A century ago there was no need for such a case to be made. Unions acted as the hammer of the working class, beating down the bosses and nailing down victory upon victory for workers. It is a sad day when the labor movement loses its militancy as that means that the working class has lost one of its weapons in the fight for its lot. As a class born out of contradiction and born into conflict, workers have deplorably few organizations representing their interests; unions are often the largest – spanning the most industries and amassing the highest membership. We have no other choice but unionization which means we have no other choice but to reinvigorate the militancy within the unions.

To be militant is to be open to and prepared for conflict in the aim of advancing a political goal. Our goal is to advance the cause of the working, and all other oppressed, masses. Are we so foolish as to suppress our own organs for carrying out that struggle? Unions were once home to close comrades in the struggle to noticeably improve their collective conditions, but now they are home to a class of labor lieutenants and aristocrats that, like the capitalists during the death of feudalism, have placed themselves outside and above the ranks of those they supposedly represent. By telling workers to “get organized” and join a union we may as well be selling them a shovel to dig their own grave with because that is what unionization in these dire and trying times amounts to. How far we have fallen when the organization that used to stand up to the bosses and demand more, demand something above bread crumbs, is now sitting at the table with the bosses, indeed, making backroom deals with them.

We need a return to militancy in the labor movement because that is what every landmark victory for working people was won on. Without a tough, militant labor movement there is no eight hour workday. Militancy proves to the working class that labor is innumerably more powerful than lobbying. These were movements that people could truly be proud of – that brought about meaningful change that we still feel today. Workers saw a grizzly bear that they knew would have their back, that they knew would say and do the things that they couldn’t say or to do to their greedy bosses; nowadays, workers see a lamb being led to slaughter by capitalists. According to Pew Research Center, over 40% of Americans hold that unions negatively affect the United States. This, of course, can not be chalked up to one reason definitively, but un-militant trade unions reflect a weakening in demands for labor-friendly legislation and education regarding worker organization.

How We Lost Our Way

We have abandoned workers. It is no surprise then that the workers have abandoned the organizations which have played a role in their own downturn. If we want to see a revitalized labor movement then we need to resuscitate the organization of the worker. More precisely, we must revive all that which is militant, strong, disciplined and revolutionary about the unions while firmly abandoning all that which is reactionary. Let’s be clear, the working class left unionization behind after unionization left us behind first. The reality remains that workers are sequestered from labor organizing while, in the United States at least, we are all victims of a fictitious two-party system where we are so lucky as we get to choose our oppressors. Looking at the history of the labor movement, we shouldn’t be surprised that when it comes down to bringing substantial change, the working class is on their own. It is time, no, rather it is long overdue, that we take back the organizations that make us strong in the fight for our rights. We can give unions their strength, their appeal, their working class tenacity back by reigniting the militant fire that sits at the very core of labor organizing.

Working people and their unions won massive victories for everyone by not being afraid of a fight, by not being afraid to stand up directly to employers, by not being afraid of things getting worse before they get better. How can unions be expected to stand up to employers when the union stewards are getting their pockets lined by the same folks they are supposed to be bargaining against? You cannot seriously expect workers to win against employers when the organization representing the workers takes bribes and backroom deals, yet it happens all the time. Labor racketeering may seem like a thing of the past, of the golden age of organized crime, but, sadly, this is not the case. Nowadays, threats of violence have been replaced by threats of retaliation against employees, but the effects are quite similar: the working class is screwed over, benefits are not received, and workers often end up in worse conditions than before “bargaining.” Unfortunately, our government has not noticed this problem, or more likely they have but they do not care to implement solutions.

The Path Forward

How do you get rid of bribery between employers and union officials in these organizations? There needs to be less incentive to take bribes and more incentive to report officials and incidents involving bribes. We must demand real consequences for corruption and real protections for those who expose it. On the other hand, I believe we need much greater incentive to speak up and speak out against this injustice. For that reason, I propose that whistleblowing in the labor movement be federally protected from retaliation and punishment. Workers need to know that it is not only their right but indeed their obligation to report such instances to the Labor Relations Board. But no working person, and rightfully so, is willing to put themselves in harm’s way to clean the unions; it isn’t their responsibility, they are likely to face whiplash, and they have zero incentive to do so when they feel truly powerless. A new labor movement that begins by cleaning its own ranks of those who only look out for themselves shows the working class a dedication to rebuilding a powerful, but clean and disciplined, labor movement willing to do whatever necessary for its workers, and indeed wanting all workers to take a much more active role in bargaining for better. We cannot revive militancy in the labor movement without first purging it of the corrupt elements that sap its strength and betray its mission.

At its core a union is a fighting organization. Hence, it must be willing and able to strike both figuratively and literally. Direct action such as employee walkouts, organized marches, picketing, rallies, etc. are how we project the strength and voice of workers everywhere. But militancy isn’t just about strikes and pickets, it’s about discipline, education, and mastery of the law. A sharp legal strategy can be just as powerful a weapon as a walkout. There is a severe lack of action being taken by unions because they fear a severe lack of discomfort and potential retaliation against them. Labor’s struggle is a protracted and vicious war against forces with better resources, connections, money, and influence. This is very clearly a guerilla war pitting the forces of David against a truly oppressive Goliath. Labor and law were once joined together in the fight, virtually inseparable from one another. Nowadays, labor occupies one side, the side of the working class, while law has found itself interlocking fingers with big business against workers. Unions have so much potential, but that potential cannot be fully realized, that is to say that the working class can not use its full power, unless they become experts on labor laws and rights. It’s quite like smithing a longsword but forgetting to sharpen it on the day of battle, we are blunting the revolutionary potential of working folks. A unified force of laborers and lawyers strikes fear into the hearts of exploitative capitalists. Our legal representation must be masters of their fields capable of fighting against expansive, and expensive, legal teams who do everything in their capabilities to firmly consolidate power into the hands of employers.

Unions were once the training grounds for the working class where they could become steeled in grassroots organization and labor politics. We must rebuild the labor movement around unions that are both prepared and willing to do whatever necessary to advance working causes. Unions will once again become revolutionary training grounds which take in the unorganized and give them the tools to unite as one against a more powerful enemy. Workers will rise from the unions as soldiers fighting on the side of labor. We are an unorganized, splintered, and, by all relativity, weak labor movement. We ought to study history and see that it is when militancy is introduced into the working class that we win victories once thought unimaginable. We only have to open our eyes to see that if we are not willing to be militant then our enemies certainly are. We cannot limit ourselves to a “parliamentarian” struggle against the very forces that dominate parliament and keep legislation from passing, or ever being introduced in the first place.

Let us learn from our labor forefathers that militancy is a great thing for an oppressed force to have. Change occurs when people are pushed past the limits of acceptance. Have we not been pushed past the limits of acceptance as we sit back and watch a dying labor movement that, in the United States, officially represents under 10% of workers? We run the dire risk of seeing the remnants of the labor movement, the movement that won us paid vacation, sick days, safe working conditions, an eight-hour workday, etc., reduced to ash. The solution to this might as well be slapping us in the face: get militant and get organized. Make unions a staple of the working class again. Make unionization the norm rather than a rarity. Make unions fighting organizations again. We have so much potential and untapped power, but we do the work of our opponents when we limit ourselves.

Let us become a class of fighters once more. Let us bring back the fight to employers!

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Andrew Lehrer.

With growing disillusionment in capitalist “democracy,” more and more people are looking towards alternatives to provide the answers they need. As Marxists, our role is to guide others out of the darkness of liberalism and toward the liberating path of Socialism. With that in mind, one of the first steps is to clear up the confusion, which mainly stems from propaganda and anti-communist movements, about a concept at the very core of our ideology: the dictatorship of the proletariat. I aim to be brief, clear, and accessible to all readers as I do my best to make understood the meaning of dictatorship and how it is not about oppression, but liberation of all people currently being oppressed.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is one of the more controversial topics within Socialist and Communist politics. The word ‘dictatorship’ strikes fear in the hearts of many, and can stoke the flame of a million skeptics with a single blow. Discussions of the dictatorship of the proletariat tend to fixate on the word ‘dictatorship’ while ignoring the class content—’of the proletariat.’ This superficial reaction, shaped by decades of propaganda, demands correction.

Marx, from the very first mention of the dictatorship of the proletariat, repeatedly clarified what exactly this meant, repeatedly fought against opportunism (that is to say so-called representatives of the working-class collaborating with the very forces that dominate us)–a term he knew would invite distortion. Yet, the opportunist still persists. Our struggle continues to fight against this, to guide people onto the path of proletarian dictatorship, to clear up all confusion and purposeful slandering of the truly freeing vision behind the term. In order to fight against those who weaponize this idea, one must first understand its conception, i.e., the material and historical womb from which it was born.

The Origins of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

…the proletariat rallies more and more around revolutionary socialism, around communism, for which the bourgeoisie has itself invented the name of Blanqui. This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.

— Karl Marx, The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, 1850, Marxists.org

Louis Auguste Blanqui, from whom Blanquism derives, was a revolutionary that was imprisoned for over thirty years. His ideology was heavily focused on the revolution itself, and not so much as to what society would look like after the revolution. Blanquists believe that a very small group should lead the revolution and establish a temporary dictatorship in order to redistribute wealth in a just manner. This marks a clear break from the class-conscious foundation of Marxist ideology, which sees revolution not as the task of a small elite, but of the organized working-class.

The first mention of proletarian dictatorship by Marx traces all the way back to 1850, to the early stages of his and Engels’ work. From its earliest days, Marxism has emphasized the necessity of proletarian dictatorship. The quote above from Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850, is the earliest mention by Marx of proletarian dictatorship, and what is even more outstanding than its age in relation to Marxism is how fleshed out this necessary idea already is: “…the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally…”, from the first mention of it, Marx makes it very clear that proletarian dictatorship is necessary in abolishing all class distinctions and antagonisms entirely from society, i.e., in realizing Communism.

There is no revolution without a revolutionary change in who controls the state. From the minority using state apparatuses to oppress the majority to the majority building new state machinery as the mechanism for suppressing counter-revolutionism. This, in essence, is the dictatorship of the proletariat — power wielded by the hand of the majority for the first time in all the history of class society.

Proletarian vs Bourgeois Dictatorship

In order to inspire a change in society toward proletarian dictatorship we must first educate the masses, help them see that we already live under a dictatorship, dominated by the very rich who hold immense political power, on top of their inhumane amounts of wealth, and have control over every aspect of political, social, and economic life. Democracy is not a form of governance, but a measure of what class of people benefit from the government in charge. The control over the majority by a tiny minority is the essence of capitalism, i.e., bourgeois dictatorship, or, if you like, liberal democracy, the form of control and oppression that we’ve lived under and been subjected to for far too long.

The first step is to clearly expose the countless injustices perpetuated daily by the bourgeois dictatorship—those who claim to represent you and me while serving their own class interests. Let no travesty wither away in silence, let no misstep go unchecked, let no politicians consider themselves invincible. We must take on the role of the microscope in examining the current government and that of the megaphone in relaying their constant mistakes and wrongdoings to the people.

A workers’ government is one in which no official, no parliamentarian, no representative, officer, leader, etc. makes more than the average worker’s wage. The natural remuneration weeds out those who seek those positions for their wealth, privilege, influence, etc. This government brings to the forefront leaders who are dedicated in their service to the people with whom they share a class background, who know the struggles of the people and are better fit to deal with them than any politician born in the bourgeois cradle. This is the manifestation of proletarian dictatorship, which very clearly shows the striking differences between it and the dictatorship of the bourgeois class.

What we need is a government that is created by the working-class, for the working-class, and constituted of those who belong to the working-class. This government has the interests of the majority rather than current governments that exist to serve corporations and a handful of billionaires. A government made up of the people it governs is true representation.

A government of and for the people, that is proletarian dictatorship; a government not of the people, but for profiting off the suffering of the people, that is bourgeois dictatorship, that is capitalist government, that is your government, and that is my government.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is not about oppression, but liberation—the transfer of power from the few to the many, the unlocking of the chains that hold us down. It is a necessary phase in building a world free of class domination.

This content originally appeared on Dissident Voice and was authored by Andrew Lehrer.