The daily worker. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1924-1958, 1934-12-15
Burek

one CfllrQ OF us membership and so
it is natural that it is anxious to
make up for its losses by trying TO
win over those national centres
which we're outside the Amsterdam
international. The American FEEDER
alton of Labor, the Norwegian
Trade Union Federation, etc. are
among such centres. The Norwe-
gian trade unions are going to settle
the question of affiliation to the
Amsterdam International in the
nearest future. Three tendencies
are at war inside the Norwegian
trade unions. One is in favor of
affiliation to the Amsterdam Inter
national, the other is for afflliation
to the R. I. L. U. and the third
wishes to remain outside both the
internationals and to take the mi
tiative of building a unified, inter-
national trade union movement. In
its letter to the Norwegian Trade
Union Federation the executive
bureau of the R. I. L. U. expresses
its readiness to support the Nor
wegian trade unions provided they
engage in the struggle for interna-
tional trade union unity. The off,
cial organ of the Norwegian So
cialiSts, i. e. the "Arbeiter Blatt"
advices Moscow "to go to Paris"
1t advises the revolutionary trade
unions to pour into the reformist
trade unions. But this kind ad-
vice was already given In Wey-
mouth and it will hardly become
more convincing after being
translated into Norwegian. If the
Norwegian trade unions are reilly
eager to build trade union unity
and the "Arbeiter Blatt" states that
this is their intention, they have an
excellent opportunity to take the
initiative, to elect a special COM
mittee for contacts, to establish con-
tact with the Amsterdam Interna-
tional and the r. T. l.. U. and to dis
play activity in this sphere. But the
r. I. L. U. needs no advice in the
spirit of Weymouth.
The members of the reformist and
revolutionary trade unions demand
unity. The workers are right. A
unified trade union movement is not
only imperative, but also possible.
1t is imperative because it will
strengthen the fighting capacity of
the working class. 1t is possible
because the revolutionary trade
u nj ons do not make any in
acceptable demands to the reformist
trade unions. The revolutionary
trade unions are anxious to organize
joint struggle for the raising of
the living standards of the working
class, against fascism, for freedom
OF the workers organizations,
workers press, etc. Trade union
unity Is possible because we openly
say what this unity is for, on what
basis 1t is to be built and of what
use it will be to the working class.
We do not deceive anybody. We
state our aims and tasks openly. AS
rule we are accused of maneuver-
ing when We propose the united
front and trade union unity.
We answer to this: YES, 1T IS A
MANFsUVER AGAINS THE
BOURGEOISIE BUT 1T IS NOT
A MANEUVER AGAINST THE
WORKING CLASS, for it is in the
interests of the broadcast toiling
masses. Refuse to struggle against
class collaboration, stop the strug-
gle against reformism, and then
unity will be restored rapidly-say
the leaders of the reformist trade
unions. But the struggle against
class collaboration would be an
abandonment of our views, it would
mean treachery to the cause of the
working class. We will never stop
the struggle against class collabora-
ton. The revolutionary workers
cannot promise and will never prom
isce to give up the struggle against
reformiSm. They wish to confine The
struggle to the limits of trade union
democracy. We want to have the
right to express our views within a
unified trade union organization
having definite program and tasks
We want the social-democratic,
communist and anarchist workers to
have the right to express their OPP
inions of the basic aims and tasks
OF the working class and of the
methods of achieving these aims,
within the framework of a unified
trade union organization. Is this in