Is Comrade Trotsky's pamphlet "The Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions" a fractional manifestation? Is there something inherently dangerous to the Party in such a manifestation, regardless of its content? This question is particularly loved (except, of course, by Comrade Trotsky himself) by members of the Moscow Committee who discern the fractionalism of the Petrograd comrades, and by Comrade Bukharin, who, however, speaking on December 30, 1920 on behalf of the "buffer faction," felt compelled to declare:

"…when a train has some inclination toward suffering a wreck, then buffers are no longer such a bad thing" (p. 45 of the report on the discussion of December 30, 1920).

So, some inclination toward a wreck does exist. What then? Is it conceivable that there could be such conscious Party members who are unconcerned about the question of where precisely, in what precisely, how precisely this inclination began?

Trotsky's pamphlet opens with the declaration that "it is the fruit of collective work"; that "a whole series of responsible workers took part in its composition, especially trade unionists (members of the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions presidium, the Metalworkers' Central Committee, the Transport Central Committee, etc.)"; that this is "a platform-pamphlet." And at the end of thesis No. 4 we read that "the forthcoming Party Congress will have to choose (italics are Trotsky's) between two tendencies in the sphere of the trade union movement."

If this is not the formation of a faction by one member of the Central Committee, if this is not "some inclination toward a wreck," then let Comrade Bukharin or any of his like-minded comrades try to explain to the Party what other meaning the Russian words "fractionalism" and "inclination toward a wreck" of the Party could possibly have!! Can one imagine a more monstrous blindness than this blindness of people who wish to "buffer" and who close their eyes to such an "inclination toward a wreck"??

Consider this only: after two plenums of the Central Committee (November 9 and December 7), devoted to an extraordinarily detailed, protracted, heated discussion of the initial draft of Comrade Trotsky's theses and the entire policy of the Party in the trade unions defended by him, one member of the Central Committee, remaining one of 19, assembles for himself a group outside the Central Committee and with the "collective" "labor" of this group comes forward as with a "platform," proposing the Party Congress to "choose between two tendencies"!! I am not even speaking of the fact that this proclamation by Comrade Trotsky of precisely two and only two tendencies on December 25, 1920, although Bukharin had already come forward as a "buffer-man" on November 9, vividly exposes the true role of Bukharin's group as an accomplice in the worst and most harmful fractionalism. This in passing. But I ask any Party member: does not such a thrust and assault upon the "choice" between two tendencies in the sphere of the trade union movement strike one with its dizzying audacity? Does it not simply leave one speechless if, after three years of the proletarian dictatorship, there could be found even one member of it capable of "hurling itself" upon the question of two tendencies in the sphere of the trade union movement in such a manner?

What is more. Look at the fractional sallies with which this pamphlet is bedecked. In the very first thesis we read a menacing "thrust" against "certain workers of the trade union movement," being driven "backward to trade-unionist positions, long since principally liquidated by the Party" (obviously only one member of the Central Committee out of 19 represents the Party). In thesis 8, "trade union conservatism in the leading stratum of trade union workers" is condemned in grandiose language (note that this is a truly bureaucratic direction of attention to the "leading stratum"!). In thesis 11, at the beginning, there is a wonderfully tactful, evidential, business-like… how should one put it more politely?…, "hint" that "the majority of trade unionists" "formally, i.e., in words recognize" the resolutions of the Ninth Congress of the RCP.

Here before us are what authoritative judges of the fact that the majority (!!) of trade unionists recognize Party decisions in words alone!

In thesis 12:

"…many trade unionists are increasingly and irreconcilably coming out against the prospect of fusion… Among these trade unionists we find comrades Tomsky and Lozovsky. What is more. Fending off new tasks and methods, many trade unionists are developing in their midst a spirit of corporate narrowness, animosity toward new workers drawn into this sphere of the economy, and thus are actually sustaining survivals of guild separatism among the professionally organized workers."

Let the reader carefully reread these arguments and give them proper thought. The abundance of "pearls" here is striking. First, evaluate this manifestation from the standpoint of its fractionalism! Imagine what Trotsky would have said and how he would have come forward if Tomsky had published a platform, accusing Trotsky and "many" military workers of cultivating the spirit of bureaucratism, support for survivals of savagery, etc.? What is the "role" of Bukharin, Preobrazhensky, Serebryakov and others, who do not see – directly do not notice, do not notice at all – the sharpness and fractionalism here, who do not see by how many times this is more fractional than the manifestation of the Petrograd comrades?

Second. Examine this approach to the matter: many trade unionists "are developing in their midst a spirit"… An approach thoroughly bureaucratic. The whole matter, you see, consists in what kind of "spirit" Tomsky and Lozovsky are developing "in their midst," and not at all in the level of development and conditions of life of the masses, of millions.

Third. Inadvertently Comrade Trotsky expressed here the very essence of the entire dispute, so carefully avoided and obscured by both him and the "buffer" Bukharin and Company.

Is the essence of the entire dispute and the source of the struggle that many trade unionists are fending off new tasks and methods, developing in their midst a spirit of animosity toward new workers?

Or is it that the masses of professionally organized workers are rightfully protesting and inevitably expressing readiness to cast out those new workers who do not wish to correct unnecessary and harmful excesses of bureaucratism?

Is the essence of the dispute that someone does not wish to understand "new tasks and methods"?

Or is it that someone is unsuccessfully covering up the defense of certain unnecessary and harmful excesses of bureaucratism with verbiage about new tasks and methods?

Let the reader remember this essence of the entire dispute.