In the previous issue of *Proletarii* we published a resolution of the Central Committee of our party on trade unions{120}. *Nash Vek*{121}, in informing its readers of this resolution, added that it was adopted in the Central Committee unanimously, because the Mensheviks voted for it in view of the concessions made in it compared with the original Bolshevik draft. If this report is accurate (the deceased newspaper *Nash Vek* was ordinarily distinguished by exceptionally good information on everything concerning Menshevism), then we have only to heartily welcome this major step toward unifying s.-d. work in such an important sphere as trade unions. The concessions spoken of by *Nash Vek* are completely insignificant and do not in the least alter the fundamental principles of the Bolshevik draft (published, incidentally, in No. 17 of *Proletarii* from October 20, 1907, together with an extensive explanatory article: "Trade Unions and the s.-d. Party"){122}.

Our entire party has thus now recognized that work in trade unions must be conducted not in the spirit of the neutrality of unions, but in the spirit of the closest possible rapprochement between them and the social-democratic party. It has also been recognized that the party character of unions must be achieved exclusively through s.-d. work within the unions, that s.-d. should form cohesive cells in the unions, that illegal unions should be founded when legal ones are impossible.

Unquestionably, the Stuttgart Congress exerted the most powerful influence on this rapprochement of both factions of our party on the question of the character of work in trade unions. The resolution of the Stuttgart Congress, as Kautsky noted in his address to Leipzig workers, puts an end to the principled recognition of neutrality. The high degree of development of class contradictions, their intensification in recent times in all countries, the many years of experience of Germany—where the policy of neutrality strengthened opportunism in trade unions while not in the least preventing the emergence of separate Christian and liberal unions—the expansion of that special sphere of proletarian struggle which demands joint and unanimous action by both unions and political party (mass strikes and armed uprising in the Russian revolution as a prototype of probable forms of proletarian revolution in the West)—all this has finally knocked the ground out from under the theory of neutrality.

Among proletarian parties, the question of neutrality promises now to cause no particularly great disputes. It is otherwise with non-proletarian quasi-socialist parties like our Socialist-Revolutionaries, who in fact represent the extreme left wing of the revolutionary-bourgeois party of intellectuals and progressive peasants.

It is highly characteristic that after Stuttgart, only the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Plekhanov took up the defense of the idea of neutrality among us. And they did so most unsuccessfully.

In the latest issue of the central organ of the Socialist-Revolutionary party *Znamya Truda* (No. 8, December 1907), we find two articles devoted to the question of the trade-union movement. The S.-R.s first try there to make fun of the assertion of the s.-d. newspaper *Vperёd*{123} that the Stuttgart resolution decided the question of the party's relation to trade unions precisely in the sense outlined by London, in the spirit of Bolshevism. We shall say to this that the S.-R.s themselves in that very same issue of *Znamya Truda* presented facts proving beyond dispute the correctness of precisely such an evaluation.

"By that same time," writes *Znamya Truda* concerning the autumn of 1905, "and this is a characteristic fact—the first direct meeting of three Russian socialist factions took place: s.-d. Mensheviks, s.-d. Bolsheviks, and Esers, with an exposition of their views on the trade-union movement. The Moscow Bureau, which had been entrusted with selecting from its own midst a central bureau for the convocation of a congress [of trade unions], organized a large rally of workers belonging to trade unions in the Olympia Theater[139]. The Mensheviks came forward with a classically-Marxist, strictly orthodox demarcation of the aims of the party and the trade union. 'The task of the s.-d. party is to establish a socialist system with the destruction of capitalist relations; the task of trade unions is the improvement of working conditions within capitalist society, in order to obtain conditions favorable to the interests of labor in the sale of workers' labor'; from this was derived the non-partisan character of trade unions and the inclusion of 'all workers of a given profession'[140].

"The Bolsheviks argued that at present the separation of politics from the trade union cannot be strictly carried through, and from this came to the conclusion that 'there must be a close unity between the social-democratic party and trade unions, which it must lead.' Finally, the Esers demanded strict non-partisanship of the unions in order to avoid a split in the proletariat, but rejected any limitation of the tasks and activity of trade unions to any narrow sphere, formulating this task as the struggle against capital in all its scope, and consequently both economic and political struggle'."

So *Znamya Truda* itself describes the facts! And only a blind man or someone completely incapable of thinking can deny that of these three viewpoints, precisely the one speaking of close unity between the social-democratic party and the unions is "confirmed by the Stuttgart resolution, recommending close ties between the party and trade unions"{141}.

In order to confuse this perfectly clear question, the Esers mixed in the most amusing way the independence of trade unions in economic struggle with their non-partisanship. "The Stuttgart Congress," write they, "definitely stood for the independence (non-partisanship) of unions, that is, rejected the viewpoint of both the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks." This is derived from the following words of the Stuttgart resolution: "Each of these two organizations [party and trade union] has its own corresponding sphere in which it must act with complete independence. But alongside this there exists an ever-widening sphere," etc., as quoted above. There were found such jokers who confused this requirement of the "independence" of trade unions in "their corresponding sphere" with the question of the non-partisanship of unions or of their close rapprochement with the party in the sphere of politics and the tasks of socialist revolution!

In this way our Esers have completely glossed over the fundamental principled question of the evaluation of the theory of "neutrality," which in fact serves to strengthen the influence of the bourgeoisie on the proletariat. Instead of this principled question, they preferred to speak only of Russian relations specifically, when there are several socialist parties in existence, and moreover to speak with false illumination of what was at Stuttgart. "There is no point in referring here to the obscurity of the Stuttgart resolution," writes *Znamya Truda*, "because Mr. Plekhanov, having come forward at the international congress in the capacity of official representative of the party, destroyed all obscurity and all doubt, and as long as we still do not have a corresponding declaration from the Central s.-d. Committee that 'such an appearance by comrade Plekhanov disorganizes the ranks of a united party'…" Gentlemen Esers! Of course you have the right to be ironical about the fact that our Central Committee called Plekhanov to order. You have the right to think that it is possible to respect, for example, a party that does not officially condemn the Cadet-loving of Mr. Gershuni. But why speak outright falsehood? Plekhanov was not a representative of the s.-d. party at the Stuttgart Congress; he was merely one of 33 delegates of it. And he represented not the views of the s.-d. party, but those of the present Menshevik opposition in relation to the s.-d. party and to its London decisions. The Esers cannot help knowing this, and thus they speak deliberate falsehood.

"In the commission examining the question of the interrelations of trade unions and the political party, he [Plekhanov] said literally the following: 'In Russia there are 11 revolutionary organizations; which of them should the trade unions enter into relations with?... The introduction of political disagreements into trade unions would be harmful in Russia.' Upon this all the commission members unanimously declared that the resolution of the congress should not be understood in this way, that they 'by no means impose upon trade unions and their members the obligation to be members of the s.-d. party,' that is, they, as indicated in the resolution, demand the 'complete independence' of them" (*Znamya Truda* in italics).

You are confusing matters, gentlemen of *Znamya Truda*! In the commission one Belgian comrade asked whether it was possible to oblige the members of trade unions to join the s.-d. party, and everyone answered that it was not possible. But, on the other hand, Plekhanov introduced an amendment into the resolution: "while it should not be overlooked that [there is] unity of the trade-union organization," and this amendment was adopted, but not unanimously (comrade Voinov, representing the views of the RSDLP, voted for the amendment and voted, in our opinion, correctly). That is how it was.

Social-democrats should never overlook the unity of trade-union organization. This is perfectly correct. But this applies also to the Esers, whom we invite to think about this "unity of trade-union organization" when it proclaims its close ties with the s.-d.! As for the idea of "imposing the obligation" on union members to enter the s.-d. party, no one ever thought of it: that merely seemed so to the Esers out of fear. But that the Stuttgart Congress forbade trade unions to declare their close ties with the social-democratic party or to realize such ties in practice and in life—that is a fairy tale.

"Russian s.-d.," writes *Znamya Truda*, "are conducting the most consistent and energetic campaign for the conquest of trade unions and their subordination to their party leadership. The Bolsheviks do this directly and openly… the Mensheviks have chosen a more roundabout path"… Correct, gentlemen Esers! In the name of the authority of the workers' International, you have the right to demand of us that we conduct this campaign tactfully, in a measured way, "not overlooking the unity of the trade-union organization." We are entirely willing to recognize this and demand the same recognition from you, but we shall not abandon the campaign!

But surely Plekhanov said it was harmful to introduce political disagreements into the unions… Yes, Plekhanov said this stupidity, and the gentlemen Esers naturally had to seize upon it, as they always seize upon everything least deserving imitation. But guidance should come not from Plekhanov's words, but from the congress resolution, the application of which is impossible without "introducing political disagreements." Here is a small example for you. The congress resolution says that trade unions should not be guided by "the theory of harmony of interests between labor and capital." We, s.-d., assert that the agrarian program, requiring in bourgeois society the equalization of land distribution, is constructed on the theory of harmony of interests between labor and capital{142}. We shall always speak out against splitting the unity of a strike, etc., on account of such a disagreement (or even on account of disagreement with monarchist workers), but we shall always "introduce this disagreement" into the workers' milieu generally, into all workers' unions in particular.

Plekhanov's reference to 11 parties is equally foolish. First, it is not only in Russia that there are different socialist parties. Second, in Russia there are only two socialist parties in any serious competition, the s.-d. and the S.-R., for it is quite absurd to lump the national parties together. Third, the question of unifying genuinely socialist parties is quite a separate question; in mixing it in, Plekhanov confuses the matter. We must always and everywhere defend the rapprochement of unions with the socialist party of the working class, but which party in this or that country, among this or that nationality, is genuinely socialist and genuinely the party of the working class—this is a separate question, and it is not decided by resolutions of international congresses, but by the course of struggle between national parties.

To what degree Plekhanov's reasoning on this question is erroneous is shown with particular clarity by his article in No. 12 of *Sovremenny Mir*{124} for 1907. On page 55, Plekhanov cites Lunacharsky's indication that German revisionists uphold the neutrality of unions. Plekhanov replies to this indication: "Revisionists say: unions must be neutral, but by this they mean: unions must be used for struggle against orthodox Marxism." And Plekhanov concludes: "The elimination of the neutrality of trade unions will not help anything here. If we even place unions in a close formal dependence on the party, and the 'ideology' of revisionists triumphs in the party, then the elimination of the neutrality of trade unions will be merely a new victory of the 'critics of Marx'."

This reasoning represents an example of the sort of maneuver so common in Plekhanov—to evade the question and gloss over the essence of the dispute. If the ideology of revisionists truly triumphs in the party, then it will not be a socialist party of the working class. The question is not at all about how such a party takes shape, what struggles and what splits occur in the process. The question is that in each capitalist country there exists a socialist party and unions, and our task is to define the fundamental relations between them. The class interests of the bourgeoisie inevitably generate the striving to limit unions to petty and narrow activity on the basis of the existing system, to distance them from any connection with socialism, and the theory of neutrality is the ideological cloak for these bourgeois strivings. Revisionists within the s.-d. parties will always find their way one way or another in capitalist society.

Of course, at the beginning of the political and trade-union workers' movement in Europe, it was possible to defend the neutrality of unions as a means of broadening the initial base of proletarian struggle in an epoch of its comparative underdevelopment and the absence of systematic bourgeois influence on the unions. At the present time, from the standpoint of international social-democracy, to defend the neutrality of unions is quite out of place. One can only smile reading Plekhanov's assurances that "Marx would now stand in Germany for the neutrality of unions," especially when such an argument is constructed on a one-sided interpretation of one "quotation" from Marx, while ignoring the totality of Marx's statements and the entire spirit of his teaching.

"I stand for neutrality, understood in the Bebel sense, not in the revisionist sense," writes Plekhanov. To speak thus—means to cross oneself with Bebel and yet still wade into the mire. There is no doubt, Bebel is such a major authority in the international workers' movement, such an experienced practical leader, such a socialist sensitive to the needs of revolutionary struggle, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred he himself has extricated himself from the mire when he happened to slip, and has pulled out those who wanted to follow him. Bebel was wrong both when in Breslau (in 1895) he defended together with Vollmar the agrarian program of the revisionists, and when he insisted (in Essen) on a principled distinction between defensive and offensive war, and when he was ready to elevate the "neutrality" of unions into a principle. We readily believe that if Plekhanov wades into the mire only together with Bebel, this will happen to him not often and not for long. But we nonetheless think that one should imitate Bebel not when Bebel is mistaken.

People say—and Plekhanov particularly insists on this—that neutrality is needed for uniting all workers who come to the thought that it is necessary to improve their material condition. But those who say this forget that the contemporary stage of development of class contradictions inevitably and necessarily introduces "political disagreements" even into the question of how such improvement should be achieved within the bounds of contemporary society. The theory of the neutrality of unions, in distinction from the theory of the necessity of close ties between them and revolutionary social-democracy, inevitably leads to a preference for such means of improvement as signify a blunting of the class struggle of the proletariat. An obvious example of this (connected, by the way, with the evaluation of one of the most interesting episodes of the newest workers' movement) is provided by the very same pamphlet of *Sovremenny Mir* in which Plekhanov defends neutrality. Alongside Plekhanov we see here Mr. E. P., extolling the well-known leader of English railway workers Richard Bell, who concluded the conflict of workers with company directors through compromise. Bell is proclaimed "the soul of the entire railway workers' movement." "There is no doubt," writes Mr. E. P., "that thanks to his calm, well-considered and measured tactics, Bell won the complete confidence of the association of railway employees, whose members are ready, without hesitation, to follow him everywhere" (p. 75, No. 12 of *Sovremenny Mir*). Such a viewpoint is connected, not by chance but by the nature of things, with neutralism, which places in the foreground the uniting of workers for the improvement of their condition, and not uniting for struggle capable of serving the cause of the liberation of the proletariat.

But this viewpoint does not at all correspond to the views of English socialists, who would surely be very surprised to learn that the praisers of Bell write, without encountering objections, in one journal with prominent Mensheviks like Plekhanov, Iordansky, and Co.

The English social-democratic newspaper *Justice*{125} in a leading article of November 16 wrote concerning Bell's agreement with the railway companies: "We fully agree with the almost universal trade-unionist condemnation of this so-called peaceful treaty"… "it completely destroys the very meaning of the existence of a trade union"… "This absurd agreement… cannot bind the workers, and they will do well if they reject it." And in the following issue, of November 23, Burnet wrote about this agreement in an article entitled "Sold Again!": "Three weeks ago the United Society of Railway Employees was one of the most powerful trade unions in England; now it has been reduced to the level of a mutual-aid society." "And this change did not come about because the railway workers fought and suffered defeat, but because their leaders, either deliberately or out of stupidity, sold them to the capitalists before the struggle." And the editorial board of the newspaper adds that a similar letter was sent to it by one "hired worker of the Midland Railway Company."

But perhaps this is an "excess" of the "too revolutionary" esdeky? No. The organ of the moderate party, the "Independent Labour Party" (I.L.P.), which does not even want to call itself socialist, *Labour Leader*{126} of November 15 printed a letter from a railway trade-unionist stating in response to the praises lavished on Bell by the whole capitalist press (beginning with the radical *Reynolds' Newspaper*{127} and ending with the conservative *Times*{128}) that the agreement he had carried through was "the most contemptible ever in the history of trade unionism," and calling Richard Bell "the Marshal Bazaine of the trade-unionist movement." Alongside this, another railway worker demands "calling Bell to account" for this unlucky agreement, which has "sentenced the workers to seven years of hard labor." And the editorial board of the moderate organ in the leading article of that same issue calls the agreement "the Sedan of British trade-unionist movement." "Never has there been such a convenient opportunity to demonstrate on a national scale the power of organized labor," the workers were seized by "unprecedented enthusiasm" and the desire to struggle. The article concludes with a bitter comparison of workers' need and the triumph of "Mr. Lloyd George (the minister who played the role of lackey of the capitalists) and Mr. Bell, preparing banquets."

Only the most extreme opportunists, the Fabians, a purely intellectual organization, approved this agreement, causing thereby a blush of shame even in a journal favorable to the Fabians, *The New Age*{129}, which was forced to admit that while the bourgeois-conservative *Times* completely reprinted the corresponding statement of the central committee of the Fabians, yet, besides these gentlemen, "not a single socialist organization, not a single trade union, not a single prominent workers' leader" (p. 101, issue of December 7) expressed themselves in favor of the agreement.

Here you have an example of the application of neutrality by Plekhanov's collaborator, Mr. E. P. The question concerned not "political disagreements," but the improvement of workers' conditions in a given society. For "improvement" at the price of refusing struggle and surrender to the mercy of capital, all the bourgeoisie of England spoke, the Fabians and Mr. E. P.; for collective struggle of workers—all socialists and working trade-unionists. And Plekhanov will continue now to preach "neutrality" rather than close rapprochement of unions with the socialist party?

*Proletarii* No. 22, (March 3) February 19, 1908.

Printed according to the text of the newspaper *Proletarii*