The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1929-01-10

WORK IN the old trade unions or sat
isfy ourselves with it, as a Commu-
mist, feminist party; that it is not
enough to push the old trade unions
into the campaign to organize the
unorganized, that it was also our
duty to undertake this campaign
and that it was necessary to form
new unions. Through Our influence
the Miners National Union and the
Textile Workers National Union
were formed. Our slogan "organ-
ize the unorganized" took on a new
meaning. With our banner afloat
we are out to organize the masses
of the unskilled and semi-skilled for
the struggle.
Was this change in our policy cor
rect? Absolutely hundred per cent
correct! We cannot and must not
expect that the old trade unions
controlled by the agents of the en-
ployers, such as Green and VOL.
would undertake a serious campaign
to organize the unorgal lied. We
would not be performing our revo-
lutionary mission if we were to limit
our activities to the old trade un-
ions.
Now the pendulum is swinging
again into another direction. Has
1t already swung too far? Is our
Party abandoning its work in the
old trade unions? Have we gone
back to the same syndicalist, Sec
tartan trade union policy of 1919
and 1920? Are we about to leave
the organized millions to the Greens.
VOLS, Hillmans, etc.? Is it correct,
is it in accord with Leninism to
abandon the old trade unions and
concentrate all of our forces, all at
tention and energy on the building
of new unions? These are very i'm
portant questions. They require a
definite answer.
Let me make it clear: I think it
is absolutely correct TO lay empha-
Sis on organizing the unorganized
by building new unions in basic in
dustries. This must be our major
campaign.
But l am of the opinion that the
pendulum is about to swing too far,
that we are heading for the deser-
ton of the old trade unions. We are
once more becoming one-sided. We
are plunging from one extreme to
another.
Not for moment would | accuse
our GEO. as a whole, neither its
Majority nor the Opposition, with
consciously abandoning the work in
the old trade unions. Not in one in
stance did the c. &c. decide or even
advance the idea of going back to
the sectarian policy of 1920. On
principle, we are, as we have been
for the last seven years, for work in
the old trade unions.
Nevertheless, we are, in my opin-
ion, heading in that direction-not
IN words, but in deeds. Our litera-
ture for the last few months fails
to stress the Importance of remain
ing in the old trade unions and the
necessity for intensifying our activ-
tiles there. We fail to raise the
slogan flight the reactionaries of
the trade unions from Within" "win
the organized workers." etc., stimuli
taneously with our slogans "organ-
ize the unorganized," "build new
unions" etc. This lack of emphasis
on the necessity of continuing our
work in the old unions acts as
call to our Party to abandon the
work entirely. 1t is pregnant with
grave danger to our movement.
We must not forget that subjec-
tive conditions are very favorable
for the rise and growth of the idea
leading to the abandonment of the
old trade unions. The united front
of the old trade union bureaucracy,
the government, the employers and
Socialists to crush the Left wing in
the trade union movement has had
its effect upon our Party. The white
terror against the trade union mill
tants has weakened the weaker ele-
ments still more. Some of our COM
rades have grown impatient. They
see no way out. They feel that they
are up against the wall. They have
no hope of ever defeating the trade
union bureaucracy by winning the
masses of the organized workers to
our side. Therefore, the slogan of
organizing the unorganized, when it
is not accompanied by the slogan
stick to your posts in the old
unions, continue your fight against
the labor lieutenants of the capital
list class within the old unions"
means to them a reorientation of our
Party, silent call for an abandon
ment of our work in the old unions.
This "reorientation" of our Party
is playing havoc with our struggle
within the existing trade unions. In
the DAILY Worker" of Dec. 6, there
is report on the New Orleans con-
vention of the American Federation
of Labor, which took place in Nov.
1928. This convention was, of course,
lone of the most reactionary on rec
ord" 1.-THE delegates were under
the complete domination of the A.
F. of L. bureaucracy, voting a series
OF reactionary measures, in most
cases without much debate" 1t was
so reactionary that "for the first
| time since 1917, no resolution urging