Trade union debate

The trade union debate arose in the context of severe economic challenges following the Russian Civil War, particularly the collapse of industry and transportation systems. During the period of War Communism (1918–1921), the Soviet government had centralized economic control, with the state managing industry and production directly. This system of extreme centralization led to widespread shortages, inefficiencies, and discontent among workers.

By the end of 1920, it became clear that the War Communism model was unsustainable, and the Soviet leadership began considering a transition to a more mixed economic model. This shift culminated in the adoption of the New Economic Policy (NEP) in 1921, which reintroduced elements of market mechanisms and private trade. As part of this transition, there was a need to redefine the role of trade unions, which had played a critical part in the revolutionary struggle but now had to operate in a rapidly changing economic environment.^[3]

Different factions within the Party had contrasting views on the future of trade unions. The Workers' Opposition, led by Alexander Shlyapnikov and Alexandra Kollontai, advocated for greater independence of the trade unions from the state, arguing that they should control the economy and represent workers directly.^[4] Meanwhile, the Democratic Centralists called for more democratic participation in decision-making within the Party and the state but did not align fully with either Trotsky or the Workers' Opposition.^[5]

As the Soviet economy struggled to stabilize, the debate over trade unions became a battleground for larger ideological questions about the nature of workers' power in a socialist state and the relationship between workers, trade unions, and the state apparatus.

Trotsky proposed that trade unions should be integrated directly into the state apparatus. As Commissar of War, he was focused on rebuilding the war-torn economy, particularly the transportation system. He believed that a militarized "production atmosphere" was necessary, where the state would manage both workers and the unions to achieve rapid economic recovery. Trotsky’s view was that the workers, in a socialist state, should have no reason to fear state control of the unions, as the state ostensibly represented their interests.^[6]

In a speech at the Ninth Party Congress, Trotsky argued for the "militarization of labor," declaring that workers should be treated as "soldiers of labor" and trade unions should become instruments of state control to enforce labor discipline. He stated:

"...a regime in which every worker feels himself a soldier of labour, who cannot dispose of himself freely; if the order is given to transfer him, he must carry it out; if he does not carry it out, he will be a deserter who is punished. Who looks after this? The trade unions. It creates the new regime. This is the militarisation of the working class."^[7]

Trotsky's position was sharply criticized by Lenin, who accused him of bureaucratic overreach.

Lenin’s approach was more moderate than Trotsky’s and focused on the educational and organizational role of trade unions in the socialist state. He believed that trade unions should serve as a "school of communism," helping to educate workers in the administration of the economy and preparing them for eventual control of production. Rather than integrating the unions directly into the state apparatus, as Trotsky proposed, Lenin emphasized that the unions should retain a degree of autonomy to allow workers to have a voice and to prevent alienation from the state.^[8]

Lenin argued that the relationship between the state and the unions should be one of cooperation rather than coercion. He believed that genuine labor discipline could only be achieved if workers were engaged voluntarily, with trade unions acting as intermediaries between the workers and the state. This would foster a relationship based on trust and participation rather than the militaristic approach advocated by Trotsky.^[9]

Prominent figures such as Joseph Stalin and Grigory Zinoviev supported Lenin's view, and it was this position that ultimately won out at the 10th Congress of the Russian Communist Party. The resolution On the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions enshrined Lenin’s definition of unions as schools of administration and communism, designed to guide workers into roles of economic management.^[10]

The resolution adopted at the 10th Congress, On the Role and Tasks of the Trade Unions, banned factions within the Party and redefined the role of trade unions as supportive but not entirely subordinate to the state. This compromise allowed the Party to maintain unity but did not fully resolve the underlying tensions between those advocating for a more democratic form of worker representation and those pushing for tighter state control.^[11]

The three secretaries of the Central Committee then had to resign. Nikolay Krestinsky lost his Politburo, Orgburo, and Secretariat posts and became the Soviet ambassador to Germany.

• Daniels, Robert Vincent (1960) The Conscience of the Revolution: Communist Opposition in Soviet Russia, New York: Simon and Schuster, pp. 129–36.
• Day, Richard (1973) Leon Trotsky and the Politics of Economic Isolation, London: Cambridge University Press, pp. 37–43.
• Deutscher, Isaac (1950) Soviet Trade Unions: Their Place in Soviet Labour Policy, London: Royal Institute of International Affairs, pp. 42–58.
• Harding, Neil (1983) Lenin’s Political Thought: Theory and Practice in the Democratic and Socialist Revolutions, in two volumes, Highlands, New Jersey: Humanities Press, vol. 2, pp. 256–274.
• Schapiro, Leonard (1977) The Origin of the Communist Autocracy: Political Opposition in the Soviet State–First Phase, 1917–1922, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, pp. 273–295.
• Service (1995) Lenin: A Political Life, in three volumes, vol. 3, The Iron Ring, London: Macmillan, pp. 152–156.
• Tsuji, Yoshimas (1989) ‘The Debate on the Trade Unions, 1920–21’, Revolutionary Russia, 2, 1: 31–100.
• Twiss T. M. Trotsky and the Problem of Soviet Bureaucracy. — Haymarket Books, 2015. — P. 52 – 502 p. — (Historical Materialism Book Series, ISSN 1570-1522, Vol. 67). — ISBN 9781608464784. — ISBN 9789004269538.