Leon Trotsky: On the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions

Speech at the X. Congress of the Russian Communist Party. Moscow, March 1921

[My own translation of the German translation, Russische Korrespondenz, Volume II, Issue 5, May 1921, pp. 310-317. Corrections by English native speakers would be extremely welcome]

Comrades, we are about to have to adopt a certain resolution on the trade union question. We know, of course, that all our questions lead to the main and core question of mutual relations between classes and parties. On the contrary, comrade Zinoviev, in assessing our dispute, stressed as the most important condition that we, the " preachers of production", disregard the role of the peasantry and its interrelations with the working class. At this congress we are forced to make great concessions to the conditions of petty-bourgeois ownership in economic life and to the psychology of the peasantry. This, says Comrade Zinoviev, has been overlooked by the preachers of production, i.e., the supporters of the platform of Trotsky and Bukharin. It is on this question that the faultiness, the erroneousness, of comrade Zinoviev's statement is most apparent. I have to say that just a year ago at the IX Congress, after having been active for about 1½ months in the Urals, where I had come into closer contact with all the practical questions of economic construction through the soviet government and had learned many things from the local officials, I submitted to the Central Committee in February last year a written proposal which I can distribute to all the members of the Party Congress and which agrees almost word for word with the proposal to replace compulsory delivery by a food tax, and which you will now discuss and adopt. I have demonstrated that, since our food policy is developing on the basis of a petty-bourgeois economy, it is necessary to create in this field a stimulus, an endeavour to uplift the peasant economy, which can be achieved by concessions of an economic nature while maintaining the dictatorship of the working class. After the course of a year, the justification of this proposal was recognised. I was not in despair at that time, because I was convinced that we would get there. That is the way things are. In this respect, the correctness of foresight is entirely on our side.

Now a few things about the interrelationships between party and class. Here we were supposedly fighting for or against workers' democracy, and the "workers' opposition" came forward with dangerous slogans, raising the principles of democracy to a fetish. The right of the working class to vote was in a sense placed above the party. However, it is on the formal principle of workers' democracy that the dictatorship rests at every single moment. Certainly, workers' democracy is the only method by which, to an ever-increasing degree, the masses are involved in political life. It is a truism. I admit that this truism has sometimes been forgotten, intentionally or unintentionally. There is a need to recall it, to make improvements, to apply new methods of agitation, and so on. All this, however, is on condition that the party as a whole is united by the unanimous recognition that the party represents the fundamental interests of the working class, even if temporarily its mood becomes vacillating. If this is not understood by the so-called workers' opposition, it could have the most disastrous consequences. I maintain that Comrade Shlyapnikov during the first period of our struggle, especially against comrade Zinoviev, who all the time stood out as the most eminent advocate of the Theses of the Ten, made the role of the party quite null and void in relation to that of workers' democracy. When I demonstrated that it was necessary to subordinate workers' democracy to the criterion of the economic interests of the working class, comrade Kamenev, who later joined the Platform of Ten, declared in the course of the discussion that for Trotsky workers' democracy was a "conditional" principle. Indeed. If we treat the question in such a way that we say that workers' democracy is something unconditional, something all-superior, then comrade Shlyapnikov would be right in his first formulation, which says that each plant would have to elect its administration, each district congress of producers the leading organ, and so on up to the All-Russian Congress of Producers. From a formal point of view, this is the most obvious line of workers' democracy. This question was the main struggle. In so far as comrade Lenin took part in the first discussion, he was excessively cautious about this question; he spoke only vaguely so as not to upset comrade Zinoviev too much. This was the impression that the comrades of the different camps got on this question. And today it has been confirmed once again.

Moving on to the draft resolution of the Ten, I must remind the comrades that it is not the speeches that will be voted on, but this draft. I maintain that we must not vote for this draft because it is – how shall I put it – highly imperfect. Comrade Lenin has reproached me here, so to speak (he accused Comrade Bukharin of eclecticism for the same reason), for allegedly counterposing the economy to politics, when politics is a concentrated economy. I have already said, and I say it again, that the question of an understanding within the party, of a renewal, of a compromise and, in particular, of an extension of the framework of workers' democracy to be promoted by all means, is of great importance, but must nevertheless be subordinated to an economic criterion. There is no overlooking here of the political and economic interrelations. We had foreseen the approaching crisis. It used to appear only as a symptom in various fields of Soviet, party and other activity. In the trade unions, it was expressed in the pressure of the consumer psychology of the working class, in the fact that the masses of workers were expressing the psychology of producers to an insufficient extent and recently to an ever decreasing extent.

The crisis consisted in the fact that in the trade unions the pressure of the pure consumer point of view became stronger, exerted on the trade unionists from below more strongly and more directly than from above. This did not find theoretical expression at the bottom, but it did at the top. Comrade Zinoviev says that we are dealing with a general and not a trade union crisis. But this is only a general phrase about the crisis. We start from the analysis of the crisis phenomena in the different fields. We say that there is a trade union crisis in which the crisis of the revolution, a crisis that we will overcome but which in fact exists at the moment, is particularly expressed. Surprisingly, it is concluded from this that we were wrong when we stated the crisis. We are told that there is no crisis, but growth. That is the whole story. Comrade Zinoviev has simply forgotten the second half of his assertion, namely that we are not dealing with a crisis but with growth. How can we say at this moment that we are not dealing with a crisis but with growth? It would still have been logical to say: "Trotsky was mistaken and did not realise that a deeper crisis was approaching and not just an independent trade union crisis." That would at least have been logical, if in fact incorrect. But how can one say that the crisis the unions are currently facing is not a crisis but a symptom of growth! Instead of saying that the trade union crisis is only a reflection of a deeper crisis, we are told that it is a symptom of growth. You have failed, comrades, and the chapter "Not crisis but growth" must be deleted altogether as incorrect.

Furthermore: the trade unions as the school of communism. Here, comrades, there are a number of generalities. One must not treat the question so informally and cursorily. It says: "The most important role of the trade unions, even in Soviet Russia, remains their role as the school of communism." So it says right at the beginning: "In Soviet Russia." What does that mean? Comrade Zinoviev tells us that the trade union question plays a very important role in Europe at the present time as well. In Europe, however, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie prevails, in our country the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is precisely for this reason that this question has arisen in a new form in our country. How can we resolve it in a general European question? At the present time, we must start from the peculiar situation of the soviet republic and the dictatorship of the working class (albeit in a country in which the peasantry forms the majority, which we all take into account), as well as from the particular circumstances of the moment of this dictatorship. We, on the other hand, are forcibly withdrawn from this moment, withdrawn also from the workers' republic in general, saying: "In Soviet Russia as well as in the bourgeois countries." This is the beginning of the chapter. Are we talking about Tsarist Russia, Germany, France? What does "school of communism" mean in this context? The task of the school of communism, the resolution says, is to "work on" the semi-proletarian elements, to "adapt" them to the work of building the communist society. Forgive me, but this is a commonplace. What does "working on", "adaptation" mean? How? On what basis? It goes on to speak of involving "the wider strata of the toilers in the economic and communist construction". How? On what basis? Literally everywhere there is talk of this. There is not a single decree which, no matter what organ it concerns, does not decree "calling upon". But how? We have a specific organ for "calling in" – the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate. What is the form of the summons? How do the trade unions differ in this respect? What are the specific tasks? Nothing is said about it. On page 7 it says: "For the trade unions in Soviet Russia, the concept of the "school of communism" in the same way includes the moment of "education for the economy". Listen: "in the same way the moment of education for the economy". First of all, therefore, it is a question of working on and adaptation; moreover, the "school of communism" – you see – includes the moment of education for the economy. I am afraid that this was not written by Lenin; it is not his hand. "For the trade unions in Soviet Russia, the term "school of communism" in the same way embraces the moment ..." I beg to note: "the moment". The "moment of education for the economy", "in the same way". Here, concessions have been made to the production point of view and we are told: "The trade unions – are a school of communism which works on, adapts and, in addition, includes a small moment, namely, education for the economy. Furthermore, in complete contrast to what was said before, it says that "the trade unions would fulfil their role as a school of communism insofar as they are leaders of the proletarian masses and of the practical reorganisation of the economy on a communist basis." So if it is "insofar ... as" – what have the "moment" and "in the same way" to do with it? I repeat that one encounters contradictions and confusion at every turn here. This is volatile, eclectic, contradictory. It must not be. The next chapter is entitled: "The Question of Nationalising the Trade Unions". This chapter is not at all better either. "A rapid nationalisation of the trade unions would be a gross mistake," it says. What does "rapid" mean? How many kilometres an hour? This is absolutely superficial, incomprehensible, carelessly worded. One must say: are we moving in the direction of nationalising the trade unions or not? In the yes case, one must clarify on what the speed of this development depends. It obviously depends on an actual strengthening of the role of the unionised masses of workers in relation to the construction of the economy itself, in other words, the growth of the role of the trade unions in the economy means at the same time a gradual nationalisation. If we make it our business to promote the strengthening of the role of the trade unions in production, we are at the same time promoting their nationalisation. What do you mean by "rapidly"? I can't understand it. "Artificially accelerating the pace of nationalisation would lead to only complicating the role of the trade unions as a school of communism." There is no explanation here of what is meant by the "artificial acceleration of the pace". We have at present a turning away of the trade unions from production, a prevalence of consumer psychology. What is there to speak of an artificial acceleration of the pace? Furthermore, why would nationalisation in itself detract from its role as a school of communism? If the non-state school of communism is better, why do we create a state school alongside it on the same principles? Take the report of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate on the 8th Soviet Congress. On the first page it says: "The task of the Workers' and Peasants' Inspectorate is to be a school of communism. It is a state organ that sets up its factory cells in a similar way to the union cells. Why is nationalisation in the workers' state in itself an obstacle to the school of communism? If we are unable to transform the state organs into schools of communism, then we, comrades, must also renounce something more. Furthermore, the words "methods of persuasion and methods of coercion by the trade unions" do not mean a very precise formulation, but on the whole they are correct. We have no objection to this. In order to prevent complaints, misunderstandings and demagogy on this ground, we have included this point in full in our theses.

When I spoke of the selection of the leading personnel of the trade unions, when I said that we must select the trade union officials from the point of view of production, comrade Tomsky declared that such a selection was as much as an appointment. We replied to Tomsky: "What place they will take in the trade unions we want to determine according to the methods of trade union organisation; but we must select them in the party. Tomsky did not want to show any concession. He said that the selection consisted of shuffling, appointment, etc. And now we find in the resolution signed by Tomsky the words: "The selection of the leading personnel is made by the party" etc. – The chapter "The trade unions and political departments" follows. This is not the most important point in principle, but it is an offensive point because it is highly unjust. Comrades, I would like to remind you of the circumstances under which the Central Office for Political Enlightenment among the railway workers came into being. In the resolution of the 9th Party Congress you can read: "The Party Congress recognises at the same time the complete and absolute necessity of taking exceptional and extraordinary measures (state of war, etc.) arising from the frightful disintegration of the transport system, the purpose of which is to prevent its complete paralysis and the consequent downfall of Soviet Russia by taking measures which cannot be delayed".

You see: "to prevent the complete paralysis of the transport system and the downfall of the soviet republic."

It is just a year, or a little more, since it was decided to take extraordinary measures. The main body for political enlightenment among the railway workers was formed and developed after the 9th Party Congress primarily to save the transport system. At first, some tried to deny the results of its activity. I don't know if you know the statistics of the transport system. It is quite good to know the basic facts of economic life. The aforementioned head office has won a great victory. Thanks to the heroic efforts of a few thousand communists who were given this extraordinarily difficult work, the first serious successes were achieved. We worked out a plan for ten thousand locomotives on which medium-scale repair work was to be carried out in the course of a year. By the second half of 1920, repairs had been carried out on 6000 locomotives, so that in 1921 (if the work was to continue no less successfully) at least 12,000 locomotives would be able to come out of the repair workshops. The work in this field was of course carried out with determined measures; however, the Party supervised the work, it was closely informed of everything and could stop it at any moment. On 28 August, the Central Committee for the Transport Sector was created. The functionaries of this Central Committee received an impetus from the 9th Party Congress and carried out a heroic act, which in essence achieved a tremendous success and saved the transport system, which was in a desperate situation. It would be wrong for the Party Congress not to recognise this success after the Fraction of the VIIIth Soviet Congress had expressed its recognition after discussion; it would be condemnable to confirm what is said in the Draft of the Ten; it would be a flagrant injustice with regard to those officials to whom you have assigned the work and whom you do not recall.

I now move on to the question of the practical proposals. They have already been discussed in such detail that I will not detain you long with them. A commission will be set up and in this commission we will be able to discuss individual practical proposals in more detail. Should we not be able to come to an agreement there, we will approach you again. However, one thing must be said right away about strengthening the role of the trade unions in relation to production. In the Draft of the Ten, it is said everywhere that the role of the trade unions in production is small, that it must be expanded and increased. However, comrades, this overlooks one thing, namely, that the trade unions do not live and work now as they did at the end of 1917 or the beginning of 1918, when they saw before them, in terms of the organisation of the economy, a desert or a locality occupied by our enemies. Now we have a more or less harmonious or clumsy system of economic organisations. They say to the trade unions: "You must extend your organisational influence over production. You must take more than ever the direct management of the economic organisation into your hands." This is mentioned two or three times in the theses. What does that mean? How is this to be done? You know that there has been a struggle against fusing. However, the trade unions have before them an existing organisational state Soviet apparatus in the field of the economy. How can the trade unions increase their leading role in the economy? By circumventing this apparatus, by its mediation or by organisationally fusing with it? This is the question we are encountering every moment. The workers' opposition has had the tendency to decide the question in such a way that the trade union federations take possession of the economy, pushing aside the economic organs in which the experience of our three years of constructive activity is stored. This solution is quite wrong. Here in the Draft of the Ten it is said that the trade unions and economic organs were parallel in the past, and that this seemed justified by the fact that the economic organs were weak. What should happen now? Furthermore, the trade unions will obviously not carry out their activities by circumventing the economic organs, not against them or over their heads; they will not sweep away the economic organs and not work in parallel with them, but will achieve an organisational connection which amounts to fusing. In this field, we have already obtained some concessions from your side. We have obtained that the All-Russian Congresses of Trade Unions and the National Economic Councils will meet simultaneously with a common agenda, will carry out the same fundamental work, joint work in the sections, and so on. If conditions permit this to be realised, we shall take a serious step forward in the field of organisational unification and organisational growth. For this purpose, however, it is necessary to get rid of these quite wrong theses, this confused formulation, which is an enrichment neither for our party nor for the International. This is the reason, comrades, why we cannot recommend you to vote for this resolution. Comrade Zinoviev has tried to prove to you that this resolution encompasses everything, that we would have recognised from it that there are two world views, two methods of work, two ways in which the party behaves towards the working class and the peasantry, etc. etc. This is not the case, however. This is an outrageous exaggeration. We are facing an extremely difficult period and the most tremendous efforts. If you look at the trade union question from this point of view, you will keep the greatest calm in the face of differences and find the right tone which will contribute most to a unification of the party.