Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Labor Action, Vol. 13 No. 52, 26 December 1949, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
“I don’t want the confederation [the new International Confederation of Free Trade Unions] to be a branch of the world socialist movement. I am proud of the kind of free democratic capitalist union movement we have here.” – David McDonald, secretary-treasurer, United Steel Workers (CIO)
Labor Action last week carried an article greeting the formation of the Confederation of Free Trade Unions as a necessary step in combating the influence of Stalinism in the labor movement, particularly in Europe.
It is perfectly true that the present World Federation of Trade Unions had come so completely under the control of the Stalinists that it was and is desirable for all trade unions to break from it. But to destroy the hold which Stalinism as a political and social idea has on the minds of millions of workers, a lot more will have to be done than to organise a confederation and pass high-sounding resolutions.
The above quotation from David McDonald is a pretty good starter for getting an idea of what the founders of the new confederation have in mind.
Of course, the new confederation has union leaders of all varieties in it. In fact, by opening the door to the Catholic unions of Europe, the leadership has indicated that it is willing to take in almost any union which is anti-Stalinist. In actual practice, this means- that most of the union leaderships which have joined together are very conservative people indeed. Even the “socialists” against whom McDonald wants to protect the confederation are men who have lost out to the Stalinist leaderships in many countries precisely because they are conservative.
In the speech in which the above quotation appeared, McDonald also stated that in some European countries the unions are adjuncts of political parties, where the political interests of the party are put ahead of the economic interests of the workers. He said that the American unions have a big job to do in educating the European trade unionists to build the kind of a labor movement that we have in the United States, and that by these means they will be able to raise the standard of living of the peoples of Europe.
It appears that McDonald can’t make head nor tail of what has been happening in America, where the unions each year are depending more and more on political action to get for them what simple economic action can no longer accomplish. He doesn’t see that regardless of ideology, it is the inevitable development of state-controlled capitalism which forces unions either to become “adjuncts” of political parties or to build political parties which they themselves control.
Now, why is it that the Stalinist political parties have been able to make such great headway in the labor movements of France and Italy, and the social-democrats have remained a much smaller force? And why is it that precisely in Britain the Communist Party has remained small with minor trade-union influence, while the Labor Party has the confidence of the workers to date?
Of course, there are many factors involved. But one which hits between the eyes is that in countries where capitalism has all but collapsed, the party which appears to give the most militant and consistent anti-capitalist program remains the strongest. In Britain, it seems that the Labor Party has gone just far enough in its economic and social measures to prevent the Stalinists from being able to make great political capital from the misery of the people.
McDonald represents the thinking of the labor leadership of the only really wealthy country remaining in the capitalist world. He can be “proud” of the accomplishments of the union movement here only in the same sense that Sloan or Ford can be “proud” of the fact that their capitals can make millions of dollars while the British and French capitalist has to content himself with thousands. McDonald will only be able to educate the European labor leaders to the benefits of American-type trade unions when he can transport American-type productivity and prosperity to Europe.
One thing that we in American will have to get into our heads if we are to educate anyone is that we are not a nation of wealth and power and relative freedom because we know how to do things better than others. And if our labor leaders try to impose their ways on the trade-union movements of other nations they will only hasten their ruin.
In America the AFL and CIO found it a simple job to oust the Stalinists from the unions by bureaucratic measures. But you can only expel large numbers by decree (dressed up with a little democratic garnishing) when the people you are expelling represent no real force in the working class. In many countries of Europe the Stalinists control the majority of workers because these workers see no hope in capitalism, and because the Stalinists convince them in action that they are more militant than the others in fighting for the demands of the workers.
Of course, the Stalinists do this demagogically. That is, they are interested in the workers only in so far as they can get them to fight against capitalism for the benefit of Russia's war plans.
But if the European socialist union leaders really want to build a powerful trade-union movement, they will have to change their ways drastically. They will have to realize that in the long run the only thing which can break masses of workers from Stalinism is demonstration in fact that the socialists mean what they preach, that they are really willing to fight for a better society.
In one way, it is to be hoped that the American unionists of the McDonald type will, in fact, teach the European labor leaders a lesson. It must be very galling to the latter to have these upstarts from wealthy America (who have not yet learned about unionism and politics as much as the Europeans have forgotten) coming over to "educate” Europe to their ways. Those Europeans who have been seeing in America the main hope against engulfing Stalinism may begin to wonder a little whether the Western brother is quite as desirable a comrade in arms as they had thought.
Of course, there were smoother teachers at this conference than McDonald. Walter Reuther was there too, and Dubinsky and the others who like to think of themselves as American social-democrats. They too represent powerful unions with wealthy treasuries.
We wonder whether some European unionist did not ask these brothers how it is that with their vast memberships and treasuries they DO NOT have a political party in America which they control and which represents the interests of the working people? Dubinsky might answer that he does have his Liberal Party in New York. But what could Walter Reuther, the leader of the “vanguard of America,” say?
Actually, there is little hope that the present union leaderships, either European or American, are capable of learning too much. They are all adults and have lived through stirring and turbulent times which should have taught them a good deal. They learn only when things are rubbed into their noses. And it is time that the European and American trade-union rank and file taught their leaders that in order to remain leaders they have got to do more than attend conferences and pass resolutions and scratch each other’s backs. It seems they will have to learn the hard way.
We only hope that both Russian and American imperialism will give them time to teach these gentlemen a good lesson in the kind of politics and the kind of unionism which can really defeat Stalinism as a political force. And that is the same kind which will attack capitalism at its foundations at the same time that it fights the Stalinist threat.
Gordon Haskell Archive | Trotskyist Writers’ Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 10 December 2022