Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. II No. 18, 30 April 1938, p. 3.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL).
During the two years of conflict between the A.F. of L. and the C.I.O. enormous changes were wrought throughout the trade union field. The C.I.O. made phenomenal progress in organization, labor militancy rose to new and hitherto unsurpassed heights, the A.F. of L. made some gains; but the efforts – feeble efforts – made to end the conflict and to reach a basis for unification of the two organizations proved unavailing. Now, when considering the relationship between the two bodies, the decision made by the C.I.O. to set up a permanent organization is not at all surprising. It was inevitable.
Many genuine militants may take this whole question quite philosophically knowing that present-day economic and political developments have already set powerful forces in motion which will work their way toward unification. But time may soon become very pressing.
During the recent period rapid organization developed so much momentum that the conflict of necessity receded into the background. At any rate it had little possibility of interfering with the progress made. Now, however, these conditions have been altered in a fundamental sense. The stormy offensive for union organization has passed its climax for the time being. The unions are becoming preoccupied with the consolidation of gains made. Above all they are compelled to prepare to meet new problems that are arising out of the changed economic and political conditions.
While the conflict between the two rival movements could not come so much to a head when new mass unions grew up almost over night in the most important basic industries, and while it was necessary for the C.I.O. to forge ahead independently and unhampered by any demands for capitulation – unity at that time could have been accomplished only by capitulation – it stands to reason that this question appears in an entirely different light now that the class enemy is preparing to assume the offensive all along the line.
When the whole of the trade union movement becomes compelled to engage in bitter defensive struggles against attacks on the wage standard, and against attacks on its very life, a continuation, or a further intensification of the conflict may have fatal consequences.
It is true that the C.I.O. decision represents a change only in the formal sense. In reality it has already for some time functioned as an independent and more or less permanent organization. The self-appointed Committee for Industrial Organization laid down general policy for its affiliated unions; it decided on strategy in strikes and in political life and took measures of organization as an independent federation would do. Only this status has been pretty well confined to the higher official circle without the benefit of a regular network of local central bodies and federation conventions through which the membership could exert its influence in determining policy and in selection of leadership.
The power and authority of the self constituted committee could well be envied by the most hardened A.F. of L. bureaucrat. It appointed and discharged organizers and regional directors at will and held several of the newly-organized unions in leading strings. Some of them are still under “provisional government,” as this method was once politely called in the miners’ union.
Yet, with all the power, authority and arbitrariness of the leading committee, nowhere has rank-and-file initiative found such a mighty outlet as in the new industrial unions. For a long time this has been a matter of serious concern to the leadership.
Once these new unions were established it frowned upon the sit-down strike – or, to be more correct, it frowned upon the idea of the workers’ taking possession of the plants and thus violating capitalist property rights. This is of particular importance now when strikes are again beginning to increase in frequency. And, let there be no mistake about it, the C.I.O. strategists have taken this step toward a permanent organization with an eye, not to loosening their grip on the apparatus, but rather in the hope of strengthening official channels for greater supervision and control. Obviously this particular aspect of the question does not bode well for an energetic attempt to solve correctly the many new serious problems now arising.
To begin with, one may mention the very simple question of industry’s “old men.” Recently this has received more than usual public attention because of the increasing difficulty of workers holding on to their jobs when past the age of forty. Since this condition prevails more in mass production industry than in the sheltered trades, it becomes most pressing for the C.I.O. But even quite recently a number of A.F. of L. strikes have grown out of the issue of seniority rights. What is involved is one of the simple aspects of job security, and certainly this is the concern of the whole trade union movement.
Unemployment is of course a far greater and a far more acute question. According to the almost unanimous estimates of all reliable statistical authorities the unemployment figure had already in February risen above 13,000,000. This cancels out not less than 54 per cent of the decrease in unemployment which occurred from March 1933 to last September. This figure has increased further since February and indications are for an even greater scarcity of jobs. In regard to this question also, the C.I.O. is most acutely affected since the unemployment growth is mostly in mass production industry.
An over-supply of labor power on the market, and factory gates closing, weakens all union morale. A large army of unemployed is a threat to all unions. And, above all, the needs, of the unemployed cannot be met by pious resolutions which have even less effect where employers Can take advantage of disunity. Nothing less than united action of the whole trade union movement will suffice.
It is conditions such as these that facilitate the preparations being made by the class enemy to launch a mighty attack to beat down wages. With profits tobogganing to still lower levels, capitalism knows no other way than to seek compensation from the workers’ pay envelope. Even a boom in the war industries could only complicate and make union resistance more difficult without united action.
All of these problems, and many more that could be mentioned, almost fade into insignificance when considering the question of the approaching world war. Never does the ruling class need a submissive working class so much as during war times. In this the trade union movement becomes a key issue. By its greatly added numerical and organizational strength it is a much more potent factor than it was in 1917.
The rulers of America will be sure to spare no efforts, on the one hand to compel working class loyalty to the employers, and on the other hand to curb, if not to crush, its independence, for this is what war means in the first instance. But the workers who have much to lose and nothing to gain from a capitalist war need their forces united to fight against it. Their trade union movement, built up through many bitter struggles, is itself a product of capitalist contradictions and an expression of existing and growing class antagonism. Only on the field of the class struggle can these contradictions and antagonisms be solved. Objectively the unification of the trade union movement should be a beginning toward this final end and militants can do a good turn by pressing for a solution of this first problem now.
Swabeck Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
Last updated: 30 July 2015