and that is that not one of them : : , |
has anything in common with : e@ ns rn a
the vaunted principle of trade ra A

union “neutrality.” Neither the
first point of view, which is
based on recognition of the
class struggle; nor the second,
which advocatés the principle
of class collaboration and sup-
port of the capitalist system of
society, can by any stretch of

the imagination be regarded as

neutral.
e

ULTSTANDING investigators

of the British trade union
movement, such as Sidney and
Beatrice Webb, emphasized
more than once in their History
of Trade Unionism that the of-
ficial policy of the trade unions
always expressed the striving
of their leaders toward a sort
of a coalescence with the ma-
chinery of the state.

And most remarkable of all,
we read in the chapter entitled
“The Place of Trade Unionigm
in the State,” “The Trade Un-
ion itself has been tacitly ac-
cepted as part of the adminis-
trative machinery of the state
_.. The recognition of the trade
union movement as part of the
government structure of the
nation began in an almost im-
perceptible way . .- It is now
taken for granted that trade
unionism must be distinctively
and effectually represented ...
on all Royal Commissions and
Departmental Committees,
whether or not these inquiries
are concerned specifically with
labor questions’. . . It is need-
less to say that this recogni-
tion was not accorded to the
trade union world without a
quid pro quo from the. trade
union movement to the govern-
ment.”

e

HE character of this coales-
cence of the trade union ma-
> chinery with the machinery of
state in Great Britain, which
very often runs counter to the
vital interests of the *British
workers, was most vividly re-
vealed in the most dramatic
periods of the British working
class movement—such as, for
instance, during the general
strike of 1926. As an example
of how the British trade unions
subordinated the interests of
the working class to the inter-
ests of the ruling classes, we
may quote the deplorable Mun-
ich period when Chamberlain’s
policy of “appeasing”’ the Ger-
man aggressor hastened the ap-
proach of the Second World
War. In spite of the wishes of
the trade union membership,
the leaders of the Trade Union
Congress followed in the wake
of the official government pol-
icy, and when the government
tacked, they invariably tacked,
two.

The coalescence of the trade
union federations with the
bourgeois machinery of state—
through compulsory  arbitra-
tion, and conferences of em-
ployers and various class col-
laboration organizations —- was
observed also in other capital-
ist countries before the war.
The representatives of the Am-
sterdam International officially
announced a “new attitude to-
ward the state.” Theories such
as “constructive socialism and
industrial democracy’ made
their appearance. The sub-
stance of the latter was most
vividly expressed by Karl
Zwing, one of the “theoreti-
cians” of the Amsterdam In-
ternational, in the following
words: “We must not lose sight
of the fact that the working-
class is part of the capitalist

State

system. The collapse of that
system would be tantamount to
its (the working class’)
lapse, and consequently it is
the great historical. duty of the
working class to secure — by
defining its place in this system
—an improvement of the entire
social system which, in turn,
would be identical with im-
provement in its own condi-
tions.”

In this argument the func-
tion of the trade unions as pro-
tector of the interests of the
proletariat is not even men-
tioned; their main object is
stated to: -be ‘‘national concen-
tration of the. trade union
movement and the identifica-
tion of its objects with the
prosperity of the whole.”

THESE tendencies have found °

striking expression in the
activities and policies of the
American Federation of Labor.
They became known in trade
union movements as Gomper-
ism, after Samuel Gompers,
former head of the AFL. Prof.
S. Perlman, one of the apolo-
gists of Gomperism, stated in
his book, The History of Trade
Unionism in the United States,
that in certain periods, es-
pecially during the First World
War, “the Federation took its
cue completely from the na-
tional government.” He goes on
to say:

“AN important aspect of the

cooperation of the govern-
ment with the Federation was
the latter’s eager self-identifi-
cation with the government’s
foreign policy, which went to
the length of choosing to play
a lone hand in the Allied labor
world. During the greater
part of the period of American
neutrality, its attitude was that
of the shocked lover of peace
who is desirous of maintaining
the strictest neutrality.

“When war seemed inevitable
the national officers of all im-
portant unions in the Federa-
tion met in Washington and is-
sued a statement on American
labor’s position in peace or in
war. They pledged the labor
movement and the influence of
the labor organizations unre-
servedly in support of the gov-
ernment in case of war.”

We shall not enter into a
general analysis of the question
raised here by the author; we
merely state the facts. :

In characterizing the activi-
ties of the American Federation
of Labor, the historians of the
American trade union move-
ment invariably: arrive at one
eonclusion. They admit that
throughout its history the Am-
erican Federation of Labor
pursued not a neutral line, but
a clearly defined line of adap-
tation to the policy of the rul-
ing class. This, in turn, inevi-
tably led to a constantly grow-
ing process of coalescence of
the leading upper circle of the
American Federation of Labor
with the employers and the ma-
chinery of the state, and the
widening of the gulf between
the labor leaders and the gen-
eral trade union membership.

A yawning chasm opened be-
tween the everyday practice of
the American Federation of

PAGE 12 — P.A, MAGAZINE SECTION

col- .

Labor and the democratic prin-
ciples which it proclaimed. Very
often so-called provisionalism
reigns in the internal govern-
ment of American trade unions.

This term covers up the system
of appointing from above, offic-_

jals who exercise undivided
sway in the. lower organiza-
tions. This practice is, of

course, in crying contradiction
to the elementary requirements
of trade union democracy.

With the aid of these ap-
pointed officials, the leading
trade union bureaucrats dictat-
orially handle practically all
trade union affairs. According
to a report of the “independ-
ent” Miners’ Union from whose
ranks Green, president of the
American Federation of Labor,
sprang, organizations covering
71 percent of the membership
are governed by trade union of-
ficials appointed: from above
and never elected by anyone.
These are official figures and
are, no doubt, an underestimate.

Under these conditions a type
of leader. predominates in the
unions affiliated to the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor who
regards his organization prac-
tically as his own private com-
mercial enterprise. As an Am-
erican journalist has expressed
it, a leader of this type cannot
tolerate the idea that trade
union officials whom he ap-
points’ and whose pay he con-
trols, should read his edicts
without going into raptures
over them.

Commenting on
widespread phenomena, the
American journal Fortune
stated rather cynically:

such fairly

“To make an industrial union
or group, then, you do not need
fixed social objectives so much
as a flexible tongue, ready op-

Soviet Democracy

Prompted by . questions

from his American and Can-
adian readers, many of the

aspects and fundamental
concepts of Soviet Democ-
racy are discussed by Ray-
mond Arthur Davies, Can-
adian newspaper and radio
correspondent in Moscow,
in an article which appears
in the July issue of Soviet
Russia Today, just off the
press. Mr. Davies’ article, in
part, follows:

OVIET democracy isn’t our

American or British present-
day democracy. This is per-
fectly evident to any observer
of the Soviet scene. Nor are the
Russians trying to make it ap-
pear so. But they repeat time
and again that the very ‘fact
that the Soviet Union and
America, Canada and Britain
have democracy, even though
of differing types, creates the
basis for unity in dealing with
anti-democratie forces, and for
solving postwar problems in a
way favorable to the further
developing of democracy in
general.

: Continued

portunism and a pitiless hand.”

The absence of democracy
within the trade union move-
ment, and of control and free
criticism on the part of the
membership, leads to phenom-
ena of a revolting kind. The
extent to which corruption is
rife among leaders of the trade
unions affiliated to the Ameri-
can Federation of Labor is well

“known. The American press has

quoted and continues to quote
numerous facts proving that
trade union officials have con-
nections with the criminal
world. Cases have even been
known of gangsters climbing
into responsible trade union
posts, rifling trade union cof-
fers, concluding deals with em-
ployers and_ terrorizing the
membership. Quite recently the
Chicago Daily News, exposing
conditions prevailing in the
American ‘Federation of Labor,
wrote:

“THE highest AFL executives

tolerated gangsters among
AFL officials until the govern-
ment prosecuted and imprison-
ed the gangsters for criminal
activities.”

In spite of these facts, it is
precisely in AFL quarters that
we hear hypocritical sermons on
trade union ‘neutrality, inde
pendence and democracy!” The
practical object of the slander
spread by these quarters about
the Soviet trade unions is obvi-
ous. They want to sow among
the American people suspicion
and distrust toward the Soviet
workers and their trade unions,
to frustrate the idea of inter-
national unity among the trade
unions of the democratic coun-
tries,

Recently the Supreme Soviet
of the USSR held its 11th ses-
sion in the great white marble
hall in the Kremlin. The dele-
gates sit in groups represent-
ing their republics.
Uzbek and Tadzhik women in
typical native garb, Mongol of-

There are

ficers, young men and women
from ‘the provinces. The report
on the budget proceeds. The re-
porter is Finance Commissar
Zverev. But what sort of bud-
get is it? It is not at all like
the budgets we hear of in Con-
gress or Parliament. It is more
like the budget of a business
erganization. It is the budget
of a “business” organization,
you suddenly realize with a
start; an organization which is
the Soviet Union. These peo-
ple, you think with surprise,
are the organizers and manag-
ers of the vast country; they
run, its railways, its mines, its
factories and its farms.

The budget has a number of
items which do not, indeed can-
not, appear in the budget of
our countries. Thus, the first
‘major item deais with “receipts
from state-owned enterprises

We.are pleased to note t
many organs of the press, d
men prominent in trade un
and public affairs in the Uni
States, condemn the campa
against the Soviet trade ur
movement conducted ‘by re
tionary leaders of the Am
can Federation of Labor.
example, Edwin A. Lahey, ¢

‘mentator for the Chicago. D’

News, wrote recently:

“Tt
think

2
is quite disconcerting:
what a noise would I
been raised had the Rost
trade unions kept passing
lutions denouncing the aF¥
supporting capitalist pri
enterprise, and even ent
into collusive; contracts wit
monopolists.”

This sound observation nm
no comment. i

The Soviet workers are ¢
ing no. efforts to streng.
their Socialist Motherland. °
Soviet trade unions unreser
ly support their workers’ 5
in the interests of the wor
class. Only malicious anti-
iet slanderers can draw ©
this the conclusion that S/
trade unions are not volun
independent and democ,
workers’ organizations. —
only malicious people whe:
striving to sap the foundé
of international working
unity ean proclaim, as le:
of the American Federati
Labor do, that it is impo
to sit under one roof. wit |
Soviet trade unions. |. _

Incidentally, these sp): ;

‘designs were, aS we leno

animously condemned bi
trade union organizations.
resented at the World

Union Conference held in
don last February and ii
ing the largest democratic

unions of America. Strivi
isolate the Soviet trade u
the reactionary splitters :!
the leadership of the Am |
Federation of Labor hav
ceeded only. in isolating -
selves. The Soviet trade |
occupy their appropriate.
in the ranks of the inter’
al trade union movement |

and organizations.’ This
major item of receipts -
budget. They form neaz
of the funds necessary t}
the total 1945 budget «|
billion rubles. In fact, -"
most entirely suffice —
military purposes of tl
budget, for which the 1
lion ruble expenditure.
highest in Soviet histor::

The speaker goes into:
erable detail in outlinin
for expanding produce
consumers’ goods. Nor
fail to criticize severely
es of industry that hi
produced high quality
nor to. demand im
changes for the better.

Delegates from the7
country speak. Have ©
portunity to express |
and differences, to m@
quests, to plead the ©
their constituencies? I?
A. A. Kuznetsov, a depry.
Leningrad. “I must chy
number of people’s
‘sariats and industrial
ates that do not insure 7
of reconstruction and 4”
Leningrad must and ©

(Continued on past

SATURDAY, JUN