Suchergebnisse

The debate over the labour bureaucracy has changed considerably since Robert Michels first argued that oligarchy was inevitable whenever humans organized. Recent work has tended to play down the notion of the labour bureaucracy as a body distinct from, and often in opposition to, the rank and file. Indeed, in the pages of this journal, Jonathan Zeitlin has maintained that "no clear line can be drawn between trade union officials and the 'rank and file'". Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion Zeitlin has urged that the "'rank and filist' paradigm is fundamentally unsatisfactory and should be abandoned rather than further refined". Though others would not push the revisionist argument this far, the general tendency has been to agree that the earlier generalizations were over-blown and that it is difficult to distinguish between bureaucrats and members. Many of Zeitlin's earlier opponents now appear to be nearly indistinguishable from him, and few argue that the interests of the labour leadership differ in any important degree from those of the rank and file. I believe, however, that the reports of the demise of the labour bureaucrat have been somewhat exaggerated. This paper will argue that though the argument needs to be re-formulated, the paradigm of the labour bureaucracy remains a useful one. Such a reformulation must shift the focus from differences of ideology separating the leaders from the members and instead must turn to an analysis of the power relationship between the two. This paper will trace the recent twists and turns in the debate and will suggest ways in which it is possible to view the labour bureaucracy as a distinct layer of the union movement.