Leon Trotsky: The Seven-Hour Day

Excerpts, October 10, 1927

[Leon Trotsky, The Challenge of the Left Opposition (1926-1927), New York 1980, p. 429-432]

1. A few weeks before the celebration of the revolution’s tenth anniversary, the party learned that the Politburo had decided to add to the already prepared manifesto a point "on shortening the workday in industry to seven hours.”

Did anyone expect such a reform? Did the party think this over? Did the party hear even a hint of such a measure two weeks ago?

No. And once again policies take the form of surprises, unexpected developments which catch the party unaware. …

2. What in fact is the meaning of this measure proclaimed by the Politburo? If this is a temporary shortening of the workday for the purpose of combating the severe unemployment, if this reform is to be understood in that way, it is not an improvement in the position of the workers, but a case of spreading the burden of unemployment among the working class as a whole. Capitalist states have resorted to such measures more than once in the past, by introducing short workweeks and so on. The necessity to resort to such a serious and burdensome reorganization of the production process could be dictated only by a situation in which the growth of unemployment was unavoidable for an indefinitely long period. It is clear that a "reform” of this kind would be nothing to celebrate. But the decree of the Politburo says nothing like this. It has in mind not a temporary shortening of the workday, but a planned transition from the eight-hour day to the seven-hour day throughout industry.

3. An actual introduction of the seven-hour day “with no reduction in pay,” as the Politburo resolution states, means an increase in pay rates for a given amount of work and in general a very substantial rise in wages, amounting to several hundred million. Yet only yesterday the Opposition’s pointing to the necessity for a more systematic raising of wages was called demagogy and met with nothing but objections. "Where would we find the means?” All the proceedings of the Central Committee, all the “study outlines,” all the writings of the Bukharin-Slepkov school have turned on this single argument: “Demagogy! Where would we get the resources?”

Now it seems that the resources exist for a transition to the seven-hour day “with no reduction in pay.” This surprising fact constitutes a ruthless condemnation of the baiting campaign waged against the Opposition on the labor question. Every party member and every worker in general knows that such a surprising promise as the seven-hour day would never have appeared in any manifesto by any manner of means if the Opposition had not fought so stubbornly and insistently during the whole preceding period against the indifferent, careless, inattentive, and “unbusinesslike” attitude toward the needs and requirements of the working class.

4. Who in fact are the demagogues? The ones who uphold the idea that socialist construction presupposes the systematic improvement of the workers’ conditions in all spheres, based on the fact that expenditures in this area are recovered not only politically but also in production? Or are the demagogues the ones who on “normal days" consider it acceptable to carry out the “regime of economy,” rationalization, and industrialization at the expense of the workers — and on holidays and anniversary celebrations suddenly announce without the slightest preparation the introduction of the seven-hour day?

5. The Platform of the Bolshevik-Leninists (Opposition) demands the following: “Cut off at the root every inclination to lengthen the eight-hour day. Permit overtime only when absolutely unavoidable. Allow no abuses in the employment of occasional workers; no treating of full-time workers as ‘seasonal.’ Cancel every lengthening of the workday in unhealthy trades where it has been introduced in violation of earlier rules” [see p. 318].

At first glance this sounds much more modest than the great anniversary leap from the eight-hour to the seven-hour day. But party members will inevitably ask themselves: “How did it happen that the Labor Code kept getting worse over the past few years, especially in regard to the length of the workday, while suddenly today, without the slightest preparation, a leap is made over all the constantly worsening versions of the Labor Code, over all the lengthenings of the workday, over all the abuses in the employment of occasional workers, etc., etc., a leap across those things directly to the seven-hour day? Can this reform be taken seriously? Can we have any confidence in it at all?”

6. To this fundamental question an answer is contained in the following sentences in the Politburo resolution:

“In regard to industrial workers in production … it is necessary to ensure, during the coming years, a transition from the eight-hour day to the seven-hour day with no reduction in pay.”

For this it is necessary “to begin no later than within a year the gradual implementation of this resolution in regard to certain categories of workers in accordance with the resources of the country, the pace of the reequipment and rationalization of the plants and factories, the growth of labor productivity, and the obsolescence of certain jobs.”

Presented in this way, the announcement of the reform is only a vague promise on a holiday occasion — and nothing more. The ABCs of socialism say that a workers’ state can make a transition from an eight-hour day, not to a nine-hour day, but to a seven- or a six-hour day, depending on the growth of technology and the productivity of labor. The anniversary promise says that such a transition (from the eight- to the seven-hour day) should be accomplished “during the coming years.” What does that mean? During the next five years? Eight years? Ten years?

The State Planning Commission’s five-year plan, like the five-year plan of the Supreme Council of the National Economy, and all the other long-term industrial plans so far, have absolutely never included in their calculations a shift from the eight-hour to the seven-hour day. The five-year plans show clearly that there never was any discussion anywhere until now of such a switchover. This means that the economic planning agencies until now have never once even thought about exactly how many years it would be before a switchover from the eight-hour to the seven-hour day was possible. On the contrary the thinking of the economic management agencies has moved in the direction of worsening the Labor Code, not making it better.

7. Thus under the title of “shortening the workday” we have nothing but vague platitudes which in essence amount to a purely adventuristic promise that leaps off the pages of the manifesto to surprise and shock in equal measure not only the workers but the trade union officials, economic managers, peasants, and consumers in general. The anniversary reform provokes great apprehension in the minds of consumers in regard to prices — especially because the entire press up until now has cried out in one voice that wages have held too large a place in production costs. The sudden reform arouses great expectations among the workers, but as events take their course, these expectations will be disappointed. The political result of this anniversary surprise will prove to be exactly the opposite of what the authors of the so-called reform intended. What they care about are not the tremendously important economic and cultural questions involved, but merely “barring the way” to the Opposition for a month and a half until the party congress. Thus file reform now being announced is a devastating comment on the whole line of the present leadership.

8. Does this mean that a shift from the eight-hour to the seven-hour day is impossible in the next few years? No, it does not. The general course we chart should be aimed precisely in that direction. But this should be an overall policy direction and not one of zigzags and adventures. The question of the possibility of a shift to the seven-hour day and the time needed for such a shift is a question involving all of our economic policies together, above all the rate of industrialization of the country. What is needed is not an anniversary “cheer” but a change in the entire policy of economic leadership, first and foremost on questions affecting the material conditions of the workers.

In order to guide the thinking of the party and the Soviet state in the proper direction on this question we must carry out with a firm hand those measures which are indicated in the Platform of the Opposition. Above all it is necessary on the tenth anniversary of the October Revolution to restore the October Code of Labor Laws, beginning with the genuine assurance of a genuine eight-hour day.