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