Russia

Introduction

When asked about the role of Russian trade unions during the Soviet era, the answer is often that trade unions were schools of communism. This statement comes – taken heavily out of context – from a speech Lenin gave during the trade union debate in 1920. In it, he said:

But that [the trade unions] is not a state organisation; nor is it one designed for coercion, but for education. It is an organisation designed to draw in and to train; it is, in fact, a school: a school of administration, a school of economic management, a school of communism.¹

This speech by Lenin, which later became decisive for the further work of the trade unions after 1921, marks, possibly unintentionally, the end of the independent trade union movement in Russia. This work covers the beginnings of trade union activity in Tsarist Russia and ends where Lenin and the Bolshevik Party, at the tenth party congress in 1921, deprived the emerging movement of its independence and, at the same time, crushed not only trade union democracy but also democracy within the party itself. It seeks to answer the question of what role the trade unions played or attempted to play from the revolutionary year of 1917 to 1920/21, and to what extent theoretical considerations and practice correlate or – if they do correlate – where practice follows theory and where there are contradictions. The thesis explores the assumption that the cooperation between trade unions and the Bolshevik Party in particular, as well as the associated change in the self-image and role of trade unions, were a consequence of perceived, feared or even actual disorder.

As the title suggests, this work is intended as a contribution to a history of disorder. An initial outline of a possible methodological basis for this is provided by Frank Uekötter's Ten Ordinary Theses on Dis:Oder (Zehn ordentliche Thesen über Dis:Order), which he presented as one of three keynote speeches for discussion on a new research focus for the Historical Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum and subsequently made available on his website. In these, Uekötter formulates under point three:

The question of disorder is particularly worthwhile from a historiographical perspective when the emphasis is not merely on the experience of loss of order and its consequences, but also on how crisis phenomena are dealt with.²

The aim of research into disorder is therefore not only to examine the experience of a loss of order, but also to investigate how we deal with it. However, this perspective allows us to move away from master narratives of history towards social democracy and instead focus on the experience of social disorder and the search for a new order as the only truly continuous process. Looking at the term civil disorder, one notices that this term alone correlates with resistance to state authority, revolution and social movement. This term was used, for example, by then US President Johnson in 1967. In this context, he speaks of "a time of violence and tragedy", referring to what are now known as "race riots" by black activists against their racially motivated oppression. Because of these violent incidents, Johnson, according to his own statement, established a "Commission on Civil Disorders".³ This example also shows that the term disorder brings a strong political component into the debate and how closely this term is intertwined with social movements. Depending on one's own point of view, a protest can be a social movement or disorder. This work aims to examine disorder in a historical-scientific context as a phenomenon of the malfunctioning of systems and orders and as a perceived deviation from norms and normality. Nevertheless, disorder is closely linked to experiences of violence, as was also the case during the revolution(s) in Russia.

It should be noted that disorder is primarily not an idea, but rather an experience of contemporaries. This means, conversely, that this work also writes a history of subjective experiences on the basis of which the self-image of the trade unions and the historical context are constructed. This work therefore attempts to present the perspective of trade unionists during a period of political, governmental, economic and social disorder and how they rebuilt a trade union movement during this time. Disorder is to be understood here in two ways: firstly, in the form of the dissolution of old state institutions and, secondly, as the failure of new orders in practice, which missed their targets. The oneparty state is followed by an organisation that was and still is an institution in the sense of a historically and politically institutionalised anchor point for the labour movement. Russian trade unions also follow the European trade union tradition, but in times of disorder they decide to take a different path, which leads them away from the tradition of a 'free trade union' that existed both then and now. Without understanding this period as a perceived time of disorder, the reason for this deviation from the norm cannot be understood, and the analysis ends at the point where one wonders whether it was Lenin's or Stalin's fault that the trade unions were used as an extension of the state and as the oftcited schools of communism, and reduced to this role. The reasons for this can be found precisely in this perception of disorder and in the attempt to build a trade union movement in a workers' state that was, in the truest sense of the word, disorderly. If the analysis strives too hard for orderly patterns, aspects that do not conform to order fall through the cracks. However, these aspects need to be brought to the surface and returned to the narrow window of memory. Or, in the words of Uekötter: "Historians hitherto only organized the world in various ways; the point is to understand the disorder in it."⁴

Source Selection & Methodology

This work attempts to reconstruct the role of trade unions based on the self-portrayals of authors who are as contemporary as possible and who come from the trade union movement itself. Academic accounts such as the books by Uwe Brügmann or Borys Lewytzkyj tend to refer to minutes and Lenin's accounts and strongly substantiate their theses with figures and data, in keeping with social history. In contrast, this paper aims to highlight perspectives and points of view that have a more personal origin. This selection of sources carries the risk that such perspectives may be more distorted by perception filters than others. It is therefore important to treat the sources with particular scepticism and to critically contrast any possible misrepresentations. Nevertheless, these sources provide precisely what this work seeks to achieve: personal experiences of disorder. Particular focus is placed on the work of Abramovich Salomon Losowski. Due to his relevance, he will be discussed in the following subchapter. Another source is Mikhail Tomsky's 1921 Treatise on the trade union movement in Russia. Like Losowski, Tomski was a high-ranking trade union official. In addition to his role as chairman of the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, he was also a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and later of the Politburo. Tomski was considered a right-wing oppositionist alongside Bukharin and was removed from office by Stalin in 1929. Until then, however, his career had been brilliant, in contrast to Losowski's. This focus poses the problem that the individuals examined come from the leadership level and did not necessarily share the experiences of the rank and file. There is also no comparison with a staunch opposition voice or with trade unions in other countries. All of this could be the subject of further research.

About Abramovitch Salomon Losowski

Salomon Abramovitsch Losowski's portrayal of trade unions from 1920 serves as the main subject of investigation in this work. In order to understand this selection, Losowski's person will be briefly discussed here. Losowski's biography, as presented here, is based almost exclusively on Uwe Brügmann's account. This is because Losowski is hardly mentioned in other historical accounts. The name Losowski is therefore a pseudonym for Salomon Abramovich Drizdo. He had taken part in the 1905 revolution and subsequently emigrated to Western Europe. Here he became involved in the international group of the French Socialist Party and in the trade union movement. In 1917, he returned to Russia. Here, he came into conflict with the Bolshevik Party. Losowski was part of the Interdistrict Committee until July 1917. Politically, this committee was on the side of the Bolsheviks, but it opposed their strict organisational principles. Losowski was eventually expelled from the party in 1918 for criticising government policy and advocating for a government of all socialist parties. In December 1919, however, he was allowed to rejoin the party. He rose through the ranks of the trade union and eventually became General Secretary of the Trade Union International. In Russia, however, he was not re-elected to the All-Russian Trade Union Council after one term. This makes Losowski an extremely ambivalent figure when it comes to the question of the role of trade unions in the early Soviet Union. In 1920, a pamphlet was published in which Losowski presented the history of Russian trade unions up to the present day. His perspective on trade union work is characterised by the idea of workers' control and the desire to make trade unions a power in the Soviet state, but not subordinates of the Soviets. However, Losowski did not have much time for those who advocated a trade union movement that was independent of the state, or even oppositional or militant.

Revolution and Dis:Order

Revolution is an extremely promising subject of research when it comes to Dis:order, because a revolution is, by definition, "a rapid, radical (usually violent) change in the existing (political, social, economic) conditions" with the aim of "eliminating the previous problems and power structures and replacing them with something radically new (e.g. new power structures, new elites, new ownership structures, a new [constitutional] order, etc.)".⁵ This working definition assumes that a revolution is not only successful, but also assumes a relationship between two states: one before and one after the revolution. Such rapid change as brought about by a revolution can be understood here as disorder between two orders. However, this definition ignores the perceived disorder before and after the revolution and instead suggests comparing two supposed systems of order, which were not perceived as order but as disorder insofar as their order was disrupted by external and internal influences.

The fundamental teleological problem of revolution

The definition presupposes that revolution is successful – in other words, it presupposes a certain progression of events and characteristics that lead to a defined goal. This definition contains, on the one hand, the idea of historical progress, i.e. a certain teleological aspect that leads to a fixed goal. A revolution must be successful and radically change conditions – i.e. at their very roots. For such chaos as a revolution is, as will be shown later, this seems to be a surprisingly neat, almost outdated definition, which reduces all aspects of possible disorder solely to the moment of upheaval and makes the view of the pre- and post-field dependent on this moment. However, Helmut Altrichter rightly points out that this fixed definition is supplemented by adjectival extensions and thus defused or modified. In addition to other adjectives and prefixes he lists, this also includes 'failed revolution', as he himself suggests. Nevertheless, the concept of revolution must be subjected to criticism that it contradicts the truism that complex historical processes cannot, as a rule, be forced into simple linear teleologies. When a historical interpretation speaks of a revolution, the focus is on political and economic conditions and how they change. That they change is beyond question. The only thing that needs to be clarified is whether the new order is negative or positive. Continuities, meanwhile, fall out of the narrative. The trick of recording a takeover of power in the ledger of world history as a revolution can help to prevent events from entering the collective memory and archives, which inevitably leads to the steady forgetting of events as soon as the contemporary witnesses and thus the communicative memory disappear, either naturally or through active erasure, as happened particularly under Stalin. When a politician or activist speaks of a revolution, he or she hopes for such an upheaval and uses the term to express a kind of guarantee of success. When the police, as the force of law and order, speak of an uprising or a revolt, it is clear to the recipient that there will be no change. The term can therefore not only shape the memory of an event in retrospect, but also change expectations at the same time.

Perceived dysfunction of the old (dis)order

However, instead of assuming two orders separated by a brief period of disorder, from the perspective of Dis:order, one can argue that despite the profound changes, it is the perceived dysfunction that runs through the entire period for contemporary observers, or in other words: the curve of disorder does not rise exponentially from zero and then fall just as exponentially, but rises only briefly, if at all.

Throughout this period, there is a perception of disorder as a constant companion of everyday life. Looking specifically at the Russian Revolution(s) of 1917, it quickly becomes apparent that these were initially engulfed in crisis. Several armed conflicts stand out in particular, some of which were symptoms of the revolution itself, while others were the result of other crises: In addition to the First World War, there was the civil war between the Red, Green and White Armies, as well as the Polish-Russian War. Here, it is worth taking a first look at the history of perception and thus at the memories of individual people. Yuri V. Lomonosov expresses it as follows in his memoirs:

At the front, life was running its normal course. There was plenty of ammunition but a scarcity of food. The average amount of food received from Roumania was about 60% of the apportionment but in various places this amount was sometimes lower than 20%. Dead horses had to be eaten. The railroads, on account of the dreadful condition of the locomotives, began to become paralyzed.⁶

What Lomonossoff describes here is nothing less than total chaos. The supposed state order is exposed as disorder across the entire (front) line. For Lomonossoff, it gets even more drastic:

The thermometer registered 14 degrees below zero and many of the wounded froze to death in these unheated cars. To reintroduce the sanitary trains meant to stop the supply of provisions to the army of unwounded.⁷

The disorder and dysfunction – in terms of logistics alone at the front – is perceived so drastically that there is no (humane) way out. But it is not only logistically that the country is in disarray. The economic conditions are also dramatically reflected in Lomonossoff's memoirs. He notes that in the two months of my absence, the rouble had lost more value than during the entire previous war period.

Lomonossoff's memoirs show that perceived disorder was part of everyday life for him in pre-revolutionary Russia. It was not without reason that Eric Hobsbawm wrote, that "[r]evolution was the child of thentieth-century war".⁸ This digression into Lomonossoff's personal history is intended to show that disorder immediately prior to the revolution, which was supposed to overthrow an existing order, was part of people's everyday experience. This raises the question of whether this revolution actually overthrew an order or rather a state of disorder.

Lomonossoff also relates these experiences to the revolution, thus doing exactly what was criticised earlier in this paper. Nevertheless, the report provides insights into the perception of disorder in the temporal context of a revolution, in this specific case immediately before it. Whether this perception is representative of the period remains to be researched, and it also offers only a very small glimpse beyond the horizon of the 1917 revolution.

Disappointed expectations and the order of progress

A final argument for viewing revolution as a phenomenon of disorder can be derived from Uekötter's 10 theses. Thesis 4 states:

It is about losses and deficits of orders that have an impact not only through concrete consequences, but also through the potential universal removal of boundaries, and which also affect social expectations.⁹

Society's expectations of a revolution – both those of contemporaries and those who look back on a revolution, as historians do – are very high. This is already evident from the definition of revolution presented above. However, the last sentence of Uekötter's fourth thesis is particularly noteworthy: "Crises that also erode ideas of a different world could no longer be resolved teleologically in a utopian and dystopian scenario."¹⁰ This means that a crisis can also cause the idea, or more precisely the hope, of a better world, such as that of communists and Marxists, to fade away as a result of the existing crisis situation. 

For a revolution, which is teleological by definition, this realisation would be fatal, because it means that a crisis that is too deep may have no way out. The perspective of Dis:Order opens the critical eye to all the circumstances that have played out on the sidelines of the previous narrative thread from discontent to 'successful' overthrow of the status quo. In the case of the Russian Revolution, these peripheral phenomena also include the trade union movement.

The responsibility of historiography in the face of order and disorder

Historiography and the historians who participate in it have a special responsibility not to overlook the actors and events that lie outside the major themes and narratives. If we take a closer look at how trade unions in Russia presented themselves in the 1930s, for example, there seems to be a great interest in weaving trade unions into the revolutionary movement, in which they did not actually play such a major role. In comparison, actors such as the works councils, which were already much more radical in the October days and mostly sided with the Bolsheviks, are not mentioned in these sources, or only in subordinate clauses.

According to Aleida Assmann, this form of forgetting can be understood as covering up. Assmann refers to Avishai Margalit and thus names a technique of forgetting that removes events or groups from communication. She also describes how covering up information can help to negate conflicts between groups that strain the community. One could therefore also say that covering up creates social order. In Assmann's scheme, covering up is an active technique of forgetting. These techniques make it difficult or impossible to retrieve memories from the memory canon. What remains, however, is the possibility of a narrative or a copy, which also refers to scientific work. Here, too, however, information is lost. A focus on disorder can contribute to bringing these research subjects that do not fit into the narrative back into the canon of memory and to create an awareness of the heterogeneity not only of a society, but also of history.

In the following, this will be done using the example of the role of Russian trade unions before, during and immediately after the October Revolution. First, we must consider what distinguishes a trade union in Bolshevik Russia from other trade unions in order to understand the goals of the movement. Then, the role of the trade unions will be reconstructed on the basis of the sources presented above, and we will examine the extent to which the trade unions determined their own path and how the trade union movement came to be more or less completely subordinate to the party in the Soviet Union.

Bolshevik trade union theory: driving forces of the revolution or partners of capitalism?

Are trade unions even suited to the role of a revolutionary workers' organisation? If we look at trade unions in Russia, especially with regard to Dis:Order, it should be recognised that the revolutionary trade union movement in Russia in 1917 faced at least two disruptive circumstances: On the one hand, it emerged at a time when all the conditions and norms of the state were in disarray, not only because of the war, but also because of the Bolsheviks' quest for new economic and political conditions. On the other hand, the trade union movement itself has a narrow historical and theoretical foundation on which it stands – leaving aside the new leadership's idea of the role of trade unions. This uncertainty or disorientation caused by unresolved issues may be an indication of the general perception of disorder. In order to gain a better understanding of the theoretical basis of the Russian revolutionary trade union movement, it is necessary to examine literature written close to the time of the revolution. The following section aims to present and analyse this literature.

Communist trade union theory, in line with the Marxist view of history, recognises two types of trade unions: those that are still part of a capitalist social order and those that have already overcome it and are now part of a dictatorship of the proletariat. Depending on where they are positioned, they are assigned fundamentally different tasks. In 1927, the International Labour Office in Geneva published a detailed study on the Russian trade union movement, which also broke down these two roles. Particularly interesting is the remark that the theory of trade unions in capitalism only emerged after the revolution in Russia. The study refers to the first international congress of the Red Trade and Industry Unions. This congress demanded that the task of trade unions in capitalism should be to

increase the material welfare of workers and improve working conditions in order to build on these achievements and move towards the development of a socialist social order in the future.¹¹

The trade unions are thus generally set the goal of striving for revolution. However, they distance themselves from British trade unionism and the social democratic, reformoriented trade union apparatus in Germany and Austria. The revolutionary trade unions should also seek proximity to the revolutionary communist parties and abandon their own neutrality in order to pursue the common goal of revolution. This debate on neutrality was to occupy and divide Russian trade unions even after the revolution. According to trade unionists such as Tomski, the idea of neutrality towards parties in Russia never gained majority support. This was because workers knew from their own experience the connection between political and economic struggles and did not question it. The demand for party political neutrality was therefore either a) always made by supporters of minority parties or b) arose from the parties' inability to cooperate appropriately.

On the theory of trade unions in the dictatorship of the proletariat, the Geneva study states, that immediately after the coup d'état on November 1917, the Communists that the role of trade unions must become completely different. These aspects, the rejection of the non-revolutionary trade unions that predominated in Western Europe, and the communists' desire for close cooperation between the trade unions and the Communist Party laid the foundation for the final integration of the trade unions into the state apparatus, which began in 1920 at the latest, but also influenced the self-image of the trade unions even before that. On the one hand, they could not expect integrative or productive cooperation with other trade unions, and on the other hand, this lack of orientation could be filled perfectly by the state. If the trade unions wanted to follow the communists' theory, they had to seek proximity to the party. Moreover, the trade union movement was no longer an opponent but a supporter of the new economic system. In May 1917, the Petrograd Workers' Conference stated that the workers' movement, through its interest in the continued existence of the economy, was now called upon to increase overall productivity. The question of the actual role of trade unions in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution will be discussed in the following section, which will also outline how trade unions dealt with this crisis, which affected all sections of society.

Self-image and development of Russian trade unions from 1917 to 1920

The following section deals with the trade union federations in Russia that emerged around the time of the 1917 revolution. The aim is to narrow down the theory of Dis:order presented above and its application to revolutionary events with a view to the Russian trade unions. However, this work cannot avoid describing the period before the revolution in order to avoid giving the impression that the trade unions only emerged in 1917 or had no tradition of their own. As already shown, trade unionists not only had a theoretical basis in Marxism, but also limited practical experience. This assumption will be briefly discussed and substantiated from a historical perspective in order to look at the revolutionary year and the three years that followed and examine how productive this re-examination of the early years of the trade unions is in terms of Dis:Order.

Origins and establishment of trade unions before 1917

There is general disagreement about the founding narrative of the trade unions. A 1937 handbook for English-speaking workers and trade unionists describes how the trade unions were founded relatively late, in 1905, largely by Bolsheviks, and were ideologically defended against the Mensheviks. In 1920, however, Salomon Abramovich Losowski described in detail how Russian trade unions emerged from "strike funds and labour unions", which he described as the "embryonic forms of trade unions". He went on to say that this early trade union movement had merged into "a single Social-Democratic Labour Party" in 1898.¹² According to this view, the founders of the trade union movement were the Social Democrats, and the peculiarity of the trade unions being so closely linked to the party was historically justifiable. In his 1972 work Die russischen Gewerkschaften in Revolution und Bürgerkrieg 1917 – 1919 (Russian Trade Unions in Revolution and Civil War 1917–1919), the german historian Uwe Brügmann also notes that the origins of the Russian labour movement can be traced back to the 1870s and 1880s. However, trade unions were not founded until 1905 during the first liberal revolution. Brügmann also emphasises that the revolutions of 1905 not only marked the beginning of the trade unions, but also their first peak, which then reached a temporary low point with the end of the revolution, as the trade unions were suppressed by the police. However, Brügmann draws questionable conclusions from this: The trade union movement would have emerged out of nowhere after the February Revolution and nevertheless made rapid progress. In fact, a trade union movement had existed since at least 1905, albeit one that was heavily suppressed. Tomski mentions it in his account and describes its attempt to organise masses of workers. However, the attempt failed because "political life [...] was so turbulent that Russian workers [...] were so oppressed that the unions were only able to recruit a very small proportion of workers [...] during this period."¹³ Even if there were no large public organisations, individuals from the founding phase of the trade unions must have been alive and active, because after all, less than ten years had passed between the destruction and the re-establishment of the trade unions. Lewytzkyj suspects that the trade union movement of 1905, analogous to its decline in the face of state persecution, sought protection in the Social Democratic Labour Party and thus survived the repression. The reason for the sudden establishment of trade unions in 1917 is therefore that there were people who had already been trade unionists during the bourgeois revolution of 1905 or shortly afterwards and who now founded new trade unions. Another indication that the trade unions of 1917 wanted to build on those of 1905 is the continuous numbering of the trade union conferences. After the trade unions had met twice at the allRussian level in 1905, they named their first meeting after the February Revolution of 1917 the Third All-Russian Trade Union Conference, thus emphasising their self-image as a continuation of the trade union movement, not as its beginning. According to Tomski, in some cases organisations had even remained in existence at the local level. These now grew from a few dozen to several thousand members. All this contradicts the myth of new trade unions springing up out of nowhere. Although they had reached a new scale after years of repression, they were by no means entirely new organisations. Nevertheless, the rapid growth was an organisational and political challenge in the early years of the trade union movement, which had to be managed and required a structure that had yet to be found in 1917.

Trade unions in motion? The February Revolution and internal constitution

The February Revolution of 1917 brought an end to tsarism in Russia and with it the systematic oppression of the labour movement. Immediately afterwards, the first councils of trade union associations convened in Russia's urban and industrial centres such as Petrograd and Moscow. According to Losowski, the trade unions at that time were "young and unorganised."¹⁴ This points to a comparable weakness of the trade unions in relation to the revolutionary forces in Russia. Although the trade unions are actually in a good position in society as a whole, they are unable to assume their position as representatives of the workers vis-à-vis the state and factory owners. This is an indicator of disorder. There appears to have been a disruption in the dialogue between the trade unions as an organisation and those they were supposed to represent. The trade unions were replaced as the representative body of the workers by the workers' councils. These offered the workers in the factories arbitration bodies, complaints commissions and workers' exchanges, i.e. fairly orderly and bureaucratic forms of organisation for the labour movement. These almost sound like a form of corporatist tripartism. There is no mention of strikes and class struggle in this form of organisation in the accounts of Losowski and Tomski.

Nor is there any mention of wage policy, although according to Losowski this played a major role in the workers' demands. While the workers' councils took on the classic tasks of trade unions in the first few months, they also organised themselves at the all-Russian level. The first task was to establish contact with the trade unions, most of which were organised regionally and by industry, and to become aware of their own situation. However, a consultation between the soldiers' and workers' councils in April resulted in a conciliatory tone with regard to the trade unions.

The workers were encouraged to organise themselves into trade unions and to strive for an all-Russian union. This goal once again underlines the importance of trade unions for the labour movement. The actual role of the trade unions was held by the councils of deputies, but trade unions were to be established nonetheless. The trade unions then made initial contact with each other in early summer and founded district associations such as Petrograd and Moscow. A national conference, the Third Conference of Trade Union Associations, took place shortly afterwards in Petrograd. It was attended by 211 delegates from 51 central offices, i.e. regional associations representing 967 associations with 1,475,429 members. According to Brügmann's account, the 211 delegates were broken down into 26 Mensheviks, 39 Menshevik sympathisers and 25 Social Revolutionaries. This group of 90 delegates was supplemented by a further 31 non-party delegates and formed the right wing of the trade union conference. The remaining 90 delegates formed the left wing. While Brüggemann and Losowski's figures agree on the number of participants, they differ in their presentation of the majorities. While Brüggemann reports a majority of 31 votes for the Mensheviks according to his calculations, Losowski writes of only 15 to 20 votes. Unfortunately, neither provides a clear source for their figures. The agreement on the number of delegates could also be explained by the fact that Brüggemann took the figure from Losowski. However, since Losowski's 1920 text plays no role in his work, it is more likely that both took the figures from a common source. The discrepancy in the majorities could be explained by the fact that the majorities may have shifted depending on the motion. However, it can be deduced from both accounts that the trade unions were dominated by the Menshevik group and would never have approved of Bolshevik autocracy. Workers from the industrial centres of Moscow, Ivanovo-Voznesensk and St. Petersburg, who worked in the metal and textile industries tended to side with the revolution. Both were industries that supported industrialists who were important for the ongoing war and were therefore vital to the war effort. The conference decided against a revolutionary orientation and in favour of reform-oriented improvements in wages, maximum prices for certain goods and higher taxation for the bourgeoisie. Losowski rightly points out that these decisions were taken a full four months after the revolution. The participation of the trade unions in the February Revolution can therefore be ruled out simply because their organisational form and political orientation had not yet been established in the spring of 1917. There was no direct support or indication of an attempt by the Bolsheviks to take over the trade unions. Only the party's central organ called for participation in the trade union movement.

Self-preservation and polarisation

So when asking about the role of trade unions at that time, one could refer to the classic tasks of trade unions as outlined in Chapter 3, but in practice it would have to be noted that the trade unions still had to work hard on their self-preservation and development in order to be able to play any role at all. The fact that trade unions emerged alongside the workers' councils on the one hand and the socialist and social democratic parties on the other is probably mainly thanks to those trade unionists who were already acting in 1905 in line with the Western European trade union movement. Isaac Deutscher notes, however, that the trade unions were less significant in 1917 than they had been in 1905. It is noteworthy that sources such as Losowski's account divide delegates and interest groups into left-wing (the Bolsheviks and the Internationalists) and right-wing (the Mensheviks, the Social Revolutionaries, the Jewish 'Bund', etc.). This suggests that the strong polarisation between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks also had an effect in the trade unions and led to opinions being classified into specific camps. However, this in turn means that any intermediate positions or positions outside the spectrum are incomprehensible, if they existed at all. It was probably all the more difficult to represent such positions and not get caught up in the fundamental conflict of interpretation that was manifesting itself between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks. Losowski himself is a good example of this, as he held positions that were opposed to those of the Bolsheviks. In view of the July Uprising, cooperation between the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the trade union committees in the summer of 1917 was probably extremely tense. This was a dramatic imbalance that once again threatened the functioning of the young Russian trade union movement. Tomski wrote about this in his treatise:

Under such conditions, it was only natural that heated party and factional struggles would break out over every more or less important issue, especially during elections to trade union leaderships.¹⁵

The conflict between the parties thus weakened political decision-making as well as the organisational structure of the trade unions. The Mensheviks, who were still in the majority shortly before the revolution, were literally overtaken on the left by the workers they sought to represent. In view of the economic and political situation, more and more workers were interested not in partial improvements, as sought by the trade unions under Menshevik leadership, but in a radical reorganisation of society. Both aspects weakened the trade unions as representative bodies.

The October Revolution and the role of the trade unions

In August 1917, Moscow workers finally took action against the provisional government. According to Losowski, 500,000 workers went on strike against Kerensky's policies. Although isolated strikes and unrest had been taking place since March, the number rose from 19 to 352 between June and August. The trade unions and strike committees were responsible for leading the strikes, while the committees organised the workers in the factories for the strikes and established links with the rank and file. Clearly, the period of self-organisation had been worthwhile for the trade unions. However, this does not prove that all of these mobilised workers had an interest in a Bolshevik revolution. Their motives may also have been economic in nature.

According to Losowski, the trade unions spent September and October in particular taking action against employers and increasingly ousting them from works committees – in other words, in favour of worker control. However, even shortly before the October Revolution, the works committees, i.e. the local bodies, were already heavily dominated by Bolshevik workers, as shown by the number of delegates at the only All-Russian conference of works committees. This means that the main activities of the trade unions consisted of enforcing economic improvements for the workers vis-à-vis the employers. General political strikes such as the one in August seem to have been rather rare. Losowski nevertheless claims that the trade unions fought in the front lines against the Provisional Government and the coalition during the October days. However, it must be assumed that Losowski is rather attempting here to retrospectively link the trade union movement to the revolution in his narrative. In fact, the trade unions were reluctant to openly support the revolution. Some even openly opposed it. This depended primarily on their assessment of their own fighting strength. The trade union delegates at the meeting of the Petrograd Party Committee were of the opinion that the workers would defend the Soviets in the event of an attack against the government, but that they should not launch an attack themselves. The factory committees, on the other hand, advocated a revolution led by the Bolsheviks in order to counter the influence of anarcho-syndicalism among the workers. In order to prevent a possible anarchist majority among the workers and thus an uncontrollable mass movement that could potentially no longer supporting the need for a strict organisation, the factory committees joined the Bolsheviks. If the trade unions had been left behind by the Bolshevik Revolution, the factory committees might have had the opportunity to portray the trade unions as counter-revolutionary and take their place. Losowski also stated that some of the factory committee officials were in favour of this replacement. However, this also means that a rethink must have taken place. After all, as shown above, the factory committees were still in favour of a trade union movement in early summer. This may have been triggered by the trade unions' attempt to subordinate the factory committees to the trade unions. The party's mistrust of the trade unions is also evident from the fact that the party had the trade unions expressly assure it of their loyalty.

In the October Revolution, the trade unions played a subordinate role, in contrast to the factory committees, which organised their own weapons through their Red Guard and actually played a greater role. The differences in the assessment of the trade unions' involvement may lie in the fact that Losowski made no distinction between factory committees and trade unions, since for him the decision to subordinate the factory committees to the trade unions meant that the merger of the two organisations was a fait accompli. Brügmann, on the other hand, separates the organisations from each other. Depending on whether one makes the organisational distinction here, one can arrive at different conclusions. There are arguments for both sides. If the factory committees saw themselves as part of the trade unions, they would not have had to convene independently at an all-Russian conference, as had happened immediately before the revolution. On the other hand, the interlocking of trade unions and factory committees is evident in the strike movement of summer 1917.

Isaac Deutscher deviates from Brügmann and Losowski in his account and cites another factor: according to him, the Bolsheviks were more or less forced to act together with the anarchists within the factory committees when the differences in bolshevism and anarcho-syndicalism had not yet emerged, but both pursued the goal of revolution. The trade unions were still under the leadership of the Mensheviks and were not enthusiastic about a violent revolution. This emerging fear of anarchists, and thus possibly also of opposition workers who would no longer follow the strict organisational forms of a dictatorship of the proletariat, seemed to play a role in the search for alliances. The increasing power of the anarchists threatened the communists' idea of order. Ultimately, however, this account also boils down to the fact that the factory committees and soviets, like the Bolshevik Party, sidelined the trade unions in the revolution and did not regard them as reliable partners. In retrospect, this created the problem that the trade unions had to reorient themselves after the revolution. Attempts such as those by Losowski and Tomski to portray the trade unions as part of the revolution in historical accounts were also part of this.

Workers' control against disorder

Instead of continuing to advocate for a coalition government, the trade unions now focused their efforts on implementing comprehensive and uniform worker control. Prior to the October Revolution this had only manifested itself on a company-bycompany basis and was now to be given a uniform form with the help of an action programme. However, the resulting decree on workers' control did not stipulate that the factories and facilities used by the workers to create surplus value should belong to them. Instead, workers were to be given the right to monitor production volumes, inspect all business correspondence and issue binding instructions to entrepreneurs. These measures did not overturn the ownership structure. Instead, they were intended to lay the groundwork for this. The disorder caused by the fall of the government did not seem to spread to other areas. At least there seemed to be an interest in ensuring that the "break up [of] the old social-economic" announced by Lenin did not take place in an uncontrolled and sudden manner, but slowly and moderately. According to Lenin, this only happened from 1921 onwards in the form of a "reformist approach" of the reconstruction of industry.¹⁶

Apparently, however, the war makes it necessary to compromise on the dismantling of the existing conditions. Another reason, however, may have been the fear that additional dismantling would increase the level of perceived disorder among the population in the long term and that the Bolsheviks would be deprived of power, as had previously happened to the provisional government, as well as the fear of anarchist developments, which must have been great. Instead, developments were to proceed in an orderly and sequential manner in order to minimise this risk. On the other hand, however, Lenin thus placed the relationship between the revolutionary party and the Workers who had pinned their hopes on the revolution were put to the test. In practice, the trade unions were responsible for cushioning discontent, but in doing so they were already following the path of trade unions under the dictatorship of the proletariat. From their point of view, it did not make sense to strike against their own comrades, who were also running the state. This would have been a betrayal of their own class. The trade unions took on the role of mediators between the state and the workers. They were a mouthpiece, but one that could not draw serious consequences if action had not been taken in the interests of the workers. The trade unions robbed themselves of their own means of struggle. This paved the way for their integration into the Soviet state. Losowski wrote:

All former relations were destroyed. The trade unions developing on the basis of capitalist relations and as fighting organs were converted into part of the machinery of the labour government.¹⁷

The workers and the factory committees responded to the hesitant behaviour of the trade unions by increasingly seizing administrative power in the factories, thereby threatening, in Lenin's view, to plunge the national economy into chaos. This revealed the anarchist characteristics of the factory committees. The committees now challenged not only the dominance of the trade unions, but also indirectly that of the state over economic development. Furthermore, the factory committees directly threatened the trade unions – just as they had done during the revolution. Consequently, a new constellation of allies emerged: the trade unions, increasingly persuaded by a majority of Bolsheviks to rethink their position, and the Soviet state had a common interest in warding off anarchism and the accompanying disorder they feared it would bring.

The first trade union congress and the reinvention of trade unions

In January 1918, the trade unions met again in Petrograd. This time, they did not seek to join the trade union movement that had existed before the October Revolution. A new count of trade union meetings was begun, and the First Congress of Trade Unions of Russia was held. For the first time, Bolshevik delegates constituted the majority in the congress. Losowski wrote that the trade unions had to debate their relationship to the October Revolution, their neutrality towards political parties, whether they should support bourgeois democracy or Soviet power, and what role the trade unions should now play. In addition, the trade union congress had also taken on a new organisational form. For the first time, it was not simply active trade unionists who met, but delegates elected solely for this purpose. Losowski focuses his account on the debate about neutrality. He argues that this was a bourgeois idea and had to be overcome in the interests of the labour movement. Losowski makes it clear that he himself shared this opinion. According to him, the trade unions thus clearly supported Soviet power and advocated the organisational connection between the party and the trade unions. In fact, it can also be noted that when the trade unions were still under Menshevik leadership in mid-1917, they were by no means neutral, but supported Kerensky and his policies. The demand for neutrality was therefore probably merely an attempt to oust the Bolsheviks from the trade union leadership. In future, the trade unions, together with the workers' councils, were to form economic bodies that would help to steer and restore the economy in Russia.

However, the 1st Congress of Trade Unions also brought about the final abolition of the central councils of the works committees and their subordination to the trade unions, which already had been demanded at the 3rd Trade Union Conference. This effectively abolished the works committees that had been established and organised by the workers in the factories. However, the turn of the year also brought another change, which Losowski does not mention at all, but which Tomski mentions all the more prominently: The trade unions were reorganised so that the associations were no longer organised by industry but by company. Tomski literally describes the old organisation by industry as a mess. This shows once again that after the revolution, trade unionists were faced with a state of disorder which they attempted to organise according to their own standards. The organisation of trade unions by company was only one part of this. From then on, there was only one trade union representing the interests of the workers and employees of an entire company. There was to be no more separation by department or employment status. This process also took up a lot of energy and resources, but it was supposed to help unite the whole proletariat in the trade unions and negate differences. The first trade union congress also resisted giving up strikes as a form of action, as Bolshevik trade union theory had planned. Although the disorderly relationship between works committees and trade unions had now been resolved, other fundamental questions remained unanswered or ran counter to the Bolsheviks' ideas. However, it can be assumed that the perceived dysfunctionality of the system and disappointed expectations on the part of the workers put the trade unions under enormous pressure. The only order to which they could commit themselves was that of the strictly organised Bolsheviks. However, the All-Russian Central Council was opposed to the immediate nationalisation of the trade unions and thus to the intervention of the Soviets in the economic struggle. The conditions under which the trade unions were willing to subordinate themselves to the state were not yet in place.

Supporting the state at the price of control over labour

What factors caused the trade unions to move so close to the Bolshevik Party and the state associated with it? In a subordinate clause, Losowski notes the influence of the civil war, which had been raging for a year and three months at the time of the second trade union congress. The war had bound the socialist organisations together. The role of the war should not be underestimated. If, as shown above, Bolshevik theory and organisation had been a pull factor for the trade unions, the war was a push factor that moved the trade unions and the Soviets towards partnership. During the civil war, it was the trade unions that recruited soldiers for the Red Army. In addition, the trade unions organised supplies and labour. The trade unions suddenly found themselves playing a role that the Bolsheviks had not been able to plan for at the time of the revolution.Analogous to this role, the power and influence of the trade unions over the workers and the political landscape grew. They literally became pillars of the state, as they shared with the Soviets an interest in defending the workers' state. The alliance was therefore, like that of the Bolsheviks with the factory committees at the time of the revolution, expedient and based on the lowest common denominator.

Another explanation, based on domestic politics, can be found in Blair A. Ruble. Here, it is argued that, due to the loss of members even before the revolution, the trade unions were dependent on the help of the Bolsheviks in order to maintain their authority. Looking at the increase in trade union membership and the parallel rise in the suppression of Mensheviks and independence advocates, this could well be reflected in the figures. It is possible that the Bolsheviks did indeed take over the trade unions through targeted mass membership drives, which could explain the convergence in terms of content. On the other hand, however, the Bolsheviks as a party lost a considerable proportion of their members at around the same time and thus also lost influence. The trade unions, on the other hand, gained steadily gaining members. It is therefore questionable whether the Bolsheviks would have been able to organise such mass enrolments at all. This argues against Ruble's thesis. A combination of the push and pull factors already mentioned is much more likely. On the one hand, the trade unions were willing to follow Bolshevik theory as a guideline, and on the other hand, the party promised a promising principle of order, which was promising to become part of. This, in turn, is also in line with Losowski's ideas. According to him, after their founding phase and in exchange for their loyalty to the Soviets, the trade unions claimed a leading role in the new state apparatus.

The second trade union congress and the question of independence

The decision taken at the first trade union congress to transform the trade unions into organs of the socialist state raised the question of how long this project would take. The second trade union congress in January 1918 therefore stated that "The task of socialization all means of production and the organization of society [...] demands stubborn, prolonged work on the reconstruction of the whole government machine."²⁸ The trade unions therefore wanted to take a slow approach. Some may even have linked the nationalisation of trade union organisations to the condition that the state must already have been reorganised along socialist lines. The trade unions would therefore first have had to be given the role of opposition. They could have intervened to correct the situation. Only then should the merger of the trade union organs with the organs of state power have taken place. Losowski summarises this view as follows:

The trade unions are the foundation and support of the proletarian dictatorship – she soviets; the chief tool of economic construction; and the only organisers of labour in the process of production.¹⁹

Two things emerge from this self-description:

1. The trade unions saw themselves as an important element of the state and as allies in the government. According to this, they should not act against the state, but rather seek solutions together.
2. The trade unions claimed supervision over labour and production. They therefore wanted to independently shape the area that the trade unions negotiated and went on strike over under capitalism.

The latter threatened the party's autocratic rule. Although the Bolsheviks were also superior to the Mensheviks in the trade unions, or at least in the congresses, the danger of losing this majority would also have meant the danger of losing one of, if not the most important, central control elements of the economy.

According to Losowski, the movement that advocated for a more independent trade union movement consisted of white-collar workers, i.e. those working in retail, banks or government offices, as well as printers. These were therefore tendentially those who not only had a higher and more stable income than workers and day labourers, but also a higher level of education. The influence of the Mensheviks, and thus of those who advocated independence from the state, continued to decline in 1919.

The Third Trade Union Congress

The trade unions met again for a congress in April 1919. Apparently, the influence of the trade unions on labour and production had not reached the desired level, and the delegates demanded greater co-determination for themselves in the labour offices. The 3rd Trade Union Congress demanded that the sole right to vote for the Employees in the labour commissariats should be responsible for the trade unions. Electing those in charge from the bottom up through the levels of trade union democracy now posed a very real threat to the rule of the Soviets. It can therefore be assumed that the trade unions wanted to be part of the state, but not take orders from the Soviets. Instead, the resolutions of the 2nd and 3rd trade union congresses suggest a kind of separation of powers. A separation of powers that was intended to prevent anyone other than the trade unions, as representatives of the workers themselves, from determining the nature of work. Losowski did not want the trade unions to be independent of the state. Instead, he wanted to make the state and the trade unions mutually dependent on each other in order to enable the workers to control Soviet policy. This demand is almost identical to that made by the founder of the Menshevik faction within the trade unions: "In this historical situation, this government cannot claim to represent the working class alone."²⁰ Losowski was by no means uncritical of the influence of the Bolshevik Party. He described it as enormous preponderance of the Russian Communist Party within the trade union movement.

So had Losowski changed sides? This seems unlikely in view of his renewed party membership after his expulsion. Rather, it was probably the suppression of the Menshevik trade union opposition into insignificance that made it possible to overcome the previously strong polarisation and adopt more moderate intermediate positions. However, the fact that the trade unions, and Losowski in particular, distanced themselves from the Bolsheviks' claim to sole power was not a new development. It merely manifested itself anew in a specific conflict. The Bolsheviks as a whole, however, rejected this idea. Only Lenin and Ryazanov took the position that the trade unions must retain their freedom of action vis-à-vis the government until the world revolution was successful. However, this did not mean that they should strike against the Soviet state. Rather, the trade unions were seen as a kind of last line of defence against counter-revolution. If the state were to be wrested from the workers again, a state-loyal trade union movement was practically useless. Under socialism alone, its role remained controversial and unclear.

Trade unions in the Proletkult movement. More than a historical footnote?

At this point, it is worth making a brief digression and taking a look at a peripheral activity of the trade unions that also led to discontent within the Bolshevik Party. As early as September 1918, Alexander Bogdanov founded the Proletkult movement with the aim of forming and establishing a new proletarian culture. Trade unions also took part in the movement and organised a total of 1,210 theatre groups by the end of 1919. This activity should not be overlooked in the search for the role of trade unions. The trade unions' attempts to initiate a proletarian cultural revolution alongside the political and economic revolution independently of the party met with increasing rejection within the Bolshevik Party in 1920. Nevertheless, this commitment is also part of the role of the Russian trade unions. Workers were encouraged to become artistically active themselves, to write poetry or perform in theatre. In 1920, around half a million workers were members of the Proletkult movement. The trade unions not only organised workers economically and politically, but also offered their members artistic working groups. Neither Losowski nor Tomski mention the theatre groups. The reason for this may be that Losowski and Tomski either simply did not consider artistic and cultural education worth mentioning or even found it a thorn in their side. Either way, it is generally overlooked, especially its connection to the trade unions.

At that time, however, the question of the role of trade unions was increasingly coming to focus on the party. The decision on how much power and what position should be granted to trade unions and workers was left to the party and not to the trade unions themselves. They could have taken to the streets to assert their demands, but their own ideology contradicted this. Therefore strikes as a means of struggle were unthinkable at that time. Instead, hopes were pinned on the debate within the party in 1920.

Workers' opposition and trade unions. A "beacon of internal party democracy"?

In 1920/21, this very public debate about the role of trade unions within the Bolshevik Party took place. As shown in the previous chapter, the trade unions had previously clearly formulated their demands vis-à-vis the state at trade union congresses. However, the state did not comply with the delegates' wishes. A final decision was now to be reached to clarify the future role of the trade unions. In order to inform the party public, the party chose to conduct the debate in the party newspaper and to publish texts from the respective factions. In view of the 'trade union discussion', Otto Wenzel speaks of a "beacon of internal party democracy" and notes how unusual, even by today's Western standards, it is for a discussion to be conducted in this way through the publications of the party concerned. However, he also notes that "Stalin's command system was already making itself felt."²¹

Position on the role of trade unions in 1920

The position, or more precisely the conception of the role of trade unions in the Soviet Union, held by the Workers' Opposition faction, which mainly consisted of trade unionists, can be determined from two texts. The most important source is the text from the brochure The Tasks of the Trade Unions, in which the faction presents its views to the party public. The brochure notes that it is intended exclusively for party members. In addition, a draft has been preserved which Aleksandr Shlyapnikov had previously (in 1920) circulated within the parliamentary

group. The published Version was signed by various individuals. With the exception of two named individuals, all of them are trade unionists. More specifically, they are (with a few omissions) the Central Committee of the All Russian Metalworkers' Union, the Chairman of the Central Administration of Factory Cartels, the Deputy Chairman of the Council for War Industry, the Director of GlavkoAvio,²² the director of the state machine-building factories, the chairman of the Central Administration for Heavy Industry, the chairman of the Main Administration of the United Works of the Medium Machine-Building Industry, the chairman of the administration of the Sormovo factory,²³ the Central Committee of the Miners' Union, and the chairpersons of the Central Committees of the Textile Workers' Union and the All-Russian Agricultural Workers' Union. Šlyapnikov appears to have been primarily responsible for the theses: after all, he had presented the draft, which is also found in the 1921 brochure in terms of content and, in some cases, even verbatim. This suggests that, if any, only a few other authors had a major influence on the text. The most striking difference from the draft is a longer introduction, which outlines the decisions of the first two All-Russian Trade Union Congresses and denounces their violation. These additions provide further insight into the self-image of the trade unions after the October Revolution of 1917. The workers' opposition criticises the fact that the decisions of the trade union conferences, namely the trade unions' claim to control production (1918) and gradually to organise it themselves (1919), were not implemented by the state and the party. This means that the trade unions want to fill the economic power vacuum created by the disappearance of the factory owners independently. According to the partys programme and the legal situation, the faction sees "that they [the trade unions] effectively hold complete control of the entire economy as a unified economic whole."²⁴ Instead, however, we are seeing a development that assigns trade unions the role of an information or recommendation office. Rather than accepting this situation, the Workers' Opposition proposes a return to the resolutions of the trade union congresses. The aim here is the direct participation of the working masses in the management of our country's economy. This participation by the trade unions should amount to the trade unions' dominance over the party and the state. This should now be achieved through a series of measures, which are presented here in a structured manner.

The first group of measures includes the legal and structural foundations: First, the trade unions must be structurally strengthened. Then, the parity regulations within the relevant bodies extended in favour of the workers' organisations. Exactly how and what kind of parity within the administrative bodies the representatives of the workers' opposition have in mind remains open. It also remains unclear how exactly the selection of officials by the trade unions is to be envisaged. Analogous to the measures still pending, however, it can be assumed that the committees should elect officials according to a grassroots democratic principle from the bottom up.

The second group of measures concerns the appointment of trade union representatives to the economic administration. They should therefore be referred to here as inauguration requirements. The brochure states:

1. Not one person must be assigned to an economic administrative post bypassing the union
2. All proposed candidates cannot be rejected and must be considered obligatory for VSNKh and its organs.
3. All staff put in place by or nominated by unions are to be responsible to the unions and can be replaced by the unions at any time.²⁵

It is important to note that the trade unions claim this right of inauguration for themselves alone. This suggests that they are not only unwilling to be accountable to the party, but also want to take over the economic administration from the party entirely or at least in large part.

The third group of measures relates to election and accountability procedures within the trade union. According to this,

This concentration of management will be achieved in the center as well as on the local level, by election of representatives of organized producers. In this way unity of will will be created, necessary in the organization of the economy, and likewise the real possibility of an initiative influence from the wide masses on the organization and development of our economy.²⁶

The following section regulates electoral responsibility for subdivisions: the trade unions of the respective sectors are responsible for the management bodies of individual industrial sectors. The same applies to the management of the local economy. This is intended to establish central production organisations for the workers. These workers (and employees) on site, in turn, are to elect workers' committees in the factories, which, under the control of the trade unions, are to take over the management of the factory.

This leaves a few questions unanswered: What kind of control does the trade union exercise over the workers' committees? What responsibilities do the respective economic management bodies have, especially those specific to production, as opposed to central and regional economic management? Only the responsibilities of the workers' committees are specified in more detail. No mention is made of the relationship between the economic management bodies themselves. What is clear, however, is the central role of the trade unions as an organisation for the democratisation of the economy through the direct participation of the workers.

Finally, the brochure reports on the improvements to be achieved in terms of living conditions for workers. It calls for the creation of housing at the expense of the authorities, the organisation of trains and trams during rush hours, and giving workers priority in the supply of mass consumer goods. Particularly noteworthy is the demand that workshops for repairing shoes and other clothing should be set up in connection with the factories. Workers' lives should therefore take place primarily in the factories, with logistics and accommodation outside the factories being organised by the state. This would have prevented the factories or the state from gaining sole power over the workers, but it would have reduced the state to a kind of service provider in relation to the factories and their organisers, the trade unions. The State should merely support and enable the lives of workers in the factory. Lenin firmly rejected these demands. Such a division of leadership was out of the question for him.

The beginning of the end of the free Russian trade union movement

The tenth party conference in early March 1921 dealt with the trade union question. The delegates answered the question of the role of trade unions by subordinating them to the party. The corresponding resolution was adopted with 336 votes. Only 18 votes were cast in favour of the resolution of the workers' opposition. The party needed the trade unions as a link and organisational link to the masses of workers. If opposition forces, whether to the left or right of the Bolsheviks, gained the upper hand in the trade unions, the power of the Soviets and the party would be in danger. With the end of war communism and the development of the New Economic Policy, the trade unions' quest for a role in the state was contrary to the opening of the economy to private entrepreneurs. It was therefore concern about a loss of control and the accompanying fear of disorder that prompted the party to make the trade unions, against their will, subordinate to the party leadership. The question of neutrality, the prospect of nationalization, as well as the claims to control over economic development were taken from the trade unions by the party. Decisions on the direction of the trade unions were now to be made by the party rather than by trade union congresses. The trade unions initially accepted this subordination. This is evident not least from the 4th Trade Union Congress in 1921, which did not raise the issue again, apart from a few comments from some non-Bolsheviks. However, it cannot be definitively proven whether there was genuine political agreement or merely a kind of shock-induced paralysis. Brügmann notes, however, that the trade unions did not accept the subordination without resistance in the long term, but that Stalin ensured definitive Gleichschaltung at the end of the 1920s.

Conclusion: Perception and perspectives

But what was the role of the trade unions in these years of turmoil between the February Revolution and the decision at the tenth party congress? First of all, it has been shown that there is no single role that the trade unions consistently fulfil, as was later the case with the schools of communism. Instead, the analysis must be open to manifold roles and different demands. The trade union movement is not a homogeneous mass, but consists of heterogeneous groups and factions. So instead of looking for a dominant role, this work uses the approaches of Dis:Order to try not to organise what cannot be organised. The question of the role of trade unions can only be answered from certain perspectives: in 1920, Losowski saw them as a kind of catalyst for the revolution. He wrote:

Capitalism hat torn itself from its moorings and its rolling to its doom. The trade unions of Russia are not only helping the old world to a speedy dissolution but are building a new socialist society in its place. These are the functions and characteristics of the Russian trade unions.²⁷

Accordingly, before the workers take power, the trade union should wage its struggle against the propertied class. After the workers themselves have become the ruling class, trade unions should shape and build the economy accordingly so that it serves the whole. The role of trade unions therefore develops alongside the state itself and is dependent on its development. Losowski therefore focuses on the role of trade unions in the revolution itself. This is probably due in no small part to his longing for a worldwide revolutionary power. For him, the revolution after 1917 is by no means over. Just one year later, Mikhail Tomsky writes:

Based on the independence of the organised masses, fraternal cooperation between the Soviets and the trade unions, the organs of power of the proletariat fighting for its goals, is being realized.²⁸

For Tomsky, the trade union is on an equal footing with the Soviets as the organiser of the mass movement entitled to rule. It therefore exercises a ruling role over the economy. This role is denied to it at around the same time as Tomsky's treatise is published. In 1933, Ans Kristalovič Abolin, secretary of the General Council of Trade Unions of the USSR, retrospectively assigned a different role to the movement:

We must increase the pace of mastering technology, mastering new industries, mastering culture tenfold. But we have a strong million-strong party, we have strong trade unions[...].²⁹

Abolin sees the trade union as a controlling body – the form of organisation it assumed after the revolutionary year of 1917. However, he also sees it as second to the party – by no means independent, as Tomski emphasised, closely linked to the party but never on an equal footing. This shows how differently the trade union leaders themselves describe the role of the trade unions.

As has been shown, the potential power of the trade unions also increased during the period of War Communism until the early 1920s. However, this threatened the power of the Bolshevik Party, which ultimately put a stop to the trade unions' aspirations to become the dominant organisation in the economy. From 1917 to 1920/21, the trade union congresses pursued a goal that they were never to achieve. After their comparatively weak participation in the February Revolution, which can be attributed to their extremely low level of organisation.

Contrary to the accounts of various trade unionists, they were cautious during the October Revolution. This was presumably due primarily to the leadership, which consisted mainly of Mensheviks, and to the fact that the Bolsheviks were able to bypass the trade unions with the help of the more radical factory committees. After the Bolsheviks seized power, the balance of power within the trade unions also shifted towards Bolshevik positions. In line with the trade union theory of the time, the trade unions moved closer to the Bolsheviks in terms of personnel and politics and took control of the workers in favour of economic productivity. Not only through this, but also through the recruitment of soldiers for the Red Army from among its members, the trade union movement became indispensable in the civil war and thus reached its zenith. In the meantime, however, the trade union movement was actively involved in shaping proletarian culture through the creation of amateur theatres and cultural groups. The resulting claims to power and the demand to play a leading role in future socialism were rejected by the party, which feared too much disorder and preferred to determine the dictatorship of the proletariat itself and without other organisations. This in turn reduced the role of the trade unions and placed them under the interests of the party and Lenin's New Economic Policy. In the wake of the disorder, the trade unions, as representatives of the workers, attempted to directly shape economic policy in Russia until 1921. However, the Bolshevik Party saw this as a threat and ultimately subordinated the trade unions to its own interests. The disorderly and dysfunctional conditions in Russia after the revolution had a major impact on the relationship between the trade unions and the party, ensuring that decisions were influenced by many external factors and could not be planned. Ultimately, it was probably the fear of further disorder that turned the trade unions into organisational groups that structured the labour movement in line with the Bolsheviks' agenda.

Contributed by Till Traute (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)

Notes

1. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich: The trade unions, the present situation and Trotsky’s mistakes, in: Lenin’s Collected Works 32, Moscow 1965, p. 20.
2. Uekötter, Frank: Zehn ordentliche Thesen über Dis:Order, 2025. Available online at: https://www.tug.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/tug/news/news00057.html.de [Translated by the Author].
3. Johnson: Address to the Nation Regarding Civil Disorder, 27 July 1967. Available online at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZoU4cmRULKY&t.
4. Uekötter, Frank: Dis:Order, 2025 [Translated by the Author].
5. Schubert, Klaus/Martina Klein: Das Politiklexikon. 7th, updated and expanded edition. Bonn 2020. License issued in Bonn: Federal Agency for Civic Education [Translated by the Author].
6. Lomonossoff, Yuri V.: Memoirs of the Russian Revolution. Translation by David H. Dybrowsky and Robert T. Williams, New York 1919, p. 7.
7. Ibid, p. 7.
8. Hobsbawm, Eric: The Age of Extremes. A History of the World, 1914–1991. London 1994, p. 54.
9. Uekötter, Frank: Dis:Order, 2025 [Translated by the Author].
10. Ibid.
11. N.A.: Resolutionen, Manifeste und Aufrufe des 1. internationalen Kongresses der Roten Fach- und Industrieverbände. Bremen 1921, p. 24 [Translated by the Author].
12. Losowski, Salomon Abramovitsch: Trade Unions in Soviet Russia, London 1920, pp. 6f.
13. Tomski, Michail: Abhandlung über die Gewerkschaftsbewegung in Russland. Hamburg 1921 (= Bibliothek der Kommunistischen Internationale 17) [Translated by the Author].
14. Losowsky 1920, p.11.
15. Tomski, Michail: Abhandlung über die Gewerkschaftsbewegung in Russland. Hamburg 1921 (= Bibliothek der Kommunistischen Internationale 17) [Translated by the Author].
16. Lenin, Vladimir Ilyich: The importance of gold now and after the complete victory of socialism, in: Lenin’s Collected Works 33, 2nd English Edition, Moscow 1965, p. 110.
17. Losowski 1920, p. 21.
18. Losowsky 1920, p. 60.
19. Loswosky 1920, p. 62.
20. Deutscher, Isaac: The Soviet Trade Unions, p. 38 [Translated by the Author].
21. Wenzel, Otto: Gleichschaltung. Die Parteidiskussion in der KPR (B) in den Jahren 1920/21, in: ZdF 26/2009, p. 28 [Translated by the Author].
22. This is presumably an organisation or authority in the field of aviation.
23. This is most likely the state-owned armaments factory "Krasnoje Sormovo", which produced trains and tanks during the civil war.
24. Šlyapnikov, Aleksandr: Theses of the Workers Opposition, 1921.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Losowsky 1920, p. 47.
28. Tomski, Michail: Gewerkschaftsbewegung in Russland, p. 33 [Translated by the Author].
29. Abolin, Ans Kristalovič: Die Oktoberrevolution und die Gewerkschaften. Moscow 1933 [Translated by the Author].

The Russian trade union system

While trade union systems were already established in many other countries, the Russian trade union system was only able to develop after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, although its structures are still deeply rooted in the Soviet past and remain recognisable in some places to this day. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, the trade unions were closely intertwined with the state and served primarily as instruments of social and political control of the working class. During the Stalin era in particular, trade unions were effectively nationalised and were merely tools of the ruling political elite. Their original function of defending and protecting workers' rights was severely restricted. Strikes were virtually banned and the organisational structure of the trade unions reflected the authoritarian and centralised structure of the Soviet state. This led to a system in which genuine workers' interests were hardly taken into account, while the state regarded trade unions as the idealistic foundation of a communist workers' and peasants' state. This development continued until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, the formerly tightly controlled and state-organised trade union system lost its integrity. From then on, the trade union system was forced to redefine itself and face the challenges of a market economy-orientated society. The Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR), which was founded in 1990, emerged as the successor organisation to the Soviet All-Russian Trade Union Council and largely retained its dual organisational structure. With around 20 million members (as of 2024), it is the trade union organisation with the largest membership in Russia. The chairman of the FNPR has been Mikhail Shmakov, a well-known Russian trade unionist who has been in office continuously since 1993 and is known for his influence and long-standing role in employee representation as well as his efforts to involve the FNPR in cooperation with state bodies. Despite the formal changes, the FNPR has remained closely linked to the state structure, which gives it a certain closeness to the state. It is also involved in the so-called Trilateral Commission, which is a joint dialogue forum for official trade unions and the state government to help shape social policy decisions. Overall, the FNPR is perceived as a traditionalist and rather passive organisation, which has also led to growing criticism of it. At international level, the FNPR was a member of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) until 2022. In the wake of international sanctions against Russia and the current political developments in the country, the FNPR lost its membership of the ITUC, which highlights the challenges for organising in the global trade union movement.

In addition to the FNPR, there are also independent trade unions such as the All-Russian Confederation of Labour (VKT) and the Confederation of Labour of Russia (KTR), which were founded in the 1990s and are still members of the ITUC. According to their own statements, these trade unions strive for greater independence from state influence, use alternative industrial action and are considered to be more actionist. However, they only have a small number of members compared to the FNPR and face considerable legal and political hurdles. In Russia, strikes and other industrial action are heavily regulated, which considerably restricts the trade unions' scope for action. The legal requirements for a legal strike are often so complex and strictly formulated that they are difficult to implement in practice.

Although the independent trade unions are striving for a more militant and independent representation of workers, they have only had limited success due to the political entanglements of the FNPR and the existing legal framework. At the same time, however, they have seen a slight increase in membership, especially since the coronavirus pandemic in 2022, when the working conditions of many employees deteriorated.

Despite a significant decline in membership since the early 1990s, the FNPR remains an important player in the Russian trade union system. In 1993, it still had around 70 million members, whereas today around 20 million are organised. The FNPR, which is closely linked to the ruling party 'United Russia', nevertheless remains significantly active in social policy, for example by running kindergartens and recreation centres for employees. A concrete success was achieved in 2019 when it was able to adjust wage increases in the healthcare and education sectors in line with inflation. In addition, unionised workers earn on average 10- 15% more than their non-organised colleagues, which underlines the importance of trade union work. In general, however, the FNPR favours political negotiations with the government instead of resorting to strikes, for example.

The FNPR and other Russian trade unions attach great importance to cultivating and promoting a culture of remembrance that emphasises their historical roots and achievements. In particular, 1 May, "Labour Day", serves as a highly symbolic occasion on which trade union members and supporters in Moscow and numerous other cities in Russia come together for commemorative events, demonstrations and rallies. These annual gatherings not only commemorate the successes of the labour movement, but also emphasise the ongoing role of trade unions in the fight for better working conditions and workers' rights. The trade unions also organise actions on other commemorative days that both honour historical events and strengthen the sense of community and awareness of the long tradition of the labour movement in Russia.

Overall, it is clear that the Russian trade union system continues to be strongly characterised by its Soviet past. While the political and economic environment has changed fundamentally since 1991, the trade union system has only partially adapted. Although the independent trade unions offer an alternative, their influence remains limited due to the strong political and legal obstacles. The FNPR remains the dominant force, but is coming under increasing pressure from inside and outside, which is jeopardising its future. The historically close links between state structures and trade unions make it difficult for trade unions in Russia to achieve complete independence, which has ultimately contributed to a decline in general interest in trade union participation. In the near future, Russian trade unions and the state must work together to develop forward-looking solutions in order to ensure the sustainable organisation of the workforce. 

Contributed by Jonathan Jänsch (Ruhr-Universität Bochum)