A-Infos (en) Turkey, Yeryuzu Postasi: An Anarchist Labour Programme - Wayne Price (ca, de, fr, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

This is a 2002 article by Wayne Price published in The Northeastern 
Anarchist, the publication of NEFAC (Northeastern Federation of 
Anarcho-Communists), an anarcho-communist organization that operated in 
the northeastern United States and the Quebec and Toronto regions of 
Canada . ---- Today, among workers, there is a general unrest and anger, 
even though most still hold to the usual "American" views (support for 
capitalism, support for the two-party system, a degree of racism, 
patriotism, etc.). This unorganized discontent has led to a shift in the 
union hierarchy, a move towards a more liberal, more active bureaucratic 
group under the leadership of John Sweeney. The new leaders are worried 
about membership loss (bureaucrats who can't even maintain their dues 
base are quite pathetic). They have managed to connect with university 
activists (especially on wealthier campuses) to oppose sweatshop labor 
both inside and outside the US, and to incorporate environmentalism.

But a conscious movement of worker radicals will develop, against union 
officials (not the unions themselves) and also against capitalists and 
the State. It is important that the most radical, most militant 
activists connect with each other as the core of a broader counter-work. 
Union officials, even the most honest and upright among them, are a 
segment within workers' organizations that represents the interests of 
the capitalist class.

More precisely, union bureaucracy acts as a balance between workers and 
capitalists. It needs to achieve something for the workers (otherwise 
they lose their jobs), but to do so it tries to keep class conflict 
within limits. Anarchists must constantly challenge union officials and 
critique their actions from below. While cooperating with others on 
specific issues as much as possible, anarchists must also clearly state 
that their program is different from others. This program advocates for 
the complete self-organization of society. If anarchist militants 
clearly articulate their program, they are rarely elected to union 
offices outside the lowest level of workplace representation or factory 
committees. Anarchist militant workers competing with a radical program 
can only overthrow the top-level reformist union boss during periods of 
upheaval and tension when ordinary, traditionally minded workers take 
their full program seriously.

While it is impossible to lay out a complete program here for all 
recognized and unrecognized unions, some principles can be suggested. 
These general principles include militancy, the democratization of 
unions and the workplace, and solidarity.

Fighting involves being prepared for civil disobedience (breaking the 
law) when necessary. It is no coincidence that many of labor's most 
effective tactics are either prohibited by law or rejected by the 
courts. Even simple strikes are illegal for almost all public sector 
workers and are frequently prohibited by court order for many other 
workers. Even if a strike is permitted, an informational picket line may 
be allowed, but a mass picket line to prevent strikebreakers from 
entering is illegal. A fighting union may demand a boycott of the 
bosses' products, but organizing other workers to refuse to transport or 
process the products, or to refuse to bring in the necessary goods for 
the products, is illegal. These are "secondary" or "solidarity" strikes 
and harm other bosses (as if capitalists didn't support each other in a 
strike situation). Between contract negotiations, local grievances in a 
particular department should be handled through grievance arbitration, 
not through mini-strikes or actual strikes. Strikers can surround a 
factory with a picket line, but they shouldn't occupy the factory, as 
this would infringe on the owners' private property rights. As if the 
major industrial unions weren't founded in the 1930s precisely through 
sit-ins like this!

Workplace occupations are particularly effective because they prevent 
strike breakers from being brought in, block the use or even removal of 
machinery or offices, and limit violence due to the capitalists' 
reluctance to damage their mechanical property.

Therefore, opponents of authority should encourage tactics such as 
public sector strikes, mass strike lines, solidarity strikes, and 
especially factory occupations. None of these should, of course, be 
taken lightly. They require careful preparation beforehand to confront 
the state and employers with the greatest possible show of force.

Discussing solidarity strikes already raises the issue of solidarity. 
The willingness of all workers in a factory, an industry, or a city to 
stand together is the greatest strength of the working class. This is a 
counterbalance to the working class's main weakness: its 
divisions-racist, gender-based, occupational, etc. "Hurt to one is harm 
to all" should become the workers' slogan. Workers (as workers) should 
also support the struggles of all oppressed peoples and win the support 
of every community. This includes opposing all racist practices within 
the workplace, including, for example, support for "super-seniority" 
(affirmative action) for the advancement of Black workers, and opposing 
all racism outside the workplace. Unions facing multinational 
corporations need to organize internationally and be prepared to strike 
internationally.

A particularly powerful tactic is a general strike. If most of the 
workers in a city (or region) go on strike simultaneously, capitalists 
are severely weakened. Workers can decide what is allowed to continue 
operating (perhaps firefighters, food for shelters, or hospitals for 
emergencies. This does not include police unions, because while police 
are "public employees," they are not workers and will be used against 
workers. They should be replaced by worker and community patrols!). 
Enforcing court orders or strike ban laws would be very difficult, if 
not impossible. With public transport stopped, bridges removed, 
telephones down, and truck deliveries interrupted, middle-class 
white-collar workers would compromise with the organized working class. 
Computers could be shut down, and electricity could be cut off, all due 
to the influence of entry-level white-collar workers.

Such militant and unified tactics as workplace occupations and general 
strikes are potentially revolutionary. They raise the possibility that 
workers can not only effectively halt production but also restart it 
under their own control. Workers in an occupied factory might decide to 
restart it by producing useful things that people need, but first they 
need to negotiate with other factories to procure the necessary 
materials for their factory, and then organize the distribution of the 
product. In a general strike combined with factory occupations, workers 
can decide how to govern the entire city or region economically and 
politically. This could be the beginning of a revolution.

For these reasons, the capitalist class and the State have never 
accepted mass strikes, factory occupations, or general strikes 
peacefully. They would attack with the police, the National Guard, and 
private company police. All of these have been used repeatedly in US 
history. Workers must be prepared to defend themselves in an organized 
and effective way. This would be the beginning of a people's militia.

All this raises the issue of democratic organization. General strikes 
and international strikes will require a certain increase in 
centralization within unions, which must be balanced by increased local 
democratization. No strike should be undertaken without careful planning 
and organization (de facto sectoral strikes that can occur spontaneously 
might be a possible exception). If we are discussing potentially taking 
over factories and cities, we are thinking about a great deal of 
organization. Anarchists should want the democratization of both unions 
and industry.

Anarchists should demand democratic control of union branches and 
national (or international) unions, with all officials elected directly 
instead of being appointed from above. They should demand an end to the 
one-party system where union opposition is, at best, excluded from 
political life in the unions' internal publications, and at worst, faces 
violent suppression. They should demand rotational leadership (a 
different president every year or at some point, as is often the case in 
the professional organizations of doctors or psychologists). During 
strikes and even negotiations, they should advocate for the election of 
workers' councils in each workplace, with local decision-making 
authority and communication between councils. All agreements should be 
voted on by membership. If the union bureaucracy does not accept such 
democratic ideas, workers should still continue to elect local councils, 
support the rights of opposition members, elect local officials, etc.

Union bureaucrats and employers often negotiate long-term contracts, 
sometimes lasting several years, that include strike bans. The union 
then serves to impose workplace conditions on the workers. It would be a 
mistake to revert to the historical IWW opposition to all contracts; 
contracts can record gains for workers. Instead, militants should insist 
on annual contracts that include the right to strike based on local 
conditions. When employers drag negotiations beyond the expiration of 
the contract, radical workers insist, "No contract, no work." Contract 
negotiations should be seen not as customary, functioning agreements, 
but as campaigns in which workers are mobilized.

The specific issues on which unions organize or strikes are called will 
depend on the conditions in each workplace and each sector. There is no 
magic formula (like a Trotskyist "transitional program" or a Maoist 
"mass line") for shifting from the concrete needs of ordinary people to 
revolutionary demands. We simply have to keep working on it.

Of course, anarchists should be in favor of higher wages, better 
benefits, and shorter working hours. In principle, they demand a sliding 
scale of wages and working hours. That is, as inflation increases, wages 
should automatically increase as well. Furthermore, as unemployment 
increases, working hours should decrease without loss of wages. This is, 
in principle, the basis of a socialist economy: dividing the required 
amount of work by the number of available workers. This is a demand on 
the entire society, including the state, for public jobs for the unemployed.

But opponents of authority must also raise demands that imply worker 
control: demands about working conditions and quality of life. These 
demands challenge management's right to decide as it pleases about the 
working lives of its employees. They raise the question of how people 
are forced to work and how they could work differently, in a more humane 
way. Issues include assembly line speed, health and safety on the 
workshop floor, toilet breaks, the number of supervisors nearby, and 
even demands for better products (safer, longer-lasting, less polluting, 
cheaper). The peace movement has proposed working with arms 
manufacturers and their unions to plan a transition to peacetime 
production. This can be generalized; unions can work with public groups 
to plan a transition to a peacetime, non-polluting, "post-industrial" 
economy.

In this respect, unions of "professionals" (teachers, nurses, or 
librarians) are the complete opposite of most blue-collar workers. 
Blue-collar workers feel it's right to negotiate wages, but they 
generally accept that working conditions are "management's prerogative." 
But "professionals" are often uncomfortable demanding higher wages, yet 
they feel it's right to demand more control over "working conditions" 
(smaller class sizes, control over textbooks, a better nurse-to-patient 
ratio, etc.). Consider the American Federation of Teachers' slogan: 
"Teachers demand what students need." Why not "Steelworkers demand what 
society needs"?

The demand for worker control in industry does not mean endorsing 
management's various "equality circle" or "team" approaches. These are 
methods for workers and management to "work together." They deny the 
existence of a conflict of interest between workers and bosses. 
Activists should join these "teams" to show other workers that they are 
tools to increase exploitation.

Instead, we could advocate for a collective contract. Instead of 
capitalists hiring individuals, perhaps a union recruitment hall would 
hire a "team" or group. The bosses would provide the capital, machinery, 
and raw materials, as well as a target number of cars or parts to be 
produced. The workers would divide tasks among themselves and set their 
work schedules. The group could include technical experts, or experts 
(not the bosses) could be provided by management. The workers would 
elect their "supervisors" (coordinators) and discipline themselves. 
Unlike "team" approaches, there are no management supervisors on the 
workshop floor. Finally, the capitalists would pay the group a lump sum, 
and the workers would divide this payment among themselves according to 
whatever scale they agree upon.

Such methods have actually been used from time to time (for example, 
among car workers in Coventry, England), and elements of it, such as the 
union recruiting hall, have also been used in the US. In theory, it is 
not incompatible with capitalism and would increase productivity, but it 
is difficult to imagine capitalists adopting it widely. Collective 
bargaining directly exposes the superfluous role of capitalist 
management. Who needs them? That is precisely why anarchist workers 
should publicize this idea and demand steps in this direction (such as 
the election of foremen or the grassroots security committee, the 
location of factories, decisions on opening or closing factories, the 
type or price of products).

Questions arise as to whether anarchists should make demands on the 
State. Anarchists do not believe that the solution to capitalism's 
problems is for the capitalist State to take over the economy, and 
history has supported this view. But what if unions campaigned for 
public jobs for the unemployed or for public ownership of certain 
sectors (such as the Tennessee Valley Authority or the British coal 
industry)? In recent years, there has been an ongoing struggle over 
"privatization." The right wing has advocated selling off (privatizing) 
government-run services such as schools, transportation, sanitation, 
maintenance, and postal services. This is presented as a way to increase 
"efficiency." Since there is no magic alternative to teaching in schools 
or cleaning the streets, the only way for a private company to become 
more "efficient" is to cut workers' wages and increase their workloads.

Anarchists should oppose privatization and make demands on the State. 
The State claims to represent society. People should demand that it 
fulfill this claim. If it fails to do so, its true nature will be 
revealed: a bureaucratic-military agent of an oppressive minority, the 
capitalist class, and other oppressors. Anarchists should explain why 
workers should not trust the State, but they should also support the 
anti-privatization movement as a struggle to defend society and workers' 
rights.

Most workers in the U.S. do not support proposals for government 
takeovers of new industries, even in areas where it might make sense. 
The argument that public ownership is inefficient is largely accepted by 
U.S. workers. But they might accept the idea of taking industry away 
from the rich and powerful (through expropriation) and having it 
democratically managed by workers and local communities. There have been 
a number of instances where failed local industries have been taken 
over, or attempts have been made to take them over, by unions, local 
workers, or local communities. These efforts, in contrast to calls for 
nationalization, have generally received a great deal of public support.

Wherever possible, anarchists should promote non-state programs. For 
example, it is correct to support "single-payer" healthcare programs, 
often interpreted as government-run healthcare ("socialized medicine"). 
But anarchists could also call for healthcare run by a national 
federation of health consumer cooperatives (perhaps with state 
subsidies). Local health centers could be democratically managed by 
patients (everyone) and medical staff.

The issue of the state also arises when considering trade union 
democracy. Faced with a deeply entrenched trade union bureaucracy, 
liberal opponents have frequently resorted to the courts or government 
agencies to try to enforce democratic rights. Generally, these attempts 
have been fruitless. The government does not like to interfere with 
established trade union officials, and when it does, it acts with such 
bias and moves at such icy speed that very little is achieved.

However, there have been instances where the lack of democracy was so 
extreme and the political climate so favorable that the State intervened 
in union struggles to promote democratization. A well-known example 
occurred in 1972 when the State intervened in the United Mine Workers. 
The incumbent president, Tony Boyle, had his opponent, along with his 
family members, murdered shortly after the 1969 election. As a result of 
the government's oversight of the union election, Arnold Miller, leader 
of the reform group Miners for Democracy, became president.

Similarly, in the 1990s, the government leveled charges of racketeering 
against Teamsters union officials and decided to oversee the elections. 
Ron Carey, an upright reformer, was elected with the support of the 
Teamsters for a Democratic Union reform group.

It is a mistake to demand or support state intervention in trade unions. 
Despite its apparent advantages, this means allowing an agent of the 
ruling class to make internal decisions about workers' organizations. 
Trade union bureaucracy is also an agent of the capitalist class and the 
State, but the union is still one of the few organizations "owned" by 
the workers. Their aim should be to get rid of bureaucracy, not to 
increase state intervention. Instead of relying on reformist labor 
lawyers, grassroots organizations should be established to fight 
bureaucracy.

If the State intervenes, anarchists need to decide how to engage with 
union reformers. Whether the reformers are willing to use State 
intervention is one issue, but not the only one (given that the 
bureaucracy in power is also an agent of the capitalists). Often, we can 
support the opposition to open up the union and make room for more 
militancy and democracy, which should have been done in the 
aforementioned miners' and Teamsters' elections. But anarchists must 
warn the reformers about the limitations of their program (including, 
among other limitations, their support for the State).

The danger of trusting the state was demonstrated in the Teamsters 
Union. After helping Carey get elected, the government election auditor 
barred him from running in the next national election, despite him being 
arguably the most popular candidate. The pretext was that he had used 
some financial trickery to help him get re-elected-unpleasant but not 
uncommon in unions. This ensured the election of James Hoffa Jr., the 
candidate of the conservative bureaucracy. It was seen that the state 
could give with one hand and take back with the same hand.

In conclusion, from their inception, trade unions have had two potential 
directions. One is to integrate a minority of the working class into the 
capitalist system. This involves building a heavily bureaucratic class 
that profits from workers' struggles and collaborates with the ruling 
class to maintain social stability. In return, they obtain a certain 
degree of better job security and a better standard of living for their 
members, even within the confines of an oppressive society. However, 
employers see these labor unions, at best, as necessary evils to be 
crushed when times get tough. Workers' gains must be reversed whenever 
possible. We now see that unions are subjected to precisely such 
attacks, repeatedly defeated.

On the other hand, unions can also be seen as examples of the 
self-organization of the working class. They are potentially powerful 
weapons for workers. Even for workers who have never read a word of 
anarchism or Marxism, unions have political significance. The formation 
of unions implies that capitalists and workers have different and 
conflicting interests. Their existence implies that individuals cannot 
do this alone, by making personal deals with the boss, but must 
cooperate, stand in solidarity. Unions are certainly not the only form 
of popular resistance. They are not necessarily revolutionary either. 
But they will play a major role in the North American revolution. And if 
they don't, there will be no revolution.

https://www.yeryuzupostasi.org/2026/08/14/anarsist-bir-emek-programi-wayne-price/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en