A fantastically informative look at the situation among the unions in the lead-up to the ‘German October’ by Fritz Heckert.

‘Revolutionary Unionism in Germany’ by Fritz Heckert from Labor Herald. Vol. 2 No. 9. November, 1923.

SYSTEMATIC work towards revolutionizing the German trade union movement is of recent growth. Before the war, a little was done in this direction, but it was planless. Only at the end of the year 1919 did we come to fully appreciate the importance of the trade unions in the revolutionary movement. The way to go at the task was only slowly worked out. For a long time there was much doubt whether the attempt to conquer the trade unions for revolutionary principles and tactics was not an effort to accomplish the impossible. But finally, through the many defeats of the German workers, caused by the betrayal of the reformist trade union leaders, we came to understand that the unions had to be conquered if the victory of the revolution was to be achieved. But still it was a long while before a uniform conception developed as to how this could be done. Even now, some mistakes are made and hinder systematic progress. And so it is in all countries, so it is in all groups which acknowledge the Red International of Labor Unions. At the session of the Enlarged Executive of the R.I.L.U. in June of this year, the principle of winning the trade unions was strongly endorsed, the experiences of many countries, particularly Germany, being cited in support of it.

Election to Metal Workers’ Convention

The Metal Workers’ Union is the largest labor organization in the world, with 1,600,000 members. Including almost one-fourth of all members in the German Federation of Trade Unions and comprising a very intelligent body of workers, it is a most important factor for the German revolution. No wonder that the reformists use every effort to hold this union fast and do all possible to defeat the revolutionists, who also realize the importance of the union and do all they can to win it for their cause. In September, the Convention of the Metal Workers took place. This gathering decided not only the policy of the Metal Workers for two years, but also, to a great extent, that of other organizations. If the revolutionary opposition could carry the Metal Workers’ Union, that meant a turning point in the whole German labor movement. This opinion prevailed in the elections. Both sides, the revolutionary minority and the bureaucratic machine, made the utmost efforts to elect delegates.

At present writing the full results of the election are not yet in. Of 402 mandates, however, the Communists have won 145 while the reformists got 247. The Communists have not captured the majority, but a greater number of votes were cast for their candidates than for the 247 of the reformists. This is made clear by the election method. There is no proportional election. In several ways the intrenched majority have the best of it. In many places the reformists, despite small majorities, captured the whole delegation. The election showed, however, that in those centers where the Communists were victorious they had heavy majorities over the reformists. In Berlin the Communist ticket got 54,000 votes as against 22,000 for the reformists. In Aue, 4,700 revolutionaries against 1,200 reformists. In Essen, the same condition prevailed. On the other hand, the reformists in Chemnitz got 10 delegates with only 8,500 against 7.900, in Dresden 12 delegates with 10,300 against 7.500, and in Leipzig 9 delegates with 8,200 against 7,600. The general result shows that the Communists cast a majority of votes and received a minority of delegates.

The reformists tried to make this into a big victory for Amsterdam over Moscow. But the capitalists see quite clearly the tremendous growth of revolutionary influence and say “that the day is not far off when the German Metal Workers’ Union will fall into the hands of the Communists.” An important feature was that whereas in previous elections only a small section of the workers took part in the elections, this time an extra-ordinarily large figure was reached. Formerly, if 10% of the members participated in the election it was considered a good average. But now, 40%, 50%, 60%, and even 70% participated. In many places the elections took on the character of parliamentary elections, big meetings being held and every effort made to bring out the voters.

The election would have had a much more favorable outcome for the Communists had the latter had a better organization, as compared to the established machine of the reformists. With equal conditions prevailing in this respect, the reformists would have suffered an overwhelming defeat. Another disadvantage was that in many centers numbers of metal workers are no longer members of the union, because they have organized in separate unions, believing they can thus fight better for the revolution.

Although the reformists have the majority, still they will have no opportunity to push through their reactionary policies. No longer can they change the Union laws in their favor, since they lack the necessary two-thirds of the delegates. They will be compelled to make concessions to the opposition. The election law, which this time worked out to the disadvantage of the revolutionary members, will, the next time, reduce the influence of the reformists to nothing, because it will turn the preponderance of the revolutionary votes overwhelmingly against the reformists. The proportional election system, which we have long fought for and which brings democracy into the union, the reformists can no longer oppose, but must champion unless they are to be defeated altogether.

Election to Textile Workers’ Convention

If the bourgeoisie were disturbed at the election in the Metal Workers’ Union, they were horrified by that among the Textile Workers. They expected that the Metal Workers’ would show a radical result, but they considered these workers an exception. But now there is the result of the Textile Workers’ Convention election. And Stinnes’ organ, the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, says, “The Textile Workers’ Union has been conquered by the Communists with a crushing majority.” Then follow alarm cries- That paper believes that all will be lost unless repressive measures are taken against the Communists at once. The faith in reformism as a dam against the revolutionary flood has collapsed.

We have not as yet definite results about the entire election. The Textile Workers’ election is more overwhelming than in the Metal Workers’ Union. Moreover, in that organization we had a much weaker revolutionary apparatus and were not in position to carry on so great and widespread an election propaganda as among the Metal Workers. Which makes the result all the more surprising. In this union, as in the Metal Workers, great numbers took part in the election. The reformist leaders realized early that the votes of the workers would be unfavorable to the officials of the organization. Therefore, they got most of their candidates out of the shops in order to create a better situation for themselves. But this helped them in only a few cases. Wherever the Communists nominated candidates they were elected by overwhelming majorities. There are places in which the revolutionary majority was five times or more as great as the reformist minority. Especially crushing were the defeats for a number of union officials, which, in many places, often received 5% or less of the total number of votes cast. The weakness of the revolutionary fractions in a number of textile centers made it impossible for these to nominate candidates or to carry on propaganda. Only this fact will give the administration of the Textile Union the possibility of still being able to control a small majority, but not the possibility to use this majority to the continuation of their contemptible anti-Communist campaign.

The Factory Councils

Do the elections in the Metal and Textile Unions merely indicate that the revolutionists have succeeded in these organizations because of exceptional conditions? We answer a vigorous “No.” This is proved by a third example, the factory councils as leaders in the general strike movement.

Several times the factory councils in Germany have tried to organize the will of the workers for a common struggle and against the will of the trade union bureaucracy. Until now all these efforts have failed. Always the bureaucrats have sought to choke the factory councils and to stop their movement. According to them, the factory councils were only tools in the hands of the Communists wherewith to throw the workers into misery. Unfortunately, the bureaucracy, in this respect, were almost completely successful, including the last time in the Fall of 1922, to sabotage the factory council movement, and to condemn the factory council congress as a wild attempt to organize a Communist putsch. The bureaucracy followed up these attacks by having the employers discipline the workers, especially the revolutionary militants. It appeared as if the trade union bureaucrats would succeed permanently in isolating the revolutionary advance guard from the working masses.

But the great strike movement, which began on Friday, August 10th, ended with a complete bankruptcy of the reformist tactic. Then the Amsterdam bureaucrats saw their following desert them wholesale. They tried to find one consolation, that the Communists could not get control of the masses. They said, “We know that we no longer have the masses in hand. We know that this movement has escaped our control. But we also know that you Communists have been shoved on one side just as we have been and that Syndicalistic and Kappistic elements have become the leaders of the masses in this wild and senseless movement. But before one week has passed, we will, see that you” Communists are not only settled but also that the movement ends in a blind alley. Then our hour will come, then the masses will realize that we were right and that you Communists, once again in a most difficult hour, have criminally betrayed the working people.” Upon our demands that the reformist leaders should place themselves at the head of the movement for the overthrow of the Cuno government and the accomplishment of an existence minimum for the working class, instead of deserting the workers as they were, they answered only with insulting attacks. 

In spite of the monster difficulties which we encountered, we did not become discouraged in the least by the attitude of the reformists. Determinedly we set ourselves at the head of the movement, giving it voice and expression. In one gigantic meeting of 12,000 factory councils of greater Berlin, of which at last one-half were Social-Democrats, the spontaneous movement was organized and placed under the control of a central strike committee. The bureaucracy were so overwhelmed by the growth of the movement and by the submission of the fighting masses of workers to the direction of this central strike committee, that they abandoned the effort to save the Cuno government. They sought to save what they could. Cuno fell, and with him the Minister of Transport, General Groener, the man who in the great January strike of 1918 called the striking workers “dog food,” and whom not even the storm waves of the revolution could drive from his office. The economic demands of the workers were no longer repudiated with contempt, but great concessions were made. This first success of the mass movement made it possible once again for the bureaucracy to pull the most backward elements of the workers away from the fighting front. Seeing the danger, and in order to preserve the unity of the workers for future struggles, and to make it impossible for the reformist bureaucracy to bring about further division in the ranks of the workers, the central strike committee called off the strike. In this respect must be noted the great confidence which the revolutionary functionaries of the German proletariat have won in the struggle under the leadership of the Communist Party.

Again 13,000 factory councils gathered. Raging with anger, they condemned the new treason of the trade union bureaucracy. But they endorsed unanimously the proposals of the strike committee. Only a few votes were cast against its dissolution. In earlier movements, each time the betrayed workers answered by tearing up their trade union books and by deserting their organizations, because the deceived workers, after such struggles, lent willing ears to the promises of dual organizations, which finally got the blame for the destroyed trade unions. In this movement, nothing of the kind took place. The preachers of dual unions were this time simply silenced and the slogan of the strike commission, to save the trade unions from the hands of the reformist bureaucracy and to strengthen them for better struggles against the employing class, was adopted without opposition.

Already in many parts of the country, in which the workers carried on the fight, the news comes that a big increase in the trade union membership has taken place. In this, however, the reformist bureaucracy finds no pleasure, for out of millions of throats comes the cry, “Clean the trades unions of all treasonable functionaries.” The German workers are determined to win their trade unions for the revolutionary struggle. And they will prove that the way which the Red International of Labor Unions recommends to its followers is not only possible but leads quicker to the end sought than the boldest dared believe.

The Labor Herald was the monthly publication of the Trade Union Educational League (TUEL), in immensely important link between the IWW of the 1910s and the CIO of the 1930s. It was begun by veteran labor organizer and Communist leader William Z. Foster in 1920 as an attempt to unite militants within various unions while continuing the industrial unionism tradition of the IWW, though it was opposed to “dual unionism” and favored the formation of a Labor Party. Although it would become financially supported by the Communist International and Communist Party of America, it remained autonomous, was a network and not a membership organization, and included many radicals outside the Communist Party. In 1924 Labor Herald was folded into Workers Monthly, an explicitly Party organ and in 1927 ‘Labor Unity’ became the organ of a now CP dominated TUEL. In 1929 and the turn towards Red Unions in the Third Period, TUEL was wound up and replaced by the Trade Union Unity League, a section of the Red International of Labor Unions (Profitern) and continued to publish Labor Unity until 1935. Labor Herald remains an important labor-orientated journal by revolutionaries in US left history and would be referenced by activists, along with TUEL, along after it’s heyday.

PDF of full issue: https://www.marxists.org/history/usa/pubs/laborherald/v2n09-nov-1923.pdf