Chairperson, Committee on Industrial Classification
Revolutionary industrial unionism is not a doctrine or a philosophy. It is a practical program and a structure derived from the objective conditions and experience of the working class. Its theories, like those of science, are based on observation and experimentation, rather than on “eternal truths” such as “justice”, “natural right”, or “morality”.*)
The fundamental theories on which industrial unionism is built are Karl Marx’s theories of historical materialism and surplus value. Unlike the doctrinaire schools of political Marxism, however, industrial unionists do not treat these theories as dogma, the unchanging basis for all thought and action. Rather, we regard them as theories–guides for experimentation and prediction, but always subject to disproof and revision. In fact, it’s not even necessary to accept these theories to be a good industrial unionist. They are nevertheless the theoretical basis for industrial unionism’s practical program.
The theory of historical materialism holds that human history is driven, not by supernatural forces or by the ideas or conscious wishes of individuals, but by the processes and social relationships by which we produce the necessaries of life, and the resulting struggles of different social classes to improve and control their economic lives; and that, in a society based on class, the ruling ideas and institutions of any society–laws, politics, religion, morals, etc.–are governed by the material interests of the class that controls the means of production.
The theory of surplus value holds that all value is created by human labor; that, in a capitalist society, the owners of capital buy human labor power at its full price as a commodity on the market, but extract more value from it than they paid for it; and that the accumulation of this stolen surplus over time is the source of new capital. The accumulation of capital, in turn, reproduces the fundamental relationship between the capitalist, who owns the means of production, and the worker, who owns only her labor power, which she must sell to the capitalist for wages in order to survive.
From the application of these theories to history, we conclude that society evolves as its processes of production develop, that ruling ideas and institutions, and the corresponding social relationships, which are suitable to one state of society may outlive their usefulness to society; and that the resistance of a subordinate class to the outdated ideas and institutions of the ruling class is able to push society into a new and more beneficial form, more in keeping with the current processes of production. This “push”, in whatever form it may take, we call revolution.
Industrial unionists conclude, further, that the liberation of the working class must be achieved by the workers ourselves, by abolishing the wage system and establishing economic democracy: not through the good will of enlightened politicians or members of the ruling class, and not through reforms achieved by working within the capitalist system.
Industrial unionists seek the abolition of the wage system, not because capitalism is “bad” or “unjust” by some eternal moral standard, but because we find that a society is peaceful and healthy to the extent that its people are able to control their economic lives. The exploitation of one class by another creates misery and conflict, which can be ended only by the abolition of classes altogether. This can be done only through the abolition of private (or government) ownership in the means of production, placing the control of those means in the hands of the workers who operate them. The abolition of class rule, and the establishment of a society based on universal labor and common ownership of productive resources and machinery, is the fundamental goal of revolutionary industrial unionism.
This goal, however, cannot be accomplished without disciplined struggle by an organization comprising the whole, or an overwhelming majority, of the international working class. Discipline and solidarity will not grow out of words or thoughts alone. They must be forged in the concrete struggle for immediate improvements in wages, hours, and working conditions.
It is this day-to-day struggle, rather than idealistic preaching, that has proved most successful in attracting workers to the industrial-unionist cause. Thus, the accomplishment of our ultimate goal absolutely depends on our ability to deliver the goods here and now in the form of higher wages, shorter hours, and better conditions of work.
 |
The basic structural unit of industrial unionism is the shop or job branch, in which workers in a given workplace are organized to carry on the struggle to improve their situation through economic direct action. A job branch includes all workers in a given enterprise– factory, store, mine, building site, etc. In a large operation, the job branch may be divided up by department, like the enterprise itself, but the branch remains the basic unit.
In any district where a given industry operates more than one workplace, or where workers for a large enterprise are organized into several job branches, the job branches are united in an Industrial Union Branch, which may consist of the full membership of all local job branches in the industry, or of delegates elected by each job branch. On the other hand, if a single job branch is large enough, or is the only one for that industry in the district, it may constitute an Industrial Union Branch all by itself.
A single branch, however, is limited both in strength and in the scope of the improvements it can make. To overcome these limits, all of the branches in a given industry unite in an Industrial Union, which combines the economic power of many workers in many localities.
It’s important to observe that, while job branches and IUBs are organized by geography, Industrial Unions are organized by industry.*) This has a very practical reason: bookstore workers in Cleveland can’t add much to the economic power of plumbers in Cleveland; but they can strengthen printing plant workers in Taipei very effectively if they keep struck goods from reaching consumers.
In addition, a geographically based organization would give certain industries overwhelming local majorities in union affairs–such as auto workers in Michigan, or coal workers in Alberta–while at the same time cheating workers from less populous districts of representation.
Capitalist democracy is organized geographically because it is based on the rights of property, and especially of land. Industrial democracy is organized around industry because it is based on the requirements of the production process.
The IUs exist for three broad purposes: first, to group together workers who have the most in common and can add the most to one another’s economic power; second, to enable the union to operate efficiently in its struggle against capital, as the division of an army into units promotes its efficiency on the battlefield; and third, to disperse power and resources away from the General Administration, while spreading the burdens of administration among many organs accountable to specific constituencies as well as to the union as a whole.
Thus the Industrial Unions do not separate workers, but unite them in the way that best promotes efficiency and democracy in the union’s internal administration, and effectiveness in the class struggle.
Industrial Departments weld together the most-closely related IUs, co-ordinating their objectives and activities, adjusting jurisdictional conflicts, and so forth. The I. W. W. has never yet been big enough to require departmental administrations, so there is no practical experience in our history to draw on. Any description of Industrial Departments at this point must therefore be somewhat speculative.
In some sectors, most notably transportation, traditional divisions between industries are rapidly being eliminated. In such sectors, workers may choose to handle most of their business on the departmental level. In others, where the distinction between one industry and another remains fairly clear, workers will most likely emphasize their IUs, and the departmental administration may have relatively little to do.
D. One Big Union: the General OrganizationIndustry as a whole is not divided into discrete sections which can operate independently of one another: rather, industry is a complex web of relationships extending in all directions and on many levels. In a technologically advanced society, no particular industry can function without the goods and services supplied by all other industries. Moreover, in a capitalist economy, one corporation or big stockholder may control enterprises in many different industries.
For these reasons, Industrial Unions cannot ultimately be effective as distinct and autonomous entities. They must be united in a single, universal organization, which can co-ordinate relations among the various IUs and unite all workers on the basis of class. This is the General Organization, or “One Big Union”, of which the individual Industrial Unions are really only administrative and tactical divisions.
This is a very important point, and neglect of this principle in the past has created unnecessary strife within the I. W. W. To the extent that Industrial Unions try to operate autonomously, as the business unions of the A. F. of L. do, they are liable to come into conflict over jurisdiction, revenue, policy, etc. On the other hand, without the IUs, the I. W. W. would be a mass organization like the old Knights of Labor, which experience has shown to be as unwieldy and inefficient as a mob. The IU structure is a balance between these extremes.
Every worker has an interest, not only in how her or his own industry is operated, but in the governance of all other industries as well. What happens in one industry usually affects all other industries, to one degree or another. And all workers are also consumers, with an interest in how the products they rely on are produced and distributed. Through the General Organization, all workers are able to make their voices heard across industrial lines.
The General Organization also helps preserve democracy by preventing one Industrial Union or Department from exercising disproportionate power over the others. If Industrial Unions were autonomous, one could use its control over an industry or certain resources to exert unfair influence over the other IUs. Through the General Organization, the Industrial Unions can ensure that each fulfills its duties to the others.
In addition, all members of the Industrial Workers of the World are members of the General Organization individually and not just through their membership in an Industrial Union. Their rights within the General Organization are individual rights, which they are free to exercise without direction by their Industrial Unions. This helps preserve democracy within the IUs, because the IU administrations are always subject to the will of the entire membership and the supervision of the General Administration.
One of the most important features of the One Big Union is its flexibility. In addition to the formal structure already outlined, the One Big Union also permits workers to establish other bodies, which may cross industrial lines, in order to cope with particular situations that would otherwise not be directly addressed.
Where there are several branches of the same Industrial Union in one locality, an Industrial District Council of delegates from each branch co-ordinates activities and shared resources among those branches and builds industrial solidarity.
Where branches of two or more different IUs operate in the same district, they appoint a General District Council (sometimes called a "General Industrial District Council") to carry out similar functions among the several IUBs.
But these are only the most common councils in the OBU. Workers are free to create any other type of council that will answer the needs of the hour. For example, there are janitors in virtually every industry, and they are organized not according to their job title but to the industries they work in. However, all janitors may have common concerns, such as the dangers of using harsh chemicals, or disrespect from fellow workers, which may best be tackled through concerted action by all janitors in all industries.
Similarly, retail workers are generally organized with the production workers whose products they distribute. However, the usefulness of a council for all retail workers at a shopping mall is obvious.
Through the inventive use of such councils, workers can respond to the ever-changing challenges of capitalist industry without obliterating industrial lines or merging the One Big Union into a chaotic mass.
In order for workers to organize themselves effectively into Industrial Unions, they must agree on some common system of industrial classification, so that each worker can be united with others in the same industry. Unless that system is developed according to scientific criteria and accurate analysis of industry, workers will not be organized in the most effective way. Two or more IUs might reasonably lay claim to the same set of workers. Their organizations, moreover, will not reflect the capitalist organization of industry, and they will be as ineffective in the class struggle as a football team that puts half its members on the field and half in the parking lot.
At the same time, the classification system must be flexible enough to respond to the changes that are constantly being made in the capitalist organization of industry. Further, no person or committee charged with designing the system can know all there is to know about all industries, so the system can never be more than a guide. It must always be subject to refinement and correction by the workers themselves. Therefore, as you study the CIC’s proposed revisions, it’s important to keep in mind that the industrial classification system isn’t “the law of the Medes and Persians which altereth not”. It is a tool for a certain job, and as the job changes, so must the tool.
We use the word “industry” several ways. Here, we’re speaking both of “industry” as a whole—all of the productive processes put together, by which we get goods and services; and of particular “industries”—the sectors and branches of industry that produce specific kinds of goods and services.
Industries may be defined in many ways, depending on what the classification system is going to be used for. The most common criteria for defining industries are their corporate ownership, the raw materials they use, the products or services they provide, the processes they employ in production, and the markets they serve. Capitalists tend to emphasize ownership and markets, mainly because they are most interested in evaluating stocks and estimating revenues. Government statisticians most often focus on products and processes, because they want to trace economic trends of production, consumption, etc.
Industrial Unionists must take all these criteria into account, but the I. W. W. historically has put products foremost in our classification system. This is mainly because we have found that to be the firmest basis on which to build a powerful labor organization: workers are strongest if the same organization controls a given stream of production from beginning to end, from extraction of resources through delivery to the ultimate consumer. For the I. W. W. there is also the long-term purpose of “building the new society in the shell of the old”: we intend for our organization to carry on production after capitalism has been overthrown, so it makes the most sense for us to structure our Industrial Unions around production instead of financial or other criteria.*)
This emphasis on production doesn’t apply very well to service industries, however, because they don’t produce much in the way of goods. Unless a service enterprise is closely tied to a specific production industry (in which case its workers would line up with the production workers in that industry), grouping workers according to similarity of process doesn’t do much to increase their economic power. Here it makes the most sense to classify industries according to the markets they serve. For instance, telephone answering services, small printing and copying shops, and commercial laundries don’t have much in common in the way they do their work, but all provide their services mainly to other commercial enterprises, so grouping their workers together allows them to combine their economic strength in an effective way.
Finally, we have to remember that industry is a seamless web, not a collection of clearly-divided categories. Sectors overlap one another and branches merge into other branches. In one region, a given enterprise may be considered part of one industry, while somewhere else it’s regarded as part of another, or as a separate industry altogether. There will be cases where it’s not clear which industry a group of workers belongs in, and the industrial classification system must be flexible enough to accommodate such cases.
Broadly speaking, there are three main categories of industry in a modern, capitalist economy: extraction of materials, production of goods, and provision of services.
Extractive industries bring forth the natural products of the land and sea, as well as domesticated crops and animals, reduce them to useable forms, and provide them, for the most part, to other industries for further processing. For example, agriculture produces various plants and animals, which it converts into raw materials suitable for further processing. It then passes those raw materials on to the textile industry, the chemical industry, the foodstuffs industry, etc., to be made into finished products for consumption.
Productive industries make commodities, articles produced for sale on the market. Production can usually be broken down into a number of phases, which vary according to the types of product being handled. These usually include primary processing, such as the making of plastic resins, fibers, or pellets out of chemicals supplied by the petroleum or agriculture industries; component manufacture, such as the moulding of plastic parts; assembly, which puts together parts that may come from a variety of different producers; and distribution, whereby the finished products are made available for sale to consumers.
Service industries perform actions which companies or people find it convenient or economical to pay somebody else to do, rather than doing them themselves. Services usually don’t involve the production of commodities for sale. Special services are tied to another particular industry or group of related industries. Cotton gins, for instance, serve only the branch of the agriculture industry that produces cotton. General services, on the other hand, usually serve more-or-less anybody who can pay for them. Most railroads, for instance, carry freight for whoever can afford the tariff. A partial exception is general distribution service, where enterprises such as department stores compete to distribute the goods of various manufacturers, and manufacturers compete to distribute their goods through preferred enterprises, such as Wal-Mart.
It may seem strange that we focus on classifying enterprises (i.e., individual business operations, such as factories, mines, mills, etc.) rather than workers. After all, we are interested in organizing workers, not workplaces. The point, however, is to organize workers industrially, which requires us to look at the industry they work in, rather than the kind of work they do. Workers may do the same job in many different industries. We have to look at the enterprises that exploit the workers, in the context of the industries they serve, not just the specific functions they perform. For example, a retail store sells products to consumers. Workers in retail stores stock shelves, work cash registers, track inventory, etc. But these functions tell us nothing about the industry a given worker or enterprise is in–they’re common to almost every industry that produces consumer goods. In order to classify the workers properly, we have to look at the products that the store handles. If the store deals mainly in the products of a single industry, such as foodstuffs, the workers in that store are in the foodstuffs industry. If the store sells the products of many different industries, more or less equally, then the store is in the general distribution service industry.
The analysis is similar in other types of enterprise. A factory may produce metal containers, and the workers in that factory may regard themselves as metal workers; but if those containers are used exclusively to package cosmetics, it may make more sense, from an industrial standpoint, to classify that enterprise–and therefore those workers–as part of the cosmetics industry, which is a subdivision of the chemicals industry.
What if the workers at that factory don’t want to be organized as cosmetics workers? What if they want to organize with other metal workers? Here the flexibility of the system comes into play. As long as the workers understand the principles involved and have the necessary information to make an informed decision, the union should give their preferences great weight. In our example, it is probably not very important which IU the workers join. On the other hand, the organization’s needs also have to be considered.*) The two Industrial Unions involved (the Chemical Workers and the Metal & Machinery Workers in this case) may be willing to let the workers choose for themselves, but there may be legitimate reasons for each IU to insist that the workers should line up with it. In the I. W. W., such conflicts must be resolved by the General Executive Board, if they can’t be worked out by the IUs. The Committee on Industrial Classification can provide relevant industrial research, help mediate the conflict, and, if necessary, advise the GEB on how to resolve the problem.
This article is chiefly concerned with organization, but the other two stars in the I. W. W. constellation, education and emancipation, are of equal importance.
Capitalist production makes education appear to be the enemy of workers, because education usually confronts workers in the form of specialists trained to make workers’ lives miserable–managers, efficiency experts, computer programmers, machinery designers, etc. Workers are discouraged from using or improving their own minds, and encouraged to occupy their brains with empty entertainment like TV, spectator sports, celebrity magazines, computer games, pornography, and similar mental junk-food. Capitalist society rewards the minority of people who manage to get college degrees and become doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc., but it often punishes ordinary workers who think too much or know too much. Workers are supposed to obey orders, not think for themselves.
 |
A central principle of Industrial Unionism is that workers should make their own decisions; but what if workers had never used their brains on anything but football games or movie-star divorces? They would be no more fit to make important decisions than a fat bank-president is to carry a load of bricks up a ladder.
Fortunately, most of us manage to get at least a partial education in spite of all the distractions and obstacles that capitalist society puts in our way. But if we really intend to “take possession of the earth and the machinery of production” and run things for ourselves, not to mention having full and happy lives, then we have to educate ourselves and our fellow workers even more.
One place to start is with what we already partly know–the industries we work in. Every worker should make it his business to learn all he can about the industry he works in. A worker should understand more than her own job: she should study all of her company’s production processes, from extraction of raw materials to distribution of finished product. She should learn how the business is organized, who its suppliers and customers are, how it is managed and financed, who owns it, and so on. Industrial research and education help Industrial Unionists organize properly and devise effective strategies for struggle, and also fit them mentally to run the industries once workers have taken over production. It should be a major goal of any labor organization to develop educational programs equal to what the bosses have, to train workers in all the specialized fields that go into the administration and operation of modern industry, to turn that special knowledge into the common property of all, rather than the exclusive domain of a privileged few; and to use that knowledge to make our lives easier instead of harder.
Beyond that, however, Industrial Unionism’s ultimate goal is to make available to all people—not just the wealthy—the full riches of human culture and knowledge. Universal education and opportunity in a co-operative society will make it possible for all workers–that is, all people–to develop their individual talents and interests to the fullest extent.
That ultimate goal can be reached only through the abolition of the economic system that pits class against class in a destructive struggle for power and prosperity. Industrial Unionism, therefore, strives not only to improve wages and working conditions for workers under capitalism, but also to build the structure of an administrative system that can take the place of capitalism altogether.
Today, a huge portion of the wealth that workers produce is siphoned off so that people who don’t work at all can have million-dollar weddings for their dogs and cats, plastic surgery to hide their age, grand houses with rooms nobody ever goes into (except for the workers who clean them), perfume that costs $9,000 an ounce, and watches that cost half a million.
Industrial Unionists intend to put an end to that theft and waste, and to replace it with a system in which every person who is able to work will contribute to society, and everybody has equal access to the fruits of labor. In order to do that, we have to take the means of production–the raw materials, the factories, the tools–away from the bosses, and control them collectively and democratically ourselves. That is the revolutionary purpose of Industrial Unionism.
Now, to most of us, “revolution” suggests guns and barricades, rebels storming prisons and telephone exchanges, and all the chaos and terror that have come with the revolutionary wars of the past. That’s because all, or nearly all, of the revolutions we get taught about have been capitalist revolutions (including ones that get called "anti-capitalist" or "Communist", which have merely substituted state or party capitalism for private capitalism). Capitalists use guns for revolution because they own lots of guns and control the means of making more. And since capitalists have always been interested in winning power for themselves, rather than freedom for everybody, violent revolution has always been a logical proposition for them. Workers have different resources and goals, so our methods must also be different. The I. W. W. has never been a pacifist organization, but it has always rejected the notion of revolution by physical force.
The workers’ most powerful asset is not a weapon but a tool, and we use it not to destroy but to build. That asset is solidarity–sticking together. By sticking together, protecting one another, treating an injury to one as an injury to all, workers are building the One Big Union that will replace the oppressive structures of capitalism: “we are forming the new society in the shell of the old.”
This happens in two ways. On the one hand, in our General Organization, Departments, Industrial Unions, Branches, and Councils, we are forming democratic administrative structures, controlled by the workers themselves, which will eventually take the place of corporate boards and political assemblies controlled by the wealthy elite. At the same time, we are building our collective strength on the job and taking over control of our work. Through solidarity, we are gradually taking power away from our bosses, and when we have organized a majority of our class in a majority of workplaces, we will simply start running things the way we want. To put it bluntly, the struggle for control over our work is the revolution.
Oh, the bosses will certainly want to shoot at us, as they’ve always done before, and they’ll try to provoke us into shooting back, to give their violence the appearance of legitimacy. But experience has shown that solidarity, not soldiery, is the working class’s strength and our guarantee of victory.
A final note: the revolutionary program of Industrial Unionism has nothing to do with the politics or dogmas of so-called “revolutionary” parties. Industrial Unionists learned long ago that such political schemes divide workers rather than uniting them, and political revolution, even at its most successful, has never resulted in the liberation of the working class. The fearful examples of Lenin’s Russia, Mussolini’s Italy, Hitler’s Germany, and Mao’s China have shown us all too clearly where workers wind up in a revolution directed by party ideology.
Industrial Unionism rejects all power based on ideology, and sticks to its practical, economic program. We seek the democratic administration of things, not the government of persons. Our revolution is economic, not political; and its outcome will be the abolition, not the seizure, of coercive power.
This brief outline sets forth what are generally accepted as the basic principles of industrial unionism, as practiced by the Industrial Workers of the World. Here and there people will take issue with one thing or another that is said above, but it’s not really important that everybody agree on the words printed here. The I. W. W. has never required its members to accept any set of principles or doctrines.
What is important is that we act together according to a common plan, for a common purpose. Theoretical explanations can help us choose our plans and can guide our actions, as long as theory is continually tested against experience. But no amount of theory can replace the concerted efforts of organized human beings, acting in solidarity for the liberation of our class from wage-slavery. The single, essential, and fundamental principle of industrial unionism, on which all the others depend, is solidarity. To build solidarity, we don’t have to think the same thoughts or believe the same doctrines: we must work together, sing together, play together, struggle together. Above all, we must organize and organize and organize.
So now that you’ve finished this article, hand it over to somebody who hasn’t read it, and go talk to some fellow workers about building the OBU!
|
CIC Home