OUTLINE OF A SPEECH “ON TRADE UNIONS,
ON THE CURRENT
MOMENT AND ON TROTSKY’S ERRORS” 1
[December 29, 1920]
Trade unions are, under present conditions, an historically inevitable and almost universal form of organization for the industrial proletariat.
From this stems their particularly crucial role and task in the realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

1920

The distinctive character of this role lies, on the one hand, in their function as the organizational vehicle of the ruling, dominant, governing class—not as an apparatus of coercion, not as a state institution. On the other hand, trade unions serve as an instrument of education, mobilization, training—schools, schools of governance, schools of economic management, schools of communism.
In a sense, trade unions occupy a position intermediate between
the Communist Party and the state authority.
The distinctive feature of trade unions, when viewed in conjunction with these two aspects, is that they embody:
4)
a reservoir of mass support, a wellspring of power. Their connection to the masses (the dictatorship of the proletariat = the vanguard of the proletariat as the governing force) ensures that trade unions remain firmly anchored to the working people.
They also serve as a vital reservoir for political and military mobilization.
Hence the gradual erosion of the trade union movement’s influence.
The fundamental premise underlying Trotsky’s analysis proves utterly mistaken:
5)
his conception of the crisis as a phenomenon peculiar to trade unions.
The “productive role” of trade unions was universally recognized by the Ninth Congress of the RCP.2 The quotations cited by Trotsky come from Tomsky and Lozovsky.
6)
In principle, Trotsky’s approach to the question is flawed, since he tends to retreat from practical implementation back toward abstract “principles.”
The real divergence lies in the methods employed
7)
in engaging the masses and in forging connections with them.
“Soviet Trade Unionism”
Ryazanov’s?
8)
This is incorrect.
Ryazanov does capture a kernel of truth—namely, the defense of material interests.
But what of trade unions in a “workers’ state”?
And what of a workers’ state riddled with bureaucratic distortions?
There is indeed much to defend against!
Is it truly the case that Tomsky and others advocated for “half-hearted trade unionism”?
This too is incorrect.
Trotsky’s § 1 reflects a confused ideological stance.
The “general principle” found in Trotsky’s § 9; § 24; § 14—“the defense of material interests”—but in a workers’ and peasants’ state?