World Labor Unity

Front matter

by SCOTT NEARING

"Now that capital has been internationalised, there is only one way in which the workers can offer an effective resistance to the capitalist onslaught, namely by the compact international organisation of their own forces, and by an uncompromising struggle conducted with the massed strength of the internationally unified proletariat."—Edo Fimmen, Labour's Alternatives.

SOCIAL SCIENCE PUBLISHERS 7 West 106th Sreet New York City

Chapter 1: Issues before Labor

WORLD LABOR UNITY

I. Issues before Labor

Labor has not found itself. It is not united. The workers have no idea of their organic power. Only here and there, in Russia, Britain, Germany, Belgium, Italy, and a few other countries has the labor movement taken any leading part in public life. The great unorganized masses in the remainder of the world work and suffer silently. They are still the defenceless victims of exploitation and aggression. Lacking any means of effective protest, they continue to carry the crushing burdens of poverty, over-work, and unemployment which the system of capitalist imperialism presses upon their shoulders.

This is the beginning, however, not the end, in the story of organized labor. Economic conditions are changing with great rapidity. The labor movement has grown up in less than a century as one of the many products of the industrial revolution.

Where the labor movement has become conscious of its destiny and of the immediate tasks which it faces, it understands:

1.That human life is now organized on a world scale. Individual nations can no longer contain within their boundaries the economic and social pursuits of their citizens. The ends of the earth are tied together by the exchanging of raw materials and of finished products; by the activities of investors; by the migrating masses of workers; by the growing speed with which the masses in one country are acquainted with events elsewhere. World economic and social interdependence is a fact—probably the most important fact arising out of present day life.

2.That the employing or owning class is powerfully organized within each country, and that it is rapidly uniting internationally in its efforts to control raw materials and markets and to exploit workers. There is now going on a fierce struggle among the masters to determine which group of capitalists shall dominate and exploit the earth. The World War, one phase of that struggle, wrecked whole nations and left Europe in chaos. The struggle for power still continues, however, threatening even greater destruction when it next emerges on the military plane. Meanwhile a revolution in Hungary or the establishment of a workers' government in Russia brings the terrified exploiters momentarily together until they have re-established capitalism and set up a white terror.

3. That in every country where capitalism has had a chance to develop, it has brought into existence a working class, yoked to the wage system, victimized by capitalist wars, and regimented into its mines and factories. This working class makes up the majority of the population in all capitalist countries. The master class in each country owns and controls the machinery of production, the machinery of information and education, and the machinery of the state. The working class uses the machinery of production and accepts the authority of school, press, and state. Out of the product created in the industrial process the workers receive a subsistence. The owners of the system enjoy surplus and leisure.

4.That the workers as a whole can no longer hope to gain by co-operating with the owning class. The struggle between the owners has reached too acute a stage. Class collaboration merely means that the workers are assisting the owners to prepare for another world war and thus to destroy what the workers have produced by their labor.

5. That out of the capitalist order, which has made its contribution to the world and is rapidly disintegrating, there is arising a new social order based on labor and co-operation instead of ownership and competition. The standard bearers of this new order are the organized workers. Already, in the Soviet Union, this new social order has been tested out for nearly a decade, and with amazing success. The workers in other countries, as they realize these facts, grow more restive under the old yoke. China is breaking free. All over Europe the consciousness of purpose and power is coming to the workers.

6.That the new organization of the workers must be world-wide in the same sense that economic and social life have become world-wide.

7.That in order to establish this world organization the labor movement must achieve world unity. Thus World Labor Unity appears as the biggest immediate problem before the workers.

Chapter 2: Labor Dis-unity

II. Labor Dis-unity

The labor movement is young, fragmentary, and sadly dis-united. A decade ago there were only about twelve million organized workers in the world,—most of them in Britain, Germany, France, Italy, and the United States. (See page 32.) Even today labor organizations are largely confined to the major capi- talist countries and to the Soviet Union. The germs of labor unionism are scattered across the world, but most workers still are unorganized.

Dis-unity prevails inside such labor movements as exist within the great capitalist countries, where the first loyalty of the workers goes to a craft or industrial union. Since the war many of these sectional differences have been disappearing in the face of more general problems. With the exception of Britain and the Soviet Union, however, disunion is more prevalent than union among the various national labor groups.

National boundary lines throw additional barriers across the activities of the labor movement by making "enemies" of men engaged in the same trades, simply because they happen to live and work on different sides of a river or a range of mountains. So powerful is this force of nationalism that during the World War workers all over the world placed their loyalty to the nation above their loyalty to their fellow workers. Appeals to patriotism and the "defence of home and country" lined up the workers and bosses of Germany on one side and the workers and bosses of France on the other. Nationalism thus became the social expression of class collaboration.

Equally serious, as a source of labor dis-unity, is the economic gulf that lies between the workers in exploited nations and workers in exploiting nations. Imperialism necessitates the exploitation of foreign workers by the capitalists of the imperial nation. Therefore, if the workers in the imperial nation support their government, they make themselves a party to the exploitation that is taking place. The workers of the United States vote for a Republican administration and thus back the Standard Oil Company in a policy which leads to the exploitation of Mexican workers; French workers support French capitalists in their exploitation of Morocco; British workers back economic and political policies which enable British owners to exploit the workers of India; Japanese workers play the same role toward the workers in Korea. In such cases, by giving their political support to the government, the workers in a powerful imperial country assist the imperial class of that country to exploit the workers among the subject and "inferior" peoples.

There are still other divisions among the workers. Most of the organized European workers are federated in the International Federation of Trade Unions, with headquarters at Amsterdam, which claims an affiliated membership of about 16 millions. The Red International of Labor Unions, with headquarters at Moscow, claims an affiliated membership of about 8 millions. These two Internationals overtop all the rest, both as to size and importance. Many European workers, however, belong to the Federation of Christian Trade Unions. Still other workers, with anarchist-syndicalist leanings, are grouped in the International Workingmen's Association. There are, besides, many local unions that have no affiliations with any of these groups.

This is the situation in Europe. Even there little enough real unity exists among the workers.

Outside of the European continent, and, for the most part, outside of these internationals, are the American Federation of Labor, most of the trade unions in South America, the Pan-American Federation of Labor, which includes practically nothing outside of North America, and the trade unions of Asia and Australia.

Edo Fimmen sums up the matter by writing: "For practical purposes, the 'international' organisations are as yet purely European in scope." "The increasingly compact international capitalist alliance is faced by a working class which, both economically and industrially, both nationally and internationally, is disintegrated."

Chapter 3: The International Federation of Trade Unions (I.F.T.U.—Amsterdam)

III. The International Federation of Trade Unions (I.F.T.U.—Amsterdam)

Up to the time of the World War, international trade union organizations had never been much more than offices for the collection of information and conferences for the exchange of opinion.

The International Workingmen's Association, organized in 1864, had broken the ground for the later and larger associations. The miners formed an international in 1890. There were twelve such organizations in existence before 1900, and in 1914 there were 32 trade union internationals.

At Copenhagen, in 1901, the International Trade Union Secretariat was organized. In 1909 it was joined by the American Federation of Labor. This International held regular conferences, and in 1913 decided to found an International Federation of Trade Unions. The membership of the I.F.T.U. in 1913 included about seven and a half million workers in 21 countries. The activities of the I.F.T.U. were to be confined largely to the collection of statistics and the issuing of reports. The war hampered the work of the I.F.T.U., but in 1919 delegates representing 14 nations gathered at Amsterdam and reconstituted the Federation.

Before the war broke out there were great peace demonstrations all over Europe, with many pledges of international solidarity. August 1, 1914, found the workers throughout Europe armed and prepared to slaughter one another. Protests were feeble and ineffective. The masses of European workers had no clear-cut social philosophy, and their leaders—the leaders of the Trade Unions and of the working class political parties, generally—rushed to the defence of their respective countries.

Some of the leaders took ministerial posts; others were given lesser governmental positions. By the time the war had ended, pre-war labor leadership had become thoroughly imbued with the principle of class collaboration and quite accustomed to its practice.

Had the war brought peace and liberty, as some of its more ardent and unenlightened advocates hoped, these labor leaders might have had at least a temporary justification for their position. But the war ended with intensive exploitation and active preparation for the next conflict. Consequently the men who had put their shoulders behind the imperial war found themselves quite out of sympathy with the sharply defined class conflict that followed the outbreak of the Russian Revolution.

The leaders of the I.F.T.U. made several attempts during 1920 to take an active part in public affairs. Chief among these efforts were the attempted blockade of Hungary, as a protest against the White Terror there, and an attempt to head off the Polish War against Russia. A special conference was held in London in November, 1920. There were 100 delegates present, representing about 25 million workers.

The crest of the revolutionary wave had already passed, how- ever. Peace and reconstruction were the watchwords of capitalist imperialism. Instead of turning their energies toward the prosecution of a struggle against the exploiters and imperialists, the leaders of the I.F.T.U. devoted themselves to a fratricidal struggle with the Moscow International.

Revolution in Russia, Germany, Hungary, and Italy forced the leaders of labor opinion to take sides. Older men and women, who had received their training before the Great War was dreamed of, sided generally against the revolutionary movements. But the war period had produced a new group—militant and determined. These men saw the world through new eyes. For them the issue lay between revolution on one hand and destruction on the other.

During the post-war years the conflict grew sharper. Its development was accentuated by the organization of the Red International of Labor Unions.

Chapter 4: The Red International of Labor Unions (R.I.L.U.—Moscow)

IV. The Red International of Labor Unions (R.I.L.U.—Moscow)

The R.I.L.U. was founded in 1920 as the "International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions." Its genesis was thus explained by M. Tomsky, its president, in his speech before the Anglo-Russian Unity Conference, April 6–8, 1925:

"In 1917 the Russian working class overthrew capitalism and took power. In January, 1918, the first Trades Union Congress unanimously decided that the Central Council of the Russian Trade Unions must establish connections with the Trade Unions of the West. We twice tried in the only way open to us at that time—the period of the blockade—namely, by wireless messages to all Labour organisations. After a time we managed to get a few letters through from Russia but did not receive a single reply during the whole period. In 1918, if my memory does not fail me, the first International Congress of Trade Unions after the war took place at Berne. The defeated countries met under the leadership of the German Trade Unions. Although that was many months after the Revolution, no word of Russia was uttered, no desire to discuss with the Russian Unions was expressed. With the British and French Unions matters stood even worse. They were still more difficult for the Russian Unions to approach. We stubbornly repeated these attempts in 1919, but nothing came of it. In 1919–20 The International Labour Office appeared to be becoming the centre of the International Trade Union Move- ment, and, in spite of all their efforts, the Russian Trade Unions could not get anyone to talk to them. Capitalism was blockading us by armed force; the Trade Unions were in effect blockading us by not replying to our correspondence.

"That situation forced the Russian Trade Unions in 1920 to set about the formation of a new Trade Union International of their own."

It was in July, 1920, that the new organization—the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions—was formed with the Russian Unions dominating the group.

The efforts of the Russian Unions to establish relations with the Unions of western Europe did not cease at this point. "Every one of the twenty-three Executives of the Russian Trade Union Movement has applied, and continues to apply, for membership of the International Secretariats of their appropriate trades. Only one reply has been received all the way through, and that was to the effect that until our Trade Union Movement enters the International Federation of Trade Unions and accepts the Constitution and Rules of that body, and changes its tactics, no one will have anything to do with us."

Following these ineffective attempts to gain admission to the Western Unions, the Russian Unions, in 1921, through the International Council of Trade and Industrial Unions, called a world congress, at which the name of the organization was changed to the Red International of Labor Unions. At this conference a constitution was adopted which began with the words: "The class struggle has now reached such a degree of development and acuteness that the working class, in order to successfully conduct and complete its struggle for emancipation, must fight as a solid revolutionary class power." The preamble to the constitution continues with a statement that "the International Secretariat of Labor Unions before the war was merely an information agency, it did not pursue any militant class aims. The Amsterdam International of Labor Unions is even less fit to deal with the issues at hand than its predecessor. … Against this international of impotence, confusion, subservience to the bourgeoisie … we must oppose an international of revolutionary vigor, of class activity … an international which will seize all the means of production and establish the Communist commonwealth."

During its early days the tactics of the Moscow International were based on the idea that there would speedily be a world revolution. Soon, however, it became apparent that no such revolution was taking place. Consequently, the third session of the Central Council of the Moscow International in 1923 declared that "the attitude of the R.I.L.U. toward the Amsterdam International remains unchanged; i.e., merciless struggle as before against reformist theory and practice; also against cooperation of classes as practiced by the Amsterdam International. But we are ever ready to create a united front for fighting our class foes."

In April, 1922, the Executive Committee of the three political internationals had held a meeting in Berlin and appointed a Committee of Nine for the purpose of bringing about unity between the two trade union internationals and the three political internationals. The Committee never functioned, and until 1924 the pronouncements of the Moscow International in favor of a united front had produced no tangible results.

Chapter 5: The American Federation of Labor Breaks Away

V. The American Federation of Labor Breaks Away

Samuel Gompers, President of the American Federation of Labor, wrote to Jan Oudegeest, Secretary of the Amsterdam International, on March 5, 1921, severing the connections of the American Federation of Labor with the Amsterdam International.

Three reasons were given for the action of the American Federation of Labor. First was that the new constitution of the Amsterdam International "abrogated the principle of complete autonomy for each national trade union Federation." The second reason was that “through the issuance of appeals and proclamations the Executive body of the International Federation had committed the Federation to a revolutionary principle to which the American Federation of Labor is and always has been uncompromisingly opposed and to which no labor movement guided by democratic ideals could give approval." The third objection related to the method of assessing dues for the support of the Amsterdam International.

The objections regarding autonomy and dues collection were disposed of by Mr. Gompers in a paragraph. "More serious than either of these questions is the conduct of the International officers during the months that have elapsed since the organiza- tion of the new international federation." These officers "have adopted and promulgated a policy calling for revolutionary action with the 'socialization' of industry as its objective. The American Federation of Labor is opposed to that policy and there can be no compromise between the two points of view."

The revolutionary viewpoint which gained control of the executive machinery of the International Federation of Trade Unions found its extreme manifestation in an appeal for revolutionary measures in aid of the Soviets, issued on September 8, 1919, which had been neither repudiated, modified, nor abandoned. From this appeal Mr. Gompers quoted the following language:

"The International Federation of Trade Unions calls upon all National Trade Union centres to prepare, if necessary, for mass action by means of a general strike (against war).

"'The production of war materials must cease in all countries. …'"

After citing other pronouncements of a similar nature Mr. Gompers wrote: "The American Federation of Labor denounces the revolutionary principles espoused by the executive officers of the International Federation of Trade Unions."

By this action the A. F. of L. divided the important labor movements of the world into three groups: the Amsterdam International, the Moscow International, and the A. F. of L. (or the Pan-American Federation of Labor, which includes several of the Latin-American countries). Though the Amsterdam International had the largest membership, it controlled, at best, only a minority of the world's labor movement.

Chapter 6: Moscow Negotiates with Amsterdam

VI. Moscow Negotiates with Amsterdam

Shortly after its organization the Red International of Labor Unions, through its executive officials, began negotiations with the Amsterdam International for the organization of a united labor front. The Council of the Amsterdam International took the position that since the Moscow International had assumed a critical and hostile attitude toward Amsterdam "any organization which announces its affiliation with the politico-trade union Moscow International places itself outside the I.F.T.U."

Edo Fimmen, Secretary of the International Federation of Transport Workers, and joint secretary of the I.F.T.U. from 1919 until his resignation in 1923, waged an active campaign for labor unity. He won out in his own International, but lost the fight in the I.F.T.U.

Fimmen thus states his case:

"Today, capital is no longer national. Even before the war, a tendency toward the internationalisation of capital was manifest; today the internationalisation is obvious."

"Already before the war capitalism was internationally united, And it remained so during the great slaughter.

"Where, however, is our unity? We have not even built the bridge which unites us, but we must do so. It seems as if our hate is greater against those workers who are not of the same political opinion as us than it is against our common exploiters. This situation will become even worse if we do not find the way to greater unity on a national and international scale. …

"In my opinion, in the struggle between Amsterdam and Moscow there must be neither victors nor vanquished. There must no longer be any talk of Amsterdam or Moscow, but only of a united international which shall embrace all peoples and all countries, of a great trade union movement which must stand on the basis of irreconcilable class war."

Initiative looking in the direction of labor unity was finally taken by the representatives of the General Council of the British Trades Union Congress. At the Vienna Congress of the I.F.T.U. in 1924 they were responsible for a resolution instructing the Executive Committee of the I.F.T.U. to continue consultations with the All-Russian Trade Union Council.

Such negotiations were held. On December 5, 1924, the I.F.T.U., in a letter to the All-Russian Council, "intimated that that organization did not appear willing to affiliate with the I.F.T.U. on the basis of its rules and resolutions.” In the Russian reply, dated January 29, "a joint conference of representatives of the International Federation of Trade Unions, and the Union of Soviet Republics' Central Council of Trade Unions was pressed for." That was the situation when the I.F.T.U. General Council met in Amsterdam on February 5, 1925. Meanwhile the British Trades Union Congress Delegation had been to Russia and had made its report.

Upon the return of the British Delegation from Russia a special meeting of the General Council of the British Trades Union Congress was called. A letter from Tomsky, dated November 17, was discussed, and the Council decided to send a letter to the Amsterdam International asking for a conference, That conference took place in Amsterdam on February 5, 1925.

At this February conference Fred Bramley, in the name of the British Delegation, moved that: "The British section propose the convening of an unconditional conference for informal discussion purposes, at which both sides would be free to express their representative opinion without being tied to any formulae or constitution, it being understood, of course, that the findings of such a conference should be considered preliminary to a mandatory conference to follow after reports of the preliminary discussions had been given to the bodies responsible for the final conclusions."

The vote on this resolution was six for, 13 against, and one not voting.

An opposition resolution, proposed by Steinhuis and Smit, was carried on a vote of 14 for and five against. This resolution declared that "the I.F.T.U. is prepared to admit the All-Russian Federation of Trade Unions, when they express their desire to this effect." The resolution also pledged the I.F.T.U. "to convene a conference in Amsterdam with the All-Russian Council of Trade Unions with a view to an exchange of opinions as soon as possible after the All-Russian Council of Trade Unions intimates its desire to be admitted to the International Federation of Trade Unions."

Chapter 7: Bramley's Amsterdam Speech

VII. Bramley's Amsterdam Speech

During the negotiations at the February 5–6 Amsterdam Conference, Bramley made a masterful appeal in favor of unity. In the course of this address he analyzed the negotiations between Amsterdam and Moscow: "Too much effort has been made to emphasize points of disagreement. That is not diplomacy. It is not sound business." He then pointed out that groups with conflicting interests could not hope for united action until they met in conference. His whole speech was a plea for such a conference. He said:

"We are not merely concerned about the position of the British section on this matter, We are internationalists, and we say this morning that a policy which may lead to the exclusion of a country as big and as important as Russia … would be disastrous and very, very unfortunate indeed."

After pointing out that he, Bramley, was "a member of the extreme Right Wing of the British Trade Union Movement," and therefore differed with the Russians both on theory and on tactics, he called attention to the remarkable constructive work being done among the Russian masses by the Russian trade unionists, whose leaders are "as steady, as constructive, as logical, as clear, and as well-informed as any trade union leaders that you will find in any part of the world."

Holding that "an all-inclusive international is desirable," he asked the Amsterdam General Council to agree to "a free and unconditional immediate conference with representatives of the Russian Trade Union Movement."

After listening to Bramley’s plea, the Council passed the Steinhuis-Smit resolution to the effect that the I.F.T.U. "is prepared to admit the All-Russian Federation of Trade Unions, when they express their desire to this effect." The resolution practically ended the hope for further negotiations as it meant that the Russian unions must abandon the R.I.L.U., join the I.F.T.U,, and then talk matters over.

Chapter 8: British and Russian Unions Fraternize

VIII. British and Russian Unions Fraternize

Meantime a delegation from the Russian Trade Unions had visited the British Trades Union Congress at Hull in September, 1924, The delegation was given a hearty reception and the Trades Union Congress voted to send a return delegation to Russia in time for the All-Russian Congress of Trade Unions, which opened in Moscow November 11, 1924. A. A. Purcell, who had been a member of the British Trade Union Delegation to Russia in 1920 and who was then chairman of the British Trades Union Congress, headed the British Delegation to the Russian Congress.

In the course of its visit to Russia the British Delegation arranged for the organization of an Anglo-Russian Committee for the promotion of world unity in the trade union movement. Bramley, in his speech cited above, gives a report on these negotiations, including the British proposals for joint action on world labor unity.

The resolution passed by the Amsterdam General Council at its meeting (February 6–7, 1925) practically ended negotiations with Moscow. As soon as this decision was reported to the General Council of the British Trades Union Congress, the latter body immediately called an Anglo-Russian Trade Union Conference "for the purpose of discussing the difficulties arising from the Amsterdam International Council meeting." This Anglo-Russian Conference was held in London on April 6–8, 1925.

Chapter 9: Report of the British Delegation to Russia

IX. Report of the British Delegation to Russia

The position of the British in these negotiations was greatly strengthened by the Report of the British Delegation to Russia. The Report, published officially by the Trades Union Congress, is a careful, extended document covering various phases of public life in Russia under the Soviets. There are chapters on politics, finance, industry, transport and agriculture, foreign commerce, education, public health, trade unions, labor regulations, wages, and other topics. At the time of its appearance it was the most comprehensive and thoroughgoing statement in English concerning the life of the workers in Soviet Russia.

It is impossible in a brief space to give any adequate idea either of the extent of this report or of the conclusions which it presents.

Early in its pages the British delegates assert that unless people realize that the working class is the ruling class in Russia they can have no correct understanding of the events which have taken place there since the Russian Revolution. Great emphasis is laid upon the improvement in the political, economic, and social conditions of Russian workers. Those members of the Delegation who had been in Russia in 1920, and those who were familiar with Russia before the Revolution, found the situation in 1924 vastly improved. The Delegation found Russian finance on a sound basis with a stable currency, a balanced budget, and an experimental relation maintained between private trading, the co-operatives, and the state organizations. Great emphasis was laid on the improvement in industry and on the effective work done by the State Planning Commission, whose object is the control of production and trade. "The existing economic system is not only viable, but has real vitality … it does not stunt, but can even stimulate the economic recovery that peace has now made possible." Equally favorable are the reports on commerce, transport, and agriculture.

Health and housing have improved; social conditions are definitely better; education has received an immense impetus as a result of the Revolution. "Every opportunity and encouragement is given to the worker, no matter what may be his or her calling, to obtain the best instruction in any branch of art, industry, science, or literature for which he may feel he has an aptitude. The results which were seen by the Delegation in all the districts visited were certainly astounding, especially when it is considered that the whole system has not yet been in operation for three

Size of Labor Movement in Various Countries

years. … A peasant or a worker can by his own energies rise in his or any other profession with the aid given to him by the system. The pathetic feature in our own civilisation of wasted and dormant talent, the slave of circumstance, owing to the absence of all possibility of outlet or instruction through lack of means, seems likely to become very rare among the workers of Russia."

Trade unions in Russia are well housed. Their membership has been continually increased, At the 1924 Congress it was 6,300,000. "Being largely freed from their main function elsewhere of protecting the workers against exploitation by the wealthy, and of preventing the public service of the workers from being prejudiced for private profit, the Trade Unions have been able to engage in educating the workers as citizens and rulers." The unions participate actively in the control of labor, in the determination of wages, and in the general direction of social life. So effective has their activity been that the workers of Russia in many districts are living on a standard of housing, education, and other advantages "in many respects better than those obtained by labor in Europe."