Page:Trade Unions in Soviet Russia - I.L.P. (1920).djvu/32



The point of view outlined above is not shared by the whole of the Russian trade union movement: from the beginning of the October Revolution, a tendency existed inside the Russian trade union movement which put forward the demand for the independence of the trade union movement. The theory of independence was specially urged at trade union congresses by the mensheviks. What is the essence of this theory? What is the meaning of independence and of whom should the unions remain independent? The theory of independence is based on the denial of the socialist character of our revolution. The supporters of independence argue that a bourgeois democratic revolution is taking place in Russia. The government, whatever the individual intentions of its representatives may be, is a government of the bourgeoisie; the state and the whole state apparatus reflects the bourgeois origin of the revolution, is in fact a bourgeois apparatus and for that reason the labour organisations must be made independent of the state. The same relations must exist between the trade unions in Russia and the Soviet government as now exist between the labour organisations and present day bourgeois democratic governments: autonomy, independence, collective agreements, freedom of class struggle, right to strike, maintainance of strike funds for that purpose, etc., etc. Such is the theory of independence as it was elucidated at the first All-Russian Congress of trade unions and was further developed by the supporters of this point of view.

Which unions in Russia adopted this theory? First of all, all the employees unions (commercial clerks, bank clerks and civil servants) then a section of the printers whose work was always so closely associated with the bourgeois press, that the abolition of the bourgeois press aroused in them a prolonged and strong opposition. For all that, the proletarian unions were against that theory. Thus the very character of the unions putting forward this theory compels us to devote particular attention to this "independence" and to decipher its class meaning. First of all, is the premise of this argument correct? What is revolution in general and a socialist revolution in particular? Revolution is the violent seizure of power in the interests of a new class. A revolution is "great," "brought to a successful end," when a new class comes to power which in its own interests reconstructs economic relations and turns all the powers of the state] to the service of the interests of the new class. A revolution is regarded as a minor or incomplete revolution when power is transferred to the hands of a new social section of the same class. Is it the bourgeoisie that is in power after the October Revolution? Obviously not, for, at the present moment, it is the oppressed class. But, perhaps, it is the peasantry that is in power in Russia? Even this is refuted by facts for if the peasants were in power, they would never have abolished private property or established State monopoly of articles of primary consumption in general and of corn in particular. Consequently, there remains only one class,