More than a century has passed since the trumpets of the victorious revolution rang out across Russia. marking the beginning of the proletariat’s great struggle for its own emancipation, waged amidst the ruins of the Russian Empire by the Bolshevik Party at the head of the Soviets. But the horns of victory have long since been transformed, first into the ominous preludes of the Stalinist counter-revolution, then into the melody of the bleak, advertized peaceful coexistence, with Western capital. They now lie silent beside Comrade Lenin’s corpse. Today, in the imperialist war still raging in Ukraine, the Russian state has once again donned the red flag and invoked anti-fascism as a means of driving the proletariat into a bloody massacre; yet this revival has not worked as well as it did in the 20th century. So, what do we Marxists have on our hands in Russia? What are the echoes of the Party’s victory today? If there are any, of course. Let us take stock.

A tribute to the Soviet trade unions

Let’s start with the basics. A country with such a significant history of class struggle must surely have solid proletarian bodies for economic defence, even if they are state-run or have a nationalist slant?

We shall now, therefore, examine the trade unions, Профсоюзы in particular. These are the organisations that Russia is said to have inherited from the dear departed USSR. Our party has repeatedly emphasised the importance of trade unions under bourgeois rule, but the case of Russia deserves special attention. The proletariat in Russia has triumphed; it has seized power! As the proclaimed heir to the USSR, Did Russian workers in the Russian Federation inherit a proletarian or a bourgeois trade union structure? The original purpose of these bodies was described by Lenin in a speech in 1920:

«It follows from what I have said that the trade unions have an extremely important part to play at every step of the dictatorship of the proletariat. But what is their part? I find that it is a most unusual one, as soon as I delve into this question, which is one of the most fundamental theoretically. On the one hand, the trade unions, which take in all industrial workers, are an organisation of the ruling, dominant, governing class, which has now set up a dictatorship and is exercising coercion through the state. But it is not a state organisation [Editor’s Note: Emphasis added]; 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». (V.I.Lenin, On the Trade Unions, the Present Situation and the Mistakes of Comrade Trotsky, 1920.)

Here we can clearly see the Marxist conception of how trade unions should operate under the dictatorship of the proletariat: “it is not a state organisation; nor is it designed for coercion, but for education”. Later, in a speech in 1921, Lenin quoted the Bolshevik Party’s programme on the trade union question:

«The trade unions being, on the strength of the laws of the Soviet Republic and established practice, participants in all the local and central organs of industrial management, should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy, as a single economic entity.

Everyone makes references to this paragraph. What does it say? Something that is absolutely indisputable: “should eventually arrive.” It does not say that they are arriving. It does not contain the exaggeration which, once made, reduces the whole to an absurdity. It says, “should eventually arrive”. Arrive where? At a de facto concentration and administration. When are you due to arrive at this point? This calls for education, and it must be so organised as to teach everyone the art of administration. Now can you say, with a clear conscience, that the trade unions are able to fill any number of executive posts with suitable men at any time? After all, it is not six million, but sixty thousand or, say, a hundred thousand men that you need to fill all the executive posts. Can they nominate this number? No, they cannot—not yet—as anyone will say who is not chasing after formulas and theses and is not misled by the loudest voices. Years of educational work lie ahead for the Party, ranging from the abolition of illiteracy to the whole round of Party work in the trade unions. An enormous amount of work must be done in the trade unions to achieve this properly. This is exactly what it- says: “should eventually arrive at a de facto concentration in their hands of the whole administration of the whole national economy”». (V.I. lenin, Speech closing the discussion delivered at a meeting of the communist group of the congress january 24, 1921)

To summarise: the trade unions, which are the foundation of the proletarian dictatorship, under the Party’s leadership, will act as non-state administrative institutions, whilst moving dialectically towards the coordination of the entire economy with the aim of replacing the exchange of commodities with total planning, thereby avoiding the trap of bureaucratisation. What, then, happened historically? To summarise a very long history of proletarian organisation (a history to which we shall undoubtedly return): the Russian trade unions organised themselves under the leadership of the Bolshevik Party, first as a confederation known as the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions (ВЦСПС/VTSPS), and subsequently, from 1923 onwards, as the All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions. But what role did the trade unions actually play during the 69 years of the USSR’s existence? The trade unions went from being organs of workers’ control, a ”school of communism”, to bureaucratic instruments of the state. How could this have happened? It occurred in parallel with the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party, and with it the Comintern and the entire communist movement. (For a more comprehensive analysis, see our text Why Is Russia Not Socialist?, published in 1970). During the NEP period, the trade unions operated under the banner of increasing productivity to rebuild a country devastated by war, boosting industrial output and reducing absenteeism in the workplace. These were all harsh, necessary and temporary measures which, as in many other cases, were transformed during Stalin’s era of socialism in one country. What did this mean for the trade unions? Suddenly, the temporary measures became assosaited as socialism; to give an example, let us quote from a book on Soviet history:

«The Communist Party regarded the implementation of a strict austerity regime as one of the sources of socialist accumulation. In April 1926, the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the Communist (Bolshevik) Party of the Union issued an appeal, ‘On the Struggle for a Regime of Austerity’, addressed to party organisations, public administrations and all workers, calling for the establishment of a strict regime of austerity in institutions, enterprises and all organisations. This appeal was immediately taken up by the working class and the trade unions. They explained in detail to workers and employees the decisions of the Party’s 14th Congress, the nature and significance of socialist industrialisation, and the need to fight for a strict regime of austerity in order to increase the savings earmarked for industrialisation. The trade unions supported all the measures adopted by the economic bodies aimed at implementing austerity (reduction of the costs of the state and economic apparatus, staff cuts, the merger of small enterprises, etc.).

The trade unions mobilised the working class and all workers in the struggle for austerity, using various forms of mass action. Production meetings played a particularly important role in this regard. They increasingly focused on resolving the fundamental problems of production (its rationalisation, the reduction of industrial production costs, the economising of raw materials and supplies, the reduction of defects and the overall strengthening of work discipline) and began to delve deeper into the process of the technical reorganisation of enterprises». (from ‘History of the Trade Unions in the USSR 1905–1937’)

Socialist accumulation! What a term! We can at least commend this account for its honesty; here we see the truth clearly: the Russian proletariat was persuaded to lay down its arms, in a tragic display of loyalty to the Bolsheviks, unaware of the counter-revolutionary nature of these decisions, thereby aiding the State in its accumulation! (Read: More efficient extraction of surplus value). In 1923, with the official founding of the USSR, the People’s Commissariat for Labour (Narkomtrud) was established. Why is this important? The answer is simple: in 1933, it was dissolved and incorporated into the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions, completing the transformation of the trade union federation into a state apparatus.

Firstly, alongside the purges within the party, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions was also subjected to purges: 14 of its 21 members in 1929 were executed. Once total control had been secured, trade union leaders were not appointed directly by the party, but were approved to ensure that the chosen trade union leader would cooperate with the state; they shifted their focus from improving working conditions to promoting Stakhanovism (the idea that workers should push themselves beyond their limits to increase productivity) during the Five-Year Plan period. The trade unions became a tool for monitoring and pacifying the workers. There were no strikes called by these organisations, nor was there any opposition to the state. Trade union officials distributed benefits and consulted workers on the issue of improving working conditions. In reality, the trade unions distributed leisure trips and minor benefits to workers as rewards for productivity. Soviet state officials boasted that 98% of workers in the USSR belonged to these organisations and, although membership had never been imposed by law, it was encouraged and expected. Nothing more than a tool of subjugation – so much for socialism.

And this is the trade union structure that the Russian Federation would have inherited. But the Soviet trade unions were an instrument of increasing accumulation during an era of industrialisation and economic recovery, population growth and a demographic boom, associated with the bloody and primitive accumulation instigated by the Soviet state; these endless extortions could not last forever, and indeed they did not. Just like a stray dog, the bureaucratic apparatus of the trade unions was left in the dust following the collapse of the USSR. In 1991, the All-Russian Central Council of Trade Unions was dissolved, replaced by the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (FNPR) – an ironic name, given the brief history we are about to outline. The only demonstration of independence the FNPR ever gave was during the October coup of 1993, when the trade unions backed parliament in its attempt to impeach Yeltsin, a move which, to put it bluntly, proved counterproductive. Let’s take a look at a report from the time:

«At the government’s insistence, the trade union leader has been replaced.

Yesterday, the Presidium of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia accepted Igor Klochkov’s resignation from the post of chairman. During the crisis in September and October, the federation’s leadership called on workers to defend the Constitution and Parliament, using all possible means “up to and including a strike”. Vasily Romanov has been appointed acting chairman of the Federation of Trade Unions of Russia.

Immediately following the publication of Boris Yeltsin’s Decree No. 1400 of 21 September, the leadership of the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Russia (which represents over 18 million people) issued a statement condemning the President’s move and called on workers to defend the constitutional order. This firm stance by the trade union leaders immediately prompted a response from the executive authorities: the telephones in the FNPR building were cut off. 

The trade unions proved to be fairly “reasonable”, and on 28 September, at a plenary session of the Federation of Trade Unions, a “softer” statement was adopted, which effectively revoked the initial call for strikes. Nevertheless, even after this decision by the Federation, its chairman, Igor Klochkov, continued to demand the adoption of the “zero option” proposed by the former chairman of the Constitutional Court, Valery Zorkin, which provided for the simultaneous repeal of Boris Yeltsin’s decree and all subsequent resolutions of the Congress. Mr Klochkov did not declare his support for the President’s actions until the morning of 4 October, by which time tanks were already firing on the parliament building. 

According to information from government circles, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Vladimir Shumeiko demanded Klochkov’s immediate resignation. The Federation’s Presidium, having accepted Klochkov’s resignation, appointed Klochkov’s former deputy, Vasily Romanov, to act as chairman on an interim basis until the congress». (Kommersant, Change of leadership of the FNPR, October 9 1993)

Following Yeltsin’s ‘18 Brumaire’, the workers who had been called upon to defend the constitutional order were betrayed by their trade union leaders. Under its new leadership, the FNPR soon adopted the position of social partnership between owners, workers and the state (read: class collaboration), but unlike Western nationalist trade unions, the FNPR does not even pretend to protect workers in any way; even the aforementioned holiday trips, which mimicked socialism in the USSR, have been privatised! Since then, the FNPR has become a bureaucratic tumour attached to the Russian state, achieving nothing for workers except to skim a percentage off their wages, with union leaders chosen in sham elections, much like Russian democracy in general (which is not all that different from Western democracy). No strikes, but state-orchestrated demonstrations; no protection of workers’ rights, but fundraising for the imperialist war effort in Ukraine, and so on. Membership is generally considered compulsory, but is rarely even acknowledged during the course of employment, with many workers reportedly not even aware that they are members of the union! And trade union leaders are merely part of the state, with the entire FNPR apparatus intrinsically linked to the United Russia party. May the remnants of the trade unions established in the Bolshevik era rest in peace. But there is still hope. The material realities of Capital are ever-present, and no number of state bureaucrats can erase the spontaneous drive of workers to protect their own material interests. Following the repeated failures of state-controlled trade unions, during the era of liberal capitalism in Russia in the 2000s, genuine independent trade unions were formed to defend the concrete interests of workers, which we shall discuss in a forthcoming article.