Trade unions arose because working people needed organizations to defend themselves and their standard of living against their employers. They first developed among workers with the same employer; these workers banded together to demand higher wages and better working conditions. Soon all workers of a given trade (such as carpenters, shoemakers, etc.). came together in larger organizations. Finally, these craft unions gave way to industrial unions, where all workers in a given industry (e.g. auto, steel) joined together in one trade union. These industry-wide unions have even attempted to link up with workers in the same industry in different countries - given that the big industries themselves are now multinational.
Trade unions are the key organizations of the working class. They are the only mass organizations in the U.S., for example, which are made up solely of working class people. Trade unions provide the basic necessary organizations for workers to fight for better working conditions. They are schools for all workers to learn about and participate in the fight against the bosses. Obviously workers individually can do nothing to assert their self-interests against their employers. They must be organized as tightly as possible. The trade unions must strive to attain the same kind of discipline against the bosses that the bosses already have against the workers. The trade unions should be militant organizations which lead the rank-and-file in the struggle. Trade union leadership should always teach the rank-and-file that there are irreconcilable differences between workers and employers, and that a continual fight must be waged by the trade unions to assert the economic and political interests of the workers. These are the principles upon which trade unions were founded. Trade unions must also continually attempt to expand. A basic trade union principle is that workers must be organized; that every unorganized worker represents a weakness for the working class and a benefit to all employers. Trade unions must be as democratic as possible. The leadership must not lose touch with the rank-and-file or the fight against the bosses will suffer - the leadership will begin to make back-room deals with the employers and sell out the interests of the rank-and-file. To this end trade union officers should never make more income than the rank-and-file; they must not end up with cushy salaries which set them apart from the rank-and-file. They should also put in some time on the shop floor so they are in constant touch with the rank-and-file.
Trade union democracy also means that the trade union is open to all political opinions which are not openly in favor of the bosses. The bosses always promote “business unionism”, which means that the union is a business, just like the company is a business – politics are not involved, and there are no necessary conflicts between workers and employers, none that can’t be worked out with a little good will and common sense.
It should be clear, then, that the trade unions are absolutely necessary to the workers under capitalism. The worker’s trade union is the only organization which stands between himself and the capitalists. The trade union defends the workers, winning higher wages, better working conditions, and a measure of job security and dignity. Wherever capitalism has developed, trade unions have emerged as the major institutions of economic defense of the working class.
Finally, trade unions are particularly important to us now, because today they represent the most socialized and strategically placed workers in the working class of this country, the industrial workers. Only about one fourth of the working class is organized into trade unions, but over half of the industrial workers in this country are unionized. It is in the industrial centers that the workers have been most socialized - that is, they have been forced to understand most clearly that as individuals they are powerless, but as a united force they cannot be defeated.
It should be noted that trade unions, even at their best, are limited. At present, the best trade unions do teach workers that the bosses must be fought in order to make gains in the worker’s standard of living, and they do teach workers that the working class must be united, and that its interests are inevitably opposed to the bosses. But these trade unions do not teach workers that the whole government is a front for the employers. At present (and this will last for some time to come), no trade union teaches about the need for socialism, or explains that ultimately it will be necessary to overthrow the state which is controlled by the bosses and replace it with a government controlled by the workers. Without socialism, the working class is reduced to a constant struggle against the effects of capitalism because without socialism, the foundation of capitalist exploitation remains intact. It remains the job of Marxist-Leninists to explain these things. Marxist-Leninists must work within the trade unions, but they must be aware that while a militant trade union must be fought for, militant trade unionism by itself does not do the work that Marxist-Leninists must do – namely, convince the workers of the need to overthrow the present capitalist system altogether.
Socialists and communists have always worked in trade unions, and in fact, helped build many of them in this country. Marxist-Leninists today have a rich history of trade union work behind them and should study the history of the U.S. trade union movement and bring the history of our class to all working people.
The U.S. trade union movement first gave birth to a national labor federation after the Civil War, with the National Labor Union. The National Labor Union united various existing craft unions and fought some progressive struggles for the participation of blacks in unions, for the participation of women, and for the organization of unskilled workers. The National Labor Union, nevertheless, was beset with all the problems of elite craft unionism and many forces within it resisted progressive measures. The NLU, unable to withstand the attacks of a war-strengthened capitalism, fell apart after the Civil War, and was replaced by the Knights of Labor. The Knights of Labor, a secretive organization, achieved a genuine national organization of unions, but was incapable of consistently carrying out progressive struggles. The Knights of Labor refused to lead the rank-and-file fight for the 8-hour day and refused to support the Haymarket martyrs who died as part of the fight for the 8-hour day. The upsurge ’of rank-and-file activity around the 8-hour day led to the birth of the AFL as a rival federation to the Knights of Labor, as well as to the general labor upheaval of 1886. The AFL soon became the federation of labor, as the Knights of Labor, poorly organized and without a militant program, could not cope with the onslaught of expanding capitalism in the U.S. The AFL fought for the 8-hour day and succeeded in making many gains for the working people. However, as more and more immigrants entered the U.S. in the late 1800’s, many of them unskilled, the AFL began to take on all the ugly aspects of a big elite craft union which fought only to protect the jobs of its members who were skilled workers, while refusing to organize the unskilled. In response to this attitude, a new labor federation, the Industrial Workers of the World, sprang up in the early 1900’s. The IWW was to prove to be one of the most militant working class organizations in working class history in the U.S., organizing many militant strikes in the mines of Colorado, in the textile mills of New Jersey, and the lumberyards of Washington. The IWW often knew how to link up the political demands of the working class with its economic demands (e.g. the free speech fight in California). The IWW energetically organized a nation-wide labor federation which put forward the unity of all the workers in a given industry, not just within a given craft. Nevertheless, the IWW suffered from some grave weaknesses. It was divided between those who were socialists and those who were syndicalists and anarchists. The latter put forward the idea that contracts with the bosses were unnecessary, and that demands should always be able to be enforced on the spot with a strike. Trade union structure and organization were de-emphasized in order to stress spontaneity. No socialist political party was necessary because the state was not seen as an enemy which would have to be overthrown by the working class led by a socialist party. The syndicalists and anarchists won out, and despite the fine militant tradition of the IWW (for example, its resistance to U.S. participation in World War I), the IWW never built a lasting organization and eventually declined after WWI. Government attacks and the vicious Palmer raids were a major reason for the decline. The AFL, despite its elitism and reliance on craft unions, outlived its rival, the IWW.
But the AFL was still not the answer. After WWI, the industries in the U.S. got even bigger and their labor-busting apparatus, in combination with the government, grew more sophisticated. It became more and more obvious that unions should organize on an industry-wide basis. Large rank-and-file strikes like the great steel strike of 1919, showed that workers would fight throughout a whole industry, regardless of what the AFL leadership called for. In the twenties, the Communist Party-sponsored Trade Union Education League was able to unify a number of progressive trade unions and call for industrial trade unions. Indeed, it can be said that the TUEL and the later Trade Union Unity League, set the groundwork for the drive for industrial unionism which exploded in the 1930’s and led to the creation of the CIO. They were the embryonic forces of industrial unionism in the U.S.
Large strikes by workers in many industries, particularly in the coal mines, electrical, steel and auto plants, led to the formation of powerful industrial unions in the 1930’s. These newly formed unions joined together to form the CIO. The CIO represented progressive trade unionism in comparison to the AFL; the CIO fought to organize the unorganized, overcame craft divisions, was open to socialist ideas and socialist organizers, integrated black and white workers, etc.
But World War II brought an economic recovery and a decrease in rank-and-file activity as workers were called upon to support the war effort. After the war, the largest labor upsurge and strike movement in U.S. history took place; but this upsurge was brief. After the war, the Soviet Union was once again depicted as the enemy and McCarthyism swept the land The bourgeoisie always used the handy Red scare to purge militant workers from trade unions and in some cases to destroy entire unions. The government reacted to the labor upsurge by instituting the reactionary Taft-Hartley Act. The CIO quickly capitulated to government pressure and gradually began to resemble the tame AFL. The CIO purged 11 unions from its organization, setting the stage for a future merger with the AFL. The two organizations merged in the fifties, and were soon indistinguishable – both being characterized by business unionism, corruption, and labor bureaucrats who are well paid and sell out the workers at every turn.
Radicals, socialists, and communists were deeply involved in the development of trade unions in this country. The most important organizations in the late 1800’s and early 1900’s were the Socialist Labor Party and the Socialist Party. Both were large mass parties with a working class base, and their militants were responsible for much trade union work. The Socialist Party lasted longer and was the larger of the two (Its presidential candidate, Eugene Debs, got 1 million votes while running for president in 1918 from jail in Atlanta; he was serving time for speaking out against WWI.). A good part of the Socialist Party, unlike the Socialist Parties of Europe, did oppose WWI – but despite its more honorable stand on this issue, it lost ground to the newly formed Communist Party in the 1920’s, just as did the Socialist Parties of Europe. The example of the successful Soviet revolution and the creation of the Third International led to the formation of the CPUSA. In the course of the twenties and thirties, the CP gradually built up its strength while the SP declined. The CP was active in many of the major industrial union drives and was influential in the forming of the CIO. The CP, however, declined in the forties due to its almost complete abandonment of militant trade unionism during the war, its revisionist misleadership under Earl Browder, and finally, red-baiting during McCarthyism. The party even dissolved itself altogether in 1944, although it came back strong for a brief period in 1946, just before McCarthyism became prominent. The virtual disappearance of socialist or communist presence in the trade unions in the 50’s and 60’s meant that business trade unionism and the labor bureaucrats have had a pretty clear field to suppress rank-and-file militancy. In addition, the U.S. victory in WWII and an expanding U.S. imperialism in the 1950’s and 1960’s meant that the U.S. ruling class had a strong base from which to attack labor.
There have been major changes in U.S. capitalism since WWII. The labor movement has not yet been able to adapt to these changes, which have strengthened the position of the capitalists. Since the war, U.S. capitalist production has undergone a transformation equal in its implications to the industrial revolution which necessitated organization of the work force along industrial rather than craft lines. This transformation is characterized primarily by the intensification of the process of monopolization. Today, organized labor must contend with international conglomerates, which can well afford to sit out a strike because of the gigantic size of their overall holding And these conglomerates are no longer limited by the logic of a particular product; today, breakfast cereal could be produced by the same controlling team as makes streetlights. The major capitalists are certainly not invincible, but they are no longer as vulnerable to local attacks, no matter how militant and defiant. More than ever before, the success of any one struggle depends on the development of unity within the class as a whole. Even the success of contract negotiations is increasingly going to depend on the ability of the trade union movement to coordinate its efforts and hit the conglomerates in many different spheres at the same time. For example, the ITT corporation had $1 billion in assets in 1961, mainly in telecommunications. Since then, it has acquired over 100 corporations with combined assets approaching $4 billion plus 50 foreign-based operations. Consequently, only 17% of ITT income in 1969 came from telecommunications. ITT now bargains with 15 different major unions in this country, including electrical, auto, teamsters, communications, steel, machinists, chemical, bakers and plumbers. Such a conglomerate obviously can absorb union pressure along any single unit line, and can only be affected by sophisticated, coordinated bargaining.
Furthermore, the process of production has been transformed by a tremendously accelerated technological advance. The skilled worker is increasingly being replaced by a machine, and technicians and engineers are reduced to button pushers. The process of production has been speeded up beyond belief. In 1972, the average production worker earned $7,800. The value added per production worker after costs, including wages, are deducted, was estimated to be $26,000. For each dollar spent on the production-worker’s wages, then, the employers netted $3.36 in added value (surplus value). Obviously, the net effect of this development is to create a permanently high unemployment rate as long as the work week remains organized as it is today.
These changes in capitalist production (increased monopolization, increased mechanization due to new technology) present serious new challenges to the labor movement. But the existing trade unions are unable to meet these challenges.
The trade unions today are dominated by a union bureaucracy which receives big salaries to repress the rank-and-file. Class collaboration is the order of the day. Union “leadership” promotes the idea that labor and management have no irreconcilable differences. George (“I never walked a picket line”) Meany exemplifies today’s union bureaucrat. These labor lieutenants of the bourgeoisie are not workers and do not represent workers. They are class enemies and should be fought as such. Jay Lovestone, Leonard Woodcock, Meany, McBride and the rest have made sure that the rank-and-file worker today has little respect for national labor “leadership”. The labor bureaucrats have once again turned their backs on the unorganized workers and have made sure that less than 30% (approximately 22.8 million) American workers are unionized. The bureaucrats have controlled the unions tightly and undemocratically to repress any radical presence, or simply any rank and-file activity which is not under their own bureaucratic control. These labor misleaders have kept women out of the unions (only 4.8 million out of 35 million women workers are unionized) and have sabotaged the participation of women when women have been able to force the big unions to recognize their presence (e.g., in CLUW). Meany, Fitzsimmons and Co. have also reinforced racism in the unions. The labor bureaucrats have cooperated with the CIA abroad to set up union fronts with the purpose of destroying legitimate workers’ organizations. This has been true around the world, but particularly in Latin America.
The labor bureaucrats have consistently called for legalistic strategies and reliance on their own back-room discussions with management to resolve all labor disputes. The labor bureaucrats are opposed to all independent rank-and-file activity and mobilize all their strength to repress it. They have steered the labor movement to a strategy of electoralism, viewing the democratic party as the “party of labor”. The last twenty years have seen sell-out after sell-out in major union contracts. The most glaring example of this, of course, is the present no-strike agreement (ENA) in the steel industry, where the bureaucrats actually promised in writing not to use the most basic weapon the workers have – the strike!
The labor bureaucracy is not large. The labor bureaucracy, together with a small minority of privileged workers who follow the bureaucrats unconditionally, make up the labor aristocracy. This labor aristocracy (of which Lenin spoke) supports and is supported by the present imperialist system, and is paid off well by the bosses. But the working class has received only a few crumbs of the wealth and only through struggle, and not as a gift, from capital. The material interests of the working class lie in overthrowing the system altogether and in uniting with workers abroad to oppose the multinational corporations which oppress workers throughout the world. Of course, many workers today do no understand this; it is the job of the left and of Marxist-Leninists to convince rank-and-file workers, to explain to them the nature of imperialism today. The position of some new left groups that American workers are hopelessly bribed and cannot develop into a revolutionary class is a completely bankrupt line, an anti-worker bunch of nonsense.
The labor bureaucracy has been able to maintain its tight control over the working class for so long largely because the left has been so weak in the trade unions over the last few decades. At present, the communist movement is not well-integrated with the working class; on the contrary, the movement for Marxism-Leninism, which is growing in the U.S., remains isolated from the working class and it is a primary task of Marxist-Leninists to change this situation. It is necessary to fuse the communist movements and the working class.
Undeniably, the rank-and-file movements are growing and taking on bigger and bigger enemies. A few examples point this out; the persistent and finally successful effort by the UFW to beat back both the bosses and the corrupt Teamster bureaucrats in the fields of California, the successful movement of the Miners for Democracy to throw out the Boyle gang in the UMW, the upsurge in steel through Steelworkers Fightback in support of the reform candidate Sadlowski in the recent elections, the rank-and-file caucuses (such as the Teamsters for a Democratic Union) in the Teamsters, etc. Large wildcats in the auto industry and coal mine walkouts without authorization are also a reflection of increasing rank-and-file activity. Although these efforts have resulted in many defeats as well as victories, and although even some victories have become defeats as the reformers have sold out the rank-and-file (the Miners for Democracy, of course, is the clearest example of this), it is clear above all that rank-and-file workers across the country are in the mood to fight for union democracy, or for union organization when they don’t have it. This rank-and-file movement is of enormous importance – the growing Marxist-Leninist movement must unite with it.
Marxist-Leninists must fight for class struggle unions. This means fighting for a program, some of the main points of which are:
1. Fight for Union Democracy/Fight the Labor Bureaucrats. This means that rank-and-file workers must control their own unions. All contracts must be ratified by the rank-and-file. Officers of the union should be elected directly and their salaries correspond to the wages of the union membership. All officers should be subject to immediate recall by the rank-and-file. Retirees, although allowed a voice in union affairs, should not be used to control elections or contract votes. Educational programs should be initiated by the unions around the contract grievances and unionising in general to enhance the fullest rank-and-file participation, All political currents which fight the bosses, including Communists, must have full rights in the union. We have to strengthen a shop steward system at each work area, with stewards elected by the membership and accountable on a daily basis for union officials. Where a workplace is bilingual, special effort should be made to write the contract and constitution in both languages. Regular shop-wide and departmental meetings should take place.
2. Organize the Unorganized. With only 27% of the working class of the U.S. organized into trade unions, we see the need to organize the unorganized. We have to put an end, particularly in the craft sector, to the exclusive practices of many unions which run protection rackets at the expense of the working class as a whole. The entire labor movement should be encouraged to unionize the non-union southern U.S., where many plants are going in order to escape unionized workplaces. In addition, federal jobs programs, such as WIN and CETA, should be organized and the general program of union jobs at union wages should be instituted in all government jobs programs. In these efforts, we should always build unity between employed and unemployed workers in common struggle.
We understand that many unorganized workplaces are functioning off the backs and hands of women and national minority people. With 40% of the entire wage earning workforce composed of women (35 million), but over 30 million women not having the protection of a union, we shall emphasize women’s unionization struggles. National minority people are subject to the most vicious working conditions; the hottest, dirtiest jobs and the most menial, back-breaking work. We will be conscious of the special oppression that women and minorities face in all our organizing efforts.
3. Fight for Working Class Unity. Without real unity in the working class, the trade anions cannot be transformed into militant organizations of class struggle. An important cause of disunity among workers is racism. Class struggle unionism must take up the fight against all forms of racial discrimination on the job. Besides hurting black, Latin, and other minority workers, racism divides workers against each other and undermines our ability to struggle for our common needs. Nationwide chauvinist campaigns against illegal aliens should be condemned instead of supported by the labor movement. An end to discriminatory hiring and upgrading practices, an end to racist harassment by bosses and involvement of minorities at all levels of union affairs re some of the demands the rank-and-file must take up. Beyond the workplace, class struggle unionism should defend the fight for equality in housing, education, and social services such as healthcare. The community and homelife of all workers must be linked to the workplace.
Another cause of division within the working class is sex discrimination. Too often our unions have not fought for the interests of women workers on the false grounds that the need for a decent wage and working conditions is not as important as for male workers. In unions such as the International Ladies Garment Workers Union, which is made up predominantly of women workers, the overwhelming majority of union officials are men. Class struggle unionism must fight for the full equality of women workers.
Some basic programmatic demands in our fight against racial and sexual discrimination would be: (a) Fair employment practice committees should be elected in local unions. These committees should be viewed as not only one more step in the grievance procedure but also for identifying trends in discrimination and a tool for educating the rank-and-file about discrimination; (b) Equal pay for equal work; (c) The skilled trades must be integrated; (d) All testing should be job related; (e) Special attention should be paid to language differences; (f) There should be back pay on seniority in cases of discrimination; (g) Affirmative action in hiring and upgrading with the development of appropriate quota systems; (h) support the struggles of the unemployed, a high percentage of whom are women and national minorities; (i) Workplace-wide seniority; (j) There should be equality in union leadership the racial and sexual composition should generally reflect the composition of the rank-and-file; (k) 24-hour child care and paid maternity leave; and (l) On-the-job training so-that minorities and women can be upgraded. These are but a few programmatic demands that class struggle unionism can take from the fight against racial and sexual discrimination. What is important is that we consistently fight discrimination at all times.
All working people have essentially the same common interests. Class struggle unionism must promote labor solidarity, both nationally and internationally. Too often the attitude of our union leadership has been narrow “me-firstism”. Different unions must support each other’s struggles with more than just empty rhetoric. Internationally, we must fight for unity with other workers. For example, the moving of jobs to low wage areas where unions do not exist not only results in the loss of our jobs, but also in the uncontrolled exploitation of cheap foreign labor. Class struggle unionism would promote international solidarity in order to control U.S. corporate interests abroad. Such solidarity could undercut the ability of the capitalists to pay 30 cents an hour to other workers in Singapore, Taiwan, Latin America and Africa. Class unity is an international issue.
4. We Oppose Dual Unionism. At this point in time it is incorrect to stand outside the labor unions and propose new organizations. First a consistent fight must take place within the existing unions, no matter how corrupt they are. The unions, despite their corruptions, are still seen by the working class as the defenders of the workers. Those “revolutionaries” who call for building “workers organizations” (such as the RCP’s National Workers Organization and the CPML’s National Fight Back Organization) outside the existing unions only serve to continue their isolation from the working class movement. Not only that, a more reactionary consequence is that they remove progressives from the labor movement, thereby leaving the leadership of the unions and the masses of workers in the hands of the reactionaries. A cursory examination of the U.S. labor movement will show that none of these dual unionist organizations have withstood the test of history. At present, they are no more than a cover for sectarianism in the labor movement.
5. Fight for Independent Political Action by the Unions. Unions should take stands on all political issues (such as the ERA). They should support the struggle against all forms of state oppression (for example the recent S-l legislation and the frame-up of Kenneth Johnson, a local Buffalo political prisoner). They should support liberation movements abroad. Unions should reverse the shameful position of largely supporting U.S. aggression in Vietnam and should support the struggle of the people of South Africa for majority rule and the people of Latin America and Asia against right wing dictatorships like the Park regime in Korea or the Pinochet regime in Chile. Unions should be in the forefront of anti-fascism. On the domestic front, we should break with the electoral strategy of the AFL-CIO and its portrayal of the democratic party as the “party of labor”. Class struggle unionism must fight for the formation of a third party within the bourgeois political arena based firmly on the unity and powers of the working class as a mass labor party.
6. Finally, Unions Must Take Up the Economic, Bread and Butter Demands of the Rank-and-File in a Consistent Way, leading the rank-and-file in these day-to-day struggles. It must defend and reassert our right to strike on particular issues. The union must fight for a cost of living clause, for real wage gains (not ones offset by increased production), effective grievance procedures against speed-up, fair seniority, increased fringe benefits and health and safety methods. It must implement an educational program to clarify issues for the membership. It should also link its day-to-day fights, especially in the public sector, to the needs and support of the community.
Central to the struggle for bread and butter issues is the struggle against the labor bureaucracy’s “contract or business unionism”. This collaborationist position is essentially that the interests of capital and labor are mutual and “sensible” labor leaders can work out back room differences for a contract with the capitalist class. At all times we must point out the irreconcilable differences between capital and labor and only through a program of struggle involving the rank-and-file can we wage a successful fight against capital. The collaborationist approach towards job security must also be opposed. The labor bureaucrats claim that in bad times workers must absorb the penalties to offset corporate cuts in profits. They claim layoffs should be accepted as unchangeable facts. We must advance the fight for every job and resist layoffs. This is 1fae only way we can even talk of job security.
This is the kind of program for militant unions that should be fought for by Marxist-Leninists in the trade union movement. We think that this program represent not just wishful thinking, but a concrete attempt to address the real problems that we face in our labor movement.
At present, the trade unions are the central mass organizations of the working class, but they are dominated by bourgeois ideology, their leadership are direct agents of the bourgeoisie and the left is isolated from trade unions. It is the task of Marxist-Leninists to work in the trade unions with the goal of building class-struggle unions (and eventually, in the long-run, revolutionary unions). Marxist-Leninists must recognize the enormous potential of the trade unions while recognizing their weaknesses as well.
It is clear that trade unions by themselves cannot become militant class struggle unions. Only the active participation of Communists can transform the trade unions. This, then, is a fundamental task in the trade union movement. It is the task of Communists to work within the trade unions to build class struggle unions. It is also, of course, the task of Communists to explain to advanced workers the limitations of trade unionism and the need for socialism, and for a Communist party to achieve that socialism. Thus, winning advanced workers to socialism through struggle, we develop the necessary party leadership for the future.
How is this to be done? It is easier to say it than to do it, and the left has little practice in this area.
We see the need for the Communist movement to actively engage in united front tactics within the present day trade unions. Today’s recession not only intensifies the need for leadership in general, but specifically the need for a leadership which can forge the broadest possible unity among all honest trade unionists to challenge the death grip of class collaborationism. Only such a broad unity, organized around our principles of class struggle unionism, can begin to turn the tide of reaction which is strangling the working class.
The concept of the united front is basically a very simple one. The united front is a conscious coming together of workers from all political persuasions in order to accomplish specific, well-defined partial goals. Our only requirement is that the program of the united front clearly leads the working class forward towards its emancipation and it must speak to the immediate felt needs of the masses. For example, a united front strategy was correctly developed by many Marxist-Leninists during the Sadlowski campaign. The Sadlowski campaign had a progressive program which appealed to the immediate needs of steelworkers. A negative example of a possible united front is the Buy American campaign of the textile unions, which attacks textile imports chauvinistically (reactionary program) and pretends to appeal to the immediate needs of textile workers (stop lay-offs).
The tactics of the united front are particularly important during periods of reaction, when the strongest possible line of defense must be formed to challenge the power of the capitalist class. Our rank-and-file caucuses must be based on united front principles.
The emphasis is clearly on action. We are not talking about idle declarations of unity meant only to fill the pages of self-satisfied journals. We are talking about unity of action because we recognize that the working class must learn the lessons of the class struggle through its own experience. It is in the process of leading and interpreting the reform struggle that communists teach the masses the lessons of Marxism-Leninism. The united front is simply the conscious application of this understanding.
It is clear that it is necessary to first recruit advanced workers, workers who already recognize the weakness and corruption of present union leadership and are willing to fight. Such workers must be recruited into a caucus within the union or into an organizing committee to form a union where none exists. This work must be done with caution, especially during the period of probation for the Marxist-Leninist. It is important for the Marxist-Leninists to study the workplace situation closely, and to have a good understanding of the forces within the union, the company’s positions in the economy and with the union. The caucus or organizing committee only needs a few workers in order to start; the important thing is to start. Other workers will be attracted to the caucus by its ability to lead successful actions; whether that action is a floor action or a leaflet is to be determined by the caucus. In addition, as the caucus grows, it is important not to fall into a narrow fight against reactionary union leaders.
Then a left-center alliance must be built. That means that Marxist-Leninists, together With the advanced workers, must put forward a program for militant unionism which can win over the workers in the center.
It is important to win these center workers over, and to isolate the right wing workers, those who all-out support the present bureaucracy and will believe in the red-baiting which the labor bureaucrats will inevitably bring up. Only with a strong left-center alliance can this inevitable red-baiting be defeated.
This, of course, only represents a bare outline of the tactics to be used by Marxist-Leninists in the trade unions. Much more detail must be added, many lessons will undoubtedly only be learned through costly mistakes due to inexperience. But only by fighting within the trade unions will Marxist-Leninists be able to fuse the rank-and-file movement and the communist movement. This fusion, which becomes real in as much as communists are able to convince advanced workers of the need for socialism and for building a new communist party, is a necessary precondition for the building of a communist party today in the U.S.