is closely linked up with the class and with the masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the dictatorship of the class is effected. Without close contact with the trade unions, without their hearty support and self-sacrificing work, not only in economic, but also in military construction, it would, of course, have been impossible for use to govern the country and to maintain the dictatorship for two months, let alone two years. Of course, in practice, this close contact calls for very complicated and diversified work in the form of propaganda, agitation, timely and frequent conferences, not only with the leading, but also with influential trade union workers general; it calls for a determined struggle against the Mensheviks, who still have a certain, though very small, number of adherents, whom they teach all possible counter-revolutionary tricks, from the ideological defense of (bourgeois) democracy and the preaching of the "independence" of the trade unions (independent of the proletarian state!) to the sabotaging of proletarian discipline, etc., etc.

We consider that contact with the "masses" through trade unions is not enough. Our practical experience during the course of the revolution has given rise to non-Party workers' and peasants' conferences, and we strive by every means to support, develop and extend these institutions in order to be able to watch the mood of the masses, to come closer to them, to respond to their requirements, to promote the best of their workers to state posts, etc. In a recent decree on the transformation of the People's Commissariat for State Control into the "Workers' and Peasants' Inspection," non-Party conferences of this kind are granted the right to elect members to the State Control to undertake various investigations, etc.

Then, of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which unite the toiling masses irrespective of occupation. The uyezd congresses of Soviets are institutions that are more democratic than any in the best democratic republics of the bourgeois world; and through these congresses (the proceedings of which are followed by the Party with the closest attention) as well as by continuously sending class-conscious workers to various posts in the rural districts, the role of the proletariat as leader of the peasantry is fulfilled, the dictatorship of the urban proletariat is effected and a systematic struggle against the rich, bourgeois, exploiting and profiteering peasantry is waged.

Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed "from above," from the standpoint of the practical carrying out of the dictatorship. It is to be hoped that the reader will understand why, to a Russian Bolshevik well acquainted with this mechanism and who for twenty-five years has watched its growth from small, illegal, underground circles, all talk about "from above" or "from below," about the dictatorship of leaders or the dictatorship of the masses, cannot but appear to be ridiculous, childish nonsense, something like discussing whether the left leg or the right arm is more useful to a man.

And we cannot but consider the ponderous, very learned, and frightfully revolutionary disquisitions of the German Lefts on why Communists cannot and should not work in reactionary trade unions, why it is permissible to refuse to do such work, why it is necessary to leave the trade unions and to create in their stead brand-new, clean

little "workers' unions," invented by exceedingly nice (and, for the most part, probably, very youthful) Communists, etc., etc., to be equally ridiculous and childish nonsense.

Capitalism inevitably leaves to Socialism a heritage of old trade and craft distinctions among the workers, distinctions created in the course of centuries; and it leaves trade unions which only very slowly and in the course of years can, and will, develop into broader, industrial unions, which will have much less of the craft union about them (they will embrace whole industries and not merely crafts, trades and occupa tions). Later, these industrial unions will, in their turn, lead to the abolition of division of labour among people, to the education, training and preparation of people who will have versatile development, and versatile training, people who will be able to do everything. Communism is marching, much march, towards this goal; and it will reach it, but only after very many years. To attempt in practice, today, to anticipate this future result of a fully developed, fully stabilised and formed, fully expanded and mature Communism would be like trying to teach higher mathematics to a four-year-old child.

We can (and must) begin to build Socialism, not with the fantastic human material especially created by our imagination, but with the material bequeathed to us by capitalism. This, no doubt, is very "difficult," but no other approach to this task is serious enough to deserve discussion.

Trade unions represented enormous progress for the working class at the beginning of the development of capitalism as the transition from the disunity and helplessness of the workers to the rudiments of class organisation. When the highest form of proletarian class organisation began to arise, viz., the revolutionary party of the proletariat (which does not deserve the name until it learns to bind the leaders with the class and with the masses into one single indissoluble whole), the trade unions inevitably began to reveal certain reactionary traits, a certain craft narrowness, a certain tendency toward becoming non-political, a certain inertness, etc. But the development of the proletariat did not, and could not, anywhere in the world, proceed otherwise than through the trade unions, through their interaction with the party of the working class. The conquest of political power by the proletariat is a gigantic step forward for the proletariat as a class, and the Party must more than ever, and in a new way, merely in the old way, educate and guide the trade unions; at the same time it must not forget that they are and will long remain a necessary "school of Communism," a preparatory school for training the proletarians to exercise their dictatorship, an indispensable organisation of the workers for gradually transferring the management of the whole economy of the country to the hands of the working class (and not of the separate trades), and later to the hands of all the toilers.

not

A certain amount of "reactionariness" in the trade unions, in the sense mentioned, is inevitable under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not to understand this means utterly failing to understand the fundamental conditions of the transition from capitalism to Socialism. To fear this "reactionariness," to try to avoid it, or skip it, is the greatest folly, for it means fearing to assume the role of proletarian vanguard, which implies training, educating, enlightening, and draw

ing into the new life the most backward strata and masses of the working class and the peasantry. On the other hand, to postpone the achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat until such time as not a single worker with narrow craft interests, not a single worker with craft and craft-union prejudices is left, would be a still greater mistake. The art of politics (and the Communist's correct understanding of his tasks) lies in correctly gauging the conditions and the moment when the vanguard of the proletariat can successfully seize power, when it will be able, during and after this seizure of power, to obtain adequate support from sufficiently broad strata of the working class and of the non-proletarian toiling masses, and when, thereafter, it will be able to maintain, consolidate and extend its rule, educating, training and attracting ever broader masses of the toilers.

Further: In countries which are more advanced than Russia, a certain amount of reactionariness in the trade unions has been revealed, and was undoubtedly bound to be revealed much more strongly than in our country. Our Mensheviks found (and in a very few trade unions still find to some extent) support in the trade unions precisely because of the latter's craft narrowness, craft selfishness and opportunism. In the West, the Mensheviks have acquired a much firmer "footing" in the trade unions. There, the craft-union, narrow-minded, selfish, hard-hearted, covetous and petty-bourgeois "labour artistocracy," imperialistically-minded, bribed and corrupted by imperialism, represents a much stronger stratum than in our country. This is incontestable. The struggle against the Gomperses, against Messrs. Jouhaux, Henderson, Merrheim, Legien and Co. in Western Europe is much more difficult than the struggle against our Mensheviks, who represent an absolutely homogeneous social and political type. This struggle must be waged ruthlessly to the very end, as we have waged it, until all the incorrigible leaders of opportunism and social-chauvinism have been completely discredited and expelled from the trade unions. It is impossible to capture political power (and the attempt to capture it should not be made) until this struggle has reached a certain stage. Moreover, this "certain stage" will be different in different countries and in different circumstances; it can be correctly gauged only by thoughtful, experienced and well-informed political leaders of the proletariat in each separate country. (In Russia, the measure of success in the struggle was gauged, among other things, by the elections to the Constituent Assembly in November 1917, a few days after the proletarian revolution of November 7 [October 25], 1917. In these elections the Mensheviks were utterly defeated; they obtained 700,000 votes-1,400,000 if the vote of Transcaucasia be added-as against 9,000,000 votes obtained by the Bolsheviks. See my article, "The Elections to the Constituent Assembly and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat," in No. 7-8 of The Communist International.) 11

But we wage the struggle against the "labour aristocracy" in the name of the masses of the workers and in order to attract them to our side; we wage the struggle against the opportunist and social-chauvinist leaders in order to attract the working class to our side. To forget this most elementary and self-evident truth would be stupid. But the German "Left" Communists are guilty of just this stupidity when, because of the reactionary and counterrevolutionary character of the

11 See Selected Works, Vol. VI.-Ed.

74784°-48- -8

heads of the trade unions, they jump to the conclusion that

it

is necessary to leave the trade unions!! to refuse to work in them!! to create new, artificial forms of labour organisations!! This is an unpardonable blunder equivalent to the greatest service the Communists could render the bourgeoisie. Our Menshevik, like all opportunist, social-chauvinist, Kautskian trade union leaders, are nothing more nor less than "agents of the bourgeoisie in the labour movement" (as we have always characterised the Mensheviks), or "labour lieutenants of the capitalist class" (to use the excellent and profoundly true expression of the followers of Daniel DeLeon in America). To refuse to work in the reactionary trade unions means leaving the insufficiently developed or backward masses of the workers under the influence of the reactionary leaders, the agents of the bourgeoisie, the labour aristocrats, or the "completely bourgeois workers." (See Engels' letter to Marx, written in 1852, concerning the British workers.) 12

It is just this absurd "theory" that Communists must not belong to reactionary trade unions that demonstrates most clearly how frivolously the "Left" Communists regard the question of influencing "the masses," how they misuse their outcries about "the masses." "In order to be able to help "the masses" and to win the sympathy, confidence and support of "the masses," it is necessary to brave all difficulties and to be unafraid of the pinpricks, obstacles, insults and persecution of the "leaders" (who, being opportunists and social-chauvinists, are, in most cases, directly or indirectly connected with the bourgeoisie and the police); and it is imperatively necessary to work wherever the masses are to be found. Every sacrifice must be made, the greatest obstacles must be overcome, in order to carry on agitation and propaganda systematically, perseveringly, persistently and patiently, precisely in those institutions, societies and associations-even the most reactionary-to which proletarian or semi-proletarian masses belong. And the trade unions and workers' co-operatives (the latter, at least sometimes) are precisely the organisations in which the masses are to be found. In England, according to figures quoted in the Swedish paper, Folkets Dagblad Politiken of March 10, 1920, the membership of the trade unions increased from 5,500,000 at the end of 1917 to 6,600,000 at the end of 1918, i. e., an increase of 19 per cent. At the end of 1919 the membership was estimated at 7,500,000. I have not at hand the corresponding figures for France and Germany, but the facts testifying to the rapid growth in membership of the trade unions in these countries as well are absolutely incontestable and generally

known.

These facts very clearly indicate what is confirmed by thousands of other symptoms: the growth of class-consciousness and of the desire for organisation precisely among the proletarian masses, among the "rank and file," among the backward elements. Millions of workers in England, France and Germany are for the first time passing from complete lack of organisation to the elementary, lowest, most simple, and (for those still thoroughly imbued with bourgeois-democratic prejudices) most easily accessible form of organisation, namely, the trade unions. And the revolutionary, but foolish, Left Communists stand by, shouting "the masses, the masses!"-and refuse to work within the trade unions!! refuse on the pretext that they are "reactionary"!! and invent

32 The Correspondence of Marx and Engels, p. 60.-Ed. Eng. ed.

a brand-new, clean little "workers' union," guiltless of bourgeoisdemocratic prejudices, innocent of craft or narrow craft-union sins, and which they claim will be (will be!) a wide organisation, and the only (only!) condition of membership of which will be "recognition of the Soviet system and the dictatorship"!! (See passage quoted above.)

Greater stupidity and greater damage to the revolution than that caused by the "Left" revolutionaries cannot be imagined! If in Russia today, after two and a half years of unprecedented victories over the bourgeoisie of Russia and the Entente, we were to make the "recognition of the dictatorship" a condition of membership of the trade unions, we should be doing a stupid thing, we woud damage our influence over the masses, we would be helping the Mensheviks. For the whole task of the Communists is to be able to convince the backward elements, to be able to work among them, and not to fence themselves off from them by artificial and childishly "Left" slogans.

There can be no doubt that Messieurs the Gomperses, Hendersons, Jouhaux, and Legiens are very grateful to such "Left" revolutionaries, who, like the German opposition "on principle" (heaven preserve us from such "principles"!) or like some revolutionaries in the American Industrial Workers of the World, advocate leaving the reactionary trade unions and refusing to work in them. Undoubtedly, Messieurs the "leaders" of opportunism will resort to every trick of bourgeois diplomacy, to the aid of bourgeois governments, the priests, the police and the courts, in order to prevent Communists from getting into the trade unions, to force them out by every means, to make their work in the trade unions as unpleasant as possible, to insult, to bait and to persecute them. It is necessary to be able to withstand all this, to agree to any and every sacrifice, and even-if need be-to resort to all sorts of stratagems, manœuvres and illegal methods, to evasion and subterfuges in order to penetrate the trade unions, to remain in them, and to carry on Communist work in them at all costs. Under tsarism, until 1905, we had no "legal possibilities"; but when Zubatov, the secret service agent, organised Black Hundred workers' assemblies and workingmen's societies for the purpose of trapping revolutionaries and combating them, we sent members of our Party to these assemblies and into these societies. (I personally remember one such comrade, Babushkin, a prominent St. Petersburg workingman, who was shot by the tsar's generals in 1906.) They established contacts with the masses, managed to carry on their agitation, and succeeded in wresting the workers from the influence of Zubatov's agents.13 Of course, in Western Europe, which is particularly saturated with inveterate legalist, constitutionalist, bourgeois-democratic prejudices, it is more difficult to carry on such work. But it can and must be carried on, and carried on systematically.

The Executive Committee of the Third International must, in my opinion, positively condemn, and call upon the next congress of the Communist International to condemn, the policy of refusing to join reactionary trade unions in general (stating in detail why this refusal to join is unreasonable, and pointing out the extreme harm it does to

18 The Gomperses, Hendersons, Jouhaux and Legiens are nothing but Zubatovs, differing from our Zubatov only in their European dress, in their outer polish, in their civilised, refined, democratically sleek manner of conducting their despicable policy.