The Tesla strike recently passed its two-year anniversary, and the attention and PR war have entered a new phase. The conflict has been described as decisive and is the longest in Sweden in a century. It pits a powerful company owned by one of the world's richest men, Elon Musk, against a Swedish trade union fighting for what it considers to be the most fundamental thing: a collective agreement.

The strike itself

This protracted strike concerns Tesla's service workshops and is led by the IF Metall trade union. It can be difficult to see through both the trade union and employer propaganda regarding the militancy and solidarity among the workers concerned and therefore difficult to know the truth of the situation in general. Recently, we have seen some unionised workers at Tesla speak out in the media about the importance of ‘holding out’ and ‘getting a collective agreement’ but for the most part, it is only union leaders and paid representatives who have been seen and heard when it comes to the strike. An early figure indicated that a third of the workers were on strike, but now it is claimed to be more – the union claims that almost 70 out of 130 workers are union members and that ‘most are on strike’. What this actually means is very unclear. Regardless, most indications point to lukewarm engagement. Many also seem to have changed jobs and grown tired of the whole thing. It is clear that the union as an organisation is the real driving force behind the conflict, and a sense of desperation is palpable – the union are offering 130% of strike pay from day one if you join the union, threatening to expel those who do not want to strike. Eleven trade unions have taken sympathy action, but there are no signs of spontaneous solidarity actions from the broader working class.

The trade unions and the ‘Swedish model’

For us as revolutionaries, the general attitude towards trade unions is crystal clear. They are part of the capitalist state as an intermediary authority when it comes to negotiating the price of labour – always within the limits of the system.

Although trade unions were originally a more direct expression of working-class militancy, they were never revolutionary, and the process of integration was already visible in Marx's time. For example, the English trade unionist Randal Cremer (who was once active in the First International) became a Member of Parliament for the bourgeois Liberal Party. One of the clearest and perhaps definitive proofs of this was in connection with the First World War when the trade unions agreed to war credits and promised social peace in the interests of the nation – thereby openly abandoning the interests of the class and becoming fully integrated into the bourgeois state. In our era of imperialist capitalism, the role of trade unions consists exclusively of negotiating the price of labour within an increasingly narrow space, in a way that satisfies the needs of national capital.

In Sweden, the integration of trade unions into the bourgeois state has been more obvious than in many other places. Unlike other countries, for example, there are no statutory minimum wages; instead, wages are regulated solely through collective agreements. This model is based on the so-called ‘Saltsjöbaden Agreement’, developed over 44 years of uninterrupted government of the Swedish Social Democratic Party (SAP).⁽¹⁾ In Sweden, it is also the trade unions that administer the unemployment insurance fund. This has become known as the ‘Swedish model’, where trade unions have more clearly become an integral part of the state. One of the aims of this system is to further strengthen the trade unions' control over the working class by only guaranteeing compliance with the agreement to those who are members of the trade union.

The struggle today

The possible consequences for the working class as a whole if Tesla or the IF Metall union were to emerge victorious from the conflict can only be guessed at. For parts of capital, it is a dream scenario with fewer collective agreements and union involvement, but historically, the bourgeoisie has been far from unanimous on the issue. Overall, however, trade unions and collective agreements have created industrial peace, calm and stability for the exploitation of the working class.

Ultimately, this is determined by the balance of power between the classes; it is the militancy and solidarity of the working class that determines our conditions, not the trade unions and their agreements.

It is clear that the bourgeoisie is divided on the best strategy for attacking the working class. One tendency is represented by Musk. They want a frontal attack on all regulations or agreements and are in favour of a more direct attack on the working class.

Another part of the bourgeoisie (which is still the largest part in Sweden today) remains loyal to the ‘Swedish model’ and organises attacks and austerity measures through agreements and regulations with the trade unions. This section of the bourgeoisie sees the advantages of using the trade unions as a force to calm and neutralise discontent and unrest. What is certain is that both stand for austerity measures and attacks on the working class. The crisis leaves them no choice.

Attempts to form independent trade unions have consistently ended with them remaining small and marginalised or forced to adapt and sign their own collective agreements, leading to compromise and reduced militancy, and has meant that even these have become increasingly integrated into the state (see: the SAC syndicalists or the Dockworkers' Union as examples here in Sweden). Now that the trade unions see their power within the system threatened, they are forced to try and fight back. But it is an artificial struggle for their own survival, not for the interests of the working class.

Moreover, the whole idea behind reforms has become obsolete. There is as little room for sustainable trade union victories as there is for political reforms (regardless of what neo-Keynesian leftists dream of). The post-war boom was a historical exception that created space for certain improvements within the limits of the system and will not return. On the contrary, capital is suffering greatly under the pressure of falling profit rates and sees no solution other than the drive towards war – which means even more austerity to finance this.

What the trade union bureaucrats fear is that more companies will refuse to sign collective agreements, reducing the importance of trade unions and threatening the role and raison d'être of trade union bureaucrats, ultimately threatening to make them unemployed.

The working class's own methods of struggle

If we look at the big picture, both historically and outside Sweden's borders, it is clear that workers do not need trade unions to fight, but rather the opposite.

In Sweden, a tradition of wildcat strikes was started, or reintroduced, with the miners' strike of 1969–1970. This led to something of a new tradition of struggle. It clearly showed that if you want to fight, you have to fight outside the union and strike independently, because the union was so tied to the state, for a long time under SAP rule. Although wildcat strikes declined after the 1970s and 1980s (a relatively recent example is the wildcat strike on commuter trains in Stockholm in 2023 which received widespread support and raised 2 million Swedish kronor in donations)⁽²⁾, they provide an important lesson, as they represented a clear break with and challenge to the SAP and its trade unions, which were supposed to have hegemony as the sole representatives of the working class.

Our response in today's pressured situation can never be to spread illusions about strengthening the commitment of the trade unions or trying to transform them into ‘struggle organisations’. Rather, we must advocate for and try to revive the above-mentioned methods of independent class struggle, and show the reactionary role of the trade unions and that collective agreements cannot guarantee our living conditions.

In a situation such as Sweden's, where trade union membership is declining – down to 58% among blue-collar workers, and 74% among white-collar workers – overcoming the division between organised and unorganised workers will be a prerequisite for creating unity in the struggle and developing a better balance of forces.

The struggle must take on a more political character

It is difficult to predict what the consequences will be if more collective agreements fail. Even today, under the agreements, there are major deteriorations in conditions everywhere from the construction industry, contracted public services to staffing agencies, and not least in the new and very insecure ‘gig economy’. An entire generation of workers must live on temporary contracts. (Only 11 months; if it is more than 12 months, employers must hire them permanently.) What is clear is that, with or without agreements, attacks on the working class will increase due to the crisis and preparations for war. The crisis and the drive towards war can only be met by an independently fighting working class and, in the long term, the abolition of this rotten system. We are not there today, but the situation is becoming more urgent every day.

As we see it, two components are absolutely crucial. The scattered revolutionary minorities that exist today must strive to unite in order to lay the foundations for a revolutionary organisation, spread the lessons of historical experience, and act as a guide in the class struggle. However, this depends on the second component: the working class resuming the struggle at a higher level. The class struggle will, of course, initially focus on more urgent and defensive issues before it can intensify and spread. This may be over wages, redundancies or similar issues – but as long as these struggles remain under the control of the trade unions, they will be held back. The trade unions' struggle for collective agreements will not lead to a higher level of struggle on the part of the class. On the contrary, the first step forward for Tesla workers, and indeed workers everywhere, is that the struggle must be waged independently of the trade union; unionised and non-unionised workers must fight together. The next step, which is becoming more important every day, is to move our actions from being purely economic struggles to taking on a more political character. The realisation must grow that ‘money militancy’ is insufficient and that the capitalist system as such cannot meet our needs but, on the contrary, threatens all human life on the planet.

Instead of the conservative motto, ‘A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!’ [workers] ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword, ‘Abolition of the wages system!’

Karl Marx,Value, Price and Profit, 1865

For the working class's independent struggle for its interests!

Unionised and non-unionised workers, fight together!

Notes:

(1) Sweden in the 1930s was characterised by intensive class struggle (after the 1929 crash) which in 1931 in Ådalen led to regular army troops being called in by the Liberal government, resulting in the killing of five workers and the wounding of five others. This was the first time in modern Swedish history that the military shot workers dead. This period ended with the ‘Saltsjöbaden Agreement’ in 1938. This landmark agreement between the Swedish Employers Association and the Swedish Trade Union Confederation established the ‘Swedish model’. Through this agreement the rules and principles for strikes and conflicts were regulated, without involvement of the government. This gave rise to the so-called ‘Saltsjöbaden spirit’ of social peace. The agreement is still functional to this day (with some changes). This means strikes are unusual. Until the strike against Tesla, IF Metall had not been on strike for 10 years. This was complemented by the fact that after Ådalen, the SAP was in government uninterrupted from 1932-1976 and then again 1982-1991 and again 1994-2006 and again 2014-2022. This led to a coming together of the SAP state and the SAP unions. This went so far that even the “radical” syndicalist union SAC was integrated into this system. They organised for example unemployment insurances. This insurance is for the most part financed by the state but organised by the union. The SAC eventually broke with the syndicalist International Workers' Association (IWA) because of this (though their relation to an expelled fraction of the CNT also played a role).

(2) See the article Sweden: The Wildcat Strike on the Commuter Trains Shows the Way Forward