The Question of Trade Union Unity We propose The question of the unity of the workers organizations is not subject to a single solution suitable for all forms of organization and for all conditions.
The question resolves itself most categorically for the party. Its complete in.
dependence is the elementary condition of revolutionary action. But even this principle does not give in advance a ready made reply to the questions: when and under what conditions must the split, or, on the contrary, the unity be made with a neighboring political current? Such questions are settled each time on the basis of a concrete analysis of the tendencies and the political conditions. The highest criterion, in any case, remains the necessity for the vanguard of the organized proletariat, the party, to preserve its complete independence and its autonomy on the basis of a distinct program of action.
But precisely such a solution of the question with regard to the party not only admits. but as a general rule, renders indispensable a quite different attitude with regard to the question of the unity of other mass organizations of the working class. trade unions, cooperatives, Soviets.
Each one of these organizations has its own tasks and methods of work, and within certain limits, independent ones.
For the Communist party, all these organizations are first of all the arena of the revolutionary education of broad workers sections and of the recruitment of the advanced workers. The larger the mass in the given organization the greater are the possibilities it offers the revolutionary vanguard. That is why, as a rule, it is not the Communist wing but the reformist wing which takes the initiative to split the mass organizations.
THE BOLSHEVIKS AND THE TRADE UNIONS It is enough to contrast the conduct of the Bolsheviks in 1917 to that of the British trade unions in recent years.
The Bolsheviks not only remained in the same trade unions with the Mensheviks, but in certain trade unions they tolerated a Menshevik leadership, even after the October revolution, although the Bolsheviks had the overwhelming majority in the Soviets. The British trade unions, the contrary, upon the initiative of the Laborities, not only drive the Communists out of the Labor party but, so far as it is possible, out of the trade unions as well.
In France, the split in the trade unions was also the consequence of the initiative of the reformists, and it is no accident that the revolutionary trade union organization, compelled to lead an independent existence, adopted the name of imitary the name of the Left wing trade union center in France is Unitary General Confederation of Labor. Ed.
Do we demand today that the Communists quit the ranks of the General Confederation of Labor (the Right wing trade union center. Not at all. On the contrary: the revolutionary wing within the Confederation of Jouhaux must be strengthened. But by that alone we show that the splitting of the trade union organization is in no case a question of principle for 18 All these ultra Leftists objections in principle that may be formulated against trade union unity apply first of all to the participation of Communists in the of Yet every revolutionist who has not lost touch with reality must recognize that the creation of Communist fractions in the reformist trade unions is an extremely important task. One of the tasks of these fractions must be the defense of the of before the members of the reformist trade unions. This cannot be accomplished except by showing that the Communists do not want the splitting of the trade unions but, on the contrary, that they are ready at any moment to re establish trade union unity.
If one admits for an instant that the splitting of the trade unions is imposed by the duty of the Communists to oppose revolutionary policy to that of the reformists. than one cannot limit himself to France alone. One must demand that the Communists, regardless of the relationship of forces, break with the reformist trade unions and also constitute their own trade unions in Germany, in England, in the United States, etc. In certain countries, the Communist part have ctually taker this road. Ia specific cases, the reformists really leave no other way out. In other cases, the Communists commit an obvious mistake by falling into the provocations of the reformists. But up to now, the Communists have never and nowhere motivated the splitting of the trade unions by the inadmissibility in principle of working with the reformists in the organizations of the proletarian masses.
By LEON TROTSKY est possible number of trade unions, to group them around themselves and then Without stopping to deal with the co acter of the tasks which le on the order to enter upon negotiations on an equal operative organizations, the experiences of the day.
footing with the reformist confederation.
with which will add nothing essential to It is self understood that we in no As far as am able to judge here from what has been said above, we will take the material have, Vassart has exprescase put the agreement with the reformists, as an example the Soviets. This organised himself for the Communists themselves whether locally or centrally, as the indiszation arises in one of the most revolutionpensable and preliminary condition for the to put forward the slogan of a unification ary periods, when all problems are put with struggle in each specific case. We do not congress of the two trade union confederthe keenness of a blade. Can one, however, orientate ourselves according to the reform ations. This proposal was categorically reimagine even for a moment the creation ists but according to the objective circumjected; as for its author, he was accused of Communist Soviets as a counterpoise to stances and the state of mind of the mass of having gone over to Monatte position.
social democratic Soviets? This would Lacking data, am unable to express myes. The same applies to the character of mean to kill the very idea of the Soviets.
the demands put forward. It would be self thoroughly on this discussion. But At the beginning of 1917, the Bolsheviks fatal for us to engage ourselves in advance consider that the French Communists have remained within the Soviets as an insignito accept the united front according to no reason to abandon the slogan of a fusion ficant minority. For months and in a the conditions of the reformists, that is, congress. On the contrary.
period when months counted for years, if upon the basis of minimal demands. The The Monattists say: The first are not for decades they tolerated a concilia working masses will not rise for the strug splitters as well as the second. We alone tionist majority in the Soviets, even though gle in the name of demands that would are for unity. Workers, support us. The they already represented an overwhelming seem fantastic to them. But on the other reformists reply: As for us, we for majority in the factory committees. Fin hand, should the demands be too restricted unity from below. that is, we will genally, even after the of er, the in the workers may say to erously permit the workers to rejoin our Bolsheviks tolerated the Mensheviks within themselves: The game not worth the organization. What must the revolutionary the Soviets while these latter represented candle.
confederation say on this subject? It is a certain part of the working class. It was not for nothing that we call ourselves the The task does not consist of each time only when the Mensheviks had completely unitary confederation. We are ready to proposing the united front formally to the compromised and isolated themselves, by reformists, but of imposing conditions upon realize the unity of the trade union organibeing transformed into a clique, that the zation even today. But for that the workthem which correspond as best as possible Soriets threw them out of their midst.
to the situation. All this demands an acers have no need at all of suspicious courtiers who have no trade union organization In Spain, where in the near future the tive and maneuverist strategy. In any slogan of Soviets could already be behind them and who feed upon splits like put case, it is incontestable that it is particupractically on the order of the day, the maggots on a festering wound.
larly and only in this way that the very creation of Soriets (juntas. proto prepare and convene after a definite of can moderate, up to a certain vided there is an energetic and bold iniperiod fusion congress on the basis of point. the consequences of the division of tiative of the Communists, is not to be the masses into the trade union organizatrade union democracy.
This manner of posing the question conceived of otherwise than by way of a tions, that it can throw the responsibility technical organizational agreement with the would have immediately cut the ground for the split upon those on whom it really from under the feet of the Monattists, who trade unions and the socialists on the meth belongs, and put forward its own positions od and the intervals of the election of are a completely sterile polidical groupof struggle.
ing, but capable of bringing a great conworkers deputies. To advance, under these The singularity of the situation in fusion into the ranks of the proletariat.
conditions, the idea of the inadmissibility France presents the fact that two trade But will not this liquidation of the group of work with the reformists in the mass union organizations have been existing of courtiers cost us too dearly? It will be organizations would be one of the most disthere separately for many years. In the objected that in case the reformists should astrous forms of sectarianism.
face of the ebb of the movement in recent consent to a imity congress, the CommunREFORMISM AND THE years, people have accustomed themselves ists would be in the minority there and the WORKING CLASS to the split, very often it has simply been of would have to yield its place forgotten. However, one could foresee that How then is such an attitude on our to the of the revival in the ranks of the working part towards the proletarian organizations Such a consideration can only appear class would inevitably revive the slogan of led by the reformists to be reconciled with persil to a Left bureauthe unity of the trade union organizations.
our evaluation of reformism as the Left crat who is fighting for his independence. If one takes into account that more than wing of the imperialist bourgeoisie. This while losing sight of perspectives and nine tenths of the French proletariat is contradiction is not a formal but a dialectasks of the movement as whole. The outside of the trade unions, it becomes clear tical one, that is to say. one that flows unity of the two trade union organizations, that with this revival being accentuated, from the very course of the class struggle.
even if the revolutionary wing remains in considerable part of the working class the pressure of the unorganized will inthe minority for a time, would show itself crease. The slogan of unity is nothing but (its majority a number of countries)
in a short period of time to be favorable one of the first consequences of this presrejects evaluation of reformism: in precisely to communism and only to Comsure. With a correct policy, this pressure other countries, it has not as yet even apmunism. The unity of the confederations should be favorable to the Communist proached this question. The whole problem would bring in its train a great influx of party and the of consists precisely of lending these masses new members. Thanks to this, the influIf, for next period, an active polto revolutionary conclusions on the basis ence of the crisis would be reflected within iey of the united front is the principal of our common experiences with them. We the trade unions in a more profound and method of the trade union strategy of the more say to the non Communist and to the antidecisive fashion. The Left wing French Communists, it would nevertheless would be able, within the rising new wave, Communist workers: Today you still bebe a thorough mistake to oppose the policy lieve in the reformists leaders whom we to begin a decisive struggle for the conquest of the united front to that of the unity of consider to be traitors. We cannot and we of the unilled confederation. To prefer a the trade union organizations.
do not wish to impose our point of view sure majority in a narrow and isolated THE PROBLEM OF THE upon you by force. We want to convince trade union confederation to oppositional UNITED FRONT Let us then endeavor to fight together you work in a broad and real mass organizaand to examine methods and the re It is entirely incontestable that the tion, can be done only by sectarians or ofsults o these fights. This means: full unity of the working class can only be ficials but not by proletarian revolutionists.
frecitem of groupings within the united realized on a revolutionary basis. The pol For a thinking Marxist, it is quite evitrade unions where trade union discipline icy of the united front is one of the means dent that one of the reasons which contriexists for all.
of liberating the workers from reformist buted to the mons rous mistakes of the leadership of the of was due No other principled position can be influence and even in the last analysis, towards the genuine unity of the working to a situation where people like Monmousproposed.
class. We must constantly explain this seau, Semard and others, without theoreMarxian truth to the advanced workers.
tical preparation or revolutionary experiThe Executive Committee of the Ligue But a historical perspective, even the most ence, immediately proclaimed themselves the Left Opposition in France! is at present correct one, cannot replace the living exmasters of an independent organization correctly giving first place to the question perience of the masses. The party is the and consequently had the possibility of exof the united front. This is the only way vanguard, but in its work, especially in its perimenting with it under the orders of that one can prevent the reformists, and trade union work, it. must be able to lean Losovsky, Manuilsky and Co. It is inconabove all their Left wing agents, the Mon towards the rearguard. It must, in fact, testable that if the reformists had not at attists, from opposing to the practical tasks show the workers once, twice and even one time arrived at the splitting of the of the class struggle the formal slogan of ten times if necessary that it is ready at confederation, Monmousseau and Co. would unity. Vassart, as a counter balance to any moment at all to help them reconstihave had to reckon with broader masses.
the sterile official line, has put forward the tute the unity of the trade union organizaThis fact alone would have disciplined their idea of the united front with the local tions. And in this field, we remain faith bureaucratic adventurism. That is why trade union organizations. This way of ful to the essential principles of Marxian the advantages of unity would have been posing the question is right in the sense strategy: the combining of the struggle for immeasurably greater at present than the that during local strikes it is primarily reforms with the struggle for the revoludisadvantages. If, within the unified cona question of working with local trade tion, federation embracing about a million work unions and specific federations. It is What is the attitude today of the two ers, the revolutionary wing remains in the equally true that the lower links of the trade union confederations towards unity? minority for a year or two, these two years reformist apparatus are more sensitive to To the broad circles of the workers, it must would be undoubtedly more fruitful for the the pressure the workers. But it would appear entirely identical. In truth, the ad education not only of the Communist trade be wrong to make any kind of principle ministrative strata of the two organizations unionists, but for the whole party, than difference between agreements with the local have declared that the unification can only five years of independent zig zags in a opportunists and those with their chiefs. be conceived of from below on the basis of growing constantly weaker.
Everything depends upon the conditions of the principles of the given organization.
No, it is not we, but the reformists, of the moment, upon the strength of the By covering itself with the slogan of unity who should fear trade union unity. If pressure of the masses, and upon the char from below, borrowed from the they consent to a unity congress not in of the reformist confederation exploits words but in fact that would create the One of the Communist party leaders in the forgetfulness of the working class and possibility of bringing the labor movement the red trade unions who, after having the ignorance of the younger generation in France out of the blind alley. But that been one of the most prominent bannerwhich knows nothing of the splitting work is just why the reformists will not conbearers of the third period policy of the of Jouhaux, Dumoulin and Co. At the sent to it.
Comintern and the French party, has fallen same time, the Monattists assist Jouhaux The conditions of the crisis are creatout over questions of policy with the party by substituting for the fighting tasks of the ing the greatest difficulties for the reformleadership His course is sometimes re labor movement the single slogan of trade ists, primarily in the trade union field.
ferred to by the official party leaders, in union unity. As honest courtiers, they That is why they find it so necessary to their polemics against him, as semi Trot direct all their efforts against the take sheiter behind their Left flank; it is skyist. Ed.
of in order to detach from it the great(Continued on page 8)