From The Marxist Archives-The Industrial Proletariat and the Fight for Socialism

Workers Vanguard No. 868	14 April 2006

TROTSKY

LENIN

The Industrial Proletariat and the Fight for Socialism

(Quote of the Week)

In his seminal work developing the theory of permanent revolution out of a Marxist examination of tsarist Russia, Leon Trotsky argued that capitalist development had created an industrial proletariat with the historic interest and social power to overturn the capitalist system through socialist revolution. Trotsky’s perspective was verified in practice by the Bolshevik-led October Revolution of 1917.

In order to realize socialism it is necessary that among the antagonistic classes of capitalist society there should be a social force which is interested, by virtue of its objective position, in the realization of socialism, and which is powerful enough to be able to overcome hostile interests and resistances in order to realize it.

One of the fundamental services rendered by scientific socialism consists in that it theoretically discovered such a social force in the proletariat, and showed that this class, inevitably growing along with capitalism, can find its salvation only in socialism, that the entire position of the proletariat drives it towards socialism and that the doctrine of socialism cannot but become in the long run the ideology of the proletariat….

The importance of the proletariat depends entirely on the role it plays in large-scale production. The bourgeoisie relies, in its struggle for political domination, upon its economic power. Before it manages to secure political power, it concentrates the country’s means of production in its own hands. This is what determines its specific weight in society. The proletariat, however, in spite of all co-operative phantasmagoria, will be deprived of the means of production right up to the actual socialist revolution. Its social power comes from the fact that the means of production which are in the hands of the bourgeoisie can be set in motion only by the proletariat. From the point of view of the bourgeoisie, the proletariat is also one of the means of production, constituting, in conjunction with the others, a single unified mechanism. The proletariat, however, is the only non-automatic part of this mechanism, and in spite of all efforts it cannot be reduced to the condition of an automaton. This position gives the proletariat the power to hold up at will, partially or wholly, the proper functioning of the economy of society, through partial or general strikes. From this it is clear that the importance of a proletariat—given identical numbers—increases in proportion to the amount of productive forces which it sets in motion. That is to say, a proletarian in a large factory is, all other things being equal, a greater social magnitude than a handicraft worker, and an urban worker a greater magnitude than a country worker. In other words, the political role of the proletariat is the more important in proportion as large-scale production dominates small production, industry dominates agriculture and the town dominates the country….

All this leads us to the conclusion that economic evolution—the growth of industry, the growth of large enterprises, the growth of the towns, and the growth of the proletariat in general and the industrial proletariat in particular—has already prepared the arena not only for the struggle of the proletariat for political power but for the conquest of this power.

—Leon Trotsky, Results and Prospects (1906); Pathfinder Press (1969)

*******

Leon Trotsky

Results and Prospects

---

IV. Revolution and the Proletariat

Transcribed and HTML markup for the Trotsky Internet Archive, a subarchive of the Marxists’ Internet Archive, by Sally Ryan in 1996.

Revolution is an open measurement of strength between social forces in a struggle for power. The State is not an end in itself. It is only a machine in the hands of the dominating social forces. Like every machine it has its motor, transmitting and executive mechanism. The driving force of the State is class interest; its motor mechanism is agitation, the press, church and school propaganda, parties, street meetings, petitions and revolts. The transmitting mechanism is the legislative organization of caste, dynastic, estate or class interests represented as the will of God (absolutism) or the will of the nation (parliamentarism). Finally, the executive mechanism is the administration, with its police, the courts, with their prisons, and the army.

The State is not an end in itself, but is a tremendous means for organizing, disorganizing and reorganizing social relations. It can be a powerful lever for revolution or a tool for organized stagnation, depending on the hands that control it.
Every political party worthy of the name strives to capture political power and thus place the State at the service of the class whose interests it expresses. The Social-Democrats, being the party of the proletariat, naturally strive for the political domination of the working class.
The proletariat grows and becomes stronger with the growth of capitalism. In this sense the development of capitalism is also the development of the proletariat towards dictatorship. But the day and the hour when power will pass into the hands of the working class depends directly not upon the level attained by the productive forces but upon relations in the class struggle, upon the international situation, and, finally, upon a number of subjective factors: the traditions, the initiative and the readiness to fight of the workers.
It is possible for the workers to come to power in an economically backward country sooner than in an advanced country. In 1871 the workers deliberately took power in their hands in petty-bourgeois Paris – true, for only two months, but in the big-capitalist centres of Britain or the United States the workers have never held power for so much as an hour. To imagine that the dictatorship of the proletariat is in some way automatically dependent on the technical development and resources of a country is a prejudice of ‘economic’ materialism simplified to absurdity. This point of view has nothing in common with Marxism.
In our view, the Russian revolution will create conditions in which power can pass into the hands of the workers – and in the event of the victory of the revolution it must do so – before the politicians of bourgeois liberalism get the chance to display to the full their talent for governing.
Summing up the revolution and counter-revolution of 1848-49 in the American newspaper The Tribune, Marx wrote:

‘The working class in Germany is, in its social and political development, as far behind that of England and France as the German bourgeoisie is behind the bourgeoisie of those countries. Like master, like man. The evolution of the conditions of existence for a numerous, strong, concentrated and intelligent proletarian class goes hand in hand with the development of the conditions of existence for a numerous, wealthy, concentrated and powerful middle class. The working-class movement itself never is independent, never is of an exclusively proletarian character until all the different factions of the middle class, and particularly its most progressive faction, the large manufacturers, have conquered political power, and remodeled the State according to their wants. It is then that the inevitable conflict between the employer and the employed becomes imminent, and cannot be adjourned any longer ...’ [1]

This quotation is probably familiar to the reader, for it has been considerably abused by the textual Marxists in recent times. It has been brought forward as an irrefutable argument against the idea of a working class government in Russia. ‘Like master, like man.’ If the capitalist bourgeoisie is not strong enough to take power, they argue, then it is still less possible to establish a workers’ democracy, i.e., the political domination of the proletariat.

Marxism is above all a method of analysis – not analysis of texts, but analysis of social relations. Is it true that, in Russia, the weakness of capitalist liberalism inevitably means the weakness of the labour movement? Is it true, for Russia, that there cannot be an independent labour movement until the bourgeoisie has conquered power? It is sufficient merely to put these questions to see what a hopeless formalism lies concealed beneath the attempt to convert an historically-relative remark of Marx’s into a supra-historical axiom.
During the period of the industrial boom, the development of factory industry in Russia bore an ‘American’ character; but in its actual dimensions capitalist industry in Russia is an infant compared with the industry of the United States. Five million persons – 16.6 per cent of the economically occupied population – are engaged in manufacturing industry in Russia; for the USA the corresponding figures would be six million and 22.2 per cent. These figures still tell us comparatively little, but they become eloquent if we recall that the population of Russia is nearly twice that of the USA. But in order to appreciate the actual dimensions of Russian and American industry it should be observed that in 1900 the American factories and large workshops turned out goods for sale to the amount of 25 milliard roubles, while in the same period the Russian factories turned out goods to the value of less than two and a half milliard roubles. [2]
There is no doubt that the numbers, the concentration, the culture and the political importance of the industrial proletariat depend on the extent to which capitalist industry is developed. But this dependence is not direct. Between the productive forces of a country and the political strength of its classes there cut across at any given moment various social and political factors of a national and international character, and these displace and even sometimes completely alter the political expression of economic relations. In spite of the fact that the productive forces of the United States are ten times as great as those of Russia, nevertheless the political role of the Russian proletariat, its influence on the politics of its own country and the possibility of its influencing the politics of the world in the near future are incomparably greater than in the case of the proletariat of the United States.
Kautsky, in his recent book on the American proletariat, points out that there is no direct relation between the political power of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, on the one hand, and the level of capitalist development on the other. ‘Two states exist’ he says, ‘diametrically contrasted one with the other. In one of them there is developed inordinately, i.e., out of proportion to the level of the development of the capitalist mode of production, one of the elements of the latter, and in the other, another of these elements. In one state – America – it is the capitalist class, while in Russia it is the proletariat. In no other country than America is there so much basis for speaking of the dictatorship of capital, while the militant proletariat has nowhere acquired such importance as in Russia. This importance must and undoubtedly will increase, because this country only recently began to take a part in the modern class struggle, and has only recently provided a certain amount of elbow room for it.’ Pointing out that Germany, to a certain extent, may learn its future from Russia, Kautsky continues: ‘It is indeed most extraordinary that the Russian proletariat should be showing us our future, in so far as this is expressed not in the extent of the development of capital, but in the protest of the working class. The fact that this Russia is the most backward of the large states of the capitalist world would appear’, observes Kautsky, ‘to contradict the materialist conception of history, according to which economic development is the basis of political development; but really’, he goes on to say, ‘this only contradicts the materialist conception of history as it is depicted by our opponents and critics, who regard it not as a method of investigation but merely as a ready-made stereotype.’ [3] We particularly recommend these lines to our Russian Marxists, who replace independent analysis of social relations by deductions from texts, selected to serve every occasion in life. Nobody compromises Marxism so much as these self-styled Marxists.
Thus, according to Kautsky, Russia stands on an economically low level of capitalist development, politically it has an insignificant capitalist bourgeoisie and a powerful revolutionary proletariat. This results in the fact that ‘struggle for the interests of all Russia has fallen to the lot of the only now-existing strong class in the country – the industrial proletariat. For this reason the industrial proletariat has tremendous political importance, and for this reason the struggle for the emancipation of Russia from the incubus of absolutism which is stifling it has become converted into a single combat between absolutism and the industrial proletariat, a single combat in which the peasants may render considerable support but cannot play a leading role.
Does not all this give us reason to conclude that the Russian ‘man’ will take power sooner than his ‘master’?

---

There can be two forms of political optimism. We can exaggerate our strength and advantages in a revolutionary situation and undertake tasks which are not justified by the given correlation of forces. On the other hand, we may optimistically set a limit to our revolutionary tasks – beyond which, however, we shall inevitably be driven by the logic of our position.

It is possible to limit the scope of all the questions of the revolution by asserting that our revolution is bourgeois in its objective aims and therefore in its inevitable results, closing our eyes to the fact that the chief actor in this bourgeois revolution is the proletariat, which is being impelled towards power by the entire course of the revolution.
We may reassure ourselves that in the framework of a bourgeois revolution the political domination of the proletariat will only be a passing episode, forgetting that once the proletariat has taken power in its hands it will not give it up without a desperate resistance, until it is torn from its hands by armed force.
We may reassure ourselves that the social conditions of Russia are still not ripe for a socialist economy, without considering that the proletariat, on taking power, must, by the very logic of its position, inevitably be urged toward the introduction of state management of industry. The general sociological term bourgeois revolution by no means solves the politico-tactical problems, contradictions and difficulties which the mechanics of a given bourgeois revolution throw up.
Within the framework of the bourgeois revolution at the end of the eighteenth century, the objective task of which was to establish the domination of capital, the dictatorship of the sansculottes was found to be possible. This dictatorship was not simply a passing episode, it left its impress upon the entire ensuing century, and this in spite of the fact that it was very quickly shattered against the enclosing barriers of the bourgeois revolution. In the revolution at the beginning of the twentieth century, the direct objective tasks of which are also bourgeois, there emerges as a near prospect the inevitable, or at least the probable, political domination of the proletariat. The proletariat itself will see to it that this domination does not become a mere passing ‘episode’, as some realist philistines hope. But we can even now ask ourselves: is it inevitable that the proletarian dictatorship should be shattered against the barriers of the bourgeois revolution, or is it possible that in the given world-historical conditions, it may discover before it the prospect of victory on breaking through these barriers? Here we are confronted by questions of tactics: should we consciously work towards a working-class government in proportion as the development of the revolution brings this stage nearer, or must we at that moment regard political power as a misfortune which the bourgeois revolution is ready to thrust upon the workers, and which it would be better to avoid?
Ought we to apply to ourselves the words of the ‘realist’ politician Vollmar in connection with the Communards of 1871: ‘Instead of taking power they would have done better to go to sleep’ ...?

---

Notes

1. Marx, Germany in 1848-50, Russ. trans., Alexeyeva edition, 1905, pp.8-9. – L.T. [i.e. Germany: Revolution and Counter-Revolution, Ch.1; Selected Works of Karl Marx, 1942 edition, Vol.II, p.46.]

2. D. Mendeleyev, Towards the Understanding of Russia, 1906, p.99. – L.T.

3. K. Kautsky, American and Russian Workers, Russian translation, St. Petersburg 1906, pp.4 and 5. – L.T.

***“First Let’s Kill All The Lawyers”-Not

DVD Review

The Lincoln Lawyer, starring Matthew McConaughey, Marisa Tormei, based on the novel by Michael Connelly, Liongate, 2011

Yes, I know, everybody, everybody hates lawyers including Richard III, I think, who uttered some variation of the idea, the moldy old idea of let's get rid of the lawyers and the earth will again go back to some edenic time, in William Shakespeare’s play of the same name. Hates them until old justice time comes along and everyone, including this writer, hopes to high heaven that their lawyer is up to the task of representing them zealously, and in some desperate cases more than zealously. And that combination of sentiments, that hate/love thing, is what drives this film which according to my usually reliable sources follows the Michael Connelly novel pretty closely.

Needless to say, except for the thugs, pimps, dope dealers, hellish motorcycle angels, bail bondmen, public servant grifters and grafters and a bewitching lawyer ex-wife (played by Marisa Tormei) nobody, no viewer anyway, is suppose to like the Lincoln lawyer at the outset. (Named the Lincoln lawyer, by the way, not for his ethical resemblance to Father Abraham but because he rides around in a chauffeur-driven Lincoln.) His wheeling and dealing just this side of the law is what makes him the darling of that rogue’s gallery of characters listed above (except, of course, the fetching ex-wife, and maybe her a little too) and the bane of the District Attorney’s Office and the Los Angeles Police Department establishment.

That deft and ruthless maneuvering is what also draws him to the attention of a vicious killer of women, women of the night to use a quaint phrase, and a surefire way to commit the “perfect murder” and like so many before him said murderer thought he was scot-free as is the usual case once the Lincoln lawyer was on the case. But see, said Lincoln lawyer “got religion” along the way after he and those around him were slated to take the fall if that vicious killer (a mommy’s boy to boot) got tripped up.

So you know damn well pretty early on that our trusty Lincoln lawyer is not taking the fall and, moreover, is going to see that an actual piece of real justice occurs in the process by the freeing a framed man who was sitting in stir through his negligence (and disbelief in innocence) by seeing that that vicious killer gets his jolt up at Q. Therefore you see we had it all wrong. There is some rough justice in the world. And one had better not kill off all those lawyers if there is going to be even that amount. The twists and turns getting there, although fairly well-worn by now in movie-dom, are what make this film one to see.

***In The Matter Of The Zen Western

DVD Review

Dead Man, starring Johnny Depp, Robert Mitchum, eerily edgy music by Neil Young, Miramax 1995

Sure, I have taken plenty of shots at variations on the great American West, past and present, from Larry McMurtry’s Lonesome Dove to The Last Picture Show from The Wild Bunch to Crazy Hearts and everything in between. As well, I have always been glad, glad as hell, to review any movie starring Johnny Depp that might come my way. So here we have the combination of Johnny Depp as, well, Johnny Depp as usual (except maybe for those seemingly endless Pirate sequels) taking on an edgy role that less talented or more timid male actors would have walked away from, way away from.

No one doubts that the old Hollywood (and dime store novel) vision of the old John Wayne "howdy, partner" American West is long gone. And with the ground-breaking work of The Wild Bunch back in the 1970s we have seen, well we have been treated to let's face it, more plausibly views of that old time West, including some pretty unsavory characters in search of fame and fortune around the edges of the great frontier before it melted at the turn of the 20th century (as per the famous land's end thesis of Professor Frederick Jackson Turner. That pasting of the frontier, of course, did not stop anybody with the least carefree spirit or who was just plain tired of the “civilized” East from heading by any way they could to the great expanses of the old-time West. And that is where William Blake (played by Johnny Depp), no not the 18th century mad man English poet visionary and supporter of the ideals of the French Revolution (although that mistake plays a part in the plot), but an accountant, for god’s sake, enters the story.

William Blake’s transformation into a man of the West complete with notches on his revolver, seemingly in slow-motion at times and all in black and white, is what drives this curious film. We have an educated “savage," Native American, savage white man bounty-hunters, a twisted rich land-owners (played by the late Robert Mitchum) and every mangy "old dog" who made it, or did not make it in the West. And every pathology known to humankind showed its face in this fierce portrayal of the West but also a very surprising positive portrayal of Native American culture and its demise with the advance of the white man. William Blake, accountant, is one of Johnny Depp’s edgier performances, no question, and if you can stay with the zen aspect of the thing a very well done performance. Not for everyone, and certainly not for those who might still be clinging to some John Wayne The Searchers idea of the West.

***The Road To…., The Corner Boys Of The 1930s

DVD Review

The Road To Perdition, starring Tom Hanks, Paul Newman, Jude Law, based on the graphic novel by Max Allan Collins, Dreamworks, 2002

I have spent a lot of time in this space writing about my corner boy experiences growing up in my old Irish and Italian ethnic mix (or not mix as occurred quite often when it was time to see who was king of the hill, who had what, who had cojones) working-class neighborhood in the late 1950s and early 1960s in a town, North Adamsville just outside Boston. I have also spent some time writing about the corner boys who just immediately preceded us in the early 1950s, our role models and advisors in the ways of the streets who learned what they knew from their corner boy forebears and so on back to Adam and Eve, maybe before, actually now that I think about it, definitely before. Pretty tame really, mainly hanging off the walls of some storefront, dreaming although we would not have dignified our thought by such an elegant term. Unless of course you were on the receiving end of a vicious beating, reason given or not, got your money stolen in some back alley ambush (got jack-rolled in the inelegant term of the time), or had your personal household possessions ransacked or stolen by some midnight shifter looking to find esy street the easy way your perspective might not be so romantic. The “corner boys,” Irish and Italian mainly, of 1930s Great Depression Chicago though, as portrayed in the film under review, The Road to Perdition, make all that other stuff seem “punk” by comparison.

Of course the motives to join a gang of lumpenproletarians in all cases were the same then, and today. That is “where the money was” to paraphrase the old-time famous bank robber, Willy Sutton. No question all those guys in the 1930s and later were (and are) from hunger, from hunger meaning they had big wanting habits at all times and under all conditions. But they were also looking for the quick dollar and the “no heavy lifting” life not associated with steady working- class factory every day values. Equally true is the fact that there are always more “hungry” guys looking ot cash in on easy street than the market can bear which leads to two things-external “turf wars” between gangs and internal turf wars over who controls what within gangs. And that is the heart of this story.

The problem for Tom Hanks, a trusted, very trusted, enforcer (read: “hit man”) for Irish mob boss Paul Newman (he of many such corner boy roles going back to Cool Hand Luke, The Hustler and before) is that Newman's psychotic son wants his share of the goodies as befits a son and heir apparent. Needless to say that things get dicey, very dicey as they maneuver to the top, including the gangland-style execution of Hanks’ family that was suppose to include a son, the narrator of the film, who is forced to help Hanks’ seek the inevitable revenge required by the situation. In the end though Tom Waits is right in the opening line from Jersey Girl- “Ain’t got no time for the corner boys, down in the streets making all that noise.” A nice cinematically-pleasing 1930s period piece and what turned out to be a great farewell performance by the late Paul Newman.

Bradley Manning Trial -Day Nine

Collateral Murder’s contents, Reuters’ FOIA request, and other evidentiary debates: trial report, day 9

digg

Today the government and defense asked the court to take judicial notice of several items, including evidence that could rebut the claim that the Collateral Murder video exposed sensitive tactics. Tomorrow we’ll resume with the government’s witnesses. See all previous courtroom reports here.
By Nathan Fuller, Bradley Manning Support Network. June 25, 2013.

Defense lawyers Thomas Hurley (left) and David Coombs. (Sketched by Debra Van Poolen — click for source)

Bradley Manning’s ninth day of court-martial proceedings at Ft. Meade, MD, was brief, with less than two hours of oral arguments over defense and prosecution motions for judicial notice.
The defense asked the court to take judicial notice of several items, starting with Rear Admiral Donegan’s letter to the Secretary of the Army claiming that the Apache (Collateral Murder) video didn’t include Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures (TTPs). This directly rebuts earlier testimony, from former Apache pilot John LaRue, who said the unclassified video did contain TTPs. Prosecutors objected, contending that Rear Adm. Donegan’s letter constituted his opinion, not fact, and that the purpose of the letter was to discuss the classification status of the video. The defense responded that regardless of the purpose of the letter in full, that portion directly contradicts testimony from government witnesses, and thus should be taken into consideration.
The government stated and then later withdrew its objections to the defense’s proffering of a transcript of the Apache video, Reuters’s FOIA request for the video and subsequent investigation, and U.S. Central Command’s response to the FOIA request.
Prosecutors asked the court to take notice of WikiLeaks’ major releases: the Iraq and Afghan war logs, the diplomatic cables, an Army counterintelligence report, the Apache video, and Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs. The defense countered that what WikiLeaks did with the documents was irrelevant to what Bradley Manning did with them. In Specification 1 of Charge 2, Bradley is accused of “wrongfully and wantonly caus[ing] to be published on the internet intelligence belonging to the United States government,” so the government contends that whether the documents were published is relevant to that element. The defense said its argument was similar to that for the “aiding the enemy” charge, for which it argued that “receipt” by the enemy was not relevant to whether the transmission had occurred. Here, lawyers said, whether WikiLeaks published the files doesn’t prove that Bradley transmitted the information or prove anything about the way it was transmitted.
Next, the government asked Judge Lind to take notice of the salaries of the military service members who created Guantanamo detainee assessment briefs and the Global Address List. They said these salaries were relevant to prove that Bradley had stolen government property that was worth more than $1,000. Defense lawyers objected, saying that the government had failed to show exactly how much time had been spent into creating those files, and that yearly salaries was insufficient to determine their work products’ monetary value.
Prosecutors moved for the court to take notice of paragraphs of Army Regulation (AR) 25-1, even though Bradley is charged with violating AR 25-2. The 25-1 paragraphs discuss government ownership of property and why it should be kept secret and to issues of authorized access, so prosecutors want Judge Lind to take them into account when ruling on 25-2 violations. The defense objected that the paragraphs weren’t relevant to the charges.
Judge Lind will rule on these items likely sometime this week, as well as on the admissibility of the WikiLeaks tweets and ‘Most Wanted Leak’ list that the government produced with Google Cache and the Internet Archive. Tomorrow, we’ll proceed with the government’s witnesses.

Out In The British 1950s Film Noir Night- The Shadow Man

 

From The Pen Of Frank Jackman

Nobody could figure out why the Lamo Kid did it, why he wasted the best friend he ever had, male or female, Delores Rios. Why in some fit of rage from what the autopsy report said he cut her up six ways to Sunday and not even some hell-bent funeral home cosmetologist could make her look beautiful again. Some, after he caught the bastard, put a sexual spin on the subject as usual when a man and woman are involved in murder. They figured the Kid maybe tried to go a little too far with Delores in that area, that sex habits wanting that will make a man, or half a man, go crazy, wanted to go beyond being friends, and she put the no go on his face. Like had happened to the Kid a million other times in his short brutish life, although the butt of some joke, and taking it, taking it year after year.

Others said he had always been unbalanced from when he was a kid and had been run over by a truck, thereafter, having been busted up something awful physically  he walked  haltingly and with no style, no breezing walk around like the other neighborhood boys and earned the name Lamo Kid for his efforts.  The newspapers had played the story of the drunken truck driver running over Master George Swanson (the Kid’s real name) for days since it was touch and go whether he would pull through or not. Thereafter from that time until this he would bother anybody who would listen, and many who would not, with the gory details of  his plight waving a copy of the yellowing threadbare Daily Telegraph with his name in it as proof. Most ignored or brushes him off as so much yesterday’s news.  

Still others, well, others, the Mayfair swells, the uptown night life crowd, the amateur sociologists, the preachers and teachers out to set an example to the young, as always as well, blamed it on the neighborhood, the dregs of East End London, blamed it on his station in life, and on the poor morals of the lower classes for whence he came. A few, well let’s forget that few, okay. Maybe we had better take a step back, a couple of steps back, to try and figure this one out because just maybe the pundits and wise guys had it all wrong, or mostly wrong about the Kid’s reasons.

The Kid, due to his disabilities, his lameness could only do the best he could. And the best he could was as a gofer and all-around handyman and fixer for Diego Cortez, the big low-end London casino owner. This casino, hardly worthy of the name when compared with Monte Carlo, or Vegas, was the poor man’s version of those more famous or elegant places. Strictly penny ante stuff for the rubes and back alley dweller. So the Kid made change, fixed things up with the cops making sure they got what they got and no more, washed floors after closing, and cleaned dishes when the regular pearl-diver was off on a three day drunk.  Oh yah, and was the close confidante of Senor Cortez. This Cortez by the way just so you know was nothing but an ex-boxer who got out of the ring before he got all his brains scrambled and invested his dough in the casino a venture which in pent-up post World War II London was like manna from heaven with both hands.

Now Cortez, being in the chips and having the wherewithal to make sure the cops got what they got and no more, was a citizen of some standing. And through Senor Diego Delores enters the picture. Diego liked his women dark, Spanish, and young, especially young as he grew older. This Delores fit the bill, fit it to a tee, except for one problem. She had roving eyes, had eyes for plenty of guys, young guys, sailors a specially, and did something about it. Old guys like Diego were strictly walking daddies, nothing more. Delores did enough about it, and not discreetly, to allow Diego to give her the toss, to brush her off without a thought, when his next best thing, a young low-rider society dame looking for kicks and looking to get out from under a burdensome husband solely interested in a trophy wife, came along.                                  

But see the Lamo Kid was also interested in Delores, had been for the first time the boss brought her around and she flashed those sparkling brown eyes at him. So when the boss had other business, or another dame on the line, the Kid‘s job was to squire Delores around, keep an eye on her. He was happy to do that since he had his own enflamed notions about her. And she was friendly enough toward him, and that was enough for him while she was the boss’ girl. Once Diego dumped her though the Kid felt he had certain rights, rights of friendship or whatever you want to call it. As it turned out Delores didn’t see it that way and belittled him, tricked him really. Then one night when Delores showed up at the casino a little drunk with some sailor the Kid flipped out at the sight. Later that night the Kid snuck up to her room in Mrs. Lamp’s rooming house and waylaid her with one of Diego’s knives. The Kid figured to let Diego take the fall; she had been his girl after all.     

Needless to say after some routine police work, and a couple of close calls for Diego, they were able to trap the Kid in a series of lies and collar him, collar him good. Had him nailed for the big step-off.  That still begs the question though about why he did it, beyond that spurned love business. That was just a small part of it, as was putting the frame on the boss. When the Kid confessed, hell, spilled his guts, laughing, he said he did it really just to get his name, his real name, like when he had had his accident as a kind and they called him by his real name then, Master George Swanson, in the newspapers. Had it on the front page like he was somebody, a swell. He had done it so finally someone would show him some respect. Go figure.     

 

 

 

 

U.S. Hands Off Syria!

Crisis in Syria: What's Happening Now and What Next? The war in Syria is worsening and President Obama has pledged to help arm the opposition to the President Assad. Even though the vast majority of U.S. citizens do not want to intervene, at this point Obama has promised small arms. But war-hawks want to go further and try to create a no fly zone, provide heavy weapons, use cruise missiles to attack key targets and do whatever else they can to ensure the current regime falls. Join us for a panel briefing on Syria discussing what is happening to Syrians, what next and how we can push for no U.S. intervention and pursue avenues to end the violence. Telephone Conference Call June 26th 8:30 PM ET/ 5:30 PT Please follow this link to register: http://myaccount.maestroconference.com/conference/register/LK2SEL3RRLPHJYJ. You will receive call in information upon completion of your registration. Sponsored by United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) Panelists Suzan Boulad Suzan Boulad is a Syrian-American youth involved in the revolution any way she can. She was part of a trip to Syria in March where she delivered aid and coordinated with civilian activist groups. She is the editor of the Alliance for Kurdish Rights and is focused on minority rights, both in Syria and in general. She will be attending the University of Minnesota School Of Law in the fall. Dr. Stephen Zunes Dr. Stephen Zunes is a Professor of Politics and International Studies at the University of San Francisco, where he chairs the program in Middle Eastern Studies. He serves as a senior policy analyst for the Foreign Policy in Focus project of the Institute for Policy Studies and chair of the academic advisory committee for the International Center on Nonviolent Conflict. James Yee James J. Yee is a former US Army Chaplain and graduate of West Point with a degree in International Relations from Troy University. Captain Yee's daughter and his former wife live in Damascus. Yee is best known for his service as the Muslim Chaplain for the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In 2003 after objecting to prisoner abuses he witnessed, Captain Yee was accused of spying, espionage, and aiding the alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda prisoners. He was arrested and imprisoned in a Navy brig for 76 days. All charges were eventually dropped.

Hands Off Edward Snowden!

Putin: Snowden still at airport, won’t be extradited

View Photo Gallery — Who is Edward Snowden?: A 29-year-old government contractor has been charged with espionage for recent leaks of classified intelligence. He has vaulted from obscurity to international notoriety, joining the ranks of high-profile leakers such as Daniel Ellsberg of Pentagon Papers fame.

By Kathy Lally and Karen DeYoung, Updated: Tuesday, June 25, 1:00 PM E-mail the writers

MOSCOW— Russian President Vladi­mir Putin said Tuesday that Edward Snowden is still holed up inside a secure “transit zone” at Moscow’s Sheremyetevo Airport, and he repeated that Russia has no legal standing to turn the fugitive document-leaker over to U.S. authorities.
Putin said Snowden arrived in Moscow unexpectedly and had committed no crime in Russia. He has not crossed into a part of the airport that requires him to show his passport to Russian authorities. Because Russia does not have an extradition agreement with the United States, Putin said, Snowden will not be extradited as the United States has requested.

Video

Secretary of State John Kerry said Russia doesn't "have to enforce the law" but should allow fugitive Edward Snowden "to be subject to the laws of our land."

Special Report

U.S. charges Snowden with espionage

Peter Finn and Sari Horwitz JUN 21

Hong Kong authorities are asked to arrest leaker of documents that revealed secret surveillance program.

Snowden flees to Moscow, asks Ecuador to grant him asylum

Kathy Lally, Anthony Faiola and Jia Lynn Yang JUN 24

The former NSA contractor, charged by the U.S. with espionage, leaves Hong Kong with the aid of WikiLeaks.

Legal and political maneuvering let Snowden fly to Moscow

Sari Horwitz, Jia Lynn Yang and Peter Finn JUN 23

U.S. revoked fugitive’s passport and requested his arrest, but Hong Kong officials called request insufficient.

WikiLeaks aids Snowden on the run

Anthony Faiola JUN 23

The whistleblower group orchestrates a Hollywoodesque plan to spirit Snowden out of hiding in Hong Kong.

 

“Thank God, Mr. Snowden has not committed any crimes on the Russian Federation territory,” Putin said at a news conference in Finland, where he was traveling. “Mr. Snowden is a free man.”
A short time earlier, Secretary of State John F. Kerry had issued a terse appeal to Russia’s sense of diplomatic and bilateral norms in hopes of getting them to hand over the 30-year-old former government contractor, who is charged with revealing classified information about secret U.S. surveillance programs.
“There are standards of behavior between sovereign nations,” said Kerry, who is traveling in Saudi Arabia. “There is common law. There is respect for rule of law.
“And we would simply call on our friends in Russia to respect the fact that a partner nation, a co-member of the Permanent Five of the United Nations, has made a normal request under legal assistance, for law to be upheld.”
The dueling comments only added to the international tension surrounding the saga of Snowden, who left Hong Kong for Moscow on Sunday despite a U.S. extradition request. He is seeking asylum in Ecuador .
China and Hong Kong on Tuesday also rejected U.S. criticism of their roles in the legal drama, saying their governments also acted in compliance with the law in not transferring Snowden to U.S. custody. On Monday, Kerry and other top U.S. officials said there would be serious consequences for Russia, China and any other countries that failed to work with the United States to facilitate Snowden’s surrender.
“The accusations against the Chinese government are groundless,” said Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesperson Hua Chunying. “We hope the United States can work with China [to] . . . strengthen dialogue and cooperation . . . and continuously promote new development of U.S.-China relations.”
Rimsky Yuen, Hong Kong’s justice secretary, reiterated previous claims by his government that it had sought more information from the United States and did not receive that information in time to process an extradition request.
“I can tell you in no uncertain terms that we have not been deliberately delaying the progress, Yuen said. “Any suggestion that we have been deliberately letting Mr Snowden go away or to do any other things to obstruct the normal operation is totally untrue.”
Putin told reporters at a news conference in Finland, saying that he hoped Snowden would leave the Moscow airport as quickly as possible and that his stopover there would not affect his country’s dealings with the United States. “The faster he chooses his ultimate destination, the better for us and for him,” Putin said, in remarks relayed by the Interfax news agency.
Kerry offered an olive branch of sorts, while still making clear that the United States expects Russia to take action. “We are not looking for a confrontation. We are not ordering anything. We are simply requesting,” he said.
International airports in Russia include “transit zones” that are set aside so that passengers with connecting flights to other countries can avoid the time-consuming and expensive process of obtaining a Russian visa. A visa for a U.S. citizen costs from $140 to $450.
The area is defined as outside Russia’s borders, so that the traveler does not cross through passport control, where U.S. citizens and others requiring visas would have to present them.
Russian authorities are in full control of the area — armed police meet arriving passengers at the door to the airplane — and they have the power to escort a traveler through passport control and arrest him if they choose.
Typically, airlines check a passenger’s visa status before allowing him to board a flight to Russia. A passenger intending to stay in the transit zone usually would have to show evidence of onward travel. Passengers are allowed to stay for up to 24 hours in the transit zone without a visa, but a consular officer is on duty several hours a day in case extensions are needed.
“They don’t have to enforce the law,” Kerry said. “But they certainly can allow him to be subject to the laws of our land and our constitution, which he is a citizen of. And that’s what we call on them to do. . . . We’re simply requesting, under a very normal procedure, for the transfer of somebody.”
Although Snowden was widely rumored to have traveled to Moscow in hopes of catching a flight to Havana — and then flying from Cuba to Ecuador — airline officials said he was not on Monday’s Moscow-Havana flight. The Russian news agency Ria Novosti, citing unnamed airline officials, said he was not on Tuesday’s flight either.



DeYoung reported from Saudi Arabia. Jia Lynn Yang in Hong Kong contributed to this report.

Tough Times For Democratic Rights In The Imperial Homeland- Monkeying With The Voting Righst Act

Supreme Court stops use of key part of Voting Rights Act

Video: Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday he was “very disappointed” with the supreme court’s invalidation of part of the Voting Rights Act.

• 3725
• Share to Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Add to PersonalPost
• Save to Kindle
• Share via Email
• Print Article
• More

By Robert Barnes, Updated: Tuesday, June 25, 12:52 PME-mail the writer

The Supreme Court on Tuesday freed states from special federal oversight under the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965, saying the data Congress used to identify the states covered by it was outdated and unfair.
The vote was 5 to 4, with Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the other conservative members of the court in the majority.

Read the decision

Supreme Court voting rights ruling

The Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down a key part of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The Supreme Court announced its decision about a key section of the Voting Rights Act.

The court did not strike down a provision allowing special federal oversight but said Congress must come up with a new formula based on current data to identify which states should be covered. Proponents of the law, which protects minority voting rights, have said it will be extremely difficult for a Congress bitterly divided along partisan lines to come up with such an agreement.
The act currently covers the southern states of Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas and Virginia, as well as Alaska and Arizona, and parts of seven other states. It requires them to receive “pre-clearance” from either the attorney general or federal judges before making any changes to election or voting laws.
Roberts said that the court had warned Congress four years ago, in a separate case, that basing the coverage formula on “40-year-old facts” led to serious constitutional questions.
“Congress could have updated the coverage formula at that time, but did not do so,” Roberts wrote. “Its failure to act leaves us today with no choice but to declare [the formula] unconstitutional.”
He added: “Our country has changed, and while any racial discrimination in voting is too much, Congress must ensure that the legislation it passes to remedy that problem speaks to current conditions.”
He was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.”
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg emphasized the liberals’ disagreement with the decision by reading her dissent from the bench.
She said the the Constitution’s Civil War amendments specifically instruct Congress to pass laws enforcing equal rights and protecting the voting interests of minorities. She noted the 2006 extension of the VRA was approved unanimously in the Senate and signed by President George W. Bush.
“Congress’s decision to renew the act and keep the coverage formula was an altogether rational means to serve the end of achieving what was once the subject of a dream: the equal citizenship stature of all in our polity, a voice to every voter in our democracy undiluted by race,” she said.
She was joined in dissent by Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
At stake was Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which even challengers credit with delivering the promise of political inclusion to minority voters and eventually leading to the election of the nation’s first African American president.
The court reviewed the provision for the sixth time since passage in 1965. It survived each challenge.
Reaction was predictable. Conservatives said it was a recognition of state sovereignty and of the fact that the country has changed since the act was first passed. As Roberts noted from the bench and in his opinion, black turnout in recent elections was higher than that of whites.

• Continued
• 1
• 2
• Next Page

• Reprints

From The Marxist Archives- Imperialist Capitalism and the Trade Unions

Workers Vanguard No. 867	31 March 2006

TROTSKY

LENIN

Imperialist Capitalism and the Trade Unions

(Quote of the Week)

In an unfinished article found after his assassination by a Stalinist agent in 1940, revolutionary leader Leon Trotsky described the role of the pro-capitalist labor bureaucracy in subordinating the unions to the bourgeois state. The struggle for the independence of the working class from the capitalist political parties and state agencies is key to the fight for proletarian socialist revolution.

Monopoly capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions. It demands of the reformist bureaucracy and the labor aristocracy, who pick up the crumbs from its banquet table, that they become transformed into its political police before the eyes of the working class. If that is not achieved, the labor bureaucracy is driven away and replaced by the fascists. Incidentally, all the efforts of the labor aristocracy in the service of imperialism cannot in the long run save them from destruction.

The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena. Social reformism must become transformed into social imperialism in order to prolong its existence, but only prolong it, and nothing more. Because along this road there is no way out in general.

Does this mean that in the epoch of imperialism independent trade unions are generally impossible? It would be fundamentally incorrect to pose the question this way. Impossible are the independent or semi-independent reformist trade unions. Wholly possible are revolutionary trade unions which not only are not stockholders of imperialist policy but which set as their task the direct overthrow of the rule of capitalism. In the epoch of imperialist decay the trade unions can be really independent only to the extent that they are conscious of being, in action, the organs of proletarian revolution.

—Leon Trotsky, “Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay” (August 1940)

***********

Leon Trotsky

Trade Unions in the Epoch
of Imperialist Decay

(1940)

---

First Published in English: Fourth International [New York], Vol.2 No.2, February 1941, pp.40-43.
Online Version: Marxists Internet Archive, 2003.
Transcribed/HTML Markup: David Walters in 2003.
Copyleft: Leon Trotsky Internet Archive www.marxists.org 2003. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License.

---

(The manuscript of the following article was found in Trotsky’s desk. Obviously, it was by no means a completed article, but rather the rough notes for an article on the subject indicated by his title. He had been writing them shortly before his death. – The Editors of FI)

---

There is one common feature in the development, or more correctly the degeneration, of modern trade union organizations in the entire world: it is their drawing closely to and growing together with the state power. This process is equally characteristic of the neutral, the Social-Democratic, the Communist and “anarchist” trade unions. This fact alone shows that the tendency towards “growing together” is intrinsic not in this or that doctrine as such but derives from social conditions common for all unions.

Monopoly capitalism does not rest on competition and free private initiative but on centralized command. The capitalist cliques at the head of mighty trusts, syndicates, banking consortiums, etcetera, view economic life from the very same heights as does state power; and they require at every step the collaboration of the latter. In their turn the trade unions in the most important branches of industry find themselves deprived of the possibility of profiting by the competition between the different enterprises. They have to confront a centralized capitalist adversary, intimately bound up with state power. Hence flows the need of the trade unions – insofar as they remain on reformist positions, ie., on positions of adapting themselves to private property – to adapt themselves to the capitalist state and to contend for its cooperation. In the eyes of the bureaucracy of the trade union movement the chief task lies in “freeing” the state from the embrace of capitalism, in weakening its dependence on trusts, in pulling it over to their side. This position is in complete harmony with the social position of the labor aristocracy and the labor bureaucracy, who fight for a crumb in the share of superprofits of imperialist capitalism. The labor bureaucrats do their level best in words and deeds to demonstrate to the “democratic” state how reliable and indispensable they are in peace-time and especially in time of war. By transforming the trade unions into organs of the state, fascism invents nothing new; it merely draws to their ultimate conclusion the tendencies inherent in imperialism.
Colonial and semi-colonial countries are under the sway not of native capitalism but of foreign imperialism. However, this does not weaken but on the contrary, strengthens the need of direct, daily, practical ties between the magnates of capitalism and the governments which are in essence subject to them – the governments of colonial or semi-colonial countries. Inasmuch as imperialist capitalism creates both in colonies and semi-colonies a stratum of labor aristocracy and bureaucracy, the latter requires the support of colonial and semicolonial governments, as protectors, patrons and, sometimes, as arbitrators. This constitutes the most important social basis for the Bonapartist and semi-Bonapartist character of governments in the colonies and in backward countries generally. This likewise constitutes the basis for the dependence of reformist unions upon the state.
In Mexico the trade unions have been transformed by law into semi-state institutions and have, in the nature of things, assumed a semi-totalitarian character. The stateization of the trade unions was, according to the conception of the legislators, introduced in the interests of the workers in order to assure them an influence upon the governmental and economic life. But insofar as foreign imperialist capitalism dominates the national state and insofar as it is able, with the assistance of internal reactionary forces, to overthrow the unstable democracy and replace it with outright fascist dictatorship, to that extent the legislation relating to the trade unions can easily become a weapon in the hands of imperialist dictatorship.

Slogans for Freeing the Unions

From the foregoing it seems, at first sight, easy to draw the conclusion that the trade unions cease to be trade unions in the imperialist epoch. They leave almost no room at all for workers’ democracy which, in the good old days, when free trade ruled on the economic arena, constituted the content of the inner life of labor organizations. In the absence of workers’ democracy there cannot be any free struggle for the influence over the trade union membership. And because of this, the chief arena of work for revolutionists within the trade unions disappears. Such a position, however, would be false to the core. We cannot select the arena and the conditions for our activity to suit our own likes and dislikes. It is infinitely more difficult to fight in a totalitarian or a semitotalitarian state for influence over the working masses than in a democracy. The very same thing likewise applies to trade unions whose fate reflects the change in the destiny of capitalist states. We cannot renounce the struggle for influence over workers in Germany merely because the totalitarian regime makes such work extremely difficult there. We cannot, in precisely the same way, renounce the struggle within the compulsory labor organizations created by Fascism. All the less so can we renounce internal systematic work in trade unions of totalitarian and semi-totalitarian type merely because they depend directly or indirectly on the workers’ state or because the bureaucracy deprives the revolutionists of the possibility of working freely within these trade unions. It is necessary to conduct a struggle under all those concrete conditions which have been created by the preceding developments, including therein the mistakes of the working class and the crimes of its leaders. In the fascist and semi-fascist countries it is impossible to carry on revolutionary work that is not underground, illegal, conspiratorial. Within the totalitarian and semi-totalitarian unions it is impossible or well-nigh impossible to carry on any except conspiratorial work. It is necessary to adapt ourselves to the concrete conditions existing in the trade unions of every given country in order to mobilize the masses not only against the bourgeoisie but also against the totalitarian regime within the trade unions themselves and against the leaders enforcing this regime. The primary slogan for this struggle is: complete and unconditional independence of the trade unions in relation to the capitalist state. This means a struggle to turn the trade unions into the organs of the broad exploited masses and not the organs of a labor aristocracy.

* * *

The second slogan is: trade union democracy. This second slogan flows directly from the first and presupposes for its realization the complete freedom of the trade unions from the imperialist or colonial state.

In other words, the trade unions in the present epoch cannot simply be the organs of democracy as they were in the epoch of free capitalism and they cannot any longer remain politically neutral, that is, limit themselves to serving the daily needs of the working class. They cannot any longer be anarchistic, i.e. ignore the decisive influence of the state on the life of peoples and classes. They can no longer be reformist, because the objective conditions leave no room for any serious and lasting reforms. The trade unions of our time can either serve as secondary instruments of imperialist capitalism for the subordination and disciplining of workers and for obstructing the revolution, or, on the contrary, the trade unions can become the instruments of the revolutionary movement of the proletariat.

* * *

The neutrality of the trade unions is completely and irretrievably a thing of the past, gone together with the free bourgeois democracy.

* * *

From what has been said it follows quite clearly that, in spite of the progressive degeneration of trade unions and their growing together with the imperialist state, the work within the trade unions not only does not lose any of its importance but remains as before and becomes in a certain sense even more important work than ever for every revolutionary party. The matter at issue is essentially the struggle for influence over the working class. Every organization, every party, every faction which permits itself an ultimatistic position in relation to the trade union, i.e., in essence turns its back upon the working class, merely because of displeasure with its organizations, every such organization is destined to perish. And it must be said it deserves to perish.

* * *

Inasmuch as the chief role in backward countries is not played by national but by foreign capitalism, the national bourgeoisie occupies, in the sense of its social position, a much more minor position than corresponds with the development of industry. Inasmuch as foreign capital does not import workers but proletarianizes the native population, the national proletariat soon begins playing the most important role in the life of the country. In these conditions the national government, to the extent that it tries to show resistance to foreign capital, is compelled to a greater or lesser degree to lean on the proletariat. On the other hand, the governments of those backward countries which consider inescapable or more profitable for themselves to march shoulder to shoulder with foreign capital, destroy the labor organizations and institute a more or less totalitarian regime. Thus, the feebleness of the national bourgeoisie, the absence of traditions of municipal self-government, the pressure of foreign capitalism and the relatively rapid growth of the proletariat, cut the ground from under any kind of stable democratic regime. The governments of backward, i.e., colonial and semi-colonial countries, by and large assume a Bonapartist or semi-Bonapartist character; and differ from one another in this, that some try to orient in a democratic direction, seeking support among workers and peasants, while others install a form close to military-police dictatorship. This likewise determines the fate of the trade unions. They either stand under the special patronage of the state or they are subjected to cruel persecution. Patronage on the part of the state is dictated by two tasks which confront it.. First, to draw the working class closer thus gaining a support for resistance against excessive pretensions on the part of imperialism; and, at the same time, to discipline the workers themselves by placing them under the control of a bureaucracy.

* * *

Monopoly Capitalism and the Unions

Monopoly capitalism is less and less willing to reconcile itself to the independence of trade unions. It demands of the reformist bureaucracy and the labor aristocracy who pick the crumbs from its banquet table, that they become transformed into its political police before the eyes of the working class. If that is not achieved, the labor bureaucracy is driven away and replaced by the fascists. Incidentally, all the efforts of the labor aristocracy in the service of imperialism cannot in the long run save them from destruction.

The intensification of class contradictions within each country, the intensification of antagonisms between one country and another, produce a situation in which imperialist capitalism can tolerate (i.e., up to a certain time) a reformist bureaucracy only if the latter serves directly as a petty but active stockholder of its imperialist enterprises, of its plans and programs within the country as well as on the world arena. Social-reformism must become transformed into social-imperialism in order to prolong its existence, but only prolong it, and nothing more. Because along this road there is no way out in general.
Does this mean that in the epoch of imperialism independent trade unions are generally impossible? It would be fundamentally incorrect to pose the question this way. Impossible are the independent or semi-independent reformist trade unions. Wholly possible are revolutionary trade unions which not only are not stockholders of imperialist policy but which set as their task the direct overthrow of the rule of capitalism. In the epoch of imperialist decay the trade unions can be really independent only to the extent that they are conscious of being, in action, the organs of proletarian revolution. In this sense, the program of transitional demands adopted by the last congress of the Fourth International is not only the program for the activity of the party but in its fundamental features it is the program for the activity of the trade unions.

(Translator’s note: At this point Trotsky left room on the page, to expound further the connection between trade union activity and the Transitional Program of the Fourth International. It is obvious that implied here is a very powerful argument in favor of military training under trade union control. The following idea is implied: Either the trade unions serve as the obedient recruiting sergeants for the imperialist army and imperialist war or they train workers for self-defense and revolution.)

The development of backward countries is characterized by its combined character. In other words, the last word of imperialist technology, economics, and politics is combined in these countries with traditional backwardness and primitiveness. This law can be observed in the most diverse spheres of the development of colonial and semi-colonial countries, including the sphere of the trade union movement. Imperialist capitalism operates here in its most cynical and naked form. It transports to virgin soil the most perfected methods of its tyrannical rule.

* * *

In the trade union movement throughout the world there is to be observed in the last period a swing to the right and the suppression of internal democracy. In England, the Minority Movement in the trade unions has been crushed (not without the assistance of Moscow); the leaders of the trade union movement are today, especially in the field of foreign policy, the obedient agents of the Conservative party. In France there was no room for an independent existence for Stalinist trade unions; they united with the so-called anarcho-syndicalist trade unions under the leadership of Jouhaux and as a result of this unification there was a general shift of the trade union movement not to the left but to the right. The leadership of the CGT is the most direct and open agency of French imperialist capitalism.

In the United States the trade union movement has passed through the most stormy history in recent years. The rise of the CIO is incontrovertible evidence of the revolutionary tendencies within the working masses. Indicative and noteworthy in the highest degree, however, is the fact that the new “leftist” trade union organization was no sooner founded than it fell into the steel embrace of the imperialist state. The struggle among the tops between the old federation and the new is reducible in large measure to the struggle for the sympathy and support of Roosevelt and his cabinet.
No less graphic, although in a different sense, is the picture of the development or the degeneration of the trade union movement in Spain. In the socialist trade unions all those leading elements which to any degree represented the independence of the trade union movement were pushed out. As regards the anarcho-syndicalist unions, they were transformed into the instrument of the bourgeois republicans; the anarcho-syndicalist leaders became conservative bourgeois ministers. The fact that this metamorphosis took place in conditions of civil war does not weaken its significance. War is the continuation of the self-same policies. It speeds up processes, exposes their basic features, destroys all that is rotten, false, equivocal and lays bare all that is essential. The shift of the trade unions to the right was due to the sharpening of class and international contradictions. The leaders of the trade union movement sensed or understood, or were given to understand, that now was no time to play the game of opposition. Every oppositional movement within the trade union movement, especially among the tops, threatens to provoke a stormy movement of the masses and to create difficulties for national imperialism. Hence flows the swing of the trade unions to the right, and the suppression of workers’ democracy within the unions. The basic feature, the swing towards the totalitarian regime, passes through the labor movement of the whole world.
We should also recall Holland, where the reformist and the trade union movement was not only a reliable prop of imperialist capitalism, but where the so-called anarcho-syndicalist organization also was actually under the control of the imperialist government. The secretary of this organization, Sneevliet, in spite of his Platonic sympathies for the Fourth International was as deputy in the Dutch Parliament most concerned lest the wrath of the government descend upon his trade union organization.

* * *

In the United States the Department of Labor with its leftist bureaucracy has as its task the subordination of the trade union movement to the democratic state and it must be said that this task has up to now been solved with some success.

* * *

The nationalization of railways and oil fields in Mexico has of course nothing in common with socialism. It is a measure of state capitalism in a backward country which in this way seeks to defend itself on the one hand against foreign imperialism and on the other against its own proletariat. The management of railways, oil fields, etcetera, through labor organizations has nothing in common with workers’ control over industry, for in the essence of the matter the management is effected through the labor bureaucracy which is independent of the workers, but in return, completely dependent on the bourgeois state. This measure on the part of the ruling class pursues the aim of disciplining the working class, making it more industrious in the service of the common interests of the state, which appear on the surface to merge with the interests of the working class itself. As a matter of fact, the whole task of the bourgeoisie consists in liquidating the trade unions as organs of the class struggle and substituting in their place the trade union bureaucracy as the organ of the leadership over the workers by the bourgeois state. In these conditions, the task of the revolutionary vanguard is to conduct a struggle for the complete independence of the trade unions and for the introduction of actual workers’ control over the present union bureaucracy, which has been turned into the administration of railways, oil enterprises and so on.

* * *

Events of the last period (before the war) have revealed with especial clarity that anarchism, which in point of theory is always only liberalism drawn to its extremes, was, in practice, peaceful propaganda within the democratic republic, the protection of which it required. If we leave aside individual terrorist acts, etcetera, anarchism, as a system of mass movement and politics, presented only propaganda material under the peaceful protection of the laws. In conditions of crisis the anarchists always did just the opposite of what they taught in peace times. This was pointed out by Marx himself in connection with the Paris Commune. And it was repeated on a far more colossal scale in the experience of the Spanish revolution.

* * *

Democratic unions in the old sense of the term, bodies where in the framework of one and the same mass organization different tendencies struggled more or less freely, can no longer exist. Just as it is impossible to bring back the bourgeois-democratic state, so it is impossible to bring back the old workers’ democracy. The fate of the one reflects the fate of the other. As a matter of fact, the independence of trade unions in the class sense, in their relations to the bourgeois state can, in the present conditions, be assured only by a completely revolutionary leadership, that is, the leadership of the Fourth International. This leadership, naturally, must and can be rational and assure the unions the maximum of democracy conceivable under the present concrete conditions. But without the political leadership of the Fourth International the independence of the trade unions is impossible.