WHY trade union unity? Why is it that at the present time this question is being discussed in every country in the world?
The sentiment for unity of the forces of the working class has always been much to the fore in the labor movement. No labor faker ever attempted to split a union, or smash the solidarity of strikers’ forces, unless he declared fervently for unity. Thruout the labor movement the workers hug the idea of the unity of the workers as a great thing to be accomplished. The reactionary bureaucrats know this, and denounce the left wing elements in the trade unions as “splitters” so that they will be discredited in the eyes of the workers.
But in spite of the sentiment for unity of the ranks of labor very little real unity exists in the labor unions. But the present situation confronting the working class is forcing the question of national and international trade union unity to the fore, and in spite of the efforts of the reactionary labor officials is making great progress.
The very development of the capitalist system is forcing the workers to look upon the question of the unity of the trade unions as a practical question—a question of the preservation of their standard of living against the attacks of the bosses.
The war of 1914-1918 besides murdering millions of workers and crippling millions more, cracked the basis of the capitalist economic system in Europe. At the same time the forces of production of the United Sates and Japan were enormously expanded owing to the fact that they played the role of salesmen to the combatants, supplying them with the munitions of war. The Allied powers came out of the war indebted to the United States for billions of dollars—the United States became the financial dictator of the world, the position once held by Great Britain.
The destruction of billions of dollars of wealth, and the destruction of productive forces, produced a crisis in the capitalist system of production which is chronic, and definitely shows that capitalism is in the period of disintegration and decay. The end of war brought the capitalists face to face with the problem of reconstructing their ruined economic system, and they immediately set about accomplishing this at the expense of the working class.
For two years after the war an industrial boom prevailed and then a crisis of great magnitude developed. First in Japan, then reaching every other capitalist country, factories were closed, millions of workers were thrown out of work. In the United States over six million workers were unemployed in the winter of 1921-22.
The capitalists seized upon this as the proper time to deflate the war-time gains of the workers, to wrest from the workers the comparatively high wages they had succeeded in securing owing to the war necessity, and to smash the unions which had grown enormously during the war period. The capitalists set out to place the full burden of the war on the backs of the workers by means of wage reductions, longer hours, unemployment, in a word, by reducing the workers’ standard of living. The capitalists seeing their profits reduced by war debts and the economic crisis, set out to reduce the standard of living of the workers as a means of recouping themselves.
The trade unions led by devoted servants of the capitalists, corrupted by the patriotism of the war period were unable to stem the attack of the bosses. Unions were smashed, wages cut, hours lengthened—the workers lost nearly all they had gained during the war period.
The chief factors causing this defeat were:
1. The post-war economic crisis was not an ordinary crisis of capitalist economy, but one of the crises of the period of dissolution in which capitalism has entered. Two methods of solving the crisis presented themselves: Either that the workers would be driven to accept a coolie standard of living and allow capitalist production to continue, or the destruction of capitalism and the reorganization of production on a socialist basis. In other words, the workers were faced with the alternative of overthrowing capitalism or submitting to a lower standard of living to allow the continuance of capitalist production.
2. The old forms of struggle were useless in face of such a situation. The trade union movement split up into national sections, into craft divisions in the various countries, and pursuing a policy of class collaboration instead of class struggle could not combat the capitalist offensive. Not only the antiquated forms of the trade union movement, but also the millions of workers still unorganized in the basic industries prevented any real opposition to the capitalists.
3. The treacherous leadership of the unions, men who had recruited the workers for the slaughter during the war, continued to serve the bosses after the war by opposing all attempts to fight the capitalist attack.
The lessons of this period are clear: Only by uniting the forces of the workers nationally and internationally on the basis of a class struggle policy can the workers hope to even defend themselves from the attacks of the capitalists.
The disunity of the trade union movement should be apparent to every worker. Not only are craft unions splitting up the workers of one industry, but in many instances several competing unions exist side by side. In the United States the system of craft unionism has vicious effects on the conditions of the workers. In an industry where the workers of one trade strike the other trades remain at work while the bosses cut the strikers to pieces by filling their places with scabs, etc. These craft unions with their hidebound craft prejudices, jurisdictional squabbles and isolation enable the bosses to defeat the workers. The American Federation of Labor has 107 International Unions affiliated to it. But this does not bring unity into the trade union movement. The A. F. of L. has never acted as a coordinating center for the unions in this country. Its function is to settle jurisdictional disputes between rival unions, and in many cases its decisions are flouted. The 107 International Unions keep up a semblance of unity by affiliation with the A. F. of L. The A. F. of L. dare not attempt the organization of the unorganized because of the jurisdictional disputes that would ensue.
The Executive Council of the A. F. of L. is merely a propaganda machine maintained by the reactionary leaders of the International Unions to combat any deviations from the path of “safe and sane” craft unionism. In politics the Executive Council applies the policy of “non-partizan” endorsement of candidates of the democratic and republican parties. But these political decisions have no weight with the International Union leaders. In 1924, when the Executive Council endorsed LaFollette’s candidacy for president, President John L. Lewis of the United Mine Workers was a member of the republican campaign committee, while Wm. Green, secretary-treasurer of the same union, was prominent in the democratic party campaign.
In other countries similar disunity is met. In France, Germany, Poland and Czecho-Slovakia the reactionary officialdom has split the movement by mass expulsions of elements opposed to their policy of cooperation with the capitalists. In Holland there are six trade union federations competing. Out of a total membership in all unions of about 300,000 there are federations consisting of reformist, catholic, protestant, democratic, syndicalist and anarcho-syndicalist unions. These divisions in the ranks of the trade union movements all translate themselves into defeats for the workers, because the bosses take advantage of them to lower the standard of living of the entire working class.
So far as international trade union centers are concerned the two most important are the International Federation of Trade Unions (Amsterdam) and the Red International of Labor Unions (Moscow). The Amsterdam International claims a membership of between 14,000,000 and 15,000,000. The Red International of Labor Unions has between 12,000,000 and 13,000,000. Amsterdam has as its base the British and German unions. The R. I. L. U. has a firm foundation in the 6,000,000 trade unionists of Soviet Russia. The A. F. of L. is not affiliated with either. Even Amsterdam was too radical for Gompers, and the same applies to his successor Green.
International trade union unity is a burning necessity for the working class. The R. I. L. U. proposes the calling of a world congress for the establishment of a united trade union international embracing all trade union movements so that the workers will be able to meet the attacks of the bosses. The British trade unions have united with the Russian unions for this aim. The Amsterdam International bitterly opposes this proposal for unity and thus takes upon itself the responsibility for the continuance of the divisions in the trade union movement. The A. F. of L., on the one hand, stands for the isolation of the American trade union movement and preaches a so-called “Monroe Doctrine of Labor” as being most in keeping with the policy of the United States government, and on the other hand displays a tendency to aid the reactionaries of the Amsterdam International in their fight against the movement for unity conducted by the British and Russian unions.
Next: Chapter I. The International Federation of Trade Unions (Amsterdam)