es

N@RDAIN forcion cr
A cles quite often bring
3 the question of relations

rOween the trade unions
d.the state. The interest
‘played in this subject is

ite intelligible as it concerns
' extremely important sphere
contemporary political life in
democratic. countries ‘where
de unions exist. - =

Ine cannot help noting, how- ©
‘+r, that the discussion invar-
ly centers around only one-
‘ntfy on our planet—namely,

“Soviet Union. Moveover, the
iject.ds discussed only “from
definite angle, the angle of
so-called “neutrality” of the
fe unions. The advocates of
crality maintain that ~the
se unions are organizations

ch stand “above the state,”

\ne may so express it, and

rom this,
vy the conclusion that it is
dssible to cooperate with
Soviet

novement’’:
dence has. always. distin=
ed the Russian trade un-
1ovement. from.-the trade

|

m that this applies to trade
ms in all countries except
Soviet Union where they
“controlled by the state,”
consequently are
mdent,” and are not even
veratic working class or-
izations. :

“not in-

certain elements

trade unions. The
vociferous advocates of

schismatic view are the
sionary leaders of the Am-
n Federation -of Labor.
lar arguments may ‘also,
ver, be met with in the”
3€an press:
ms Nybeter, for example,
tly made- the
nent regarding the “char-

The Swedish
following

of the Russian trade_un-
“Lack of in-

movement of democratic

ries.”’

" statements to the effect
-t the Soviet trade unions
independence’”’ may also
nd in the columns of the
sh —s- Social - Democratic

per, -Morgen Tidningen,

‘of the Swedish govern-
Honestly speaking, this
‘per would do far better
der over the lack of in-
‘ence of the Swedish
tion. of Trade Unions
as all the world knows,
sn trailing in the wake
ruling circles of. Sweden
the whole period of the
Tf that newspaper had
y raised the question of
ndence” which the lead-
che Swedish trade unions
2d in vindicating the in-
of the Swedish working
che answer would have
arfectly clear: for during
x the activities of the
‘ trade unions have been
\ely subordinated to the
aent’s policy which, as
known, has been of ex-
service to fascist Ger-
d her--satellites. The
result has been that the
s-ofthe Swedish work.
S-have suffered consid-

were only a matter of
pone ‘likes and dislikes
in-leaders and organs of
S, one could ignore the
at of the Soviet trade’
‘ovement made, Say, by
|Green, president of the
1 Federation of Labor,
2ertain Swedish news.
But both the Swedish
1g. Social Democrats
American trade union
sts make “their argu-
bout. the
bendence of the trade

-Ship. of society.

“neutrality?” }

Trade Unions And The
State-

By K. Omelchenko

The Soviet trade unions unreservedly support their workers’ state
in the interest of the working class. Only anti-Soviet slanderers
can draw from this conclusion that they are not democratic.

unions: a pretext for vilifying
the Soviet trade unions. On
these grounds they oppose co-
operation between the trade
unions of their countries and
those of the USSR. They are
doing all in their power to iso-
late «the Soviet trade union
movement. Thus the discussion
of the problem ‘of “the trade
unions and the state,” and the
touching concern displayed
about the “character of Russian
trade unionism,” are far from
academic.

‘@

EFORE © dealing _ With the
character of. the Soviet
trade unions and their activi-
ties, we must be clear on cer-
tain general principles which
govern the activities of the
trade unions and their relations
With the state. There is nothing
wrong in trade unions cooperat-
ing with the state, and such co-
operation cannot be condemned
as such. Situations and periods
occur in the lives of nations
when cooperation between trade
unions and the state is not only
permissible, but even essential
—on one indispensable condi-
tion, ‘however: namely, that
such cooperation is in the inter.
ests of the working Glass.

Not only the Soviet, but also
the British and American trade
unions, for example, are active-
ly supporting the governments
of their respective countries in
the struggle against Hitler
Germany. Who “would ever
doubt that this support and co-
/Operation are positive factors
in promoting the- interests of
the working class? Could the
trade unions today remain neu-
tral toward the policy of the
state in the struggle against
Hitler aggression without actu-
ally betraying the cause of the
working class? The decisions
passed by the World Trade Un.
ion Conference in London to
render the utmost assistance to
the war efforts of the Allies
provide a clear and unambigu-
ous answer to this question.
Consequently, the question of
the relations between the trade
unions and the state cannot be
examined apart from the con-
crete historical situation.

‘The vrelations between the
trade unions and state in our
country have also been deter-
mined by history. The attitude
of our, workers and trade unions
‘toward the State under tsarism
Was~ quite different from their
attitude towards the state to-
day, under the Soviet system,

~when social relations have un

dergone’ a radical change and
the working class has become
the ruling. class. In our country
it is the working class which
exercises the political] leader-
Soviet society
contains no classes whose inter-
ests run counter to the interests
of the working class. The close
cooperation between the trade
unions and the Soviet State is
determined by the fact that the
Soviet Union is a Socialist, a
workers’ and peasants’ state in
which all power belongs to the
working people. Cooperation

— P.A. MAGAZINE SECTION

between the Soviet trade unions
and the Soviet’ State does not
and cannot in the slightest de-
gree imply either encroachment
on the independence of the
trade union movement, or a
renouncement by the trade un-

ions of their -main functions,
that is, the protection of the in-
terests of the working class.
This is the opposite of what ex-
ists" in capitalist countries
where, quite often, the trade

unions sacrifice the interests of
the working class to the inter-
ests of the ruling class, which
in those countries
working class
geoisie,

is not the
but the bour-

VASSILY KUZNETSOV
Chairman, Soviet Trade Unions

EVERY unbiased. person who

is familiar with the actual
state of affairs in the Soviet
Union must admit that the ac-
tivities of the Soviet trade un-
ions are of an extremely ex-
tensive. and fruitful character.
The fruits of these activities
are inseparable from the gen-
eral achievement of the work-
ing class of the USSR; that is,
the abolition: of unemployment
and all-round imnrovements in
the economic, social and mater-
ial conditions of the working
class. )

Those who are familiar with
the Soviet system of social] in-
surance and maintenance can-
not. fail to see how far ahead
of their foreign comrades the
Soviet trade unions and Soviet
workers have advanced in the
sphere of protection of the
health of the working people,
mother and child welfare and
maintenance in old age in
Spite of: the fact that there are
trade unions in many foreign
countries which are far older
than the Soviet trade unions.

The enormous cultural prog-
Yess of the workers of the Sov-
iet Union is also an indisput-
able fact; and the colossal op-
portunities — compared with
Western Europe and America—
enjoyed by the Soviet workers,
youth and women for satisfying
their cultural requirements;
their opportunities for educa-
tion and for improving their

skill in their various trades and
professions, and for promotion,
are undeniable achievements of
the Soviet system.

The Soviet State provides the
trade unions with facilities for
protecting the economic and
legal rights of their members
on a scale unprecedented in any
other country. At the same
time, our trade unions are ma-
terially - independent of. the
state. They exist and carry on
their functions with their own
funds, obtained from member-
ship. dues. The working people
of the country have every.
ground = for regarding their
trade unions as:the most demo-
cratic in the world.

The very, principle on which
the Soviet trade unions are
built, testifies “to their widely
democratic “character. ~ In the
first place, they are voluntary
organizations. The. question of
joining or leaving a trade union
is a matter of free choice for
fvery wage and. salaried work-
er. No, artificial barriers are
placed in the way of the worker

who wants to join a trade un-_

ion. Neither occupation, degree
of skill, sex, nationality or
race, nor political or religious
convictions are obstacles toe
trade union membership. All
leading trade union bodies,
from the bottom up, are elected
and are responsible to their
electors. The secret ballot fully
insures the members of the
trade union the democratic ex-
pression of their will.

Thus, one of the most impor-
tant distinguishing features of
the Soviet Union “is that here
the protection of the interests
of the working class by the
trade: unions is inseparably
bound up with the constant
support of the state by the
trade unions. The entire policy
and all activities of the Soviet
State ‘are conducted in the in-
terests of the working class and
have for their main object the
all-round and’ far-reaching pro-

tection of ‘these interests;

Reactionary leaders: of many
trade unions in capitalist: coun-
tries compel their unions» to
Support the state’ to “the detri.-
ment of the interests of the
working class; for ‘the policies
pursued by the governments of
these countries, by.serving the
ruling groups and the proper-
tied classes, often run counter
to the interests of the masses.

In the light of these general
propositions the following, at
first sight a paradoical fact,
will become clear. Those very
trade union leaders in the for-
eign countries who attack the
Soviet. trade union movement
on the plea of protecting trade
union neutrality and their in-
dependence of the “state; delib-
erately hush up the policy pur-
sued by their own trade unions
toward the state. If, however,

we examine this policy, the
following will become clear:

First, that it departs from
trade union neutrality and in-
dependence even in theory. Sec-

ond, that in practice the trade
unions usually follow in the
wake of the policy of- their
governments. Very often they
do: this to the detriment of the
vital interests of the working
class, which they are supposed
to protect.

WE shall deal first of all with
the country where the his-
tory of the trade unions goes
back further than that of any
other country — namely, Great
Britain. :

We have before us a work by
Prof. G. D. H. Cole, British
Trade Unionism Today, publish-
ed in London just before the

, outbreak of the present war.

As the author tells, the book
was composed with the: collab-
oration of 30 trade union lead-
ers and other experts. Consid-
erable space is devoted to the
question of relations between
the trade unions and the state.
The author says that there are
two views concerning the ob-
jects pursued by the trade un-
ion movement: 2S :

“On the one side are those
who regard the industrial or-
ganization of the workers~ as
the instinctive expression of
the class struggle which is in-
herent in the wage relationship
between capitalist and laborer,
and which can be transcended
only by the suppression of cap-

italism itsélf. Workers who
take this view are class-
conscious proletarians . . . seek-

ing to weld the whole working
class together into a solid force

-for the overthrow of capitalism.

For them trade unionism is
essentially a fighting move-
ment resting on a class basis;
and any agreements which the
workers may make with their
employers are but truces, tem-
porary intervals in a war which
can only end with the final
victory of the working class...

eS

“THE second idea of trade

unionism is that it exists
in order to protect and advance
the interests of a defined group
of workers who possess some
special skill or -other mark of
distinction from the general
masses of labor, so that they
ean hope by a close combination
of those who possess this spe-
cial qualification to secure bet-
ter terms of employment and a
higher status than would be
possible if each man acted
alone.

“The ‘aim of’ those who hold
this view is to create for them-
selves a limited monopoly of
labor, in order to improve its
price, just as capitalists en-
deavour by a combination to
exact a monopoly profit. There
is in this type of trade union-
ism no set intention to change
the economic system, but only
a will to make it work better
from the standpoint of the par-
ticular group. Nor is there any
desire to build up a solid com-
bination of the whole working
class; for it is clearly impos-
sible for all of them to exact
special privileges. If there is
to be exploitation, there must
be persons left to exploit.”

The author goes on to say:
“In practice no trade union ac-
cepts completely cither of these
Points’ of view.” And in Britain
there predominate, rather,
“combinations 4 PProaching
very near to the second idea.”
The author observes that this
influences “trade unionism asa
whole, . .”

One may or may not agree
with the ideas enunciated
above, but one thing is clear,

(Continued on page 12)

SS a ee ee eS Se ae