Leon Trotsky: Letter to the American Section

September 23, 1933

[Writing of Leon Trotsky, Vol. 13. Supplement (1929-1933), New York 1979, p. 303-305, title: “Trade Union Problems in America”]

To the American Section

Dear Comrades:

The question of work in the trade unions continues to be of unusual importance in all countries. In the U.S. it arises on a wide scale for the first time at a moment when the entire national economic and political life is upset and when government policy is giving an impulse to the trade union movement. It is not at all likely that the [Roosevelt] administration’s liberalism with respect to the unions — not to speak of the present policy of planning in general — will continue for long. In any case one may certainly say that the liberalism of the administration with respect to the trade unions will not at once transform itself into liberalism on the part of the union bureaucracy with respect to Communists. On the contrary, not only the reactionary gang of Green and Company but also the bureaucracy of the “progressive” trade unions will redouble their onslaughts against the revolutionary wing in order to show the White House that they fully merit its confidence and backing. There exists the great danger that in the present period of deep mass ferment and trade union development the Communists will again let themselves be isolated from the workers’ organizations. The trade union bureaucrats can achieve this aim the more easily because the Stalinist bureaucracy has gravely compromised communism in the workers’ eyes by its policy of ultimatism, commands and impotence. This compromising will inevitably affect us too.

Wherever they are expelling Communists from trade unions, or may begin to do so tomorrow, it is not only permissible but even obligatory not to unfurl the banner of communism prematurely but to conduct “anonymous” revolutionary work. It may be objected that such a method of work contains certain dangers within itself: by hiding its banner, the organization can, without noticing it, become unused to its own banner. Adaptation to the enemy and to the prejudices of the masses contains the danger of degeneration into opportunism. All this is quite true. The party as a whole must act with its. banner unfurled and call things by their right names. But in the given case we do not speak of the party (League), but of certain of its detachments working inside hostile trade unions. This is not at all the same thing. Communists working in trade unions of course cannot in any case disavow their party, that is, make statements contradicting its program and its decisions. But the Communist in the trade union is certainly not compelled to say everything that the party as a whole says. The Communist working in a trade union is not obliged to call himself a Communist at the top of his voice. The party (League) can and should say fully in its press, in its mass meetings, in strike meetings and general meetings of trade unionists, the things that Communists inside the unions may not be able to say at any given moment. It is necessary to make a wise division of labor, by which the various parts of the political organization supplement one another.

Of course, this does not mean that Communists working inside trade unions can decide at their own pleasure the party’s policy for work in the unions: the whole political organization must decide what forms of adaptation to the trade union situation are permissible and suitable. The more difficult revolutionary work in the trade unions becomes, the more strictly systematic should be party control of its members in the trade unions. But this control can, and in the majority of cases should, be strictly secret under present conditions.

It is true that even when there is such control, “anonymous” work in the trade unions can lead to a contraction of the horizon and a lowering of the revolutionary level. There is only one means of guarding against this: Communists must not be simply trade unionists, but must at the same time do party work outside the unions, even if secretly in order not to compromise themselves with the trade unions.

In many cases the Stalinists declared that they would agree to work in the trade unions but only on condition that they be granted in advance the right to have Communist fractions. Such “conditions” are grotesque: to demand from the trade union bureaucracy, which is hunting for Communists, that the latter be benevolently installed to work with the necessary comfort, threatening the bureaucrats that, if they refuse, the Communists will “strike,” that is, refuse to do revolutionary work — to demand that is manifest nonsense. We must know how to work in the unions without comfort, and without the authorization of the bureaucracy.

It is clear that Communists must be united in a fraction, but that fraction, while working on the basis of strict internal discipline, must in no case appear openly as a fraction should the conditions be unfavorable for that (and in the majority of cases this is just the situation).

The party (League) clearly must have a platform for trade union work over any given period. It is necessary to know how to translate this platform into the language of the trade unionists, in order to lead the masses forward more surely. The danger of what we call “tail-endism” (a real and serious danger) will be all the better avoided if the party as a whole will decisively supplement the work of its trade union fractions.

It is absolutely clear, on the other hand, that such careful work in the unions should continue until the Communists have succeeded in proving to the workers that they are not Stalinist bureaucrats or obtuse ultimatists, but serious and capable fighters who can be relied on and who consequently are worthy of trust. The more the influence of the Communist fractions grows in the unions, the more boldly and openly will it unfurl the banner of its party.

We sincerely hope that these basic considerations will be entirely approved by you.