Labor Herald Library No. 14.

L E N I NAND THE

TRADE UNIONMOVEMENT

BY

A. LOSOVSKY

FOREWORDBY

WM. Z. FOSTER

PRICE 15 CENTS

Published by the Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, III.

290

Militants, Notice!

Organize! Join the Trade Union EducationalLeague. This is a system of informal committeesthroughout the entire union movement, organizedto infuse the mass with revolutionary understand-ing and spirit. It is working for the closer affilia-tion and solidification of our existing craft unionsuntil they have been developed into industrialunions. Believing that all workers should standtogether regardless of their social or other opinions,it is opposed to the common policy of radical andprogressive-minded workers quitting the tradeunions and starting rival organizations based uponideal principles. That policy is one of the chiefreasons why the American labor movement is notfurther advanced. Its principal effects are to destroyail radical organization in the old unions and toleave the reactionaries in undisputed control.

The Trade Union Educational League is in nosense a dual union, nor is it affiliated with anysuch organization. It is purely an educational bodyof militants within existing mass unions, who areseeking through the application of modern methodsto bring the policies and structure of the labormovement into harmony with present day economicconditions. It bespeaks the active cooperation of allmilitant union workers. For further details applyto

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, III.

Labor Herald Library No. 14.

E N I NAND THEt

TRADE UNIONMOVEMENT

BY

A. LOSOVSKY

FOREWORD8V

WM. Z. FOSTER

PRICE 15 CENTS

Published by the Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, HI.

•290

Militants. Notice!

Organize! Join the Trade Union EducationalLeague, This is a system of informal comrruttissthroughout the entire union movement, organizedto infuse the mass with revolutionary understand-ing and spirit. It is working for the closer affilia-tion and solidification of our existing craft unionsuntil they have been developed into industrialunions. Believing that ail workers should standtogether regardless of their social or other opinions,it is opposed to the common policy of radical andprogressive-minded workers quitting the tradeunions and starting rival organizations based uponideal principles. That policy is one of the chiefreasons why the American labor movement is notfurther advanced. Its principal effects are to destroyall radical organization in the old unions and toleave the reactionaries in undisputed control,

The Trade Union Educational League is in nosense a dual union, nor is it affiliated with anysuch organization, it is purely an educational bodyof militants within existing mass unions, who areseeking through the application of modern methodsto bring the policies and structure of the labormovement into harmony with present day economicconditions, It bespeaks the active cooperation of allmilitant union workers. For further details applyto

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, 111.

L E N I NAND THE

TRADE UNIONMOVEMENT

BY

A. LOSOVSKY

FOREWORDBY

WM. Z. FOSTER

Published by the Trade Union Educational League1113 W, Washington Blvd., Chicago, 111.

290

oi

^ •s.

•

fey•S)O

0_

-Vo

Foreword

The appearance of this booklet by Losovsky, pointing out afew of the great contributions made by Lenin towards the work-ing out of revolutionary policies and tactics in the field of tradeunionism, is especially timely, It is just wJiat American revolu-tionaries stand badly in need of. A widespread distribution andreading of it will greatly strengthen the understanding and toneof our movement.

Lenin was. indisputably one of the very greatest of all revo-lutionists. As a theorist, strategist, and organiser he was amaster. No matter to what task he turned his brilliant pnind andboundless energies he stood out as a supreme authority. Hiscontributions to the better 'understanding of the problems of theState, the role of the Communist Party in the revolution, imper-ialism, the peasantry, and many other knotty questions con-fronting the working class on its long, hard journey to emancipa-tion, are well known to the rank and file of the revolutionarymovement throughout the world. But his work in the tradeunion field is not so well known. Yet in this field he was also amaster. He was the greatest theoretician on the role of thetrade unions that the revolutionary movement has yet produced.

The whole international labor movement has been profoundlyinfluenced by Lenin's conception of trade unionism. Even theUnited States has not been exempt. Here In fact, deep and far-reaching effects have resulted from the adoption of the principlesand tactics of trade union work that were evolved by Lenin. The

3

capitalists of America and their loyal agents, the trade unionbureaucracy, have a real grievance against Lenin. His brilliantmind did much to make more effective the left wing forces inthe American labor movement.

One of the greatest services of Lenin to the American leftwing trade union movement was to help it rid itself of thatdeadly leftist sickness manifesting itself as dual unionism. Formany a year this had kept the left wing in the unions in a stateof almost complete impotency. The left wing had hardly thefaintest understanding of the real nature of the conservativemass trade unions and it had the wildest misconceptions of thetactics to be pursued regarding them. For a full generation theleft wing stood on the un-Marsoian position that the trade unionswere practically a conspiracy against the working class engin-eered by Gompers and his cronies in conjunction with the em-

-ployers. They were considered as essentially capitalist organ-isations towards which the attitude of the left wing had neces-sarily to be one of violent opposition. The idea that these bodieswere the first primitive attempts of the workers to develop aresistance to capitalist exploitation were scouted, likewise theidea that the trade unions could ever be developed into real pro-letarian organisations.

Basing their tactics upon such fundamental misconceptions,the left wing militants, for a full generation, devoted their ener-gies to the hopeless task of building hew trade unions on ideallines. Many disastrous effects resulted from this grievious error.One was that the trade unions were almost completely abandoned.to the control of the ultra^eactionary Gompers machine, whomisled, sold out, and miseducated the millions of workers undertheir control to their heart's content. Another serious resultwas the fact that, because of their isolation from the unions, theleft wingers never took the lead in the mass struggles of theworkers. They never gained the prestige over the workers northe practical skill in leadership which can come only from''suchparticipation in the great strikes and other movements of theworkers against their exploiters,

#

In these days, when dual unionism is, looked upon properlyas a species of infantilism in revolutionary tactics f. it is difficult

to realise the extreme intensity with which the dual union obses-sion gripped the minds of American revolutionaries for manyyears. But I -for one had bitter experience with it for a fulldecade. I found it to be simply unsha.tterable. The generalconception of dual unionism was accepted as one of those thingsthat had been, fully demonstrated by theory and long years ofpractice. It was virtually impossible even to stir up a discussionon the subject. Arguments that revolutionists should and mustwork in the trade unions were met with a dismissing wave of thehand and the matter was ended.

But the issuance of Lenin's famous pamphlet,, "The InfantileSicknesses of Left Communism'' marked the beginning of thegreat change. Lenin made one smashing, irresistible attack uponthe Utopian dual unionists. It simply ruined them. They havenever recovered from it till the present day, and they never will.He gave the whole left wing trade union movement of the worlda new conception of trade unionism and work among the con-servative masses. He dealt the dual union idea a death blow.Only those cling to it now who are still unacquainted with theprinciples of Leninism as applied to trade unions.

Under Lenin's withering assault the dual unionists of theleft wing movement of the world retreated in disorder. In theUnited States their forces practically broke up altogether. Andthe United States was the real stronghold of dual unionism.Almost like a flash, the truth of Lenin's penetrating analysiscame home to American revolutionists. The sophistries of dualunionism, whose great spokesman was DeLeon, crumbled away.At the present time probably in no other country are the revo-lutionaries so awake to the fallacies of dual unionism and soalive to the correctness of Leninistic tactics in the trade unionsas in the United States, formerly the very home of dual unionismand all the sectarian conceptions which went with it.

For about four years now the left wing has been followingthe tactics and principles of Leninism in the trade unions. Thegreat growth in power and influence of the Workers Party andthe Trade Union Educational League in the struggles of theworkers is ample proof of their correctness. To organise revolu-tionary groups within the mass trade unions, to work untiringly

5

for a policy of class struggle as against one of class collabora-tion, to take the lead of the rank and file masses in all theirstruggles against their employers and the union bureaucracy,—these are Leninistic policies which are building the left wingmovement in the United States.

Our experiences have taught us conclusively that the old-time arguments of the impossibility of working within the ultra-reactionary A, F. of L, unions are fallacious. Despite the mostdesperate efforts of the bureaucrats in the Needle Trades Unions,the Miners, the Carpenters, the Machinists, and many otherunions to break our influence by expelling us wholesale, we havemanaged to hang onto the masses and to exercise a tremendousinfluence over them. But better than our victory over thebureaucrats is our victory over ourselves,. Even under the mostdesperate pressure and provocation, with our mMitants being ex-pelled wholesale from the unions and blacklisted from the indus-tries, they have not yielded to the gilded sophistries and "easysolutions" of dual unionism, Leninism has taught the left winghow and where to fight, and has inspired it to carry on this fightin the face of the bitterest hardships and handicaps. Every revo-lutionist who hopes to become a factor in the trade union move-ment and the whole struggle of the working class for emancipa-tion must become acquainted with Lenin's great work in thefield of trade unionism.

6

Lenin and theTrade Union Movement

By A. LOSQVSKY

i.In reading Lenin's works, in examining the fruits of his

thirty years of activity, one comes to see that what VladimirIlyitch has done represents an integral whole, and that onlyconditionally can any individual question be extracted fromit and viewed in its horizontal sections. In order clearly tounderstand Lenin's attitude towards the trade union move-ment, his approach towards its various issues and tasks, wemust consider primarily the conditions of the time whenLenin appeared as a political figure. He entered on the scenein the nineties, when in Russia the trade union movementwas just beginning to dawn and the leaders of the Russianlabor movement were confronted above all with the questionof haw to set into motion the laboring masses which alonehad the power to destroy the main evil, autocracy.

Lenin's initial stand on questions connected with thetrade union movement should be viewed primarily from theangle of the historical position of the labor movement ofRussia in the early nineties. We would be mistaken to thinkthat Lenin's views on trade union questions underwent nochanges during the 25-30 years of his activity. This wouldhave meant that Lenin learned very little from the constantlygrowing class struggle. Lenin not only taught, but studiedas well. He saw the processes in the labor movement which

were obscure to the rank and file and even to many of itsleaders. While making a certain prognosis and frequentlyforeseeing events, he learned from these events. A correctanalysis of the events, an ability to draw lessons from themand to find a basis for class action, were the most character-istic peculiarities of Lenin's political genius.

With the growth of the spontaneous economic struggle,the widely scattered circles of revolutionary Marxists becamemore and more acutely confronted, at the end of the nine-ties, with the question of what their attitude towards thisspontaneous struggle must be and how a plan and a consciouspurpose were to be infused into it. The early attempts tocreate a party, an organized whple, out of the scattered So-cial Democratic Marxian groups, the first attempts to weldtogether the various Marxists scattered throughout Russiawho were fighting the old populist groups, culminated in theFirst Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party, whichtook place at Minsk, in 1898. This congress laid the founda-tion for the party out of which later grew the Russian Com-munist Party. These initial attempts to gather the scatteredgroups of Social Democrats on a national, All-Russian scale,to get them together on the basis of a definite program, todraw concrete conclusions from the work that had been car-ried on by the separate circles; these attempts met with aseries of difficulties which constituted the basis for the futuredevelopments within the Russian Social Democratic LaborParty, the formation of various tendencies within it and thecrystalization of that tendency which became known underthe name of Bolshevism.

What were the issues of the struggle of the late ninetiesand of the early years of the twentieth century, followingupon the first congress? What questions agitated the revo-lutionists who laid the corner stone of the revolutionaryillegal party? It was the question of the attitude of the So-cial Democratic circles towards the strike movement, how to

8

utilize this movement, how to utilize the illegal sick benefitfunds, what forms the illegal work was to take. It was onlyafter the Russian Social Democratic Party had been formallycreated that there began to develop and take shape withinits womb various tendencies which ultimately constitutedthemselves into an opportunist wing of the Russian SocialDemocratic Labor Party, on the one hand, and a revolution-ary wing on the other.

II.

In order to get a clear conception of Lenin's views uponthe labor movement of that period, when a political and eco-nomic movement was gradually evolving out of it, we mustturn to his main work of that time, written at the end of1901, and at the beginning of 1902, the book entitled, "WhatIs to be Done?" In the early part of the twentieth centurywe had within the Social Democratic Party two basic tend-encies: One, the economists, and another which could bebriefly called the politicals. The economists of that time putforward the following conception: In .the process of the eco-nomic struggle the labor movement produces a class con-scious vanguard whose task consists of always keeping pacewith the spontaneously developing mass economic movementand marching gradually and slowly onward with this move-ment, that is, limiting the labor movement to the tasks whichthe new spontaneous movement of the masses puts beforeit. On the other hand, the tendency of the politicals who hadas their chief nucleus the "Group for the Liberation ofLabor," together with the new, the second generation of Rus-sian Social Democrats, and later the newspaper "Iskra" (TheSpark) which-was directed by Plekhanov, Lenin, Martov,Deutch, Vera Zasulich and Potresov (the association of thesenames sounds rather strange today), Waged a determined,relentless struggle against the economists, against the de-gradation of the revolutionary struggle to its spontaneousaspect, to use Lenin's expression. In the polemic with the

9

I

economists, in the fight against the degradation of the strug-gle, in the attempts to define the role and tasks of the fewSocial Democratic groups which represented class consciousnuclei, there was formed and welded together that tendencywhich gave rise to the Bolshevist Party. In his book, "WhatIs to be Done?" Lenin raises the question of the relation be-tween the element of consciousness and spontaneity in thelabor movement.

What on the whole, were the tremendous strikes,the strikes of the latter part of the nineties and thebeginning of the 20th century which shook autocracy to itsvery foundation? They began by riots, by spontaneous ac-tions which were gradually adjusted to the every day de-mands of the workers, involving an ever-increasing numberof workers. Thus the spontaneous movement of the workingmasses was developing into a struggle against the employersand later against the autocracy. All these spontaneous ac-tions dovetailed with the political line which was being de-veloped both within the working masses and in those organ-izations of the revolutionary intelligencla who were work-ing side by side, and gradually lining up and welding them-selves together with this spontaneous movement. Lenin, infighting the economists, came out sharply against the ideaof trade unionism as preached by them. For Lenin, tradeunionism was a movement limited by the frame-work of to-day, a movement that does not step beyond the every dayneeds of the workers, a craft movement, a narrow sectionaltrade movement that does not pursue any general class poli-tical objectives. This determined opposition to pure andsimple trade unionism, to the overestimation of spontanety,to the underestimation of conscious revolutionary action,runs right through the entire pamphlet "What Is to beDone?" which was written during the period of intense strug-gle between the economists and the revolutionary section ofthe social democracy of that time.

In order strongly to emphasize, as he always did, the

10

.necessity of creating a revolutionary party apparatus, of con-solidating the organized • Social Democratic groups, Lenin,sharply raised at that time, when it was extremely difficultto create a mass organization, the question of training revo-lutionary trade unionists. Lenin had been accused of desir-ing to train a set of trade unionists who would be out of touchwith the working class; nevertheless, with characteristic de-termination, he continued at that time, when it was necessaryto build up the basic ranks of the party, to follow his courseand, thanks to the determination with which he raised thequestion, which was not so much a question of organizationas a political issue, thanks to the persistent stress which helaid upon the creation of a basic nucleus of the party, we gotthose cells out of which the party ultimately developed.

III.

In this book, Lenin also emphasized the necessity of thetrade unions taking a neutral attitude towards the party.Only later did he explain why he believed in the neutralityof the trade unions. At that period when the party had notyet assumed organized shape, when he had only spontane-ous circles, disconnected groups, strike committees, etc., allsuch weakly organizations arising out of the economic strug-gle might have become in Lenin's opinion, a drawback onthe party itself, might have influenced it too strongly, where-as it was the role of the party to direct this spontaneousmovement. At that time the party was too small, its circleswere still very weak, and in order to safeguard it to a cer-tain extent against spontaneous pressure on the part of theeconomic groups whose standard of organization and classconscious was still low, Lenin advocated for that period theidea of neutrality. You know, of course, that Lenin in lateryears was opposed to the neutrality of the trade unions.Yet at the dawn of the Russian labor movement, when hefirst took a stand on this question he assumed; as you see,a different position. Later, as the labor movement grew, as

11

the tremendous strike wave of 1904, coupled with the Russo-Japanese war as the mass movement of 1905, when all ofRussia was in the throes of a revolutionary conflagration,which culminated in the first revolution, and when this rapiddevelopment of the revolutionary process brought its changesinto the labor movement itself, brought a rapid intensifica-tion of revolutionary conflicts, the party was compelled toassume a new position on the trade union question.

It should be pointed out that in 1905 the attitude to beassumed by the party towards the various issues of the tradeunion movement was still unclear. I remember personallythat in 1905, while participating in the Bolshevist conferenceof the Volga provinces at Samara, I advocated the affiliationof the unions to the party. At that time the very problem ofthe trade union movement was mere theory to us, but as thelabor movement grew, as the trade unions multiplied in num-ber and the primary mutual aid funds and societies began todevelop into all sorts of shapeless trade unions, with different

. constitutions, different forms of organization, etc., it becamenecessary to give a more concrete answer to the question:.What must be the attitude of the Social Democratic Party(as our party was then called) towards the trade union move-ment. Here we see that in 1907, in his preface^ to the book"Twelve Years," Lenin wrote that his opponents, includingPlekhanov, had attempted for a long time to give a basisto their differences with him on the question of the spontane-ous and the conscious, but "Plekhanov's criticism," Lenin says"is clearly of a captious character and is based upon discon-nected phrases, and separate sentences which are not veryprecisely formulated." Thus, while there was no preciseformulation on the question of the relations between thespontaneous and the conscious, Lenin admitted that on thequestion of neutrality he had really held an erroneous opin-ion. In the same preface Lenin writes: "I advocated at thattime, when I wrote 'What Is to be Done?' the neutrality ofthe trade unions. Since then I have not, contrary to the

12

claims of my opponents, repudiated this idea either in pam-phlets or in newspaper articles. Only the London Congressof the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and the Stutt-gart International Socialist Congress forced me to the con-clusion that the neutrality of the trade unions cannot bechampioned in principle (emphasized by Lenin)." We thussee that with the growth of the labor movement, with theformation and consolidation of the social democracy Leninbegan to see the question of trade union neutrality withgreater clarity, which he admitted himself.

IV.

For the evolution of the opinions of the R. S. D. L. P. ingeneral, and of its Bolshevist section in particular, tradeunion questions, the resolutions of the Stockholm and Lon-don congresses are extremely characteristic and significant.At the Stockholm Party Congress the Mensheviks had a ma-jority and consequently the formulation which the congressgave to the attitude of the party towards the trade unionsbears the earmarks of Menshevist ideology. Point four ofthe resolution of the Stockholm congress states that "theeconomic struggle will bring about a permanent bettermentof the condition of the working masses and a crystallizationof a genuine class organization only if it is properly co-or-dinated with the political struggle of the proletariat." Thusit is a question of merely co-ordinating the struggle. Thecongress also urged on the other hand, that "the party shouldsupport the workers in their tendency to organize in tradeunions and do everything possible towards the formation ofneutral trade unions." The very formulation of this pointforced us to think, for we Bolsheviks do not speak of neutralunions. We speak of unaffiiiated unions, and between un-afflliated and neutral there is a difference.

In opposition to this resolution which was favored by amajority of the congress, that is, by the Mensheviks, the

13

Bolshevist faction moved its own resolution on the tradeunion question which was drawn up, of course, with theactive participation of Lenin. The resolution of the Bolshe-vist faction puts the question of partisanship on quite a dif-ferent basis. "The congress believes," the resolution states,"that the party should make every effort to educate the unionworkers, in the spirit of a clear understanding of the classstruggle and of the socialist tasks of the trade unions, inorder by its activity to gain actual control over the unions,and that ultimately these unions might, under certain con-ditions, directly affiliate to the party, without, of course, ex-pelling their non-party members." You see that this formu-lation contains a strong, clearly Bolshevist deflection thoughit does not yet exhibit the clear cut, firm Bolshevist line ofthe future which was evolved as a result of greater experi-ence in the revolutionary trade union movement.

How is the expression "the unions might affiliate to theparty" to be understood? It means organizational connec-tions between the unions and the party, which, however,will secure the labor movement against opportunism only ifthe party is sufficiently powerful to direct the unions. Wehave countries where the unions are not only affiliated tothe party, but where they have themselves created the party.In Norway, as you know, the party committee and the TradeUnion Council are elected at one and the same meeting. Wethus see that the Bolshevist resolution at the Stockholm con-gress contains a definite, sharp revolutionary, obviously anti-Menshevist approach to the question; yet this formulationis not sufficiently clear cut for the Bolshevist outlook. It didnot develop in a day. It was not created at once, but grewgradually and crystallized with the growth of the labor move-ment itself.

Between the Stockholm congress, which was held in1900, and the London congress, a year of organization andpractical activities transpired. In Russia the struggle be-

14

tween the Mensheviks and Bolsheviks was waged all alongthe front, including also the trade union front, so that theLondon congress, as expressed in the resolution on the trade

•union question, marked a further step forward in respect ofmaking *a clearer formulation of the relations between theparty and the unions and of the crystallization of the atti-tude of the party towards the very intricate question of theplace and role of the trade unions in the general class strug-gle of the proletariat. At the London congress the questionof the relations beteen the party and the unions was treatedin a very short resolution which ends as follows: "The con-gress reminds the party organizations and the Social Demo-crats working in the trade unions that one of the fundamen-tal tasks of the social democratic activities within the unionis: To promote irade union recognition of the spiritual lead-ership of the Social 'Democratic Party and the establishmentof organizational connections with them, and where the localconditions make it possible, to put this decision into effect,"

We thus have a formulation which recognizes the spirit-ual leadership of the party and calls for organizational con-nections between it and the unions, though not for organ-izational unity; these two terms are far from being identicalin their meaning. Organizational connections at that periodwere understood to mean mutual representation. The partyhad its delegate in the Trade Union Council, or as it wasthen called in the Central Bureau of Trade Unions, but thequestion of whether this bureau as an organization ought tohave a representative on the party committee was repeatedlydiscussed but remained unsettled. The Bolshevik positionon this question was quite clear: Representatives from thetrade unions should be persuaded to engage in party work,the party itself should participate in the work of the TradeUnion Bureau, but no representative of this Central Bureaushould be invited to the party committee. You see how withthe growth of the Russian labor movement the struggle with-in the Social Democratic Party was sharpening, and two

15

tendencies were taking shape, developing two distinct lineson every question, including also the trade union question.The first line, calling for parallel action by the party and thetrade unions, ultimately culminated in the ideology of theindependence and neutrality of the trade unions; the* secondline, calling for close co-operation, a close line-up and thespiritual leadership of the party over the unions, culminatedin that form of the trade union movement which we nowhave here in Soviet Russia.

Lenin again stated his views on the question of the tradeunions in an article "Trade Union Neutrality," published il-legally in 1908 ("The Proletarian," February 19, 1908). Herethe question of trade union neutrality is raised with parti-cular acuteness and we find some of those formulaes withwhich we meet in the post-revolutionary- work of Lenin. Inthis article Lenin wrote: "The class interests of the bour-geoisie inevitably produce a tendency to limit the unions tosmall narrow activities on the basis of the existing system,to remove them from any association with socialism, and•the neutrality theory is the ideological garb of these bour-geois tendencies. , , . During the early development ofthe political and trade union movement in Europe there wasground for advocating the neutrality of the unions as ameans to expand the original basis of the proletarian struggleduring the era of its relative undevelopment and the absenceof any systematic pressure against the unions on the partof the bourgeoisie. At the present time there is no place fortrade union neutrality from the point of view of the interna-tional social democracy."

This was written in 1908 after the Stuttgart Congress.

V.

Taking the R u s s i a n labor movement between1908 and 1914 we find . here first a period of reactionwhich lasted approximately up to the beginning of 1912 and

16

then a brief period embracing the years 1912-13-14, whichwere years of an industrial expansion and of a revival of thelabor movement. During this revival of the Russian labormovement in 1912-13-14 the Bolshevik attitude towards thetrade unions assumed perfectly definite and clear cut forms.The struggle against the Mensheviks was centered at thattime on the question of the extent to which the legal condi-tions should be utilized, the strengthening of the illegal partyand the supremacy or spiritual leadership over the legal tradeunions by the illegal party. In every field of labor activityand particularly in the trade» union field, Lenin strenuouslyfought for spiritual control by the illegal party organization.I shall not dwell at length upon that period^ but shall passover to the more recent period in the Russian labor move-ment and to the theoretical and practical questions whichwere connected with its development, and the role whichLenin played in the formulation of the Communist viewpoint'on the trade union movement.

You know that beginning with February, 1917, Russiahas experienced a stormy development of trade unionism.Russia, which entered the revolution with but a few unionshad three and a half months later, by the time of the Thirdtrade union conference one and one-half million organizedworkers. At this conference (June 20-28, 1917) there was acollision between the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. Thistime, in a new situation, under the conditions of the unfold-jng revolution, the old conflict flared up again with renewedvigor. The conference was dominated by Mensheviks andSocial Revolutionists. Consequently the trade union tasksas formulated by it bear a definite stamp of Menshevism.

During the period of revolution, the period of the rapiddevelopment of events, of the development of conflicts, atthe time when the third trade union conference was in ses-sion, Lenin wrote two articles on. the trade union questionfocussing his attention upon the organization of the agricul-

17

tural workers. On the surface there appears to be no con-nection between the trade union conference and Lenin's ar-ticles on the creation of an Agricultural Workers' Union, butif we read this article carefully, if we view it from the angleof the unfolding struggle of that period and of the role whichthe peasant masses were to play in our revolution, it willbe'come clear why, at the end of June, when events werefollowing fast upon each other, Lenin raised the questionof the organization of a Farm Workers' Union. Lenin wrote :^'The basic role of the party, the first commandment of everytrade union movement should be : 'Do not rely upon thestate,' rely only upon the power of your class. The state isan organization of the class in power. Do not rely uponpromises, rely upon the power of union and upon the con-sciousness of your class.'' And he continues further on, "TheFarm Workers' Union must therefore at once raise as itstask not merely the improvement of the conditions of theworkers, but particularly the protection of their interests as aclass during the coming great agrarian transformation."

We see that at the time the conference was in sessionhastily summing up the first results of the industrial organ-ization among city workers Lenin pointed to the necessityof rallying the farm workers to the struggle, for he saw thatthey were to play a serious part in the approaching peasantrevolution. Thus every time Lenin took up trade union ques-tions he viewed the movement not as something separate andisolated from the general political situation; he approachedthe trade unions as an organized section of the workingclass movement and later, especially during the great dis-cussion on the trade union movement and in a number ofarticles and speeches prior to this discussion, he clearly as-cribed to the trade unions a role and position of a part of thecomplex mechanism of the social struggle. He never sep-arated the trade union movement from the political move-ment but always selected in the trade union movement it-self those factors, those aspects which were of outstanding

18

importance in the general class struggle of the proletariat atthe particular period.

VI.

The end of June, 1917, and particularly the period fol-lowing after the failure of the July action, saw an over-whelming growth and revolutionization of the trade unions,which were rapidly captured by the Bolsheviks, though inthe central trade union federation we were still in the minor-ity. By October, we had a tremendous majority throughoutthe unions, though in some unions, chiefly of non-manualworkers, the Mensheviks were still quite strong.

Here the central point of serious interest in the defini-tion of Lenin's view of the role of the trade unions is theOctober revolution and the part played in it by the unions.In his articles and in his speeches Lenin always consideredthe trade unions as working class organizations destined toplay an immense role in the overthrow of the old system andin the creation of a new one. At the forefront of Lenin'sinterest was the formation and consolidation of the party,and in approaching the unions he viewed them from theangle of party leadership and of the achievements of thetasks raised by the party. During the October revolution it-self there was no break between the party and the tradeunions, which took an active part in the direct struggle inconjunction with the shop committees. The October revo-lution brought to the fore the question of the further des-tinies of the trade unions and here as in the pre-Octoberperiod, the points of view formulated in our party on thetrade union question are of exceptional interest. These viewswere completely linked up with the question of the rate atwhich our revolution and the revolutionary movement inwestern Europe were going to develop. Directly after theOctober revolution the party gave rise to a tendency whichbelieved that the unions had outlived their time, since theirexistence due to the capitalist relations and, therefore, with

19

the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, theirusefulness disappears. This tendency urged that the shopcommittees were now to take the place of the trade unions.This reflected the confusion and uncertainty existing withinthe trade unions themselves.

The attitude of our party including of course, Lenin, to-wards these sentiments was manifested especially at the firsttrade union congress in the formulation of the tasks of thetrade unions. At this congress the question of the govern-mentalization of the trade unions arose with great force, aquestion which engaged the entire attention of several sub-sequent congresses, and which culminated in the great de-bate of 1920. The question of the governmentalization ofthe trade unions arose together with the consolidation ofthe proletarian dictatorship. It is completely dependent uponthe rapid development of the socialist revolution. The rateat which the trade unions are to be governmentalized isdirectly in proportion to the rate at which the internationalsocialist revolution develops and vice versa, with the slowingup of the development of events what we call governments 1-izatidn of the trade unions becomes also more gradual. Itshould be pointed out that an abstract approach towardsthe governmentalization of the trade unions will not bringout the answer to the question of whether governmentaliza-tion is timely at any particular period, whether it will not gocontrary to the general line followed by us, whether it willnot render more difficult the solution of the organizationaland political problems confronting the trade union movementat the given moment, etc.

The draft resolution on the trade union tasks which wasdiscussed beforehand by the Communist caucus of the firsttrade union congress contained the following formulationwhich was substantially modified later: "In their developedfrom the trade unions during the period of the workers' andpeasants' dictatorship should become organs of the socialist

20

power, functioning as such in co-operation with the otherorgans towards the operation of new principles of life andeconomic organization." Another clause contains the follow-ing words: "The means by which the trade unions are tobe transformed into such organs, that is, into the organs ofthe state, are: The proclamation of the trade unions asstate organizations in which participation for every man and

, woman worker-must be obligatory." At the first trade unioncongress over two-thirds of the delegates were Communists,members of the party. This formula aroused considerabledoubt within the caucus itself. The following three objec-tions were put forward: First, can the trade unions be trans-formed into organs of state power under the workers' andpeasants' dictatorship? Second, is it necessary to proclaim thetrade unions as state organizations by means of a government-al decree? And third, is.it necessary to make membershipin the trade unions obligatory through outside pressure andcompulsion? The Central Committee of the party and theTrade Union Congress adopted on the question of the gov-ernmentalization of the trade unions a formula by which thevery problem of the governmentalization is not consideredan issue of today, but a part of the development of the labormovement, not an issue calling for immediate solution, butone which the trade union movement is to solve along withthe development of the socialist reconstruction.

The revolution, the establishment of the proletarian dic-tatorship, the destruction of the bourgeoisie, put the work-ing class and the trade unions before new and very seriousproblems. The role of the trade unions in the social revo-tion and socialist reconstruction was correctly and clearlydefined by the Russian Communist Party. The particularclause of the program treats the matter with greater detailand precision. This was not strange, as programs are usual-ly elaborated with greater thoroughness than resolutions.Our program contains a clause which has caused much con-troversy in the Party. The clause is as follows: "The or-

21

ganizational machinery of the socialized industry should bebased primarily upon the trade unions. They should gradual-ly rid themselves of the craft narrowness and be transformedinto mighty industrial unions embracing the majority andgradually all the workers of the particular industry. Beingalready, by the laws of the Soviet Republic and by fixed tradi-tion, participants in all the local and central industrial manag-ing bodies, the trade unions should come to the actual con-*centration within their hands of the entire management ofthe entire public economy as a single economic whole."

This formulation, drawn up by Lenin, represents the-oretically a perfectly correct approach to the question ofthe role of the trade unions in the proletarian revolution.It was subjected to a running fire of criticism, chiefly on thepart of Comrade Rasanov, who contended that the statement"the unions should come to the concentration within theirhands of the entire industry" was a clearly a reflection ofSyndicalism. "This contains an inconsistent and non-Marx-ian thought," Comrade Rasanov protested. On the otherha#d this formula gave a definition of the trade union taskswhich went contrary to the line of the party majority. Thisformula was made the foundation of the platform ofthe "labor opposition" who contended that the Rus-sian trade unions were ready for the immediate operation ofthis particular part of the program. Comrade Razanov's posi-tion on this question always appeared to me erroneous forhis estimation of this part of our program represents a static'rather than dynamic approach, whereas the program con-siders the concentration of the management of industry inthe hands of the trade unions only as a result of anhistorical process which the trade unions will go throughgradually.

If we ask ourselves which organizations will finally man-age industry, kow the relations between the various organ-izations will develop objectively with the development of the

oo

revolution, from which organizations the industrial manage-ments will ultimately evolve, we must reply that the answersto these questions depend upon a great number of factors:upon the relative strength of the proletariat in the country,upon the relationship between agriculture and the city in-dustries, upon the rate of revolutionary development inWestern Europe, upon the degree of the organization of theproletariat, etc. The trade unions will ultimately prove to bethe basis of the organization which will concentrate in itshands production as a whole.

The mistake of the "labor opposition" consisted not inits general contention, but in its belief that right at thattime, that is, in 1920, the trade unions were capable of assum-ing the responsibility for putting into effect that particularclause of the program. The labor opposition did not take in-to consideration the state of our industry, the overwhelmingdomination of agriculture and small industry, the slow devel-opment of the revolution, the approaching NEP, which wasalready making itself felt in the discussion on the trade unionsin 1920.

' ' VII.

The problem of the governmentalization of the tradeunions was thus raised by the October revolution and weare the nmly country in the world where this question hasbecome a subject of discussion. To the extent that theworkers of other countries have considered the theoreticalquestions of economic reconstruction on the morrow of therevolution answers to these questions can be found both inthe syndicalist and in the reformist literature, but in theplane in which it has been considered here, the questionsnave never before been treated.

In order to get a clear idea of how Lenin and the partyas a whole, view the questions of the trade union movementand structure, we must touch upon several events of the postOctober period of our revolution. I have already stated that

the question of the governmentalization of the trade unionsaroused a great controversy within the party itself. Thesharpness of the discussion was due to an over-estimationof the rate of development both of our own and the WestEuropean revolution. Very characteristic in this connectionwas Comrade Lenin's speech at the second trade union con-gress in 1919: "The trade unions," Lenin said, "after thepolitical coup which transfered the power into their hands(formulated briefly, Lenin does not waste words), have toplay a particularly important part, have to become in a sensethe chief political organs for all the old conceptions of politicshave been overthrown and upset."

This was Lenin's fundamental premise. Further, hesaid: "The governmentalization of the trade unions is in-evitable, their fusion with the state power is inevitable, thetransfer into their hands of the entire development of largescale production is inevitable." If we take into considera-tion the clause of the program which I have cited and theforegoing formulation, it will become clear that they1 co-in-cide in every detail." » .

Lenin sharply and repeatedly stressed the inevitabilityof the governmentalization of the trade unions. But Leninwas primarily a political dialectician. He approached everyquestion nqt from an abstract point of view, but from a con-crete angle, and consequently in treating this question ofgovernmentalization he approached it primarily from thepoint of view of the concrete practical struggle which thetrade unions will have to carry out in the work of industrialreconstruction. He says in one of his speeches: "There arestill many steps to be taken before we can say; the tradeunions of the toilers have completely merged with the statemachinery. This will take place when the organs by whichone class i exercises violence over another will be completelyin the hands of the workers." You see that the question ofthe governmentalization of the trade unions is linked up w.ith

' ' 24

a number of other questions, with the question of the rateof the revolution, the question of the creation of a genuineproletarian state machinery, etc.

For Lenin the governmentalization of the trade unionswas a long process of practical activity, of direct work in theorganization of the national economy. He thought of thetransformation of the unions into organs of state power asof a process which begins by participation in the governmentof the country and ends in the building up of'new organsexclusively under the control of the trade unions. But whymust the trade unions, in Lenin's opinion, come to controlthe national economy? "Because," Lenin replies, "the tradeunions are mass organizations and the revolution is primarilythe creation of the masses itself." Lenin formulates thisidea in the following words: "The trade unions become theprinciple builders of the new society because the buildersof this society can be only the great masses, just as thebuilders of society during serfdom were made up of hun-dreds, just as the state under capitalism was built up bythousands and tens of thousands, just so can the presentsocialist revolution be accomplished only with the direct andactive participation of tens of millions in the governing ofthe state."

VIII.

Thus for,Lenin the question of the governmentalizationof the trade unions was a question of the activity of themasses themselves. As the tens of millions of people aredrawn into the struggle the machinery of production willfall under the control of the trade unions. The sooner themasses are set into motion, the sooner the thousands andmillions of workers are drawn into active political work, intoactive reconstruction, the sooner will we come to the ma-terialization of this clause of our program on the govern-mentalization of the trade unions. That is how Lenin de-ciphered our attitude on this question. Lenin never forgot

25

the fundamental rule of Hegel's dialectics. "Truth is con-crete." He takes Russia of today, our peasant Russia andconfronts the millions of laboring masses with the problemof capturing the entire machinery by which the industriallife of the country is run. In the same speech delivered atthe second trade union congress he asks the fundamentalquestion: What concrete practical problems stand beforethe trade unions and what course must they follow? Andhe replies: "Their task (of the trade unions) is to movethese millions and tens of millions of toilers from simple ac-tivities to higher forms of activities, never growing weary inmoving them to the most difficult tasks, and thus to traingreater and greater masses for the government of the coun-try, to merge with the struggle of the proletariat which tookup the dictatorship and holds it in face of the entire world,rallying in every country detachment after detachment ofindustrial workers and socialists who only yesterday stilltook orders from the social traitors and the social defendists,but who now line up more and more closely around the ban-ner of Communism and of the Communist International."

You see how Lenin approached the question of the tradeunions. Here he addresses not the delegates of the con-gress, not the hundreds of Communists assembled there,he sees before him the tens of millions of people who are de-stined to accomplish a tremendous job and he lays downbefore the congress the following political line: "Get moreand more toilers into this work."

To Lenin the trade union question was not a separatedistinct question. It could not be separated from the givenpolitical situation, and this idea was, as you remember,Lenin's basic idea during the discussion. What was Trotsky'sbasic idea on the trade union question? Trotsky said: "Theunions are undergoing a grave crisis." To this Lenin re-plied: "Insofar as we will and must speak of a crisis, thecrisis is a reflection of the painful process taking place amongthe working masses. Hence to concentrate, one's attention

26

or, as the question stood at that time, one's accusation uponthe trade unions alone, upon a perticular section, is a wrongtreatment of the question, wrong in principles,"

IX.

During the discussion of 1920 there were two centralissues at stake. The first was the question of the tradeunions with the organs of state power, and the second wasthe question of whether the trade unions should engagein the protection of the workers' interests. It was alongthese two lines that the division into platforms took place;the platform of "the ten," Trotsky's platform, the compro-mise platform, etc. In reading now what Lenin said andwrote during the discussion, one gets to see that Lenin wasalready aware of the approaching new turn implied in thediscussion, that sharp turn in policy which the party wascompelled to make at the beginning of 1921. For Lenin thediscussion itself was a sign that some new elements hadmatured and began to make themselves felt in the economicand political fabric of the country, elements that were soonto take shape and come out into the open.

On the question of the unions with the state organs,Lenin said: "As regards this, it will be best to say nothingand see how it appears in practice." Why did Lenin ap-proach so carefully, I would even say suspiciously, the ques-tion in 1920? Why did Lenin who directly after the Octoberrevolution, during the first trade union congress, advocatedthe speedy governmentalization of the unions, approach thesame question with such caution as at the beginning of1920? Because he had already anticipated the approachingnew turn which did not depend upon the good or bad willof the party, but upon the relationship of forced within ourpeasant country. For the rate of identification or integra-tion of the- welding together of the trade unions and thestate, depended upon the building up of our national econo-my, upon the capture of agricultural industry by us, and,

27

upon the development of the revolution in Western EuropeLenin saw that we were moving towards the new economicpolicy.

Then the second question: Can the trade unions, un-der the dictatorship of the proletariat, engage in the pro-tection of the interests of the workers? The Mensheviksattempted during the early days of the revolution to builda special platform on this question. The "independent"Menshevist trade unionmovement was based upon the ideathat after the October revolution the working class mustbe independent of the state, must put up demands to theproletarian state, organize strikes, etc." The trade unionsshould protect the interests of their membership, leaving thebusiness of state to others, such on the whole was, roughlyspeaking, the Menshevist point of view.

Thus the very formula of the protection by the unionsof the interests of their members, under the dictatorship ofthe proletariat appeared to some comrades as a purely Men-shevist formula. Many of them said: "To divide the unionsand the state is to develop a force which may turn againstthe proletarian dictatorship, it means to warp in a sensethe entire Communist line in the trade union field." To thisLenin replied: "Our country has a peasant majority. Wehave, of course, a proletarian dictatorship, but with bureau-cratic distortions. And the struggle against bureaucratic dis-tortions can be conducted along two lines: Through thestate apparatus and through direct pressure on the part ofthe workers themselves, whose trade unions protect the in-terests of their members and thereby combat bureaucracy."

Some time after the new economic policy was adoptedthe Central Committee of the party published a theses onthe trade unions which provided for the possibility of strikes.How did this happen? If we approach the discussion on thetrade unions in the same way as Lenin approached it, wewill see that the new course in the trade union movementwas a reflection of the general process and the general

28

change. We will see that both the discussion and the fu-ture changes of our tactics reflected the new relationship offorces, the slacking up of the development of the revolu-tion in Western Europe, the growth of the petty bourgeoispeasant sentiment and its pressure upon the city, and thenumber of economic and political phenomena which accom-panied the introduction of the N. E. P.

If we turn to the decisions of our party and trade unioncongresses we will see how this necessity for retreatingwas reflected in their resolutions, and found its expression inthe general policy of the trade unions. The question of thegovernmentalization of the trade unions gradually recededto the background, being deferred to some future, the ques-tions of direct protection of the workers' interests came tothe fore (N. E. P. came), the trade unions became confrontedwith a new series of problems, problems that Lenin had

• clearly and vividly expounded in numerous speeches andarticles.

X.

I shall now pass over to Lenin's role in the formationof a revolutionary trade union movement on a world scale.What was the most important issue in the trade, union fieldafter the war? You know that together with the revolutionby the social democracy, a tendency developed in the laborcenters of many countries to do away with the trade unionsaltogether. Moreover, the German Communist Party at itsHeidelberg congress took a stand in favor of the revolution-ary workers, splitting the reformist unions and setting upnew unions. We had quite a distinct current in our ownCommunist movement sharply hostile towards the old unions."We cannot be in one organization with traitors, they willbetray us, we must create new unions"—the representativesof this tendency insisted.

Comrades, it must be made clear that the question ofthe trade union movement in Western Europe is a central

29

question, for there we have in many countries unions withenormous memberships, unions of long standing and withtime honored traditions. We had to make clear what tacticsto use in respect to the mass organizations, what to do withthe reformist unions like those of Germany, having over8,000,000 members. At this most crucial and decisive mo-ment, Lenin came out with his pamphlet, "The Infantile Sick-nesses of Leftism" in which he offers a perfectly clear anddefinite solution of the Communist tactics in the trade unionmovement. There is a whole chapter in this book entitled"Should Revolutionists work in Reactionary Unions?" Leninanalyzes all the left arguments for quitting the reformistunions in this chapter. "We should have nothing to do withthem because they do not defend the interests of the work-ers, we cannot support them because they are opportunists,no compromises," the British lefts proclaimed. However,their leftism was in reverse proportion to their influenceover the labor movement. And in the chapter dedicated tothe British lefts, Lenin says: "You do not want to affiliateto the labor party, you do not want to support it in the elec-tions, but the fact that the majority of the workers in Eng-land still follow the British Kerensky's and Scheidemann'sthe fact that they have not yet had the experience of hav-ing a government of these men, which experience was re-quired by Russia and Germany to drive the mass of theworkers towards Communism, this fact makes it perfectlyobvious that the British Communists must engage in par-liamentarism, that they must help the working masses tosee the results of a Henderson-Snowden government fromwithin parliament, that they must help the Hendersons andSnowdens defeat the Lloyd George-Churchill alliance. Toact otherwise is to put obstacles in the way of the revolu-tion for without a change in the outlook of the majority ofthe working class, revolution is impossible, and this changewill be created by the political experience of the masses, butnever by propaganda alone."

30

But Lenin does not stop here. He says: "The slogan,'Without compromise, onward, never deviating from thestraight path," when this slogan is raised by an undeniablyhelpless minority of the workers which knows (or at anyrate, should know), that the majority will shortly, in case ofa victory of Henderson and Snowden over Lloyd George andChurchill, become disillusioned and come to the support ofCommunism (or in any case, to neutrality in most casesfavorable neutrality, towards the Communists), it is clearly amistaken slogan. It is just as if 10,000 soldiers threw them-selves into battle against 50,000 enemy soldiers; this is atime when it is necessary to "hesitate," to "deviate fromthe path," and even "compromise" as long as there are re-inforcements 100,000 strong behind you who cannot imme-diately join the battle. This is intellectual puerility and nota serious tactic of a revolutionary class."

Lenin devotes several pages of his pamphlet to the Germanlefts as well. "In the west the local Mensheviks have en-trenched themselves much more firmly in the trade unions.There a much stronger set of narrow, selfish, hard, mer-cenary, petty bourgeois, imperialisticaliy minded and cor-rupted and bought by imperialism trade unionists in thewest" than in this country. This is unmistakable. Thestruggle against the Gomperses, Jouhauxs, Hendersons, Mer-heims, Legiens and Co., in western Europe is much moredifficult than our struggle against the Mensheviks who rep-resent "an absolutely homogeneous social and political type."This leads Lenin to the conclusion that there is no causefor nervousness but that it is necessary to work in the tradeunions, to be where the workers are. This was the sloganraised by Lenin on the trade union question.

Here I feel compelled to cite another most character-istic passage: "Millions of workers in England, Prance andGermany are changing for the first time from a total lack oforganization to an elementary simple, most accessible (forthose who are still thoroly imbued with bourgeois democratic

31

prejudices) form of organization, namely, trade unions, whilethe revolutionary but unwise left Communists stand asideand shout, "The masses, the masses" and refuse to workwithin the trade unions . . . refuse on the ground of theirbeing "reactionary" . . . invent a brand new, spotless,"Workers' Union" guiltless of bourgeois democratic preju-dices blandeless of craft and narrow trade sins, expected tobecome (will it?) a wide union, and in which the only (only!)condition for membership is the recognition of the Sovietsystem and of the dictatorship." Lenin says plainly: "Thetask of a Communist is to be able to convert the backwardmasses, to be able to work among them instead of fencinghimself off from them by invented, childish left slogans.'"

These few quotations will suffice to show how Leninsolved that most difficult question, the question of our tac-tics in the trade union movement. He advised: "Do not benervous, a Communist must have strong wires in the placeof nerves. Of course, the entire reformist officialdom mustbe driven out of the trade unions, but they should not begiven the pleasure of our voluntary withdrawal. We mustremain in the reactionary unions, work there, conquer themasses, drive out the leaders and turn the unions into or-gans of the revolution." This little book of Lenin's hasplayed a tremendous part in the struggle against the leftphraseology, which, as you know, Lenin hated.

XI.

It is also necessary to touch upon Lenin's estimation ofthe establishment of the Red International of Labor Unions.I remember that when in 1920 it fell to me, together withthe representative from Italy, France, and other countries,to begin laying the foundation of the R. I. L. U. here inMoscow. I had some serious differences with D'Arragonawho considered himself a left. We debated with him forseveral days. I proposed one basis for the creation of an in-ternational trade union center, while he proposed another.

32

Then Serratti suggested a compromise which was not, how-ever, sufficiently clear. With this formula of Serratti I wentto Lenin. - Lenin read it and said: "Yes, indeed, there issomething unclear here, but that is not important. You createthe center, and clarity will come of itself." Lenin attachedparticular importance to clarity of thought, of course, butwhen he saw that even a little step forward could be madeby making some concession on the question of a formula, healways agreed and always proved to be right.

When the first trade union congress was called, Leninaddressed a letter to it in which he wrote: "It is difficult tofind words in which to express the entire significance ofthe international congress of trade unions. The conversionof the trade union members to the ideas of Communism ismoving irresistably onward everywhere in every country,throughhout the world. It is moving irregularly, incorrectly,unsteadily, overcoming thousands of obstacles, but it is stillmoving irresistably onward. The International Congress ofTrade Unions will accelerate this motion. Communism willwin in the trade unions." Such were Lenin's greetings tothe first constituent congress of the Red International of-labor unions.

In conclusion, I shall touch upon the prospects of thetrade union movement as they were understood by Lenin.If we follow up, step by step, all the resolutions on tradeunion questions adopted by our party congresses, all ofLenin's articles and speeches on the trade union question,we shall get quite a definite line. It would not be true tosay that Lenin and the party had the same opinion on tradeunion questions twenty-five years ago as today. In this re-spect, Comrade Gierinis was wrong when he wrote in thepreface to his book, "Lenin and the Trade Union Movement"that Lenin's point of view expressed in "What is to be Done?"remained the same to the very end. This is untrue. Themind of the party has done some tremendous thinking dur-ing this stormy period. This path can be traced back also

33

on the question of the role of the party. Take up "What Isto be Done?" and compare Lenin's formulation of that roleof the Communist Party in the proletarian revolution givenin that book with the formulation of the same question made,with his participation, by the Second Congress of the Com-munist International and you will then become aware ofthe path traversed by the party. What is the party? "TheCommunist Party is a part of the working class. To be pre-cise, it is its most advanced, most class conscious and mostrevolutionary part. The Communist Party is created by aselection of the best, most intelligent, most self-sacrificing,most far-sighted workers. The Communist Party has no in-terest other than those of the working class. The Commun-ist Party differs from the entire mass of the workers in thatit views the historical path of the working class in its en-tirity and endeavors, at the various stages of this path, todefend the interests not of individual groups, not of individ-ual trades, but of the working class as a whole. The Com-munist Party is that politically organized lever with the aidof which the most advanced section of the working classguides along the true path the entire mass of the proletar-iat and semi-proletariat."

Thus was the role of the Communist Party clearly de-fined twenty years after "What Is to be Done?" on the basisof an infinitely rich historical experience.

XII.

What then are the prospects of the development ofthe party and the trade unions? Insofar as we are enteringan epoch when the classes will disappear, we are moving to-wards a time when the state organs in all of their variations,and the party as the organ of the class struggle, will dis-appear. Will the party exist after Communism has beenfully developed? No, in the future the party will disappear.Of course, it is still a long way off, and our Russian Com-munist Party,will still exist a number of years in its present

34

form, but with the ultimate consolidation of Communism,it will disappear as a party.

What will happen with the other forms of workjng classorganization? We have unions, co-operatives, Soviets, etc.The Soviets are organs of the state, organs of the proletariandictatorship. They too, will disappear with the disappear-ance of the classes, which are the foundation of state power.What will happen to the trade unions? The trade unionswill develop along the lines mapped out in our program.They will come to a point when the entire industries willbe concentrated in their hands and when the organs of state,the party, etc., disappear, the trade unions will be trans-formed into new organizations, the names of which we donot know, but which will direct and manage industry, etc.Thus we have the following situation: At a certain historicalmoment the party will disappear; the separate sections ofthe party machinery will merge with the organs of state*power and with the organs of industrial management whichwill gradually merge with the trade unions. All this willbring about at a certain historical moment a new formation,a new organ of industrial management that will be unlikethe party, the Soviets, or the trade unions taken separately.Lenin said in one of his speeches: "That time is far off,most probably only our grandchildren will live to see it; todaywe are confronted with concrete problems of tremendous im-portance and we must solve them."

My conclusions will be extremely brief. Lenin ushered insomething new not only into the Russian, but into the interna-tional labor movement as well. For Lenin the trade unionswere a part of a mechanism. In one of his speeches he set forthin the following vivid manner: "The engine is the party, itscogs grip the cogs of the trade union wheel and bring them in-to motion, the trade unions in turn set into motion the greatermasses." Lenin viewed and valued the trade unions as aschool for the education of the masses, for throwing the

masses into action. For him the trade unions were of valueonly if they were imbued with the Communist spirit. Hewrote in one of his articles: "That the unions are made upof workers is not enough. They represent an organizationof their class only if they pursue a class line, a class policy."To saturate the unions with a Communist ideology, to makethem into a machine for the prosecution of the Communistline, to subordinate them to the influence of the CommunistParty, to control them, to draw into the revolutionary move-ment, thru them, tens of millions x>f toilers, to educate themasses—this was Lenin's aim thruout his policy. Lenin wasan outstanding political thinker. He knew how to maneuverwith millions, how to direct millions into the struggle, he cor-rectly estimated the role and the tasks of the trade unionsand was instrumental in making the .Russian trade unionmovement play an*exceptional role in the shaping of the

itrade union movement of all countries, a role similar to thatplayed by the Russian Communist Party in the CommunistInternational, the role of a leading, inspiring, driving force.In this field as in every other field Lenin's influence was quiteexceptional, demanding a thoro and long study for manyyears.

The World Trade Union MovementBy A. LOSOVSKY,

Written by the secretary of the Red Internationalof Labor Unions, this book is a splendid guide to anunderstanding of the world trade union movementand its history,

"For the first time," says Earl R. Browder inhis splendid introduction to this book, "thereis available a comprehensive picture of thetrade union movement from the world view-point, which deals not so much with the statics(the uniliuminating details of organization andthe million variations of program and prob-lems) but rather with the vital, living influencesat work within the labor movement, the ten-dencies, the relation of forces and, especially,with the tremendous struggle developing thru-out the world . , . ."

This book should be in the hands of every worker—in or out of the organized labor movement.

50 CentsBound in an attractive, durable cover.

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, I I I .

FotffR

The Railroaders Next Step—

Amalgamation

By WIVL Z. FOSTER.

This important contribution to the literature of theLeft Wing .movement in this country is of the great-est value to every worker.

IT IS A KEEN ANALYSIS:

Of the great power and super-earnings of the rail-roads—

The rise and development of organized Labor in theindustry—

The struggle of the Left Wing within it—

And the program to weld the railroad workers intoa great power in this country,

A most valuable book by one who has played suchan important part in American labor history.

25 Cents

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, III.

The World Trade Union MovementBy A. LOSOVSKY.

Written by the secretary of the Red Internationalof Labor Unions, this book is a splendid guide to anunderstanding of the world trade union movementand its history.

"For the first time," says Earl R. Browder inhis splendid introduction to this book, "thereis available a comprehensive picture of thetrade union movement from the world view-point, which deals not so much with the statics(the umlluminating details of organization andthe million variations of program and prob-lems) but rather with the vital, living influencesat work within the labor movement, the ten-dencies, the relation of forces and, especially,with the tremendous struggle developing thru-out the world . . . ."

This book should be in the hands of every worker—in or out of the organized labor movement.

50 CentsBound in an attractive, durable cover.

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, III .

The Railroaders Next Step-

Amalgamation

By WM. Z. FOSTER.

This important contribution to the literature of theLeft Wing movement in this country is of the great-est value to every worker.

IT IS A KEEN ANALYSIS:

Of the great power and super-earnings of the rail-roads—

The rise and development of organized Labor in theindustry—

The struggle of the Left Wing within it—

And the program to weld the railroad workers intoa great power in this country.

A most valuable book by one who has played suchan important part in American labor history.

25 Cents

The Trade Union Educational League1113 W. Washington Blvd., Chicago, III.