The counter-revolutionary contents of certain syndicalist

practices and workers pride

10:42 am at Thursday, October 4th, 2012, by Monet Armes (translated into English by Roubin
Brune).

Anarcho-communist publication against wage labour

What does it mean to be from the working class? Lets put that question aside, for we already
know how its usually defined; well say that this refers to being proletarian; but what this essay
asks iswhat is the objective point of defining oneself as such with an overt, manifest pride?
Under an objective view, and if we check previous historical-materialist analysis, it is evident that
this is similar, or even identical to something like slave pride. To be exact: wage slave pride.
But moving past that affirmation, which in itself results pretty stunning regarding its reactionary
content, lets look beyond; which is the role the slave is so proud of fulfilling?
It could be -in a romantic sense- the Marxist duty of revolution, on one handbut this doesnt even
appear often. On the contrary, if this were the reason, they should be very mad about their place in
society, and unsatisfied, not proud.
In order to have this identity reaffirmation, it must be a positive identity; in other words, the
justification of the role of slavery. And which role is that? Evidently, the productive role, that of
workingin this system.
So, in the wage workers glorification as such as a role, not as an emancipatory subject-, there is,
hidden, such works glorification; and behind it, nothing less than the acceptance of the system that
encourages it, as a valid perspective.
Going into the historical aspects, this was done frequently by fascists; well take argentine
Peronism, an ideologically fascist variation (personalist, militarist, statist, corporativist, syndicalist,
populist, anti-intellectualist, anti-Marxist) as an example: the worker has to be proud of working
and working as much as possible under this system. The state and government are his/her biggest
allies. The chief or leader is an ambiguous variable: it can be good or bad.
Similar things were seen in Nazi Germany and fascist Italy, as well as in Spain under Francos rule:
The glorification of work as an end-in-itself, the role of wage workers as something valuable in
itself, and the pride of working under the system. The only, verticalist union, commanded from
above, and takes orders directly from state-corporate power.
These are the basic traits of the counter-revolutionary culture of workers pride: The conversion
and integration of the unsatisfied working class, with revolutionary potentialinto an active and
participatory working class inserted in society. But this doesnt apply only to fascism; its a cultural
trait that had been present particularly since the 1930 crisis, and invaded all syndicalist ways of
organization more and more until the 1970s.

Its not surprising that unions didnt play any revolutionary part during that times struggles, in
which the only really- revolutionary groups (who performed acts of revolution, not mere speech),
to this day, are guerrillas, and not armed unions or similar, who dont take part in revolutionary
struggle since the 1940s or before.
What is the purpose of this? The main point was already made clear, but not all its historical
variations and presence:
When real socialism came to exist, many people familiar with the theory had hopes of the
revolution being globally successful in order to arrive, later, to full communism, which means the
abolition of work, etc. But after the spartacist uprising in Germany, the USSR had to face an
extended period of geographical isolation, in which it would have to face the capitalist world. How
could it do such thing if its population waited for full communism to come? The USSR wouldnt
make the disciplinary effort and vital, necessary sacrifices to defend socialism or at least the
Communist Partys power over the organization of society-, at that point.
Instead, to solve the problem, a small trick was done: the proper Marxist view of wage labour as
degrading was replaced with a maquiavellic, quite right-wing distortion: work dignifies (those who
do it with love). Hard work purifies the spirit, etc., etc. To be fair, this was originally seen as applied
only to this new, socialist, collective, boss-free work. It was focused on the subject it had to- in
order for him/her to work more for the socialist country, for him/her to see it as something epic,
amazing and uplifting: an expansion of class to an old type of nationalism. A doctrine of class
nationalism (proletarian country, etc.).
But since the working class existed and kept existing as purely subordinated in all other
countries, the cultural spread through communist movements of those countries, which saw in the
USSR and the October Revolution an example to follow, was imminent. Then, the glorification of
socialist labour by socialist workers in socialism was confused and mixed with the
glorification and pride of being from the socialist working class in a global context, and therefore,
resulted in being proud of being a socialist worker and workingin a capitalist country, with a
capitalist job for capitalists.
Also, lets take a look at the role of trade unions: they would be in charge of spreading this notion of
working class pride, this worker nationalism. It was mixed with, and replaced, the true
classist line of thought:
The dominated subject as provider of society and true support of it, is the one who had the
capacity of subverting it and making it disappear, plus the capacity of liberation and the benefit and
duty of fulfilling it; and so, the subject had the power, due to its previous capacity, of later
reshaping society into a new form according to its interests.
Instead of that, it would become something like this:
Labour was the wealth generator and the true substance and base of the economy, so the worker
was the one who should be most proud of what he/she did, since it was societys base. Its his/her
duty and pride to support society with labour, and he/she should be fairly rewarded and respected
for that, too.
Therefore, though premises in both cases are similar, conclusions are very different: In the first

case, wage labour is a chain, something to loathe and to get rid of, pure oppression at service of
external interests, which reduce the worker into a passive, submissive role. In the second one,
labour is a valuable good, a power, even a privilege, and a heavy factor in the negotiation table.
Why does this have to do so much with syndicalism?
Exactly because of this: The union is the weapon that organizes workers, that manifests which
qualities this work has. It is the organ of the work culture, orof the cultural aspects of wage
labour, if one prefers. Also, its in charge of negotiations regarding the place of work and of workers
within the same capitalist society; its in charge of integrating them in politics and of expressing its
place in the economic equilibrium and in relations of production.
In other words, in so far as the existence of unions depends on the existence of wage labour, and on
its workers membership, and on the capacity for negotiation with employers and the statea trade
union is an evidently inherent organ of capitalism.

It is also a part of this, the talking about social justice: that workers get what they deserve for
their job, according to criteria that is impossible to define more than the convenience of the system
and its stability. True social justice would be the control of production and of products, but this is
always far beyond this speech: it only involves pragmatic benefits, taxes and relative wages.
Everything else is seen as legitimate, eternal and even justifiable: nothing is criticized, neither class
society nor the role of bosses and the state, etc. This is nothing less than workers pride and work
culture.
Union leaders are always in charge of integrating and doing this: they become leaders due to them
being the most pragmatic and conciliators at heart, since in order to perform their necessary
functions, they must be accepted not only by fellow proletarians, but by the state and the
corporations theyll necessarily have to deal with. Its partisan legitimacy is only a myth, a cultural
construct: theyll never act according to their supposed interests, just like any elected politician in
bourgeois democracy. Theyll never be just another worker; other than personal bribes and
administrative salaries, theyll even win commissions, fame, political power, etc.
Not even anarchist unions like the CNT could avoid this. And even if their elected leader was
simply elected to be a spokesperson, such people often spoke to the media as if they had
previously decided everything personally, and gave personal positions never discussed as if it were
the whole unions positions. There is a certain phrase that, again, history demonstrated it is totally
true: Not only power corrupts, but to begin with, power is attractive to corrupt people.
Speaking of the CNT and Spain, during the transition from Francos fascist rule to liberal
democracy, trade unions, including the betrayed majority of the CNT, made pacts with the state
that made them directly supported financially by it; clearly under lots of conditions. This happens in
many countries. And like anything whose money is controlled from above, those who control the
money control the limits of the organizationit wouldnt be its members, but the state itself, the
one who sets the conditions in order to receive this money, and therefore, since the union leaders
would depend on it, they would never cross certain lines regarding what is acceptable and whats
not. But here comes another question: How to disguise this for the rest of the members?

Well, there is a very simple strategy employed by leaders in many worker spaces that are
integrated or have a left-wing appearance. Purely financial demands, and of control of money to the
state and corporations; of statist expansion, the marketing strategy implies telling that unions won
against the state; its actually the opposite: the state gives them money to control them. Its a simple
give and take fight, a typically syndical negotiation (even guild, some say) for money.
Actually, this pseudo-left-wing syndicalism ends up being a statist branch of capitalism that fights
for a bigger piece of the productive cake for itself, but that never criticizes productive relations
themselves, nor control, nor power, nor institutions; otherwise, it wouldnt be able to participate and
negotiate with them. In other words, it only fights for a place of bigger dominance or for its
members better status within the same society (which is quite enormous in itself) and it is totally
unable to attack it and build new organizations. The last expressions of revolutionary vanguard of
capitalism were many decades ago, and syndicalist structures were clearly collaborationists with
power and the dominant system, in every recent revolutionary attempt until today; plus, it is
remarkable the almost absolute lack of solidarity with other struggles that arent within the realm of
wage (e.g. student movements, sexual or racial minorities, cultural struggles, etc.), and it doesnt
offer resistance to any authoritarianism unless it directly involves the economic aspect that affects
them.
Vigorously opposed to self-management and occupation, unmovable annoyance in all radicalized
struggles, strongly bureaucratic and legalist, subject to permissions, law, parliamentary and partisan
politics, deeply absorbed in their role as middlemen between living and dead capital, necessary oil
for the mechanisms of industrial mercantilism to function successfullycontemporary trade unions
are everything except revolutionary; in fact, theyre quite the opposite.
In other words, and to wrap things up, syndical structures and their work culture (a construct even
used by Menem during his campaign, and to this day, a concept notably used by the right-wing,
typically associated with saying hey slackers, go to work; and even accepted by Trotskyite
workers who believe that the only valid struggle and the only members worth having are active
wage workers putting them near the background of a reactionary cultural ideology) is totally
integrated and its not only functional to the system in an external sense, but it is an integral and
indivisible part of the balance of forces that allows for the stability of its functions. Thesis and
antithesis lead to a synthesis of capitalism where the antagonism of powers is not a fight for
structure, but for the mere fluid proportion of money and power that every guild has for itself; all
inseparable gears of the social, economic and cultural machinery of a rigid and unfair system that
doesnt change and is damaging for individuals, their dignity, aspirations and liberties.
A collaboration that has to be denounced and broken, as a previous and necessary step to think and
build a new society.

Menems campaign was based on promoting work culture, similar to fascists and many other
neoliberals discoursesbut also adopted by self-proclaimed left-wing groups.

Kirchnerism in 2007: Work culture, or work as culture. Organized by the National Secretary of
Culture and the Secretary of Industry, Trade and Pymes, of the Ministry of Economy and
Production, the seminary was done on Friday, 1st of June; in the picture is Carlos Tomada, minister
of Labour participating in the end.

Hugo Moyano, former member of the extreme-right-wing paramilitary federation Alianza

Anticomunista Argentina (AAA), today is a union leader of the CGT in Argentina. He considers
that businessmen and employers are workers, too; and also, that policemen and similar members
of the states repressive apparatus are workers like anyone else. Peronism is productionist and
affirms that work dignifies

Common inscription and slogan in Nazi Germanys concentration camps, the text reads WORK
LIBERATES.

French proletarians descending in a coal mine. For some reason, they dont look very proud.

Despite recognizing the revolutionary potential of the working classunlike the real socialism
culture, Marx saw wage labour as a systemic, degrading fact and had to be abolished, as opposed to
a dignifying activity that should be glorified.

Contact:
RedLiberacion@hotmail.com
Search Red Liberacin Social on Facebook
+ Neniu Astro

OTHER TEXTS:

Prelude to the Synthesist-Universalist Manifesto.

Causes of the Collapse of Capitalism and Things to do for the Revolution
Individualism and Collectivism in Contrasting Systems
Against Self-Denial
Foundations