Left-Wing Communism: an Infantile Disorder/Chapter 6
CHAPTER VI.
SHOULD REVOLUTIONARIES WORK IN REACTIONARY TRADE UNIONS?
The German "Left" consider the reply to this question to be decidedly in the negative so far as they are concerned. According to their opinion, mere declamations and angry ejaculations (as done by K. Horner in a particularly "solid" and stupid manner) against "reactionary" and "counter-revolutionary" Trade Unions are sufficient to prove that it is not only useless but also not permissible for revolutionaries and Communists to work in the yellow, social-chauvinist, temporizing and conservative organization of the type of the Legien Unions. But, however strongly the German "Left" may be convinced of the revolutionary nature of such tactics, these are in reality fundamentally wrong, and contain nothing but empty phrases.
In order to explain this, I shall begin with our own experience, in so far as it coincides with the general scheme of the present article, the aim of which is to apply to Western Europe everything that is of general significance in the history and the present tactics of Bolshevism.
The relation between leaders, party, class, masses, and at the same time the relation of the proletarian dictatorship and its Party to the Trade Unions, present themselves to us in the following concrete form. The dictatorship of the proletariat is carried out by the proletariat organized in Soviets, which is led by the Communist Party (Bolsheviks), which, according to the data of the last party Conference, in April, 1920, has 611,000 members. The number of members varied greatly both before and after the October Revolution, and was considerably less even in 1918 and 1919. We are afraid of too wide a growth of the Party, as place-seekers and adventurers, who deserve only to be shot, do their utmost to get into the ruling Party. The last time we opened wide the doors of the Party for workmen and peasants only was in the days (winter, 1919) when Yudenitch was a few versts from Petrograd, and Denikin was in Orel (about 350 versts from Moscow); that is, when the Soviet Republic was in mortal danger, and when the adventurers, place-seekers, charlatans and unreliable persons generally could in no way rely upon making a profitable career (in fact could sooner expect the gallows and torture) by joining the Communists. The Party, which convenes annual Conferences (the last on the basis of one delegate for each 1,000 members), is directed by a Central Committee of 19, elected at the Conference; while the current work in Moscow has to be done by still smaller boards, viz., the so-called "Orgbureau" (Organizing Bureau) and "Politbureau" (Political Bureau), which are elected at the plenary sessions of the Central Committee, five members of the C. C. for each Bureau. This, then, looks like a real "oligarchy." Not a single important political or organizing question is decided by any State institution in our Republic without the guiding instructions of the C. C. of the Party.
In carrying on its work, the Party rests directly on the Trade Unions, which, at present, according to the data of the last Conference (April, 1920), comprise over 4,000,000 members, who are formally non-party. In reality, all the controlling bodies of by far the greater number of unions, and primarily, of course, of the All-Russian Center or Bureau (A.R.C.C.T.U. All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions) consist of Communists, who carry out all the directions of the Party. Thus is obtained, on the whole, a formally non-Communist, flexible, comparatively extensive and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely connected with the class and the masses, and by means of which, under the guidance of the Party, class dictatorship is realized. Without the closest connection with the Trade Unions, without their hearty support and self-sacrificing work, not only in economic but also in military organization, it would have been, of course, impossible to govern the country and to maintain the dictatorship for two and a half years, or even for two and a half months. It is clear that, in practice, this closest connection means very complicated and varied work in the form of propaganda, agitation, conferences—held often and at the right time, not only with the leading but also with the generally influential Trade Union workers; it also means a determined struggle against the Mensheviks, who still have a certain, though quite a small, number of adherents, whom they teach various counter-revolutionary tricks, such as lending moral support to the cause of (bourgeois) democracy, preaching the “independence” of Trade Unions (independence of the proletarian State!) and even sabotage of proletarian discipline, etc., etc.
The connection with the “masses” through Trade Unions we admit to be insufficient. Practice in the course of the revolution has given rise to non-party workers’ and peasants’ Conferences, and we endeavor by every means to support, develope, and extend such institutions in order to maintain a close contact with the disposition and state of mind of the masses, to respond to their inquiries, to push forward the best of their workers to take positions in State institutions, etc., etc. In one of the last decrees concerning the transformation of the People’s Commissariat for State Control into the “Workmen’s and Peasants’ Inspection,” non-party Conferences of this kind are given the right to elect members to the State Control for various sorts of State inspections.
Then, of course, all the work of the Party is done through the Soviets, which unite the laboring masses irrespective of the difference of their trade or profession. The County (Uyezd) Congresses of Soviets are a democratic institution such as has never yet been seen in the most advanced bourgeois republics. Through these Congresses, whose proceedings are followed by the Party with very careful attention, as well as through the constant delegation of class-conscious workmen to occupy various positions in the countryside, the city fulfils its function of leading the peasantry. Thus is carried out the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the systematic struggle against the rich, exploiting, and speculating peasantry.
Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian State considered from “above,” from the point of view of practice in realization of the dictatorship. It is hoped that the reader will understand why, to a Russian Bolshevik well acquainted with this mechanism and having watched its growth out of small underground circles during twenty-five years, all talk of “from above” or “from below,” the “dictatorship of leaders” or “the dictatorship of the masses” cannot but appear as childish nonsense. It is something like discussing whether the left leg or the right arm is more useful to man.
Not less laughable and childishly nonsensical appears to us the important, learned and horribly revolutionary disquisitions of the German “Left” as to why Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary Trade Unions; why it is permissible to refuse such work; why it is necessary to leave the craft unions and to create in their stead quite new and quite pure “workmen’s unions” invented by exceedingly nice (and, for the most part, probably very youthful) Communists, etc., etc.
Capitalism inevitably leaves, as an inheritance to Socialism, on the one hand, old professional and craft differences created among the workers in the course of centuries; and on the other, Trade Unions, which only, very slowly and in the course of years, can and will develope into broader industrial rather than craft organization (embracing whole industries and not merely crafts, trades and professions). These industrial unions will, in their turn, lead to the abolition of division of labor between people, to the education, training and preparation of workers who will be able to do everything. Communism is moving in this direction; it must move and will arrive at that goal but only after a great many years. To attempt in practice today, to precipitate development of this characteristic of a thoroughly developed, stable and completely matured Communism would be like trying to teach a four-year-old child higher mathematics.
We can and must begin to build up Socialism, not with the fantastic human material created by our imagination, but out of the material left to us by capitalism. This, no doubt, is very “difficult,” but every other way of tackling the problem is not serious enough to even discuss.
Trade Unions marked a gigantic step forward of the working class at the beginning of capitalist development, as a transition from the disintegration and helplessness of the workers to the beginnings of class organizations. When the proletarian revolutionary party (which does not deserve the name until it learns to connect leaders-class-masses into one single indissoluble whole), when this last, highest, form of proletarian class-organization began to grow up, the Trade Unions unavoidably revealed some reactionary traits, a certain craft limitation, a certain tendency to non-political action, a certain conservatism, etc., etc. But the development of the proletariat did not and could not, anywhere in the world, proceed by any other road than that of Trade Unions, with their mutual activity with the working-class party. The seizing of political power by the proletariat, as a class, is a gigantic step forward; and it is incumbent upon the party to educate the Trade Unions in a new manner, distinct from the old one, to guide them, not forgetting meanwhile that they remain and will remain for a long time a necessary “school of Communism,” a preparatory school for the training of the proletariat to realize its dictatorship, an indispensable union of the workers for the permanent transference of the management of the country’s economic life into their hands as a class (and not to single trades), to be given later into the hands of all the laboring masses.
A certain conservatism of the Trade Unions, in the sense mentioned, is unavoidable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not to understand this means completely to fail to understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from capitalism to Socialism. To fear this reactionary tendency, to try to avoid it, to jump over it, is as foolish as it can possibly be; it indicates lack of confidence in the role of the proletarian vanguard to train, educate and enlighten, to infuse with new life, the most backward groups and masses of the working class and the peasantry. On the other hand, to postpone the realization of the proletarian dictatorship until such a time as there is not left a single professionally narrow-minded workman, until all are quite free from craft and Trade Union prejudices, would be a still greater mistake. For a Communist, with a correct understanding of his own ends, the art of politics lies in correctly calculating the conditions and the moment when the proletarian vanguard can take over power successfully. He must decide when, after this assumption of power, that vanguard will be able to obtain adequate support from sufficiently inclusive strata of the working-class and non-proletarian laboring masses, and when it will be able to maintain, consolidate and extend its supremacy, educating, training and attracting ever widening circles of the laboring masses.
In countries more advanced than Russia, a certain reactionary spirit has revealed, and was unquestionably bound to reveal itself in the Trade Unions much more strongly than in our country. Our Mensheviks had (and in a very few Trade Unions still have) the support of these organizations, just because of their craft narrow-mindedness, professional selfishness, and opportunism. In the west the Mensheviks have acquired a much firmer footing in the Trade Unions. There a much wider stratum of labor aristocracy—those professional, narrow-minded, selfish, brutal, jealous, petit bourgeois elements—has cropped up, imperialistically inclined, and bribed and corrupted by imperialists. That this is so needs no proof. The struggle against Gompers, Jouhaux, Henderson, Merrheim, Legien and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the fight with our Mensheviks, who represent a thoroughly homogeneous social and political type. This struggle must be mercilessly conducted until, as was done in our case, all the incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism have been completely exposed and thrown out of the unions. It is impossible to conquer political power, and the conquest should not even be attempted until this struggle has reached a certain stage. This certain stage must vary in different countries and different circumstances. Only clear-minded, experienced and well-informed political leaders are able to estimate it correctly. In Russia, incidentally, the measure of success in the struggle was gauged by the elections to the Constitutent Assembly in November, 1917, a few days after the proletarian revolution of October 25, 1917. In these elections the Mensheviks were totally defeated, having obtained 0.7 million votes (1.4 millions if the vote of Trans-Caucasia be added) as against 9 million votes obtained by the Bolsheviks.[1]
We carry on the struggle against the labor aristocracy in the name of the working masses, in order to gain them over to our side; and we do battle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to achieve the same object. To forget this most elementary and self-evident truth would be stupid. But the German “Left” Communists commit just this stupidity when, because of the reactionary and counter-revolutionary heads of the Trade Unions, they jump, by some inexplicable mental process, to the conclusion that it is necessary to abandon these organizations altogether! They refuse to work in them! They invent new invented working-men’s unions! This is an unpardonable blunder, and one by which the Communists render the greatest service to the bourgeoisie. Our Mensheviks, like all opportunist, social-chauvinist Kautskian leaders of Trade Unions, are nothing more nor less than the “agents of the bourgeoisie in the labor movement” (as we always express it), or “labor lieutenants of the capitalist class,” according to the excellent and highly expressive summary of the followers of Daniel De Leon in America. Not to work within the reactionary Trade Unions means to leave the insufficiently-developed or backward working masses to the influence of reactionary leaders, agents of the bourgeoisie, labor aristocrats—“bourgeoisified workers.” (See Engels’ letter to Marx in 1852, concerning British workers.)
It is just this absurd “theory” of non-participation by Communists in reactionary Trade Unions that demonstrates most clearly how light-mindedly these “Left” Communists regard the question of influence over the “masses,” how they contradict their own outcries about the “masses.” In order to be able to help the “masses” and to win their sympathy, confidence and support, it is necessary to brave all difficulties, attacks, insults, cavils and persecutions by the leaders (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are, in most cases, directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police), and to work by every possible means wherever the masses are to be found. Great sacrifices must be made, the greatest hindrances must be overcome, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, stubbornly, insistently, and patiently, in all those institutions, societies, and associations, however reactionary, where proletarians or semi-proletarians gather together. As for Trade Unions and Co-operatives (this applies, at least sometimes, to the latter), they are just the organizations where the mass is to be found. In Great Britain, according to data given in the Swedish paper, Folkets Dagblad Politiken, of March 10, 1919, the Trade Union membership from the end of 1917 to the end of 1918 rose from 5.5 millions to 6.6 millions—i. e., an increase of 19 per cent. Towards the end of 1919, this number reached 7.5 millions. I have not at hand the corresponding data about France and Germany, but the facts testifying to the rapid growth in membership of the Trade Unions in these countries are quite incontestable and are generally known.
These facts speak most clearly, and are confirmed by thousands of other indications, of the growth of class-consciousness, and of the passion for organization, which exists especially amongst the proletarian masses, in the “rank and file,” amongst the backward elements. Millions of workers in England, France and Germany who were not at all organized heretofore have, for the first time, entered the most elementary, most simple and most easily accessible form of organization—for those still imbued with bourgeois-democratic prejudices—namely, the Trade Unions. And the revolutionary but unwise “Left” Communists stand by, crying “The mass, the mass!” and refuse to work with the Trade Unions; refuse on the pretext of their “conservatism,” and contrive new, spick and span “Workers’ Unions,” guiltless of bourgeois-democratic prejudices, guiltless of craft feeling and narrow professionalism! These Workers’ Unions, they claim, will be (will be!) all-embracing, and for participation in them the only (only!) requirement is “the acceptance of the Soviet system and the dictatorship of the proletariat.” (See the previous quotation!)
A greater lack of sense and more harm to the revolution than this attitude of the “Left” revolutionaries cannot be imagined. Why, if we in Russia, after two and a half years of incredible victories over the Russian bourgeoisie and the Entente, had demanded that entrance into the Trade Unions must be conditional upon the “acceptance of the dictatorship,” we should have committed a stupid act, impaired our influence over the masses, and helped the Mensheviks. For the whole of the Communist problem is to be able to convince the backward, to work in their midst, and not to set up a barrier between us and them, a barrier of artificial childishly “Left” slogans.
There can be no doubt that Messrs. Gompers, Jouhaux, Henderson, Legien, etc., are very grateful to such “Left” revolutionaries who, like the German “Opposition-in-principle” Party (Heaven preserve us from such “principles”) or like revolutionaries in the American “Industrial Workers of the World,” preach the necessity of quitting reactionary Trade Unions and of refusing to work in them. Undoubtedly the leaders of opportunism will have recourse to all the tricks of bourgeois diplomacy, will appeal to the help of bourgeois governments, to priests, police, courts, in order to prevent Communism from entering the Trade Unions, by all and every means to put them out, to make their work inside these organizations as unpleasant as possible, to insult, hound and persecute them. In is necessary to be able to withstand all this, to go the whole length of any sacrifice, if need be, to resort to strategy and adroitness, illegal proceedings, reticence and subterfuge, to anything in order to penetrate into the Trade Unions, remain in them, and carry on Communist work inside them, at any cost. Under Czarism until 1905 we had no “legal possibilities,” but when Zubatov, the secret service agent, organized Black Hundred workers’ meetings and workmen’s societies for the purpose of forreting out revolutionaries and fighting them, we sent members of our party into these meetings and societies. (I personally remember one such comrade, Babushkine, an eminent Petrograd workman, who was shot by the Czar’s generals in 1906.) They put us in touch with the masses, acquired much skill in conducting propaganda, and succeeded in wresting the workers from under the influence of Zubatov’s agents.[2] Of course, in Western Europe, which is soaked through and through with inveterate legalist, constitutionalist, bourgeois-democratic prejudices, it is more difficult to carry on such work; but it can and should be carried on, and carried on systematically.
The Executive Committee of the Third International should, in my opinion, directly condemn the policy of non-participation in reactionary Trade Unions; and they should suggest to the next conference of the Communist International the necessity of issuing a general condemnation of such policy, stating in detail the reasons for the irrationality of non-participation and the excessive harm it brings to the cause of the proletarian revolution. They should specify in particular the line of conduct of some Dutch Communists who, whether directly or indirectly, openly or covertly, wholly or partially, supported this erroneous policy. The Third International must break with the tactics of the Second, and not evade or belittle sore points, but face them squarely. The whole truth has been put squarely to the German Independent Social-Democratic Party; the whole truth must likewise be told to the “Left” Communists.
- ↑ See my article: “Elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Proletarian Dictatorship,” in No. 7—8 of the Communist International.
- ↑ The Gompers, Hendersons, Jouhaux and Legiens are nothing else than Zubatovs, differing from ours only in their European dress, in the gloss of their civilized, refined, democratically smooth manner of conducting their scoundrelly policy.