e. the monetary expression, of the daily value of the worker's labour­ power. So, 'if he worked six hours daily he would himself produce a value sufficient to buy the average amount of his daily necessaries, or to maintain himself as a labouring man'. 85 When this worker sold his labour-power to a capitalist, as he was bound to do in order to survive, and he sold it at three shillings a day, he was only selling it at its value. Then whatever he produced (or contributed to producing) in, say , a twelve-hour day, was 83. 84. 85.

Ibid., Ibid. , Ibid.

p . 30. p. 34.

- 36 -

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements invested with the value of his labour, i . e. three shillings is added to it, the exact equivalent for the wages paid to him for his labour­ power. But, as Marx stated, in that event no surplus value or surplus produce would accrue to the capitalist. What happens next is crucial. It should now be quite clear that a worker's output of labour­ power, i . e . productivity, can vastly exceed the purchase price ofhis labour-power. He could produce the value of his labour-power by adding to the value of a commodity he makes in, say, half a day's work. And so what he produced in the second half of the day is increased value. These were hours of surp lus labour which realized themselves in surp lus value and as a surp lus produce. But since the worker had sold his labour-power to the capitalist, the entire value or produce created by the worker belonged to the capitalist. So by offering a wage of three shillings a day, which was accepted by the worker, and which was worked off in half a day, the capitalist acquired the value of the produce from the remaining half day's work for himself. As Marx expressed it: 'By advancing three shillings, the capitalist will, therefore, realize a value of six shil­ lings, because advancing a value in which six hours of labour are crystallized, he will receive in return a value in which twelve hours of labour are crystallized. ' 86 So, every day the capitalist gained an extra three shillings surplus value, and for this he paid nothing. Indeed, this was the nature of the exchange between capital and labour upon which the capitalist system was founded. It resulted in the vicious circle of the working man reproducing the working man, and the capitalist reproducing the capitalist. And finally, here, the rate of surplus value in 'normal' conditions would depend on the proportion between the fraction of a working day required to reproduce the value of labour-power and the surplus time or surplus labour performed for the capitalist. Ultimately, the extent of surplus value would depend on the ratio in which the duration of the working day was extended beyond the time required for the hired worker to reproduce the value of his labour-power. 87 With surplus value thus defined Marx turned to the concept of pro.fit, which he unequivocally said was made by selling a com­ modity at its value. And since the value of a commodity was determined by the total quantity of labour invested in it, it was clear that the capitalist realized all the sum it brought at its sale less only the fraction he paid the worker for his labour-power. This was clear because only that part of the labour contained in the com86. 87.

Ibid. , Ibid.

p. 36.

- 37 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa modity was paid for; the rest was unpaid labour. So the capitalist sold not only the part of the labour-power he paid for but also the remainder for which he did not pay. Therefore, simply by selling a commodity at its real value the capitalist would inevitably be making a profit. So then, surplus value and profit were identical, and it derived from that extra labour-power invested in a com­ modity by a workman beyond the cost required to pay for his . 1 ab our-power, i. e. h'1 s wages . 88 This, however, was not to be Marx's final word on this subj ect. In Capital volume III, which he was drafting simultaneously with volume I (though only published by Engels posthumously in 1 894) , Marx made an important qualification about the origin of the value of commodities . In Wages, Price and Pro.fit and in Cap ital I Marx appeared adamant that all value derived from the labour value crystallized in each individual commodity. This, Marx maintained, had been true for the early stages of capitalism, but as production and marketing became more and more complex, as technology advanced and the division of labour became more varied, quantities entered into the price and profit structure that were unrelated to labour value. Indeed, so large and varied were these new components that Bernstein later argued that they smothered the original element of labour-power to such a degree as to render it ineffectual as a measure of actual exploitation of the worker by the capitalist. For example, as Bernstein observed, the complexity of modern production made it impossible to attribute the surplus value which a commodity acquired solely to the labour value inherent in it: 'All other active elements in modern life are auxiliary agents to production and indirectly help to raise the surplus value when they, for example, as merchants, bankers, etc. or their staff, undertake services for industry which would other­ wise fall upon it, and so they lessen its cost. ' 89 These were the additional factors entering into the process which also created surplus value, a feature which Marx attempted to explain in vol­ ume III of Capital, though quite unsatisfactorily in the view of Eduard Bernstein. The latter seized upon this modification by Marx of his original labour value theory, thereby significantly revising the Marxist theory of trade unionism and revolution. This 88. Ibid . , pp. 38-9. 89. Eduard Bernstein, Evolutionary Socialism, London, 1909, pp. 36-7. The section on pp. 28-40 provides the essence of Bernstein's repudiation of the Marxist theory of value. See also the most recent pro-Bernstein scholarship on this issue in Thomas Meyer, Bemsteins konstruktiver Sozialismus, Berlin/Bonn-Bad Godes­ berg, 1 977, pp. 98-100; 336-50.

-38-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements will have to be dealt with when examining the 'revisionist' critique of Marx and its implications for the trade union movement. Despite this, however, the notion of labour producing a fixed quantity of surplus value (though not necessarily all value in com­ modities) remained unchallenged. Indeed, it was, in any case, a notion derived from traditional, bourgeois economists. Therefore, fluctuation in wages would continue to affect profits as Marx averred back in 1 867. Lower wages resulted in higher profits and vice versa. And here we have the observation that Marx was leading up to in this discussion: a general rise in wages would lead not to a rise in prices but only to a fall in the general profit rate. While the value of commodities determined their market price, it was because the value was determined by the total quantity of labour-power in­ vested in it that this assertion could be made. That is to say, the fact that the value of a commodity was made up of paid and unpaid labour in some ratio did not affect the price it was sold for. However, it does not follow, said Marx, that the values of single commodities or batches of commodities produced in a fixed period of time would remain the same. Obviously, the quantity of items produced per unit of time by a given quantity of labour was a result of the productive power of the labour employed. And this labour could be highly skilled, in other words, highly paid. So high priced labour could produce cheap goods. Thus the 'higher-wages means higher-prices' argument ofJohn Weston was disposed ofby Marx. As he formulated it: 'It is only the expression of the general law that the value of a commodity is regulated by the quantity of labour worked up in it, and that the quantity of labour worked up in it depends altogether upon the productive powers of the labour employed, and will therefore vary with every variation in the productivity of labour. '90 Marx then went on to consider the effect of either trying to gain increases in wages or resisting their reduction. Here the principle was established that in situations where the value oflabour went up workers must insist on getting that increased value. This occurred for example when productivity decreased and more labour was required to achieve the same output. In that event the price of the average daily necessities would rise and so the value of labour would rise accordingly. Then a greater fraction of the working day would be required, as Marx observed, ' to produce an equivalent for the daily maintenance of the labourer, according to his old standard 90. Wages, Pric� and Profit, pp. 43-4. -

39

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa of living'. 9 1 Obviously, then, the surplus labour would be reduced and consequently the rate of profit. Labour-power like any other commodity had risen in cost to the seller, that is to the worker, and so he must insist on being paid the higher value of his labour­ power. This was to compensate for the increased value of necessi­ ties. Otherwise, 'the price of labour would sink below the value of labour, and the labourer's standard of life would deteriorate'. 92 In the event of the reverse taking place as a result o f increased productivity, the cost of necessities would drop and therefore the time worked by a labourer to match the cost of these necessities would be reduced. He could then buy the same goods with less money than previously. This would mean that the value o f labour had been reduced but that nevertheless the reduced value could still afford the same quantity of goods as previously. In other words , the worker's living standard had not gone down, but in relation to the increased profits of the capitalist he was worse off. His relative social position would have been lowered. So, by resisting the lower­ ing of wages, the worker was only trying to maintain his accus­ tomed position within the social structure. 93 Marx observed, too , that when, for example, a depreciation of the currency occurred, workers would have to struggle for higher wages just to keep up the real value of labour. Similarly, where there were either up- or down-swings in the business cycle, the work-force would in both eventualities have to demand higher wages . This was because all these circumstances affected the real value oflabour-power as a marketable commodity in the system of wage labour, i.e. a commodity subject to the laws regulating the general movement of prices. The market price of labour would, according to Marx, always adapt itself to its value, and the means by which labour accomplished this was by trade union organiz­ ations, as will be seen. However, first Marx affirmed that labour­ power was a unique commodity since it was composed o f two parts: the physical and the historical or social parts . The first aspect was clearly concerned with the physical capacity of an individual to cope with the demands of the job in hand. The second aspect was concerned with what was culturally acceptable as a standard of living, and, of course, that varied from society to society. In the Britain of Karl Marx's day the power of organized labour had begun successfully to set down minimum cultural standards of the Ibid. , Ibid. 93. Ibid . ,

91 . 92.

p. 44. p. 45. -

40

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements value of labour-power, in other words to demand sufficient for the work-force to enjoy some standard of existence, however modest. This tendency, too, gained expression in the Ten Hours Bill, which set an upper limit on the length of the working day so that the worker would be less likely to suffer the ill effects of physical exhaustion. Standards, of course, have changed over more than a century, and these are reflected in industrial legislation. Significant here is what Marx has implied for the function of organized labour. It was a cultural factor within capitalism of central social and political importance in keeping the work-force viable, i . e. in main­ taining the value of labour-power at an acceptable minimum. Lastly, in Wages, Price and Pro.fit Marx focused on the questions of profit. This was highly significant to the entire argument because whereas labour on its own initiative could ensure a minimum wage, it could not fix the maximum wage, and by the same token was not in a position to limit the amount of profit a capitalist made. All Marx would say was that the limits of the working day being given, the maximum of profit corresponded to the physical minimum of wages . And further, those wages being given, the maximum of profit corresponded to such a prolongation of the working day as was compatible with the physical strength of the labourer. The maximum profit was, consequently, limited by the physical mini­ mum of wages and the physical maximum of the working day. Within these lower and upper limits of the maximum rate of profit there was an immense scale of variation possible, and the fixing of its degree was only determined by the continuous struggle between capital and labour, the former trying to keep wages down to a physical minimum and the latter always struggling to keep them up . 94 The outcome would only be determined by the relative strength of the protagonists . Here the implication for the extension of trade union organization cannot be misunderstood. However, in capitalism the wage labourer was at a permanent disadvantage because in the advancement of industrial technology, the demand for labour could not keep pace with the accumulation of capital. As Marx observed, the demand for labour would increase, 'but in­ crease in a constantly diminishing ratio as compared with the increase of capital'. 95 94. Ibid., p. 5 1 . 95. Ibid. , p. 54. The doctrine of the accumulation of capital is central to Marx's understanding of the economic process under private enterprise. It means that as capital grew it tended to be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, i.e. there would be more and more capital accumulating under the control of a diminish­ ing number of capitalists. This prediction of Marx did not materialize, and this -41 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa Marx was concerned to show that because of the profit motive of capitalism and also because of the development of the productive powers of labour the accumulation of capital was accelerated even if there were a high rate of wages . 96 Clearly, labour could not influence this process; trade unions were imprisoned in it and thus only able by their efforts to ensure that the given value of labour was maintained. Further, 'the necessity of debating the price of labour with the capitalist was inherent in their condition of having to sell themselves [i. e. workers] as commodities ' . 97 Finally, Marx came to sum up the implications of all this empiri­ cal evidence for the trade union movement. The first thing to note was that it was imperative for the working class to combine into trade unions to fight the insidious exploitation by capital. This was an essential precondition for the initiation of a larger movement of emancipation. That, of course, would be a political movement, which in this statement by Marx was not elaborated upon. He reminded the working class that their efforts were only directed against the effects of capitalism and were powerless to change the course of developments , although of course, the struggle of organ­ ized labour certainly slowed down the progress of capitalis m. Nothing, however, could alter the fact that trade unions could not cure the disease; they could only relieve its symptoms . The main consolation in all this seemingly hopeless situation was that capi­ talism, as it advanced, created the material conditions and social forms for the economic reconstruction of society, clearly an adum­ bration of the revolutionary consequences of the ever-increasing accumulation of capital and the concomitant immiseration of the working class . The behaviour o f trade unions under these circumstances was to continue to function as 'centres of resistance against the encroach­ ment of capital'. 98 But, Marx warned, unions ought not to waste their power in futile exercises. For example, the waging of a guerrilla war against the effects of the existing system was a mistaken tactic. The real objective was to abolish the system, and to do this the unions ought to employ ' their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class'. 99 So, then, in Wages, Price and Profit is encapsulated the essence of

96. 97. 98. 99.

�act �onstituted the basis for the revisionism of Eduard Bernstein to be exam­ ined m Chapter 4. Ibid. , p. 53. Ibid., p. 54. Ibid. , p. 55. Ibid. -42-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements Marx's analysis of capitalism as well as a clear-cut statement about the function of trade unionism's role in it. Obviously, the argu­ ments put paid to any primitive views (such as those of John Weston) that the union struggle was pointless, and, even worse, led to an increase in prices. The long-term effect of Marx's teaching will be dealt with in the course of a later chapter. However, here it remains only to stress that Marx saw the trade union struggle as an essential preliminary to the emergence of a gigantic political struggle of organized workers for the emancipation from the enslaving system of wage labour. This point is reiterated by Marx in his next famous statement.

The Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional General Council This was prepared by Marx for the delegates to the first congress of the International Working Men's Association held in Geneva on 3-8 September 1 866, and he specifically addressed himself to the trade union question in the section entitled Trade Unions, Their Past, Present and Future. 1 00 With regard to the past development of unions, Marx re­ emphasized the spontaneity of the union struggle as the logical means of workers to obstruct 'the incessant encroachments of capital' . 101 This was not only legitimate but necessary, a point that has been repeatedly made by both Marx and Engels in the previous statements . Indeed, unionism could not be dispensed with as long as the wage labour system persisted. But Marx did not stop there. He insisted that unions link up, first nationally, and then inter­ nationally. And he went on to emphasize: 'If trade unions are required for the guerrilla fight between capital and labour, they are still more important as organized agencies for superseding the very system of wage labour and capital rule' (Marx's emphasis) . 102 In commenting on the then current situation (i.e. in 1 866) Marx said that if unions were too narrowly concentrated on the local and immediate struggle with capital it meant that they had not yet come to the full understanding of their own potential as instruments for attacking 'the system of wages slavery itself' . 103 This was direct 100. Documents of the First International 1 864-1 866, on p. 439. Note. 321 . 1 01 . Ibid., pp. 347-8. 102. Ibid., p. 348. 103. Ibid. -

43

-

pp.

340-5 1 . See also the footnote

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa criticism of the parochialism of British unions in particular, and a warning that unions should be more aware of the wider social and political situation. Marx welcomed expressions of union solidarity with the international movement, but with regard to the future of unions , he urged upon them the necessity to 'learn to act delib­ erately as organizing centres of the working class in the broad interests of its comp lete emancipation' . 104 In other words unions had to become instruments promoting class consciousness and function as recruiting agencies among workers not yet organized. Above all, Marx concluded, 'They must convince the world at large that their efforts, far from being narrow and selfish, aim at the emancipation of the downtrodden millions. ' 105 Already, then, by 1 866, Marx was advocating the union struggle both within and against capitalism, i. e. the necessity of the fight against the effects of capitalis m on the one hand and the political struggle to eliminate capitalism on the other. Marx was fully aware of the tensions resulting from this dual function. He had warned against the tendencies towards narrow parochialism within the union movement, an exaggerated ex­ pression of the primary concern of workers in a given region or trade to ensure their survival. This, of course, was of fundamental significance for without it, without the drive to organize for self-preservation, there could be no organized movement on a wider scale at all. However, quite clearly, it was short-sighted to limit the aim of unionism to immediate, local and short-term advantages. Always there had to be awareness of the higher, indeed world-historical function of trade unionism , namely to arouse worker class-consciousness not only within the one country, but also internationally, and to promote the widest possible organiz­ ation capable of concerted industrial and political action. The difficulty in reconciling local needs with those of the nation as a whole, not to mention international needs, has clearly continued to be one of the central problems of the modern trade union move­ ment. The question of where priorities ought to be set has proved so far virtually unanswerable, but the dual function remains .

Capital,

V olun1e I

The first volume of Marx's wide-ranging and penetrating study of 104. Ibid., p . 349. 105. Ursula Herrmann, Der Kampf von Karl Marx um eine revolutioniire Gewerk­ schaftspolitik in der I. Internationale 1 864 bis 1 868, Berlin, 1968, p. 198. - 44-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements capitalism appeared in German on 1 4 September 1 867. It rep­ resented, as Marx wrote in the preface of that edition, the continu­ ation of his preliminary study, Zur Kritik der politischen Oekonomie ('A Contribution to the Criticism of Political Economy') published in 1 859. As such, Cap ital I condensed the findings of the earlier studies which had been interrupted by Marx's long illness, but in addition Capital I elaborates many of the fundamental concepts which have now become part of the socialist and communist arsenal of intellectual weapons against capitalist society. Indeed, Engels' opinion expressed at the time of its appearance, that there was no other work more important for the struggle of labour against capital, has been repeatedly substantiated ever since. 106 Certainly, regardless of one's political persuasions it cannot be denied that Cap ital I was and is a weapon of extraordinarily durable sharpness for the cause of socialist labour, despite its ponderous scholarly style. In it, the various economic laws of capitalism are stripped bare to show how the entire system depended upon the exploitation of wage labour. The theory of surplus value which was already touched on by Marx in his earlier ad hoc address, Wages, Price and Profit, is here fully developed. Further, Marx unfolded the economic laws which determined the emergence, development and, very important, the inevitable collapse of capitalism, thereby identifying the world-historical role of the proletariat. So, Capital I is not only an analysis of economic theory, it is also history, politics, sociology and philosophy, and is regarded by Marxists as, after the Communist Manifesto, the most significant theoretical state­ ment of scientific communism; it is, in short , a h andbook for revolution. 1 07 Naturally, Cap ital I contains massive implications for the trade union struggle. As has been seen, for Marx the law of surplus value forms the basis of the strategy and tactics of the trade union movement within capitalism. From this the nature of trade unions as the basic organs of proletarian militancy, their role in the day to day conflict as well as their function in the long-term establishment of the socialist society are deduced. Then, from the law of surplus value emerges the Marxist theory of wages . And with regard to this we have seen from the earlier writings that Marx observed the unique nature of labour-power which generated more value than that which it itself possessed. He showed, too , that the value of the commodity labour-power was determined by the time necessary to 1 06. Ibid. , 107. Ibid.,

p. p.

1 99. 200. - 45 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa reproduce itself, i. e. the existence of the worker and his family. Beyond this, however, the commodity labour-power was invested with a moral-social element which derived from the cultural stand­ ing of the working class in a given community. As will be seen in the next chapter, the workers struggled to maintain their cultural standards or level of civilization to which they had become histori­ cally accustomed, because to allow the capitalists to pay only the physical minimum for labour-power would be most certainly to sell it under its value. Workers, by means of their unions, con­ stantly fought against this. This fundamental determination of workers not to allow the value of their labour-power to be reduced to its physical minimum lent the union movement a central and basic position in the overall Marxist ideology. In Capital I Marx showed clearly that the trade union movement was necessary for the working class at least to ensure that it be paid the value of labour-power. This was because within the capitalist process of exchange of commodities there was no limit to the extent to which capital would try to extract surplus value from labour. As will be shown, the worker, in selling his labour, placed his labour-power at the disposal of the capitalist. As vendor of a commodity he was concerned to be paid for it at its value. The capitalist, on the other hand, attempted to exploit the use value of the labour-power because it possessed the unique characteristic of producing more exchange value than it itself cost. And the capitalist sought to mobilize this use value virtually to the point of the physical destruction of the labour-power. Conse­ quently, the capitalist class and the working class were locked in a permanent struggle about the degree of exploitation, i. e. about the payment of labour-power. For this reason Marx devoted close attention to the efforts of organized labour to shorten the length of the working day. This was, according to Marx, a precondition without which all other efforts for improvement in the condition of the working class and its ultimate emancipation from wage slavery were doomed to failure. Marx elaborated at length in Cap ital I the nature of the struggle of workers to shorten the working day. His aim was to refute the then prevailing views of authoritative bourgeois economists that any reduction in the hours of work was unthinkable because it would allegedly wipe out all profit. 108 In addition Marx explained in detail that the factory acts were indeed a necessary consequence of the effects of heavy industry on the work-force. In accounting 108. Capital l,

pp.

224-30. -46-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements for the passage of these laws in Britain he drew attention to the fact that the introduction of new machines which created modern factories led the capitalists to try to extend the length of the working day to a virtually reckless and unlimited degree. And naturally in the course of time workers demonstrated against this ruthless exploitation of their labour-power. The result was that parliament eventually took cognizance of the inhumanity of the system, and legislated to limit the duration of the working day. As Marx recounts: The creation of a normal working-day is, therefore, the product of a protracted civil war, more or less dissembled, between the capitalist class and the working class. As the contest takes place in the arena of modern industry, it first breaks out in the home of that industry England. The English factory workers were the champions, not only of the English, but of the modern working class generally, as their theorists were the first to throw down the gauntlet to the theory of capital. 109

Clearly, this maj or breakthrough on behalf of the working class would not have been achieved without the existence of trade union organization, and Marx drew a fundamental lesson from this by insisting that the first thing that would unite the international working class would be their common struggle for the goal of the eight-hour day . Machinery was the surest means, said Marx, of lengthening the working day. 1 1 0 His empirical observation of the situation in Britain had confirmed this. It was therefore necessary for organized labour to be on guard against attempts by capitalists to extend the working day, and indeed it was essential that with technological advances, the need would arise to demand even shorter working hours . 1 1 1 This was because the more efficient machines extracted more surplus value from the operatives in raising their productive power. They would go on producing more in a given time with the same expenditure of labour. 1 1 2 As a consequence the labour-power of the worker was constantly being undervalued. It would therefore be necessary to enforce the short­ ening of the working day as more efficient machines were intro­ duced. Capital I, then, analyses the most important laws of economics which determined the value of labour-power. Such factors in­ fluencing the latter as duration of work, the intensity of work and 109. 1 10. 111. 1 12.

Ibid. , p. 299. Ibid. , p. 408. Herrmann, Der Kampf von Karl Marx, Capital I, p. 409.

p.

-47-

201 .

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa productivity are all here subjected to the closest scrutiny. And here Marx warned workers against the danger of equating rises in the price of labour-power with the value of labour-power. 1 13 Cap ital I is full of examples where, even when wages rise, the value of labour­ power can actually sink. And whether and to what extent higher labour productivity could lead to higher wages was again deter­ mined by the militancy of organized labour. 1 14 Clearly, the latter was the only factor that could oppose the innate tendency of capital to increase the intensity and productivity of labour to the limits of human physical endurance. The consequences for the working class of the increased appli­ cation of machinery in industry as the chief means of raising productivity were exhaustively investigated by Marx. He analysed the effects of machines on the value of labour-power, on work time, on the intensity of work, on the number of employed, on female and child labour, on the hygiene and moral conditions in factories, on the calling of strikes and so on. Indeed, Marx tried to demonstrate that the advantages of increased mechanization of produc­ tion for the capitalist class would, in the long term, revolutionize the work-force. Machinery, in short, promoted revolution. Marx as­ serted that the technical basis of modern industry was revolution­ ary, while all earlier modes of production were essentially conservative. 1 15 With the spread of mechanization, then, domestic and petty industry was squeezed out and so was destroyed the last resort of the ' redundant population' and with it the sole remain­ ing safety-valve of the whole social mechanism. By maturing the material conditions, and the combination on a social scale of the pro­ cesses of production it matures the contradictions and antagonisms of the capitalist form of production, and therefore provides, along with the elements for the formation of a new society, the forces for exploding the old onc. 11 6

By implication, then, the major force contributing to the ex­ pected social upheaval must be organized labour. As has been seen, Marx regarded the drive of workers to ' combine' into unions for resisting the exploitation of wage labour as quite fundamental. Industry on an ever-increasing scale demanded more workers and more machines, and the effect of the machines was to fo rce more 1 1 3. 1 1 4. 1 1 5. 1 1 6.

Ibid . , Ibid . , Ibid. , Ibid . ,

pp. 51 9-42. p. 580. pp. 486-503. p. 503.

- 48-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements and more workers into the existing fighting organizations of labour, the unions . A further major implication for the formation of trade unions is contained in that section of Capital I which deals with the question of the 'industrial reserve army' , and the way it affected wage fluctuations during the vagaries of the business cycle. In comment­ ing on this, Marx observed: The industrial reserve army during the periods of stagnation and average prosperity, weighs down the active labour-army; during periods of over-production and paroxysm, it holds its pretensions in check. Rela­ tive surplus population is therefore the pivot upon which the law of demand and supply oflabour works. It confines the field of action of this law within the limits absolutely convenient to the activity of exploi­ tation and to the domination of capital. 1 1 7

So here again the fighting organizations of labour are immediately concerned. Capitalism needed that reserve army of floating un­ employed in order to be able to impose a lower value on labour­ power. Thereby, the surplus value produced would be even greater. Clearly, this had to be resisted by organized labour. In Capital I Marx documented the devastating effects of the industrial reserve army from the example of the British cotton workers. That is to say, in periods when an industry experienced a slump on the world market the operatives in it would be thrown on to the street with no recompense. And in such periods even the so­ called labour aristocracy, the best paid of the working class, could be reduced to pauperism, as the economic crisis of 1 866-7 had illustrated. 1 1 8 Indeed Marx's portrayal of the condition of the British working class in 1 867 forms a graphic sequel to Engels' great study of 1 845. Capital I certainly represents a massive documentation of the effects on humanity of capitalism in the industrial revolution, and it focused attention as never before or since on the impersonal mech­ anisms of the accepted economic system. And here, Marx not only informed the workers in the clearest possible terms what their position really was within that system, but also set down the p rinciples upon which it would collapse, thus clearing the way for the emergence of the more humane system of socialism. So Cap ital I was not just a highly detailed portrayal of ignominious exploi­ tation of man by man, it is meant to be a blueprint for revolution. 1 17. Ibid. , p. 639. Ibid. , pp. 667-70.

1 1 8.

- 49-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa In it the causes of the dichotomy between bourgeoisie and prolet­ ariat are clearly set out. The trade union movement was an early expression of that unbridgeable dichotomy. Indeed, it was the first stage of the proletarian bid for liberty from the bondage of wage labour. And Capital I emphasized that the striving for the goal of socialism was immediately linked with the daily trade union fight for better working conditions and other legislative reforms of a social-political nature. B ut it is also quite clear that the function of unions was twofold: first, to win improvements within capitalis·_n and second, to regard that constant militancy as the necessary prelude to the final elimination of capitalism. One thing that Capital I made very clear was that trade union activity within capitalism could not on its own alter the dependent position of wage labour. This struggle would have to be augmented by a political struggle, or rather have to change into a political struggle for the ultimate establishment of socialism. Having demonstrated that the working class had, via the trade unions, to be involved in an often bitter daily conflict with capital so that the commodity labour-power would simply be paid for in the amount which it cost to produce it, Marx indicated that another phase in the liberation process would have to be organized and led by a political elite. There would therefore be both trade unions and a political party. And although this was not spelled out in detail in Capital I it can be deduced that Marx assumed that both wings of the labour movement would act independently of each other. Of course, it is precisely here that Marx is open to interpretation, and subsequent chapters will provide 'classic' examples of this , the pragmatic-revisionist and Leninist-Stalinist versions of evolution­ ary and revolutionary socialism respectively. Until recently, the debate over trade union autonomy or subservience to a political party was still a real one, particularly in Germany where in the West the unity union movement is politically independent and autonomous, whereas in the East the unions were simply the extended arm of the ruling Marxist-Leninist party. The historical development of the labour movement throughout the world has shown that by no means all of Marx 's theories have been accepted by workers or their industrial and political leaders . Just how surplus value arises and how this is related to the struggle for reduction in working hours, how the accumulation of capital occurs and the exploitation of the proletariat proceeds, thus deepening the misery of the working class and polarizing society as a prelude to social revolution, were all questions that were more dis­ cussed than acted on. While the entire theoretical edifice may - 50-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements have been very persuasive to many workers who took the trouble to digest the massive body of Marx' s evidence, the experience of history has been that people on the whole have been very selective and interpretative in what they have chosen to apply from Capital. It remains, however, a sort of bible for trade union action, and chapter 3 will make frequent reference to key sections of Capital I with clear implications for trade union organization and action.

Marx and Engels Contra Anarchism and Anarcho-S yndicalism

Although there is no one 'key statement' by way of rebuttal from either Marx or Engels on the specific role of trade unions in the ideology of anarchism, their protracted debate with the main advocate of anarchism during the First International (1 864-76) , Mikhail Bakunin (181 4-76) , contains important implications for the right and wrong use of trade unions in the struggle to emanci­ pate the working class. The course of that debate cannot be pursued here; rather it suffices to outline the Bakuninist position and the principles by which it was repudiated by Marx and Engels. In order to dispel any confusion at the outset, it ought to be appreciated that there is more than a subtle distinction between the ideology of anarchism as advocated by such luminaries as Pierre Proudhon in France, against whose doctrines Marx wrote his Poverty of Philosophy, and that of anarcho-syndicalism as advocated by Bakunin . Anarchism of the type advocated by Proudhon was, to quote Carew Hunt, simply liberal individualism based upon the alleged 'right of men' pushed to its extreme limit. Its goal is the complete freedom and equality of the individual, and thus it repudiates the Jacobin tradition, adopted by the socialists, in which the individual is subj ected by the State to the social group . This attitude towards the State is primary. It carries with it the rej ection of every form of political activity in favour of economic activity only, and it involves the condemnation of parliamentary democ­ racy in accordance with Proudhon's dictum that 'universal suffrage is counter-revolution' since the concession of the vote is simply a device for preventing the individual from governing himself, and its effect is thus to weaken his sense of responsibility. 1 1 9 1 1 9. R. N. Carew Hunt, The Theory and Practice of Communism, London, 1 963, pp. 1 42-3. Cf. David Fernbach's introduction to The First International and After, vol. 3 of Karl Marx's Political Writings (The Pelican Marx Library), London, 1 974, pp. 9-20.

-51 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa With this hostility towards any form of hierarchical-bureaucratic authority the anarchists naturally rejected even the socialist state which, they argued, even if it implemented a full programme of worker emancipation, would still be j ust another form of tyranny, indeed an even worse one than parliamentary democracy. Ideally, human society should be structured not by states but by ' free, . . . 1 20 cl ecentra1.1 zecl , se lf.-govermng commumues ' . During the First International, the most active advocate of anarchism was the above-mentioned Bakunin. But whereas Proud­ hon was opposed to all forms of violence Bakunin was fundamen­ tally an 'anarchist terrorist', i.e. an anarcho-syndicalist, a position adopted as a consequence of his hostility towards all institutions or authoritarian groups. Bakunin, had, of course, analysed the industrial bourgeois so­ ciety of his day and come to the conclusion that revolution was imminent. It was necessary, therefore, to work out the right tactics to employ in order to hasten the revolution, in other words, to form a viable movement 'capable of coping with the immediate problems of the social revolution'. 1 2 1 His basic conceptions relating to this, Bakunin spelled out as follows : Our aim is the creation of a powerful but always invisible revolutionary association which will prepare and direct the revolution. But never, even during open revolution, will the association as a whole, or any of its members, take any kind of public office, for it has no aim other than to destroy all government and to make government impossible every­ where . . . . It will keep watch so that authorities, governments, and states can never be built again . 1 22

Herein is contained both the objective and programme of action for the Bakuninist version of anarchism which will employ violence to achieve its aim. And since the programme was directed not only at bourgeois constitutions, but also at the aims of the international socialists under Marx's influence at the time, Bakunin directed his criticism also at this, as the next quotation illustrates : I wonder [ wrote Bakunin] how Marx fails to see that the establishment of a . . . dictatorship to perform, in one way or another, as chief engineer of the world revolution, regulating and directing a revolution­ ary movement of the masses in all countries in a machine-like fashion -

1 20. Ibid. 1 21 . Sam Dolgoff (ed. ) , Bakunin on Anarchy (Introduction by Dolgoff), New York, 1972, p. 10. 1 22. Ibid. -

52

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements that the establishment of such a dictatorship would be enough of itself to kill the revolution and distort all popular movements. 1 23

Clearly, the anarchists' aims, as well as the means of achieving them, were diametrically opposed to those of the Communists. And, of course, this divergence is attributable to the differing notions of human 'freedom' espoused by the two rival revolution­ ary movements . This is borne out by the following statement by Bakunin: . . . in the Social Revolution, individual action was to be almost nil, while the spontaneous action of the masses had to be everything. All that the individual can do is to formulate and propagate ideas expressing the instinctive desires of the people, and contribute their constant efforts to the revolutionary organization of the natural power of the masses. This, and nothing more: all the rest can only be accomplished by the people. Otherwise we would end up with a political dictatorship - the reconsti­ tution of the State.124

As stated, Bakunin had analysed industrial society and, like Marx and Engels, had observed that trade unions were a fact of life, and as such were instruments of worker emancipation . As he wrote in 1 867: The cooperative associations o f workers, these mutual aid banks and labor credit banks, these trade unions, and this international league of workers in all countries . . . does it not prove that they have not in any way given up their goal, nor lost faith in their coming emancipation? Does it not prove that they have also understood that in order to hasten the hour of their deli·. erance they should not rely on the States, nor on the more or less hypocritical assistance of the privileged classes, but rather upon themselves and their independent, completely spontaneous associations?125

This phenomenon inspired Bakunin to work out his principles of revolutionary syndicalism or anarcho-syndicalism. Since militant bodies of organized labour existed, all bent on achieving the same goal of emancipation, they should be infused with the idea of revolution. They were the bones and sinews, in fact, of revolution which only had to have the life-giving breath of the anarchist ideology breathed into them. In other words , unions as spon123. 1 24. 1 25.

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid . , p.

1 22. -

53

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa taneous responses of workers to exploitation were potentially revolutionary instruments which could batter down the pillars of bourgeois society. But, of course, the unions would do this spontaneously without being manipulated by any party organization. To this extent, Bakunin's thought shows no appreciable difference from that of Marx and Engels on the nature of trade unions . It is necessary , though, always to bear in mind that Bakunin imputes a subtly though crucially different character to union organization. For Bakunin it was in the nature of the worker (as also for Marx and Engels) to want to improve his material well-being and that of his family, as a kind of primary necessity . The needs of the intellect were secondary, of course, to this. However, the worker would not go far in emancipating himself or his class if he did not imbibe socialist thought. As Bakunin observed in 1 869: What the worker lacks is not a sense of reality or socialist aspirations, but only socialist thought. Deep in his heart, every worker aspires to a full life, a material well-being and intellectual development, based on justice or equality for every human being longing to live and work in an atmosphere of freedom. Obviously this ideal cannot be realized under the present social system, based as it is on the cynical exploitation of the toiling masses. Since his emancipation can be attained only by the overthrow of the existing social order, every earnest worker is poten­ tially a revolutionary socialist. 126

What Bakunin goes on to say is of the essence of anarcho­ syndicalism. He poses the vital question: how can the socialist awareness of the workers be raised and propagated? Would the propaganda of a few dedicated, intellectually sophisticated and enthusiastic socialists be sufficient to penetrate the minds of the vast mass of workers? Bakunin is not convinced that this method will be effective. Workers knew little about theory but they could learn it through direct action. 'The only way for the workers to learn theory is through practice: emancipatiott through p ractical action. It requires the full solidarity of the workers in their struggle against their bosses, through the trade unions and the building up of resistance' (emphasis in original) . 1 27 So far there is, on the surface, no real difference between Baku­ nin's ideas and those of Marx and Engels. All agree that union action is the training ground or 'war school' for socialism. But the 126. Ibid., 1 27. Ibid.,

p. p.

166. 1 67. - 54-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements Marxist and the Bakuninist lines soon part company on precisely the form and method of the next phase of the struggle for worker emancipation. For Bakunin, the great danger to be avoided at all costs is the emergence of a revolutionary elite which (as Marx envisaged) would actually plot the course of the revolution and, in fact, take charge of it. In other words , Marxism postulates the necessity of the setting up of a chain of command at the top of which sit the leaders of the Communist Party as the custodians of the true doctrine of scientific socialism. This was anathema to Bakunin, who pilloried the 'vanity and ambition' of the leaders of the First International as follows: 'If there is a devil in human history, that devil is the principle of command. It alone, sustained by the ignorance and stupidity of the masses , without which it could not exist, is the source of all catastrophes, all the crimes, and all the infamies of history. ' 1 28 Clearly, Bakunin was convinced of the truth of the corrupting influence of power. And he saw the problem of organization, of stimulating the collective will of the masses - in short, of leader­ ship - as the key issue. Any committee set up originally to repre­ sent the interests of the workers, for instance, was in danger of becoming corrupted into pursuing only its own interests. It would become bureaucratic and inevitably alienated from the masses whom it purported to represent. This aspect of Bakunin's thought was expressed graphically in his 1 872 critique o( Marx and Engels, The International and Karl Marx. In attacking the elitist principle implicit in Marxism, Bakunin wrote: To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer of the aristocracy of labor, those who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably than all the other workers. Precisely this semibourgeois layer of workers would, if the Marxists had their way, constitute their fourth governing class. This could indeed happen if the great mass of the proletariat does not guard against it. 1 29

Such a statement, with the benefit of hindsight, must be regarded as having been extraordinarily perceptive. Bakunin evinced a great optimism in the innate ability of the masses to pursue the goal of their own emancipation without the necessity of an organizing, manipulating party or bureaucracy. The main thing required was the enlightening injection of socialist thought on the widest poss­ ible scale, and the means of achieving this was the 'general strike' . 1 28. Ibid. , p. 245. 1 29. Ibid . , p. 294. -

55

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa To it was imputed the function of raising the socialist cons ciousness of the proletariat as an essential first step in the emancipation of the working class, that is, in the creation of the anarchist society . The true action programme, then, of the international working class (so wrote Bakunin in 1 873) was ' the organization of solidarity in the economic struggle of labour against capitalism. On this foundation, at first exclusively material, will rise the intellectual and moral pillars of the new society. '130 (Emphasis in original. ) 'Economic struggle' means, o f course, strike. And this i s defined by Bakunin as follows : The strike is the beginning of the social war of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, a tactic that remains within the limit of legality. Strikes are a valuable tactic in two ways. First they electrify the masses, reinforcing their moral energy and awakening in them a sense of profound antagon­ ism between their interests and those of the bourgeoisie. Thus strikes reveal to them the abyss which from this time on irrevocably separates the workers from the bourgeoisie. Consequently they contribute im­ mensely by arousing and manifesting between the workers of all trades, of all localities, and of all countries the consciousness and the fact itself of solidarity. Thus a double action, the one negative, the other positive, tending to create directly the new world of the proletariat by opposing it in an almost absolute manner to the bourgeois world. 1 3 1

Such was the optimistic faith that Bakunin had in the strike weapon at the disposal of trade unions . These had to grasp this central anarcho-syndicalist doctrine and not be concerned with trivial organizational matters . The first priority of unions was to become strike agencies for the purpose of promoting socialist awareness in the sense defined by Bakunin, the essence of which was spontaneity. The masses , once having been awakened and enlightened by the strike experience, would transform bourgeois society into the kind of egalitarian, totally non-bureaucratic and non-hierarchical society that the apostles of anarchis m envisaged. The parting of the ways between the Marxists on one hand and the Bakuninists on the other is thus quite clear, as is the role imputed to trade unions in the proletarian emancipation process. For the Marxists unions have a primary and legitimate but also a clearly limited and subordinated function in the class struggle; for Bakuninists they were the first and last agencies of social revolt. It remains here, then, necessary to summarize the Marxist re­ pudiation of Bakuninism. Firs t and foremost Marx regarded the 1 30. Ibid . , p. 303. 1 3 1 . Ibid . , p. 304. -

56

-

Marx and Engels - The Key Statements latter as totally unscientific and petit bourgeois. It was for Marx unscientific because it imputed to direct economic action the ability to bring about the revolution while totally disregarding the import­ ance of political action. In other words, Bakunin had thrown overboard the principles of authority and discipline. He had been propagating these ideas within the First International, much to Marx's disgust. At that time the International Working Men's Association had become the arena of an ideological struggle between Marx and Bakunin for the domination of the organization. For example during the Hague Congress of the International in 1 872 there arose a debate on the issue of whether the working class needed to constitute for itself a political party, i.e. a party which represented it exclusively in the political struggle with the bourgeoisie. The latter, comprising the propertied class, collectively perpetrated violence against the proletariat. It was therefore necessary for the latter to constitute itself as a separate political party to resist such violence. Precisely this view was opposed by the Bakuninists, but was adopted as a resolution by the International into its statutes. As a result the Bakuninists were banned from the International, and Marx, commenting on the resolution in his speech on the Hague Congress, made the following point: It [the congress] has proclaimed the necessity for the working class to fight against the old, collapsing society on the political as well as on the social level; and we congratulate ourselves on seeing that from now on this resolution of the London conference has been incorporated in the statutes. A small group had formed itself in our midst which recommended that the workers not engage in political activity. We have considered it our duty to explain how dangerous and disastrous are such principles for our cause. One day the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labour; he must overturn the old politics which serve to maintain the old institutions if he does not want to lose the kingdom of heaven on earth like the ancient Christians who neglected and scorned it. However, we have not insisted that the ways to reach this goal are everywhere the same. We know that the institutions, customs and traditions of the various countries have to be considered, and we do not deny that there are

-57-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa countries such as America and England . . . where the workers can reach their goal by peaceful ways. If that is true then we also have to acknowledge that in most Continental countries the lever of our revol­ ution has to be force. It is force to which one must appeal in order to 132 establish the rule of labour.

So it is organized political force which scientific socialism sees as the means of acquiring political power for the working class - not the haphazard, spontaneous application of direct action, as advo­ cated by the Bakuninists. Clearly, Marx could not endorse the latter's concept of trade union struggle. It was not based on scien­ tifically won insights into the recognizable socio-economic con­ ditions and relationships brought about by the rise of capitalism. With the tools of historical materialism, Marx and Engels were in a position to perceive the historic mission of the working class; that is, by virtue of their social-political thought they gained an under­ standing of the driving forces and direction of the proletarian movement and could identify the process by which it must lead to social revolution. In short, the founders of scientific socialism (as opposed to the utopian socialists and romantic 'cranks' like Baku­ nin) were concerned to show 'how in the present capitalist society · the material conditions are ultimately brought about which enable and compel the worker to break that historical curse' (i . e. the wage-slavery of capitalism) . 1 33 Indeed, the social revolution was only possible in those places where, as a result of the development of capitalist production, the industrial proletariat had at least begun to occupy a significant position within the mass of the people. 134 It was, therefore, nonsense to imagine that any historically meaningful social change could be brought about by B akuninist ideas and methods. These were emotional, subjectivist and voluntarist, and as such divorced from the real, obj ective motors of history . They led only to pointless adventurism without achieving any concrete results. Only the scientific socialist theory of Marx and Engels could achieve that. Consequently, any 'adventurous' use of trade union organization in the anarcho-syndicalist sense of Bakunin could have no place in the theory being developed by Marx and Engels . 135 132. ME W, vol. 1 8, pp. 1 59-60 (German edition) . 133. Ibid . , vol. 1 9, p. 1 7. 1 34. Ibid . , vol. 18, p. 633. 1 35. Cf. MEW, vol. 1 8, p. 493 (German edition), for the famous comment by Friedrich Engels. For a succinct modern Marxist-Leninist refutation of Baku­ ninism see Herbert Schwab, 'Wissenschaftlicher Kommunismus contra Anar­ chismus. Zurn theoretischen Kampf von Marx und Engels gegen den Bakuninismus', Beitriige zur Geschichte der Arbeiterbewegung 18 ( 1 976) , 593-604.

- 58-

-

2

-

Trade Union I ndependence: The Reception of the 'Hamann Interview'

While engaged in research for Trade Unionism in Germany from Bismarck to Hitler 1 869- 1 93J1 this writer consulted the then most accessible report of Marx's interview with the Lassallean trade union official identified at that time only as J. Hamann, which is to be found in the official organ of the Social Democratic Worker's Party (SDAP) , Der Volksstaat (27 November 1 869) , edited by August Bebel. An excerpt from the reported interview was cited in the above book in support of the thesis that right from the start trade unions perceived themselves as autonomous instruments of class struggle, independent of the tutelage of any political party if they were to fulfil their essential purpose. 2 Indeed, the history of German trade unionism shows that trade unionists themselves, while often being active members of the Social Democratic Party (SPD) (as it was later known) insisted upon the autonomy of their organizations from party direction since they perceived that the objectives of the party and those of the unions, while complemen­ tary, did not coincide in the day-to-day confrontation with man­ agement. And to reinforce their stance on this issue, trade unionists appealed to the 'Hamann Interview', if not expressis verbis, then to the idea-content which they believed to be authenticated by none other than the founder of scientific socialism himself. In short, the 'Hamann Interview' became part of the written and oral tradition of the German trade union movement from 1 869 to 1 933 and most emphatically from post-1 945 to the present day. The issue raised by the content of the 'Hamann Interview' is, of course, a central one in the European and, indeed, the international labour movement which harks back to the core ideas of Marx and Engels . If Marx had unequivocally insisted upon the autonomy of 1 . Trade Unionism in Germany from Bismarck t o Hitler London and New York, 1 982. 2. Ibid., p. 37 (vol. 1 ) .

-59-

1 869- 1 933,

2 volumes,

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa the trade unions in labour's struggle for freedom from wage­ slavery, then the policies and tactics of Lenin and Stalin, and of Marxist-Leninists in the Eastern bloc countries were a crass repudiation of the originally emancipatory ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels . The discussion about the authenticity of the 'Hamann Interview' (or its exegesis) has a long history. It is of some significance that the Soviet author, Alexander Lozovsky, in the 1 920s and 1 930s was at great pains to dismiss the interview as having been 'doctored' by Hamann, but that in most recent times, East German historians have actually acknowledged its authenticity. 3 The existence o f the 'Hamann Interview' and its place in the history of the role of trade unions in the class struggle has not loomed very large in the writing of Western historians of the labour movement in the past. Perhaps it is time to 'take it on board' at least, and to survey both its content and its publication history. This is now possible due to the pioneering research of historians, in both East and West Germany, but in particular to the work of Gerhard Beier. This chapter will proceed by rendering a full English language translation of the text of the 'Hamann Interview' as it appeared in Der Volksstaat in 1 869, outline its publication history, comment upon the continuing relevance of the points it made (especially at the time of the Nazi seizure of power) , and ventilate newly researched data on the person of J. Hamann . The background to the interview was the confusion within the ranks of the emerging German trade union movement caused by the existence of two rival labour parties, the one founded by 3. Alexander Lozovsky, Marx and the Trade Unions, London, 1 935. Lozovsky (1 872-1 952), otherwise known as Solomon Abramovich Lozovsky (Dridzo), was a Bolshevik, chairman of the Moscow City Council of Trade Unions ( 1 920) : General Secretary of the Profintern ( 1 921-37). Gerhard Beier discusses the work of contemporary East German historians on the Hamann Interview in his article, 'Ein umstrittenes Interview' , the details of which are provided in footnote 5 below. Two other studies on Marx and trade unions preceded Lozovsky's. These are: ( I ) Hermann Millier, Karl Marx und die Gewerkschaften, Berlin, 1 9 1 8, written with a view to justifying the German trade unions' pragmatic-reformist policies while asserting, in line with the 'Hamann Inter­ view' , that these were legitimately Marxist. (2) Nelli Auerbach, Marx 1md die Gewerkschaften, Berlin and Leipzig, 1 922. This text is an excellent example of the theoretical criticism of Rosa Luxemburg against revisionism applied to the German trade union movement. Auerbach's main thesis, in contrast to Her­ mann Muller's, is that trade union pragmatism had effectively eliminated the Marxist content from the entire German social democratic movl!ment by 1 913.

-60-

Reception of the 'Hamann Interview' Ferdinand Lassalle in 1 863 and the other by August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht in 1 869. The Lassallean party was committed to the ' Iron Law of Wages' which insisted that strikes organized by trade unions achieved only, in the end, an increase in the price of commodities which cancelled out any gain in wages the unions might have won through successful industrial action. Conse­ quently, trade unions as strike organs were useless. They served only to organize the workers as supporters for the party of labour and should perceive themselves as functioning at the behest of the political leader, principally as election-fighting organs. In short, Lassalleans were required to follow slavishly the directives of the p arty leader. O f course, Marx had had his differences with Lassalle in his lifetime (Lassalle died of wounds sustained in a duel in 1 864) and now, in 1 869, the leader of the Lassalleans, J. B. von Schweit­ zer, was continuing to insist on the subservience of the unions to the party, a stance which proved divisive and confusing to the rank and file. 4 This situation motivated a deputation of Lassallean trade unionists led by J . Hamann to avail themselves of the opportunity to learn Marx's own views on the relationship of trade unions to political parties . The opportunity presented itself when Marx and his daughter Jenny were visiting their friend, Dr Ludwig Kugel­ mann, in Hanover during September/October 1 869. Here is how Der Volksstaat (No . 17 of 27 November 1 869) published Hamann's report of his discussion with Marx on that occasion: A request sent in by J. Hamann, the treasurer of the German Metal Workers' Association, contains the following: Trade unions can and may never be made dependent upon a political association; this is proved clearly by the present decline in our union. Indeed, it is also the j udgement of the greatest living political economist and author of the present, Dr Karl Marx, Lassalle's teacher, who a short time ago was staying in Hanover. I could not suppress the urge to meet

4. See Gustav Mayer, Johann Baptist van Schweitzer und die Sozialdemokratie, Glashiitten im Taunus, 1 970 (reprint of the 1 909 edition), p. 354, where Mayer sees a direct causal connection between Marx's visit to Hanover in September 1 869 when he spoke to Hamann's deputation of metal workers, and the latter's rebellion against von Schweitzer's efforts to establish a party dictatorship over the unions. For a more detailed account of the background to the 'Hamann Interview', of the circumstances leading up to it and the immediate conse­ quences of it in fostering a more independent stance by the German metal workers' union towards the Lassallean organization, the ADA V, see Heiko Geiling, Die moralische Okonomie des friihen Proletariats - die Entstehung der

Hannoverschen Arbeiterbewegung aus den arbeitenden und armen Volksklassen bis 1 8 75,

Frankfurt, 1 985, pp. 405-10.

-61 -

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa the scholar personally [der Mann der Wissenschaft ] and set about securing an interview with him in order to get the advice of the great pioneer in the field of social research, and to hear his judgement concerning trade unions. This was granted to me in the most friendly manner, and the next day I went along with four friends to him and had a discussion for one and a half hours. I highlight here the main points of the discussion and keep strictly to the truth. My first question to Dr Karl Marx was: Do trade unions have to be predominantly dependent upon a political association in order to be viable? The answer was: ' Never should the trade unions be brought into association with a political party or made dependent upon one if they are to fulfil their task; if this happens it would mean dealing them a death blow. The trade unions are the schools of socialism. In the trade unions workers are trained to be socialists because they are daily confronted with the struggle with capital. All political parties, no matter which, are, without exception, able to enthuse the mass of workers only for a limited period; only the unions, on the other hand, are capable of representing a real labour party and of opposing a bulwark to capital. The large mass of workers has decided that their real material position must be improved whatever the party they might wish to belong to. However, when a worker's material condition is improved he can then devote himself more to the rearing of his children. His wife and child no longer need to work in the factory, and he can educate and look after himself physically more; he becomes a socialist without suspecting it. ' The second question which I posed was this: Is it important [ zweck­ massig] for a trade union to possess its own publication? I explained then that we did publish our financial statements each month in a members ' news sheet [ Zirkulare] in which matters of special interest to the union were discussed and ventilated; however, we had been reproached from various quarters that this was arrogance and presumption, a violation against the organization and much of the same sort of thing. The answer was as follows: 'It does not surprise me to hear such things; however, you should not be put off by such phrases. Precisely the trade union organ is the cementing agent because in it the various views for and against have to be discussed, the wage conditions in the different regions have to be discussed, if possible j ob lists sent to the various branches, but it [the organ/news sheet] may never be the sole property of one individ­ ual. I hardly need to elaborate further to you the reasons for this because they are so clearly obvious that everyone must grasp that this is one o f the first basic conditions i n order for trade unions t o flourish. ' Thus the judgement o f the man who is generally recognized t o b e the greatest authority in the science of political economy. Should anyone doubt this statement he can approach Dr Karl Marx directly at No. 1 Modena Villas, Maitland Park, London. He declared himself to be happy to confirm this his statement. Finally, he gave us the further advice not to commit ourselves to personalities but rather always to keep the cause before us and to form our judgement accordingly. ' Of what concern to you is Liebk11echt, Dr Schweitzer or myself, 011/y the cause - that is the true thing {Das Walt reJ. ' _

- 62 -

Recep tion of the 'Hamann Interview' I can only completely agree with this statement. J . Hamann5

Initially, of course, the above text appeared in the Verbandszirkular der Allgemeinen Deutschen Metallarbeiterschaft to which Hamann re­ ferred in his second question to Marx. This had been coming out monthly since July 1 869 as a members' news sheet. The interview appeared in No. 4 of October that year. Next, it appeared in Der Volksstaat on the date given above, and then in the organ of the General German Cigar Workers ' Association on 4 December 1 869. It was by virtue of the publication in Der Volksstaat that Marx himself would have seen the actual text. It is well documented that Marx had read that particular issue since he refers expressly to it in a letter dated 29 November 1 869 from his dwelling in London to Dr Kugelmann at Hanover, though he did not specifically mention the interview; the letter was primarily concerned with the Irish ques­ tion. 6 What is significant is that Marx never repudiated the inter­ view, i . e . he tacitly endorsed it even if he never expressly authorized it. Clearly, he did not find anything in it he would wish to correct or from which to dissociate himself; if he had we may have expected some comment from him. There is none, except that Marx did mention the fact that the interview had taken place in a letter he wrote to Engels the very day of Hamann's visit with his colleagues, that is, on 30 September 1 869. Marx reported it to Engels: I have j ust spent an hour chatting with a deputation of four Lassalleans sent by the local branch of the German General Labour Association. Of course I was most reserved and diplomatic, but I told them sub rosa the essentials. We parted as good friends. I declined their invitation on behalf of the association to give a lecture. 7 5. Translated by the present writer from the text quoted in Gerhard Beier, 'Ein umstrittenes Interview: Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Hamann ( 1 827-187 1 ) . Oaten zum unbekannten Leben eines Metall-Gewerkschafters', Internationale Wissen­ schaftliche Korrespondenz 22, 1 (Marz 1 986), 63--4. 6. Marx to Kugelmann in Hanover (London, 29 Nov. 1 869) in which Marx writes: 'You will probably have seen in Der Volksstaat the resolution proposed by me against Gladstone in the Irish amnesty question'; MEW, vol. 32, Berlin, 1 965, p. 637. 7. Marx to Engels in Manchester (Hanover, 30 Sept. 1 869) in ibid . , p. 375. A further strengthening of the evidence that the interview was accurately reported by Hamann can be inferred from the fact that there are extant two letters signed by all committee members of the Hanover metal workers' union (including Hamann as treasurer) addressed to Marx in London. The first, from 5 Novem­ ber 1 869, refers expressly to the earlier meeting in Hanover, and requests Marx, after complaining of the ADA V interference in the unions, to arrange their

- 63-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa It is an indication of how eager the Hanover Lassallean socialists were to have some authoritative word from Marx that they went into print with a reported version of the interview as a small compensation for the lecture they would undoubtedly have pub­ lished had Marx been prepared to give it. Clearly, he was chary of buying into a local dispute between the Lassalleans and the inter­ national socialists. Nevertheless, the five points Marx made in the above interview were taken to heart by the German trade union movement from the time they were uttered down to the present day. It is instructive to identify them. First, trade unions should never become dependent upon a political party if they are to fulfil their essential function. If they did, they would decline to impotence. Secondly, trade unions were the school for socialism because through them the workers were in daily confrontation with capital. Indeed, this was an idea already present in Engels' Condition of the Working Class in England. 8 Thirdly, only trade unions functioned to bind all workers together as workers in contrast to rival political parties with divergent ideologies . For this purpose they needed an independent publi­ cation to discuss wages and conditions . Fourthly, unions, by pro­ moting worker solidarity, were able to present a bulwark against the encroachments of capitalism. Fifthly, and finally, Marx made plain his opposition to personality cults . Unions should never become the instruments of ambitious individuals . The cause of worker emancipation was the essential thing. These five points can be focused even more sharply. Marx recognized the essential requirement of trade union autonomy, their crucial importance in raising worker consciousness about their condition, the equal importance of an independent trade union publication for the exclusive ventilation of trade union concerns, membership in the International. The second is dated 12 January 1 870 and requests Marx to mediate a fraternal accord (Kartell- Vertrag) with the Amalga­ mated Engineers' trade union in England. Marx replied on 1 8 April 1 870 setting out the conditions upon which such an agreement between kindred unions of different nationality could be established. The inference to be drawn is that he was perfectly happy with the text of the interview, otherwise he would surely have mentioned it. These letters have been collected by Hans Pelger (director of the Karl Marx museum in Trier) and Jacques Grandjonc and are published in German under the title Unbekanntes von Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx. Tei/ I: 1840-1 874, Bonn, 1 986. 8. See the English language edition of this in MECW, vol . 4, p. 5 1 2: 'They (strikes] are the military school of the working-men in which they prepare themselves for the great struggle which cannot be avoided . . . And as schools of war, the Unions are unexcelled. '

- 64-

Recep tion of the 'Hamann Interview' the significance of trade unions as the worker's natural defence against capitalism, and finally, the deleterious effects of unions becoming the tools of ambitious individuals. The fact that the full text of the 'Hamann Interview' was re­ printed in 1 896 by the A1etallarbeiter-Zeitung with a detailed com­ mentary illustrates the extent to which the principles contained in it had been appropriated by the German trade union movement. The text of the commentary follows: The trade unions have developed along the lines of Marx's statements . After the unification of the two political groups [the 'Eisenachers' and the Lassalleans in 1 875] peace also returned to the trade unions which worked energetically to strengthen their organization until the anti­ socialist law [of 1 878] put a stop to it - but only for a few years. The new trade unions which were founded during the anti-socialist law by socialist workers are organized in complete autonomy with regard to the Social Democratic Party although their members belong to the Social Democratic Party. This position of independence of the trade unions today is, in spite of the fact that 27 years has passed since the above interview, legitimized by Marx's statements; it is in fact demanded by the direct activity which unions have to fulfil for the improvement of the condition of the workers. Any political activity to raise the condition of the workers, as things are at present, can only be indirectly achieved either by way of legislation or by occasional stands taken by political parties in favour of those workers who stand in open and direct conflict with management. The trade unions have to be directly involved against the increasing oppression and exploitation of workers which occurs daily in thousands of ways in the sphere of production; if they were involved politically they would be diverted from this activity. Any introduction of political matters into the sphere of their activity would be dangerous for the trade unions because their actual function which in fact makes them schools for socialism would be pushed into the back­ ground. In any case, there is no necessity for the unions to become politically active since they have their o wn representatives in the party which is formed expressly for the workers, viz. the Social Democratic Party. In their dual character as members of the trade unions and of the Social Democratic Party, the workers concerned take care that the party does everything in the political sphere to advance the cause of the unions . Let the experience of earlier times serve as a warning against any intentions being expressed of late to infuse the unions with political . . act1v1ty. 9

What emerges strongly from this 1 896 commentary, published unsigned in the newspaper of a major trade union (signifying the 9. Quoted after Beier, 'Ein umstrittenes Interview', pp. 66-7. Translation by present writer.

- 65-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa official endorsement of the union leadership) , is that unions are considered to be 'independent' as distinct from 'neutral' . Their independence means not being subject to party tutelage, although most of the unionists would have voted for the Socialist Party. In that sense they were not politically neutral. Indeed, this commen­ tary assumes a rational division of function between industrially organized and politically organized labour. The then leader of the German Metal Workers' Union, Alexander Schlicke, himself later became an SPD deputy in the Reichstag, and his union's newspaper in 1 896 had a circulation of some so, 000. 1 0 By means of such avenues of communication the content of the 'Hamann Interview' must have been appropriated by most active German trade unionists. Indeed, the interview was 'received into the literature' of trade union history as it was included by August Bringmann in his widely circulated two-volume history of the German Carpenters' Union in 1 903 (re-issued in 1 909) . 11 Even Karl Kautsky cited the 'Hamann Interview' in an article, ' Sekte oder Klassenpartei' (Die Neue Zeit, 28 March 1 909, p . 7) , and the complete Volksstaat text was republished as an appendix to Marx's Lohn, Preis und Profit (Wages , Price and Profit) in the second revised edition of 1926 as well as in the sixth edition, edited by Hermann Duncker. The first English translation appeared in Daniel de Leone, Marx as Text (New York, 1 920, p. 3 9) , while a French version appeared in La Revolution proletarimne, November 1 926. 12 As Gerhard Beier observes, the result of the German reception of the 'Hamann Interview' was its further reception into the Second International. August Bebel, the renowned chairman of the SPD (from 1 869 to 1 91 3) had published a pamphlet in 1 900 in which he acknowledged that trade unions needed to be party-politically 'neutral' in order to attract workers who might otherwise place their allegiance in the newly founded Christian trade unions, be10. Beier, 'Ein umstrittenes Interview', p. 67. Schlicke (1 863-1 940) was active in the Wi.irttemburg state party of the SPD and became labour minister of that state in 1919 as well as becoming a member of the revolutionary Reichstag (Jan. 1919-June 1920). He continued to represent a Wi.irttemberg seat there for the SPD until September 1 930. See MdR - Biographisches Handbuch der Reichstage, edited by Max Schwarz, Hanover, 1965, r- 747. 1 1 . Geschichte der deutschen Zimmerer-Bewegung, vol. 1 (first edn), Hamburg, 1 903, pp. 364 f; second enlarged edn 1909, pp. 303-4; reprinted Bonn, 1981 . 12. This additional information on the publication history of the 'Hamann Inter­ view' was supplied by Dr Hans Pelger via Dr Gerhard Beier: see Pelger and Grandjonc, Unbekanntes von Friedrich Engels und Karl Marx. The last German publication of the interview was in Georg Eckert, Aus den Anflingen der Braun­ sch weiger Arbeiterbeweg1mg, Braunschweig, 1955, pp. 24-5.

- 66-

Reception of the 'Hamann Interview' cause the Roman Catholic bishops would try to hinder Catholic workers from joining avowedly socialist unions. Hitherto, as SPD leader, Bebel had always insisted that the trade union movement was ancillary to the political movement and as such ought to be directed by essentially political priorities. However, none of the established union leaders such as Carl Legien, the founding chair­ man of the then umbrella organization of the German unions (the General Commission of the Independent Trade Unions of Ger­ many) , or the above-mentioned Alexander Schlicke, would accept party tutelage. Throughout the 1 890s they had refused steadfastly to regard their organizations as subordinate to the Socialist Party for the reasons given. When, however, in 1 899 the Roman Catholic Church began to found Christian trade unions, Bebel and other party intellectuals came to acknowledge the necessity of party­ politically neutral trade unions, precisely in the sense that Marx had outlined in the 'Hamann Interview'. 13 Bebel wrote in 1 900: 'I advocate that party politics and religious discussions be kept out of the trade unions, but I advocate that they pursue all the more energetically worker politics and class struggle politics . . . . To pursue politics within the framework of their functions is thus an obligation of the trade unions. ' 1 4 This stance, adopted by the leader of the strongest national group in the Second International, was also taken by some Russian members of the International, in particular Anatoli Lunacharsky (1 875-1 933) and then by Georgi Plekhanov (1 856-1908) , both of whom acknowledged that trade union 'neutrality' in the sense advocated by Bebel coincided with Marx's principles . 15 However, in 1 908 Lenin felt obliged to repudi­ ate his countrymen by observing: Of course, at the outset of the workers' political and trade union movements in Europe it was possible to uphold trade union neutrality as a means of widening the original field of proletarian struggle during the period when it was comparatively undeveloped and when the bour­ geoisie exerted no systematic influence on the unions. At the present time it is quite indefensible, from the point of view of international Social-Democracy to uphold trade union neutrality. One can only smile 13. Eduard Bernstein, 'Geschichtliches zur Gewerkschaftsfrage', Sozialistische Mo­ natshefte Uuly 1 900) , No. VIII, p. 378. Here Bernstein drew attention to the long-standing suspicion of the SPD party leaders of trade union autonomy, and stressed the determination of trade unionists not to be subjected to party tutelage. 14. August Bebel, Gewerkschaftsbewegung und politische Parteien, Stuttgart, 1 900, pp. 1 8-19. 15. Beier, 'Ein umstrittenes Interview', p . 67. -

67

-

Trade Union Theory from Marx to Walesa when reading Plekhanov's assurances that 'even today, Marx would be in favour of trade union neutrality in Germany', especially when that kind of argument is based on a one sided interpretation of a single 'quotation' from Marx, while ignoring the sum and substance of Marx's statements and the whole spirit of his teachings. 1 6

Lenin's criticis m can in one respect be endorsed, but the ' Hamann Interview' does not speak of 'neutrality'; rather it emphasizes the 'independence' of the 'schools of socialism' . However, Lenin does not suggest in the least that the 'Hamann Interview' is a forgery; he simply locates it as an isolated statement of Marx in reference to a specific situation in the early history of the labour movement. This is significant because in 1 934 the 'Hamann Interview' was attacked by none other than the general secretary of the so-called Red Labour International, Alexander Lozovsky, as a fabrication. Lo­ zovsky championed during his term of office as a loyal member of the Profintern (i . e. the Moscow-dominated trade-union counter­ part to the Comintern) a Leninist/ Stalinist view of trade unionism. It is, therefore, not surprising that he sought to discredit any suggestion that the 'Hamann Interview' could be fully genuine. There was all the more reason for doing this as it would aid in discrediting the General German Trade Union Federation, the ADGB (which was decidedly anti-Profintern) because it invoked the 'Hamann Interview' in 1 933 in the hope that the Nazis would allow an avowedly independent trade union organization to con­ tinue in existence. In short, the German union leadership through its affirmation of the 'Hamann Interview' was depicted as social­ fascist. Indeed, what has become known as the 'Leipart Course' in German trade union history during the final months of the Wei mar Republic prior to, and immediately after, the Nazi seizure of power was legitimized by the German trade union leadership b y asserting its consistency with Marx's alleged views of trade union party-political independence as expressed in the 'Hamann Inter­ view' of 1 869. Theodor Leipart was chairman o f the ADGB from 1920 to 1 933, and in the final phase of the Republic he made several eloquent attempts to establish the claim of industrially organized labour to a continued independent existence even under a Nazi regime. This involved, of course, emphasizing the fact that the unions had no formal links with the Social Democratic Party even though most of the leadership were members of that party and in 1 6. V. I. Lenin as quoted in B. Koval (ed . ) , On Trade Unions. A Collection of Articles and Speeches, London (fourth e