After the recent Labour Day, I want to focus on the role of unions. This continues my reply to Taj Donville-Outerbridge’s op-ed of August 26.

During an uprising, it is not uncommon that amid fighting one would throw up a barricade or create a trench. The purpose is to consolidate what has been won, provide an initial defence against an assault, and use this fortification to both renew strength and serve as a base for one’s next advance.

They are both defensive and offensive in nature, although they are primarily a defensive structure born out of an offensive movement and with the intention of supporting the next offensive.

I see the unions and even social democratic parties as analogous to such fortifications. Unions were born from the class struggle, as both an offensive (to provide organisation and structure to the class struggle, and as a base on which to launch a new offensive) and as a defensive structure.

While dual-purpose, they are primarily a defensive structure in my opinion. They only serve as an offensive structure when the class struggle is “hot”, in a “war of manoeuvre”. The danger is that the “cold” “war of position” of the class struggle is generally much longer a phase than the active phase, and in that time they can be seen as an end in themselves, especially by those who compose the institutionalised aspect of the union.

This is not to say that even in this defensive mode, where both party and union are seen as ends in themselves, where the class struggle is relegated from a revolutionary push for a different world beyond capitalism and the state and to acceptance of the status quo, of mere reformism, that they lose all offensive capacity.

They certainly can and do campaign and push for this or that reform to capital or the state with the intention of improving the lot of workers and people generally, as well as ensuring greater democracy and rights for all. It is only to say that their general orientation can be reduced to reformism.

The degree to which, in this defensive mode, they can win reforms – and the vision of such reforms – is tied to the ebb and flow of the class struggle, however. And in this they generally follow behind, sometimes actively serving as an overly cautious brake.

This is not always a bad thing – there is indeed the risk of an ill-timed insurrection based on a misreading of the balance of forces or frustration leading to a brilliant failure that can set back the cause of human emancipation that is the beating heart of the movement.

The key is finding the mean, between capitulation to capitalism or reckless adventure. Far too often, and especially since Thatcher/Reagan, the movement has tacked too far to capitulation – and in this they can serve as handmaidens for capital, in terms of disciplining labour on behalf of capital in the name of ensuring the pax capitala of collective bargaining agreements.

And in doing so they risk losing their legitimacy to labour, leaving them to a constant defensive retreat, until they lose what is left of their potential as a defensive shield of labour in the class struggle – leaving the offensive march of capital unchecked.

Unions are, of course, important in their own right. There is ample evidence that they help maintain democratic values, ensure better wages and working conditions, increase community engagement and even increase overall levels of happiness and stability when they are robust and healthy.

From a socialist perspective they are vital defensive structures and provide a foundation for any future class offensive. They provide important resources for the class struggle, such as their research capacity and when it comes to organising workers.

On this latter note, I would encourage anyone that is a union member, especially shop stewards, to study the works of Jane McAlevey, who sadly died in July this year. Her books, especially Raising Expectations & Raising Hell and No Shortcuts are excellent and provide key tools for reinvigorating the labour movement.

Much of the recent upsurge of union activism in the US and Canada over the last few years are indebted to her contributions. And it is this energy that provides the basis for greater gains for workers and progressive causes generally in the political sphere. She also reminds us that anything gained by struggle can just as easily be lost again, thus the need to be watchful always.

As a question of socialist strategy, socialists should provide critical support (in both senses of the term) to unions and social democratic parties, on the basis that they provide key defensive structures for the movement and the foundation for future class offensives. The key is to have no illusion of them as being able to overcome their reformist tendencies without a socialist critique and a strong, reinvigorated class struggle.