(The following article is from the September 1-15, 2008, issue of People's Voice, Canada's leading communist newspaper. Articles can be reprinted free if the source is credited. Subscription rates in Canada: $25/year, or $12 low income rate; for U.S. readers - $25 US per year; other overseas readers - $25 US or $35 CDN per year. Send to: People's Voice, c/o PV Business Manager, 133 Herkimer St., Unit 502, Hamilton, ON, L8P 2H3.)

By Sam Hammond, Chair of the Central Trade Union Commission, Communist Party of Canada

It has been almost eighty years since the "Dirty Thirties" witnessed the second industrial rumblings of the North American working class. The first great upsurge was in the period of the U.S. civil war, when militant industrial workers were decimated on the battlefields. The life and death struggle against slavery by the northern industrial proletariat went beyond the plans of the northern capitalists; it was a war within a war, an army within an army, the roots of American industrial organization.

     This reared its head again in the 1930s, when workers in the United States and Canada stepped up their organizing, such as the unemployed struggles in the work camps and the On To Ottawa Trek, and the fights for unemployed benefits and relief payments. These were built squarely on the earlier experiences of the "eight hour struggle" and the dissatisfaction that rippled through the working class for a couple of generations, giving us international May Day. The Russian revolution that created the first working class state in history was the primary international factor that gave tremendous impetus to the movements for social, national and class justice that were fermenting in every corner of the globe.

     Meanwhile, the American Federation of Labour had declined to a craft-based, generally business model organization, led by "labour statesmen" who patronized their members and manipulated their way through politics and closed door bargaining. This required that democracy and dissent be held in tight check, and it also required some compliance from the employers so they could "deliver the goods" from time to time. The employers were well aware of the difference between a Eugene Debs and a Samuel Gompers.

     But why rehash all this ancient history? Because it led to a virtual explosion of conflict that split the AFL and gave birth to the Committee of Industrial Organization, the CIO. Before the industrial workers could organize on a sector basis instead of a narrow craft basis, they had to remove the obstacles of class collaboration and accommodation that characterized the craft unions of the AFL. This fermentation and struggle was paralleled in Canada, for the same reasons. In Québec it was expressed with the national traditions and militancy of the Québecois, but the same root class causes.

     Today, at Labour Conventions, on labour internet blogs, in newly formed caucuses and in left publications (including this paper) the concept of "labour power" is being debated again. This is a good development and the debate/discussion should be expanded.

     Like any discussion that is developing and ongoing, it has already developed its right and left positions. However, these have not yet crystallized into obstacles, and that is good.

     Some workers and trade unionists pose the question "how do we put the movement back into labour?" We must go back in time to find the answers. Even the questions require re-phrasing. It would be more productive to ask "how did we lose the movement in labour?" If we can identify the forces and ideology that gave away, suppressed, sold and destroyed the "movement," then we will be miles ahead in opposing these dangers and better able to see what is required for regeneration.

     Industrial organization in the post-war period had many characteristics. But the most important by far was the rank and file nature which made it a movement. The motive force was mass involvement of militant activists, who had democratic structures to select and propel leadership. The entire working class was a pool of activism, debate and struggle to draw upon. Entire communities and thousand of workers not directly involved lined up in solidarity with workers in a given plant, in a given conflict.

     That is a movement, and today more than ever it is a prerequisite  for success. This is the antithesis of business unionism with its copy-cat corporate structure. It is class struggle and solidarity, unity of membership and leadership, and a dedication to the entire working class, every man, woman and child who does not live off the exploitation of labour.

     Business Trade Unionism and labour statesmen, male or female, do not have this vision. Theirs is a vision of developing the organization as a supplier of sustenance for leadership, or a purely economic institution devoted to its own continuity, protected from anything that might diminish it economically.

     Workers who might not earn enough to pay adequate dues are not welcome, because they could be a drain on the organization. It would cost more to service them than they bring in: balance sheet mentality.

     Membership in the working class is not a universal qualifier for membership in these unions. The current trend in business-style unionism is expressed not in organizing, but in mergers and consolidation, in the creation of membership units so vast and geographically spread out that they can never meet and have democracy, elect leadership or critique policy. These issues are handled by leadership and challenge is not tolerated.

     In the newly created, corporate-wide CAW Magna local, the corporation even has a hand in the selection of leadership; the other hand of selection is the top CAW leadership.

     There is nothing new or unique about this, it is lack of democracy, period. Militant confrontation against the exploiters, the employers, is replaced by accommodation expressed in odious deals like "neutrality agreements." Leaders of some large unions talk openly of "selling" agreements to the membership, and if that doesn't work, they sometimes rehash the agreement until sooner or later they get a slim majority.

     The key to getting the "movement" back into labour is rank and file trade unionism. We need to consolidate the unity of membership and leadership, and the instrument is democracy, involvement of the rank and file and a rededication to the needs of the entire working class. That is a movement. That is what ultimately leads to "Labour Power".

     Solidarity with all this 2008 Labour Day!