Principled Attitude in Trade Union Struggle

The question of how to approach the trade union struggle has always given rise to important debates, depending on different political conceptions. This question has lost none of its importance today. Especially in view of the conditions of decline of the labour movement, it is clear that the class today needs views and analyses that will boost a militant struggle in the trade union field, as in any other field. In this respect we are certainly not at the beginning of the road. The revolutionary Marxist tradition makes it possible to be equipped with the right views and tactics on the approach to the trade union struggle, as on many other issues. The lessons of the experience of the struggle of the world working class, accumulated over many years, illuminate the path of those committed to the struggle for the emancipation of the working class.

However, the period of ideological, organisational and political decline has led to a very serious loss in the level of militancy of the workers’ movement. Many important aspects of the revolutionary tradition that must be preserved today have been forgotten or blurred. This situation is also very much felt in the trade union struggle. In order to strengthen the labour movement in all areas, a correct understanding of struggle and style of work must take root in the class.

Let us leave aside the petty-bourgeois narrow-mindedness that denies the importance of revolutionary theory. But this does not end the problems. Even if the importance of revolutionary theory is admitted, not a few people make the mistake of treating theoretical truths, which extend from the past to the present, as ready-made recipes. Undoubtedly, the magic that transforms theory into real power is the rise of organised struggle. The accumulation of cadres required by the proletarian struggle develops accordingly. Young cadres can properly grasp and internalise the truths of the revolutionary tradition within the class on the basis of organised struggle. Due to serious deficiencies in this regard, the legacy of the revolutionary tradition cannot be satisfactorily claimed with regard to the trade union struggle of the working class.

The main elements of this tradition are the foundations laid by the founders of Marxism, the experiences and elaborations of the leaders of the October Revolution on this subject, and the important resolutions adopted at the Comintern congresses of the Lenin period. Although these have been preserved on paper or repeated on the level of words until today, unfortunately we cannot say that their content has been deeply understood and acted upon. However, as mentioned above, this situation is not incomprehensible. What will save the building blocks of the revolutionary tradition from being reduced to the level of dead formulas and transform them into living and effective tactics is the organised and collective effort to be made on the basis of a correct understanding of struggle and working style. In order that the sweat to be shed for this cause does not go to waste, we must take care to strengthen the body against the diseases that characterise periods of decline and not pay attention to unhealthy political approaches that swing to different extremes.

In connection with the problems of the trade union struggle of the working class, there are often false and unhealthy political approaches. At one extreme, there are those who do not attach the necessary importance to the trade union struggle, citing the terrible situation in which the trade unions find themselves. At the other extreme we see those who exaggerate the importance of the trade union struggle and hang on the tail of the existing trade union movement. To this picture we can add the wide range of centrist views that oscillate unstably between the two extremes. This shows how deep the confusion is, even on an issue like the approach to the trade union struggle. These realities that we are confronted with require loyalty to revolutionary principles in the approach to the trade union struggle.

The distinction between economic and political struggle

As necessary as it is to distinguish between the economic and political struggles of the working class, it would be an equally great mistake to ignore the historical and dialectical relationship between the two. The aim of the revolutionary political movement is the seizure of power by the working class and the end of the class-exploitative social order. But for this to happen, the working class must have reached a certain stage of development, both objectively and subjectively. In no period of history and in no country did the political movement and organisation of the working class suddenly appear. The revolutionary political awakening within the working class has generally risen on the favourable ground created by an awakening linked to the economic struggles of the workers and a preliminary organisation which is the expression of this awakening. On the other hand, the struggle for economic rights has itself generated a political struggle. For example, the struggle for the reduction of working hours in every workplace is part of the economic struggle. But these struggles did not stop there and took on the dimension of a political movement in which, let’s say, the workers forced the governments to pass laws to reduce working hours throughout the country.

This point is emphasised in an important letter by Marx. “And in this way, out of the separate economic movements of the workers, there grows up everywhere a political movement, that is to say, a movement of the class, with the object of achieving its interests in a general form, in a form possessing a general social force of compulsion. Although these movements presuppose a certain degree of previous organisation, they are themselves equally a means of developing this organisation.” (Marx to F. Bolte, 23 November 1871) When the history of capitalism is examined, it will be seen that the struggle of the workers did not remain at the level of economic struggles against the bosses, but gradually rose to the level of a general class movement. What is meant by this is undoubtedly the historical roots of the development of the class movement. Because the revolutionary transformation and revolutionary politics in the labour movement have never been and cannot be limited to the sphere of economic struggle.

In the historical progress of the labour movement, political struggle has gained priority, but this development has not eliminated the need for trade union struggle. The tendency to underestimate the trade union movement of the working class gave rise to important debates as early as the First International. In the criticisms levelled by the General Council of the International against sections which took the wrong attitude, it was emphasised that the trade unions were the cradle of the workers' movement. In addition to helping the existing unions, it is underlined that it is a task to give them a correct direction and to internationalise them. Marxism has from the beginning attached importance to the trade union organisations of the working class, but has approached this issue mainly from the point of view of the task of raising them to the level of combative organisations. In the resolution of the congress of the First International in 1866, it was stated that the trade unions should not limit their attention to the daily struggle against capital, should not remain aloof from the general political and social movement of the working class, should not be content with pursuing narrow aims, but should work for the liberation of millions of oppressed workers.

The Marxist approach has been the only one to establish the dialectical relationship between the economic struggle of the class and its political struggle in a healthy manner. One of the historical documents embodying this approach is the resolution adopted at the London Conference of the First International in 1871. In the text of the resolution entitled The Political Action of the Working Class, written by Marx and Engels, it is stated that in the case of the militant struggle of the working class, its economic movement and political activity will form an inseparable whole. In the interests of the working class, communists must not only lead the trade union struggle and pull it forward, but also, by skilfully combining economic and political demands, lead the class movement in a revolutionary direction.

These different aspects of the struggle in various fields, i.e. economic, political, ideological, have an internal harmony and unity in terms of their class character. For this reason, it is inevitable that left-wing politics influenced by bourgeois ideology will display class collaborationist and conciliatory approaches in the context of trade union struggle. Likewise, on such an important issue as the relationship between trade unions and politics, the ideas disseminated from university pulpits or the studies published by academics generally reflect the bourgeois point of view. However, when the problem is approached from the point of view of revolutionising the workers' movement, it will be seen that what should be understood from the union-politics relationship is the dialectical link between the economic struggle of the working class and its revolutionary political struggle. The place where this is concretised is the field of relations between the trade unions and the revolutionary party of the class.

Party and trade union

The distinction between the economic and political dimensions of the class struggle must also find its corresponding reflection in the organisational sphere. Workers need a revolutionary party to lead the political struggle as much as they need trade union organisations. The confusion of these two different levels of organisational needs will lead to harmful consequences. If a trade union, even the most revolutionary one, is given the mission of political leadership or if a revolutionary political organisation acts like a trade union, it will cause a tremendous distortion of consciousness among the workers and the struggle will lose a lot of strength.

It is essential that the political organisation, the revolutionary party, which has the quality of leadership in the proletarian struggle, should be organised taking into account the difference in the level of consciousness and militancy among the workers. Because the party can be a means to an end only if it rises on the vanguard elements of the class armed with advanced and revolutionary consciousness. Only such a party can properly lead the struggle of the workers in various fields and advance the working class to power. The idea that a working class party can include the entire mass of workers is essentially wrong, no matter out of what intentions it is asserted. The experience of the revolutionary struggle of the working class points to the need to make a clear distinction between the concepts of party and class. The proletariat can fulfil its historical task only if it has a party which is organised independently of other classes and which unites not all the workers but those elements of them who are equipped with revolutionary theory and consciousness of revolutionary action. It is only in this way that it is possible to draw the broad mass of the class into an effective struggle against the capitalist order. As emphasised in the decisions of the Second Congress of the Comintern, the working class cannot achieve its revolution without having its own independent political party.

We may touch upon an important point here. The communist conception of struggle and organisation is not a fantasy to which intellectuals or some ambitious people with a lust for power want to subject the workers. Scientific communism is a world view, a conception of action and organisation that has been filtered through the historical efforts of workers and labourers who revolt against the conditions of exploitation and oppression. As stated in the Communist Manifesto, in which the aims and principles of communists are proclaimed to the workers of the world, communists do not and cannot have any interests independent of the interests of the working class. The party that will lead the historical struggle for a classless and exploitation-free world means raising the potential for revolutionary action and struggle of the workers themselves to the level of organised power. Such a party is essentially the party of the workers, the organisation of workers armed with a solid political consciousness rooted in revolutionary theory.

The revolutionary party is not an entity outside the class. It is a part of the class. But it is not just any part, it is the revolutionary part that is really capable of leading the struggle. A mass party of the working class which gathers within itself left political tendencies of different content cannot fulfil the need for a revolutionary party for the liberation of the working class from capitalism. Such umbrella parties are far from being qualified to lead the struggle. They are in the nature of a mass or front organisation which includes workers in its ranks. However, without a revolutionary leadership that does not indulge in bourgeois ideology and does not fall for the political games of the bourgeoisie, it is not possible to wage a successful mass struggle of workers and labourers. In conclusion, the working class needs both mass organisations of various kinds and a revolutionary class party with the quality and capacity to lead and lead the struggle in every field.

Trade unions are still necessary

Trade unions, as the organisation of the economic struggle of the working class, can carry out this struggle effectively to the extent that they embrace the mass of the working class. For this reason, trade union organisations must include workers of various political views and tendencies, without making any distinction between workers in terms of race, nationality, gender, language, religion, occupation, level of qualification, etc. Trade unions are useful tools not only for the conduct of the daily economic and democratic struggle, but also for the expansion of the mass base of the revolutionary struggle. But it must be noted that trade unions cannot be the only means of establishing relations with the masses. In addition to the trade unions, various associations and grassroots organisations are needed to develop the organisation of the masses of workers and labourers.

Let us briefly recall the past. At the time of their inception, trade unions were born out of the actual struggle of workers in workplaces and factories. These workers' organisations were created out of nothing in countries at the forefront in terms of capitalist development and class struggle, and in time they became generalised and widespread. In the times of transition from workers’ solidarity funds to trade unions, there were trade union leaderships that were not yet institutionalised and bureaucratised in the negative sense, but were sustained by workers' dues collected by hand, one by one. The trade unionists of such periods did not resemble the modern bourgeoisified trade union bureaucrats.

Later, as the trade unions became the usual institutions of ordinary bourgeois regimes, a serious gap began to develop between the trade union leadership and the rank and file. The humble, amateurish trade unionists of the past, who were mostly workers and close to the rank and file, and who did not regard trade unionism as a profession, were replaced by professional trade unionists who were far from these characteristics. Having become competent in preventing and appeasing the workers’ struggle in the interests of the bourgeoisie, this type of administrators began to mingle with the bourgeoisie and to play the role of agents of the bourgeoisie in the workers’ movement. The age of imperialist decay has brought with it the integration of many trade union leaders into the order. This reality has become even more striking today.

The well-heeled bureaucracy that has settled at the top of the trade unions is becoming thoroughly corrupt in parallel with the corruption in every field. Under the control of such bureaucrats, the trade unions are becoming thoroughly integrated into the bourgeois order and cease to be combative workers’ organisations. Although such developments point to extremely serious dangers, it would be harmful to conceive of them as absolute and unchangeable generalisations. Lenin and Trotsky also referred to the problems threatening the trade union movement in the period of imperialism, but they did not approve of the attitude of turning one's back on the trade unions. For example, Lenin pointed out that some reactionary aspects of the trade unions had emerged over time. However, he also underlined the point that should never be ignored. As he pointed out, the development of the proletariat has not been and cannot be achieved anywhere without the mutual action between the trade unions and the revolutionary party of the working class.

Let us recall that the negative developments in the structure and militancy of the trade unions are not unique to recent times. It is known that in the past there were significant ups and downs in the trade union movement depending on the course of the class struggle in various capitalist countries. As a reflection of this situation, while it was possible to come across militant trade unions during periods of revolutionary upsurge, it was frequently observed that during periods of defeat the unions retreated to a more backward line. The famous Chartist labour movement, which developed in England in the 19th century, later fizzled out and in time many of its leaders degenerated and integrated into the bourgeois order.

American-style trade unionism also presents a striking example of the fact that the danger of the trade union movement's integration into the establishment is not a new phenomenon. Daniel de Leone, one of the revolutionary leaders of the American socialist movement before the first imperialist war, highlighted the sell-out leadership of the “American Federation of Labour” and the decay in the trade union movement. He was the first to describe the trade union bureaucracy as “the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class”. And already at the end of the 19th century Leone stated that the trade union bureaucracy should be considered not as the right wing of the labour movement, but as the left wing of the bourgeoisie.

But even in the age of imperialism, in periods of revolutionary upsurge, there have been and will be positive advances in the trade union struggle. Therefore, we cannot say that the pessimism of those who completely forget this aspect of the matter has any scientific basis. We must also emphasise that those who cannot endure the negative conditions of the periods of decline also despair in a petty-bourgeois way about the future. It cannot be a Marxist attitude to completely despair of the trade unions and the trade union struggle of the working class. In fact, such wrong attitudes mean passive submission to the existing backwardness.

Can trade unions be independent?

There have been many discussions and different ideas on the need for the unions to be independent. In order to make a sound judgement on this issue, first of all it is necessary to define what is understood by independence. If the issue under discussion is the independence of trade unions from political parties and other workers’ organisations in terms of administrative functioning, there is no point in debating this issue further. Because, as democratic mass organisations organised around specific objectives, trade unions should undoubtedly have their own independent internal functioning, electoral and control mechanisms reflecting their members' right to speak and decide, and autonomous administrative rules shaped on this basis. For any political party to violate the democratic rights of the members of a trade union, to take over the management of a trade union through methods such as threats, bribery, fraud or electoral tricks, or to impose its own political tendency on the rank and file, are unjust interventions in the internal functioning of the trade union.

But the debate on whether trade unions can be politically independent is of a completely different nature. It would be absurd to imagine that trade unions, which are heavily influenced by various political parties and tendencies, can be politically neutral or impartial. No democratic mass organisation is in fact a structure detached from politics, independent of politics. If the essence of the problem is carefully considered, the simple truth can be easily grasped. Unions that are not influenced by revolutionary politics inevitably fall under the hegemony of right and left bourgeois or petty-bourgeois politics. Since this is a rule of capitalist life, the real problem is which politics this or that trade union comes under the influence of. And the aspect to be analysed is whether this situation is compatible with the interests of the working class.

We know that workers who have not appreciated the necessity of revolutionary politics sometimes feel uncomfortable when left organisations establish relations with them during periods of strikes and other workers’ actions. It is common for backward workers to judge the verbal and written propaganda of revolutionary circles as “they are dividing us”. By doing so, these workers actually surrender the field to the trade union bureaucrats and bourgeois parties because of their lack of consciousness. It is obvious how essential it is to maintain a correct working approach that will eliminate such misconceptions. In order to change the wrong attitudes of the workers and to break down their prejudices, it is necessary to approach them with patience, to find and use the appropriate language and tools.

Politics is the art of finding and applying appropriate tactics. Even if you put a publication with the most accurate content in the hands of those who are not yet ready, your attempt may backfire. For those who are lagging behind, change is a question of time and of the rise of the mass movement. However, just as it is necessary not to engage in wrong and impatient behaviour, it is equally necessary not to make a compromise for backwardness and not to adapt to the thinking and behaviour of backward workers. It is a fact that in societies where the consciousness of enjoying and exercising democratic rights has developed, the propaganda of the political views of revolutionary circles and their attempts to organise in line with these views are accepted as a natural right by a much larger number of workers. It is obvious how different and backward the situation in Turkey is in these respects.

It is of great importance to defend the independence of the trade unions from the bourgeoisie and collaborationist politics. But to demand the complete and unconditional independence of the unions from political organisations is completely wrong. The approaches of some supporters of “independence”, to the extent that they are hostile to the political influence of revolutionary organisations, are extremely wrong and harmful to the struggle. To demand that the unions remain neutral to revolutionary class politics cannot be a demand that will benefit the workers. For such demands ultimately favour the bourgeoisie and the trade union bureaucracy. The bureaucrats always try to get rid of the control and intervention of the revolutionary vanguard of the class. The bourgeoisie, on the other hand, resorts to every means to keep the unions away from revolutionary politics and to confine the workers within the framework of a narrow trade union struggle.

An example of the wrong attitude towards the independence of the unions can be seen in the anarcho-syndicalist approach. Anarcho-syndicalists interpret the intervention of a revolutionary leadership in trade union problems and gaining positions within the unions as a violation of the right of the unions to independence and oppose it. Such attitudes, whatever their intentions, do the working class no good. However, it should not be forgotten that on the other side of the coin there is another flawed approach which is widespread in Turkey. The opportunistic, shopkeeper approach of petty-bourgeois left circles towards the trade unions and their coercive behaviour, which disregards the administrative independence of the unions, must be opposed. The latter play into the hands of the former and undermine the work of true communists who are trying to adopt a correct attitude in the trade union field.

While it is a reality that bourgeois political parties influence the trade unions, keep them under control and cripple them with their own political views completely contrary to the interests of the working class, to demand that the trade unions be kept away from revolutionary political ideas and work would not be a defence of the independence of the trade unions, but class collaborationism at its very best. Revolutionary Marxists always try to militantise the trade union struggle and this has nothing to do with unjustly meddling in the internal workings of the unions. Political guidance and political imposition are completely different attitudes. Supporting the trade union struggle in a revolutionary way does not stop the independent development of the unions, on the contrary, it develops it. But on the other hand, the interests of the revolutionary organisation and the interests of the trade union organisation are not identical and care must be taken to act in line with this reality. Attitudes and behaviours that will harm the massiveness of the trade union struggle must be absolutely avoided.

Those who oppose the revolutionary organisations to put forward their views and proposals on various problems of the working class, including the trade union field, do a great disservice to the workers’ struggle. The workers who are forced into this situation show their lack of consciousness and the “intellectuals” show their hidden or open hostility towards revolutionary thought and activity. In addition, there is a statist tradition in Turkey that is hostile to the freedom of political organisation in general. And the state trade unionism in particular is deeply rooted. Therefore, the problems we have mentioned are multiplied in this country. Therefore, there should not be the slightest concession to the views that try to undermine those who are doing correct and revolutionary work in the trade unions by hiding behind the defence of the “independence of the trade unions” and to the people and circles that defend such views. The revolutionaries who adopt the most honest and consistent attitude in defending the interests of the working class as a whole will not give up their revolutionary rights and duties because they are accused of “interfering in the internal affairs of the unions”. For example, when important strikes take place, the leadership of the masses in struggle cannot be left to the union bureaucrats just because the union statutes require it. In such cases, communists seek to educate and persuade the workers and seek the election of strike and action committees from among the militant workers.

Principles must be upheld

The principled approach we have emphasised contains the rules of our revolutionary tradition that must be upheld today. However, the damage caused by the period of decline in the labour movement worldwide is great. In order to erase the traces of this destruction and to achieve a new leap forward in the labour movement, the forgotten fundamental issues must be revived and put back on the agenda. In this context, we must emphasise again and again that the revolutionary leadership of the working class is obliged to lead the mass organisations and the struggle of the workers in all areas of the class struggle. Therefore, as Lenin repeatedly pointed out, communists cannot remain aloof, alienated and hostile to the trade union struggle of the working class.

Another principle we must emphasise is that communists will not divide the trade unions. Communists patiently seek to win workers to their political views. Because they are committed to a long-term struggle, they oppose to undesirable divisions in mass organisations through hasty and sectarian attitudes. It is the most natural right of left political groups to try to find supporters for their views, programmes and lines of action within the various democratic mass organisations, including the trade unions. As an extension of this situation, an ideological and political struggle between different political views will also take place on all these fronts. But the trade unions are not directly political organisations, they are mass organisations of the class. Therefore, it would never be a desirable result for each political tendency to create divisions and establish its own trade union. Because such a situation would lead to the disintegration of the united mass struggle of the working class against capital and thus to failure. On the other hand, we can never rule out that in some cases a split involving the masses organised under the unions may become necessary. The creation of new unions and confederations can be a justified and useful historical step when the struggle within the existing ones is no longer possible and is the result of an organised struggle rising from the grassroots, rallying the workers on a more advanced line.

It is obvious that the trade unions are generally capable of covering only a certain part of the working class. However, the trade unions should be raised to the level of militant organisations of the whole working class. In line with this aim, it is essential to lead an active struggle to make the trade union members more militant and to ensure that the non-unionised and unemployed workers become unionised. In addition, special efforts must be made to attract women, young people and migrant workers to the trade unions. In all of this work, it is important to resist the tendency to overestimate the role of the unions and to replace them with revolutionary organisations. It must be remembered that the trade unions cannot be an end in themselves, but only one of the means of mass class struggle. One of the main tasks is to free the unions from the selfish attitude of aristocratic workers who defend only their own professional interests and material privileges, and from the control of union bureaucrats who cling to their seats. Unions must belong to the members who make them exist; these mass organisations of the working class cannot be the fiefdoms of a handful of bureaucrats.

In order to turn trade unions into organisations of struggle owned by their members and respected by all labouring classes of society, it is of great importance to work hard for trade union democracy. Provided that the will of the rank and file is reflected, those with different political views cannot be denied the right to become members of trade unions and to be elected to executive bodies. Trade unions cannot be allowed to impose a policy of repression and isolation on their members because of their political views. Trade union representatives and leaders at all levels must be elected by the rank and file, and workers must have the right to inspect and recall those they elect. To prevent union leaders from becoming bureaucrats and alienated from the workers from whom they emerge, their salaries should not exceed the average wage of skilled workers. Trade union funds are generated by members’ dues and these funds must be fully allocated to the trade union struggle. It is imperative to expel bureaucrats from the unions who utilise these funds with the mindset of a cunning capitalist or who see them as a means of personal gain.

The unions should not conduct discussions on general issues and collective bargaining negotiations in secret from the rank and file; the rank and file must be informed. Struggle must be waged to ensure that upper bodies of trade unions are accountable to their members and abide by the principle of openness towards their members. When we speak of trade union work, communists understand by this essentially militant grassroots work. Opportunistic attitudes which, under the pretext of trade union work, covet only the top posts, are seat-hungry, and make a virtue out of descending on the top management of the trade unions in violation of the right of the rank and file to speak and decide, cannot be tolerated.

Leading the workers in a revolutionary way cannot be realised with self-serving claims. Vanguardism or leadership can be won by those who are deemed worthy of it by the workers, as a result of determined, solid, energetic and self-sacrificing work carried out within the working class. In order to move in this direction, one must take part in all class struggles and trade union movements and lead the struggles for concrete demands such as working hours, wages and working conditions. It is important to put forward clear and understandable actual demands that the workers will embrace. But it is equally important in what manner these demands are raised and with what kind of struggle they will be realised. To instil in the consciousness of the workers that nothing permanent can be won without struggle constitutes one of the basic conditions for liberation from the wage slavery order.

It is clear that capital is carrying out its attack on the political, social and economic rights of workers on a global scale and that this global attack can only be countered by the global resistance of the working class. Communists therefore strive to develop a sense of solidarity among all workers and try to awaken in workers an international class consciousness. For this purpose, it is of great benefit to establish workers' educational, cultural and solidarity associations of various levels and types. At this point, however, let us underline an important point. Such associations are not alternatives to trade unions, but instruments to raise the level of consciousness, struggle and organisation of the workers and therefore to make the trade union struggle more qualified. The Marxist position requires a highly principled and attentive behaviour in all these matters and to make efforts to ensure trade union unity on combative grounds.

Rank-and-file struggle against bureaucracy

In an article on trade unions, Trotsky points out that in capitalist states the most monstrous forms of bureaucratism are to be found in the trade unions. He says that capitalism in Europe, and especially in Britain, owes its survival to a large extent to the trade union bureaucracy. The trade union bureaucracy is the backbone of British imperialism. The British example of holding the labour movement back from the struggle through the trade union bureaucracy has become generalised over time and this bureaucracy has become the scourge of the working class in all capitalist countries.

In cases where the rising actions of the workers do not fit within the bourgeois legal framework but gain legitimacy in the eyes of the masses, the trade-union bureaucracy everywhere comes to the rescue of the bourgeoisie. While revolutionary workers try to lead the masses forward, the trade-union bureaucracy forces them to obey unconditionally the laws laid down by the bosses. A bureaucrat regards his position and office as a resource that will provide him with a privileged life for life, and this rule also applies to the trade union bureaucrat. For the trade union bureaucrat, the position to which he is elected is not a field of service to the workers, but a position that offers the possibility of a life integrated into the bourgeois order. It is almost inevitable that trade union leaders, who are elected by the votes of the workers but enjoy great privileges and are not controlled by the workers, become bureaucrats. And such people become open to all kinds of class betrayals in order to secure their position.

The role of the trade union bureaucracy in the decline of the trade union struggle and the betrayal of the bureaucrats can never be underestimated. However, in order to wage a successful struggle against this bureaucracy, certain points must be correctly understood. The left tendencies, which completely reject the trade unions and do not give the necessary importance to the trade union struggle, also do not approach the phenomenon of the trade union bureaucracy correctly. In fact, the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy requires careful consideration of the content of this concept.

If we approach the problem from a sociological point of view, we see that there are differences between trade union leaders at different levels, similar to the class distinction between lower, middle and upper civil servants. A successful struggle against the trade union bureaucracy cannot be waged without distinguishing between workplace representatives and local branch leaders, who are close to the rank and file, and the top bureaucrats, who are politically integrated into the bourgeois order. There are conditions for militantising workplace representatives and local branch leaders who want to fight for the interests of the working class and who deserve the support of the rank and file, and it is necessary to do so. But it is a completely wrong tendency to dress the top bureaucracy of the unions, which is integrated with the bourgeoisie, in “red shirts” in the name of allegedly pushing them to the left.

When we look at the functioning of the trade unions, we see that in reality the upper leadership pulls the strings. The union top bureaucracy is generally composed of professional elements who are completely detached from the class, bourgeoisised and addicted to the material and moral benefits of the privileges of position and office. The elected leaders at the level of the branches, on the other hand, are “civil servants” on a lesser level, and it would not be correct to say that all of them are leaders who are detached from the workers. Most of them fulfil their duties as amateur officials and lead their lives continuing to work in the workplaces and factories where they were elected as delegates. But we can never deny that the decline in the class movement and the general degeneration of the trade unions have affected not only the top bureaucracy but also the lower level union leaders. In fact, this kind of influence is gripping the class as a whole, and nevertheless, as the workers become more conscious, the number of those willing to take up the struggle will increase.

The correct evaluation of such questions is important for those who do revolutionary work within the class to make progress in the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy. It is also an extremely important point that the revolutionary line in the struggle against the trade union bureaucracy is completely different from the compromising attitude of the reformists in the trade union field. As in every field, reformism carries out its work in the field of trade union struggle with methods and tactics based on cooperation with the bourgeoisie. For this reason, the reformist left circles approach the trade unions not from the point of view of achieving goals that will make the working class more combative, but with the concern of strengthening their own positions. The reformist and opportunist elements have the desire to reach the top leadership of the unions through unprincipled electoral alliances that are not based on solid positions won among the workers at the grassroots. There is nothing acceptable about such an attitude. So-called positions not won through struggle cannot eliminate the scourge of the trade union bureaucracy, but can only add new left-wing elements to it. Of course, it must never be forgotten that such situations have a completely confusing and demoralising effect on the workers.