A dossier of four ‘New Militant’ articles covering the struggle to resist the expulsion of reds and radicals from New York City’s militant Local 5 of American Federation Teachers under the new liberal LaGuardia administration; ‘Progressives Unite to Fight Expulsion in Teachers Union,’ ‘Background of Fight by Militants in Teachers’ Union for Real Democracy,’ ‘The Role and Position of the Various Groups in the Struggle Occurring in the Teachers Union,’ and an analysis from A. J. Muste, ‘The A.F. of L. and the Teachers Union.’

‘Progressives Unite to Fight Expulsion in Teachers’ Union ‘from New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 26. June 15, 1935.

Split Threatens as Right Wing Socialist Administration Moves to Comply with Green’s Demand for Red Hunt

The Teachers Union of New York City, Local 5 of the American Federation of Teachers, is now facing the most serious crisis in its history, with the panic-stricken right wing Socialist leadership driving full speed ahead for the expulsion of a large, growing left wing movement.

Two weeks ago, by a vote of 14 to 9 in the Executive Board the Administration put through a motion calling upon the Executive Council of the national organization to investigate the local. The investigating committee, consisting of the president, the secretary-treasurer and the legislative representative of the national body, conducted its hearings in New York on June 8 and 9.

Second Expulsion Attempt

This is the second attempt in recent years on the part of the Administration to answer the challenge of the left wing, which for years has been fighting its backward policies and bureaucratic practices, by expulsion.

In 1932, it appointed a Grievance Committee headed by Professor John Dewey to consider expulsion charges against five left wing leaders. The proposal of the Committee to expel was defeated; so was a subsequent proposal to suspend. The Administration then “compromised.” It pushed through a constitutional amendment abolishing membership meetings with the power to decide policy! A Delegate’ Assembly, roughly corresponding to a shop chairmen’s body, was instituted to replace the membership meetings.

The opposition forces, adapting themselves to the new situation, made steady progress: At recent Delegate Assembly meetings it defeated the Administration on a number of crucial questions. In the elections just held for members of the Executive Board and for officers, it gained over 40 percent of the total vote.

New Frame-up

The investigation is a clear frame-up of the left wing. The administration is climaxing a series of flagrant abuses of democratic practice by attempting to pin a red label on the opposition and kicking it out. Rallying against this policy of split, the left wing groups formed a united front, the first since the 1932 expulsion drive. A mass meeting to protest the investigation, attended by nearly one thousand union members, was held on June 7. At the last Delegate Assembly meeting on June 12, the vote on the question of the investigation was announced as 80 for to 77 against. The demand for a recount was ignored by the chairman, and the meeting was hastily adjourned.

The situation at this writing is extremely tense. The investigating committee, having completed its bearings, will make its recommendations in August, after the national convention. In the meanwhile, the united front is continuing its fight, the success of which depends upon its ability to solidify a program extending further than the mere plank against expulsion.

‘Reveal Background of Fight by Militants in Teachers’ Union for Real Democracy’ from New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 30. July 20, 1935.

In 1931 and 1932 the Administration’s tactic was to concentrate the policy making power of the Union into the hands of the Executive Board by proposing constitutional amendments requiring a two-thirds majority at a membership meeting as necessary to override decisions of the Board. After this move had failed the Administration threw the organization into turmoil by preferring charges of expulsion against thirty-two leading members of the minority. Under pressure of protests by the members the number was reduced to five. Finally a packed grievance committee, headed by Prof. John Dewey was elected to hear the charges. The Dewey Committee brought in a report condemning the existence of minority groups and recommending the suspension of the five members for a period of one year. The suspension was voted down by the membership meeting in April 1933.

Although the administration was defeated in this matter it made an undemocratic use of its majority to force through an amendment to the constitution depriving the member. ship meeting of the power to determine the policies of the union. This was done at the end of a six-hour meeting called to act upon the report of the Dewey Committee and after a considerable part of the membership had left the meeting.

In place of the membership meeting a Delegate Assembly was set up composed of representatives of Union groups in the schools. This measure would have been a step forward for the Union if combined with the continuation of member-hip meetings, but carried out after the abolition of membership meetings it became a bureaucratic distortion of democratic procedure.

Placed Hopes on LaGuardia

The administration likewise revealed its hand in the struggle of the Union with the La Guardia administration over the question of a furlough for teachers (temporary salary cut.) In this struggle Dr. Lefkowitz admitted that the administration had placed its confidence in the pre-election promises of La Guardia not to cut teachers’ salaries and had supported him in the campaign on the basis of that promise. When LaGuardia, yielding to the pressure of the bankers and real estate interests broke his promise, the Administration expressed its amazement. When it had recovered from its amazement it proceeded to defend the politician of the broken promises by pointing to the financial difficulties which the newly-elected Mayor had inherited from the previous Tammany regime.

The result of the Administration’s course was to strengthen the opposition. Its expulsion on proceedings, its anti-democratic measures, its position in the salary fights, its opposition to mass action which even Wall St. brokers were using, its tall ending of the Joint Committee of Teachers Organizations, Its undercover support of the La Guardia Administration, its frequent resort to red baiting while posing as a radical leadership, its failure to give timely and adequate defense to victimized teachers like Blumberg, Begun and Burroughs, its fraternization with 59th St.-all these actions caused it to lose its own supporters en masse to the opposition. In addition, a process of radicalization due to the economic crisis was taking place among teachers. Teachers who had been known for their conservative or liberal views became militant and radical as the crisis continued with- out abatement. An influx of new members from the ranks of the regular and substitute teachers only added new recruits to the ranks of the opposition.

The Green Anti-Red Campaign

In the winter of 1935 the Administration began to realize that the anti-democratic measures of 1933 (abolition of membership meetings) had not solved the question of securing a stable majority for itself for even the Delegate Assembly was not always safe. It now realized that it had only postponed its inevitable defeat for a few years. It decided to renew its campaign to destroy the opposition by extra-legal measures. The pretext was furnished by a letter which William Green, President of the A.F. of L. had sent to all local unions demanding the expulsion of communists. The Delegate Assembly, controlled by the Administration, and against its opposition, replied to Green by repudiating his demand and defending the right of all teachers to Union membership regardless of political views or affiliations. Green, continuing his letter campaign called the Teachers Union a communist organization which had no proper place in the A.F. of L. At this juncture the President of the Union, Dr. Linville, proceeded to save the Union’s reputation from the charge of “communism.”

In a series of letters to the membership, and without permission from the Delegate Assembly be attacked that body for upholding the right of union members to hold political opinions of their own choosing. He also rehashed the charges of the Dewey Committee concerning the alleged political affiliations of the minority groups. It must be emphasized, that such charges, regardless of their truth or untruth, have a sinister, red-baiting character, because they place in jeopardy the jobs of those teachers who support the opposition.

Neglect Costly in Elections

Timed with the issuance of the Linville letters came the announcement of the organization of the “Organized Union Majority” headed by Linville and Lefkowitz. This was the first time that the Administration appeared before the Union) as an organized group. The leaders of the Rank and File and the Progressive Groups failed to estimate correctly the appearance of this group. They turned down the proposal of the Committee for Democracy in the Union to form a united front to combat the Organized Union Majority and to conduct a campaign for the restoration of democratic membership rights in the Union. This action of the two minority groups proved very costly for in the election platform the main plank of the Organized Union Majority was the demand for the suppression of the minority groups and foreshadowed the present investigation. In the elections for officers and members of the Executive Board the Administration candidates polled less than 60 percent of the vote while the opposition polled more than 40 percent, despite the fact that over 200 applications for membership had been purposely. held up in order to prevent these! members from voting, it is believed, for the opposition candidates. When it is recalled that in the elections of 1930, the Administration polled between 85 percent and 20 percent of the vote, it becomes clear why the Administration has moved its steam-roller at such a rapid pace. The hand writing of its future defeat was on the wall.

‘The Role and Position of the Various Groups in the Struggle Occurring in the Teachers Union’ from New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 32. August 3, 1935.

In 1928, a small group of Union teachers organized the Progressive Group based upon a program designed to make the Union a more effective force among the teachers. The Union then had within its ranks less than 1,000 members out of a teaching body of over 30,000 and was making little progress in: organizing them. Two years later certain sections of the left wing within the general labor movement adopted a policy of seeking to build a new national trade union center in opposition to the A.F. of L. The influence of this policy was 8000 reflected within the ranks of the Progressives, which resulted, in a split into two groups, one retaining the name of the group and the other group representing this new influence adopting the name of Rank and File.

The Progressive Group

The Progressive Group based its policies on building the Union as the sole economic organization of the teachers and was opposed to all independent activity outside the Union. Although it has been in opposition to the Administration and fights it on many issues on the floor of the Union, it does not seek to oust the Administration from the leadership–it seeks to reform it in a progressive direction. It takes the position that at present the Administration is much to the left of the great mass of teachers–hence, what is needed is not a new leadership but a reform of the policies of the present one.

Bertram D. Wolfe, one of the leaders of this group, declared at one of its meetings that it would be disastrous to the Union or the present Administration to be replaced by a left wing leadership because the latter would be so much out of touch with the point of view of the majority of the teachers as to cause a collapse of the Union and the ruin of many years of hard work in building the organization. Ben Davidson, the chief of the Progressives, declared that if Dr. Lefkowitz should resign as legislative representative of the Union, he believed it would go to pieces. With this defeatist point of view as its guiding line,. It becomes clear why the Progressives did not put out a full election slate until 1933, offering until then no candidates in opposition to Lefkowitz and Linville. It also becomes clear why the Progressives centered their main attack during this period upon the Rank and File for its dual-unionist policies, and not upon the Administration, thus giving the latter fuel for its attack upon the entire opposition. That is why the belief has existed among many teachers that the Progressives are simply a pseudo-opposition.

After the formation of the Unemployed Teachers Association in the spring of 1931, upon the initiative of the Rank and File, the Progressives, in the fall of the same year, sponsored the organization of the Association of Unappointed Teachers as a rival organization of unemployed teachers thus splitting the movement at the very out, set. This policy it has maintained until the present despite the fact that there does not exist any legitimate reason for two organizations in this field.

The leaders of the Progressives–Davidson, Wolfe and Wittes–solemnly promised that as soon as the Rank and File Group abandoned its dual unionistic position. liquidated its Classroom Teacher Groups, etc., it would propose a merger of the Progressive Group and the Rank and File and other opposition groups. In this event it further promised to merge the Association of Unappointed Teachers with the Unemployed Teachers Association and strive for the eventual entry. of both into the Teachers Union. Despite the fact that the Rank and File has changed its policies in this respect despite the dissolution of the Classroom Teachers Groups–the Progressives leader refuse to carry out their promises and bide their opposition to the long overdue merger under various untenable pretexts.

Policies of Rank and File Group

The Rank and File group, as stated above, came into existence as a result of the movement, during 1929 to 1934, for the building of a new national trade-union center, and as a result of a split within the Progressive Group. The Rank and File is officially allied to the “Rank and File” movements in other A.F. of L. unions, such as the A.F. of L. Committee for Unemployment Insurance. Its official organ is “The A.F. of L. Rank and Filer”). The Rank and File, under the leadership of Isadore Begun, originally took the position that it was hopeless to seek to reform the union and have it adopt and carry out a progressive or militant program.

In accordance with this orientation, it initiated the organization of the Committee to Protect Salaries (1931) ostensibly for the purpose of organizing school salary committees to fight the then proposed salary cuts, but actually for the purpose of laying the basis for a rival organization to the Teachers Union.

After this attempt had failed, it initiated and organized the Classroom Teachers Groups on a similar anti-Union basis and used this organization as a means of attacking the Union from the outside. Attempts by members of the Rank and File to correct this policy proved of no avail; they were simply dropped from the group, received no notices, were refused the floor, etc.

Similarly, the Rank and File undertook the organization of the Unemployed Teachers Association in 1931, which was a correct move In itself due to the refusal of the Administration to organize or permit the organization of the unemployed teachers under its auspices. But the Rank and File leadership (Begun, Citron, Levine) misused their influence within the U.T.A. to lead it into anti-Union channels. Within the U.T.A. & struggle was carried on by a group of leading members to correct this false course. The result was the same as in the Rank and File: the opposition was removed from the Executive Board and ostracized within the organization.

The leadership of the Rank and File proved in action that in addition to steering a dual unionist course, it could outdo the Lefkowitz-Linville faction in using the same bureaucratic and anti-democratic measures against those who disagreed with them in their own organization. Through these destructive activities the Rank and File leadership played into the hands of the Administration which used their tactics as arguments to confuse the membership and to prevent the adoption of mass action policies by the Union.

A Bankrupt Maneuver

After the liquidation of such dual organizations as the National Miners Union, the National Textile Workers, the Needle Trades Workers Industrial Union, etc., the policy of the Rank and File also was changed. At first it proposed a united front of the Classroom Teachers Groups with the Teachers Union (June, 1934). When this maneuver failed, it proposed that the Teachers Union call a conference of all teachers’ organizations for the purpose of uniting, although the Rank and File leaders knew perfectly well that the only organization that would respond to such a call would be its own controlled Classroom Teachers Groups. This maneuver was designed to cover the bankruptcy of its own policy and to act as a face-saving device while a change of policy was being effected, likewise failed. The Rank and File leaders were compelled to order the liquidation of the Class- room Teachers Groups, thus substantiating the charge that its intent was to create a rival to displace the Teachers Union.

In spite of its false policies, the strength of the Rank and File has increased considerably during the past year, a contradiction which not only does not justify its past anti-Union course, but serves to emphasize how much greater its strength might have been had it followed a pro-Union course. In the last few months of the school year it strove feverishly to bring in as many members as possible into the Union from among its followers which it had previously kept from joining the Union. But the Administration made good use of the Rank and File’s previous blunders to win in the elections of 1935. This soon made it possible for the Lefkowitz-Lenville faction to block the rapid growth of the opposition by closing the books of the Union against the entrance of new members.

The Committee for Democracy

Because the leaders of the Rank and File refused to reform their policies in a pro-Union direction, because they refused to organize a broad and non-factional united front movement together with the Progressives and other independent elements to restore democracy in the Union, because they resorted to expulsion and ostracism against those of its members who advocated these changes–the Committee for Democracy in the Union came into existence. Dissatisfied members of the Progressive Group and independent members likewise joined the committee. The aim was not to create a third opposition group with a complete trade union program but to develop a non-partisan movement to restore the democratic rights of the membership to determine the policies of the Union.

The program of the Committee consists of the following:

1) The restoration by constitutional amendment of the right of the membership to determine the ‘basic policies of the union.

2) The democratization of the Delegate Assembly, which will then constitute the working body of the Union between membership meetings.

3) The admission into the Union, with full membership rights and at nominal dues, of unemployed and unappointed teachers of the city.

4) Reduction of dues to facilitate an organizational campaign to make possible the drawing into the Union of the great mass of teachers who are still outside it. The Committee for Democracy in the Union, in the brief period of its existence (Nov. 1934) engaged in a remarkable amount of constructive activity in a hostile atmosphere created by a highly factionalized situation. In this brief period it issued a program for the democratization of the Union. Six bulletins explaining this program were issued to the membership. It sounded the alarm and called for united front when the Organized Union Majority was organized and when Dr. Linville sent out his unauthorized letters to the membership attacking the right of minority groups to exist in the Union. Predicting that these moves were preliminary to the renewal of the Administration’s campaign to crush the opposition groups by ousting them from the Union, the Committee pointed out the dangers and appealed to the Rank and File and to the Progressive Group to form a united front with it on a limited program of restoring and extending democracy (Nov. 1934). Both of these groups refused to heed the appeal, each denying that an immediate danger of expulsion existed and each setting forth ultimatistic demands which made a united front impossible. They were soon to learn how costly their blunder would prove.

‘The A.F. of L. and the Teachers Union’ by A.J. Muste from New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 40. September 28, 1935.

The rejection by the recent Cleveland convention of the American Federation of Teachers of William Green’s demand that Local 5, New York, be “reorganized” in order to (make it possible for the Linville-Lefkowitz faction in the Local to get rid of the opposition, must be considered as a part of the larger movement of insurgency within the A.F. of L. Recently there have been numerous and weighty instances of the insurgent spirit in Minneapolis Local 574 of the Teamsters has had its charter lifted by Tobin, the czar of the Teamsters’ International, and one of the dominant figures in the A.F. of L. machine, and has to battle in addition a combination of local trade union bureaucrats, Farmer-Labor politicians and Chamber of Commerce. Nevertheless Local 574 has not only been able to stand up under this attack but has organized new groups of transportation employees, has been the leading factor in a series of militant strikes and the mainspring of a widespread progressive movement in Minnesota and adjoining states.

Forcing Dillon on Auto Workers

A few weeks ago the federal automobile locals met in convention in Detroit for the purpose of establishing an International union under an A.F. of L. charter. At the beginning of the convention Green in person laid down an ultimatum to the effect that the delegates must accept Francis J. Dillon, who as head of the A.F. of L. work in automobiles had consistently sabotaged an effective organization campaign and betrayed the General Motors strike last May, as the president of the organization at least for the first year. They were also informed that the jurisdiction of their international would not cover the skilled craftsmen in the industry; in other words, that their demand for a genuine industrial union could not be granted.

Although in the main the delegates to this convention had not come from the progressive slates in the federal unions, they promptly rejected by a decisive majority the demand that they accept Dillon as the first president of their union. Notably, the Toledo delegates, who bad been elected as conservatives in their local union, voted unanimously against Dillon.

Despite this clear and to nearly everybody unexpected expression of rank and file revolt, Green felt strong enough in this case to impose Dillon in the teeth of the rejection of the delegates. Nevertheless, the action was a real blow to his prestige and a clear indication that among the members is profound distrust of the A.F. of L. bureaucracy, a spirit of independence and a strong demand for trade union democracy.

Teacher’s Convention

Somewhat later in the same week the struggle in the American Federation of Teachers convention came to a head. Doubtful of being able to put over their reorganization of Local 1 proposal on the delegates, Linville, Lefkowitz, Borchard and other reactionaries appealed to Green. Having the habit of issuing decrees and on every occasion whacking “Communists” over the head, Green sent a strong message to the Teachers. They must get rid of “Communist” influence, and to reorganize Local 5 and kick out the opposition was the one way to make their union safe for Americanism and “true trade union principles.”

There has been a reluctance, natural enough in a way, in the A.F. of T. as a small international, depending largely upon A.F. of L. support in state legislatures for advancing the interests of the teachers, to alienate the A.F. of L. leadership. But we are living in a new economic era and Bill Green is not Sam Gompers. The teachers by a decisive majority rejected Green’s demand. Whereupon the reactionary minority walked out of the convention, clearly revealing themselves and all such bureaucrats as Green as splitters of the labor movement. There is this difference between the case of the Auto Workers and that of the Teachers, that so far, at any rate, Green has not been able to impose his will upon the latter. Local 5 has not been reorganized.

Green at Akron

During the past week the Rubber Workers have been in convention in Akron, the demand on the part of the federal locals in that industry for an international union also having become so insistent that the A.F. of L. had to yield. In Akron Green was present in person as he had been in Detroit. Once again he undertook to lay down an ultimatum. The Rubber Workers must accept Coleman Claherty, the Francis Dillon of the Industry, as their president for the first year. Again a howl of protest arose. A pungent two hour debate started in the course of which, according to a press report, “the A.F. of L. officialdom was criticized strongly.” When on the following morning the vote of 44 to 9 for rejecting the proposed appointment of Claherty was announced, Green, perhaps “softened up” by the blows received at the Automobile Workers’ and the Teachers conventions, capitulated completely and announced to the delegates: “I accept your judgment in the matter as final”

All this has an important bearing on the question of what is likely to happen In the case of the A.F of T. at the approaching A.F. of L convention and what should be the course of the progressive elements in Local 5 and In the Teachers Union throughout the country. It seems to me most unlikely that an attempt to take away the charter of the entire Teachers Union or to “reorganize” the Federation will be made. Such an action is without precedent in the A.F. of L. It is true that the A.F. of L. frequently steps in in support of the machine

of an international union, in reorganizing a local, or an entire group of locals. In this case, however the recognized International officials are opposing the reorganization of the local. It is true also that where two distinct organizations emerge as a result of an intra-union conflict, the A.F. of L. determines which has “jurisdiction,” and, of course, almost invariably “recognizes” the conservative group. At yet, however, the locals which walked out of the A.F. of T. convention have not dared to organize a separate national union and to apply for an A.F. of L. charter which would invalidate the charter of the present A.F. of T. Even in normal times the A.F. of L. Executive Council tends to proceed slowly in such matters, since, after all, per capita tax income is one of its first considerations. That the drastic action of outlawing the A.F. of T. at this convention will be taken seems most unlikely because these are far from normal times in the Federation.

Struggle for Leadership

There is, in the first place, a struggle for leadership in process and in consequence a division within the official family itself. It is not yet clear whether John L. Lewis will openly contest the presidency with Green in Atlantic. City. The mere fact, however, that the contest is possible will tend to prevent extreme and precipitate action in the Teachers’ case. Each side will be looking for votes and anxious to maintain the present organization intact though, of course, Lewis, no more than Green, entertains any affection for the progressives and militants, not to speak of the revolutionists, in the Teachers’ union. In the second, place, with such evidences of insurgency in the ranks of the workers as I have already noted (and these instances could easily be multiplied) the A.F. of L. bureaucrats, no matter how much it may irritate them, will have to think twice before they run the risk of adding fuel to the flames of revolt by pulling off so raw deal as would be involved in the reorganization of the entire Teachers’ International or the setting up of a dual organization which certainly at the outset would represent a decidedly small minority of the organized teachers.

Conditions Favor Progressives

The Executive Council of the A.F. of T. and the progressives throughout the union face on the whole, therefore, at this moment favorable situation. There is no doubt that they can, for the present at any rate, have the upper hand, counting upon the general spirit of insurgency among the workers and in the A.F. of L. unions, provided that they stand their ground firmly and carefully avoid giving the bureaucrats any impression of fear or weakness – an attitude of which the bureaucrats know only too well from long experience how to take advantage. The proposition, for example, which the Stalinists made in Local 5 to conciliate Linville and Lefkowitz by dissolving all groups in the union is, even from the lowest tactical point of view, unsound. To run after a retreating enemy, so to speak, urging him to stop in order that you may give him concessions, in fact, turn over your sword to him, is more than a little ridiculous.

This is, however, not to say that the progressives in the A.F. of T do not have a stiff fight now and will not have a stiffer one in the future. The reactionaries, both in the A.F. of T., and in the A.F. of L. generally, will fight back. The Teachers must utilize the present opportunity precisely in order to consolidate their positions, strengthen their forces, organize the progressive elements locally and nationally and equip themselves for effective resistance against counter-attack and for future advances and victories for progressive, militant unionism.

Groups in Unions

In this connection, insistence upon the right of groups to function in a responsible fashion within the union is of the greatest significance. Having such groups is not by any means without precedent in the American Federation of Labor. In the Typographical Union, for example, there have for years been two or more openly recognized “parties” putting forward their programs, putting up slates in the local and national elections, etc. The Printers find it as logical to have parties functioning in the trade union democracy as that there should be parties, for example, in a political democracy. A similar situation has existed, though perhaps not so continuous or on so large a scale, in many other A.F. of L. unions.

There are bound to be varying points of view in any living organization. It is far better that they should function openly than that they should operate in an underground fashion.

Why is it that the reactionaries in a union always fight against the existence of “groups,” insist that this means splitting up the union, etc.? Does this mean that there are then no groups in the union? Not at all. What it means is that there is only one group, and that is the group which is dominated by the union machine. It is perfectly well known that in the unions thus bossed there are always organizations, frequently known as “clubs,” which constitute in effect the caucuses of the trade union machine. The cry of “no groups” means “no groups except our own” representing the union bureaucracy.

Bureaucracy is Organized

The bureaucracy always functions in an organized fashion and never relaxes its vigilance. Consequently, even if an occasional revolt breaks out, the machine presently rides roughshod again, because the opposition does not maintain a continuous organization. The Teachers must not only not give up the right of groups to function but must steadily and rapidly extend the organization of the progressives.

Nor must the teachers permit themselves to be intimidated by the cry of such elements as Linville and Lefkowitz, that these groups are “dominated by political parties and do not have the genuine interest of the union and of the Teachers at heart.” To say that the politically most developed members of a union must not function as fractions in an organized way is to say that precisely those elements which should know most about the problem and be most devoted to the cause of the working class must not make their maximum contribution to the solution of the union’s problems.

To try to forbid members of a revolutionary party to function as fractions in the union and in progressive groups does not mean to remove political influence. Anyone who has the slightest acquaintance with the union movement in this country knows that in proportion as the influence of working class parties is weak, the capitalist parties (Tammany Hall in the New York building trades and printing trades unions, etc.) dominate the union. Trade unions cannot possibly function in a non-political world, least of all unions of teachers.

“Politics” in the Union

The Stalinists have, of course, by the irresponsible and disruptionist fashion in which they have functioned or tried to function in the mass movement, put a weapon in the hands of the trade union bureaucrats and have alienated many honest but uninformed workers. But this does not mean that “politics must be kept out of the union.”

Political organizations, the same as progressive groups in the unions generally, must be tested first by the program for the union which they advance, and secondly by the way in which they seek to advance that program. The Workers Party stands for a progressive, militant teachers Union in which trade union democracy obtains and believes that its membership should seek to davance what they regard as the sound program for the union openly, by educating the membership, trying to win them to this program, at no time seeking mechanical domination or resorting to cheap politics, alliances with reactionaries, etc., in order to advance their views. The members of the Workers Party, bound to act under the discipline of their party in the union, will, precisely because they are under that discipline, work harder for the union, fight more vigorously in all its battles, display a deeper and more consistent loyalty to the union.

Revolutionists Play Their Part

It is not an accident that in each of the situations mentioned earlier in the article the Workers Party and its members have played a part – in some instances as in Minneapolis and among the automobile workers in Toledo a leading and conspicuous one; in others as among the teachers and rubber workers a lesser role. We are not by any means seeking to make revolutionary political parties out of the unions. But even now, only with a core of revolutionists equipped with Marxian methods of analysis and disciplined and hardened for struggle, can progressive groups be built in the unions which can successfully challenge the entrenched and hardened bureaucracies; and in the end it is only under the leadership of the revolutionary party that the workers will be able really to solve the problems which the present age creates and to free themselves from poverty and insecurity and the frustration of spirit to which the masses under capitalism today are subjected.