theses" which the outgoing executive committee of the World Federation of Trade Unions [wert] adopted for consideration at the Warsaw congress, scheduled to be held October 8-22, offers nothing new that could claim the attention of trade-union militants or observers. What is involved, in short, are routine documents presenting a series of generalities, confirming concepts and orientations that have been explained many times, which cannot be said to have been put into practice,* repeating many banal things in a stereotyped style. When allusion is made to specific problems or to particular cases, a quite prudent eclecticism is adopted or recourse is had to vague cir-
“For example,” the hypocritical reaffirmation of the independence of. the unions in relation to political parties and governments.
cumlocutions; and the estimates that should. in principle refer to concrete situations offer in reality only a conventional optimism,
The first of the two documents -- bearing the interminable title of "Theses on the Examination and Application of the Program of. Trade Union Action and the Unifying Initiatives of the WFTU, the Evolution and:-Present Development of the World Trade Union Movement, the New Possibilities for Unity, Solidarity and International Trade Union Relations" += repeats the well-known things about war and coexistence, with some minimum concessions in the "Chinese". direction while remaining essentially on a line that could be called moderate Khrushchevism. The only concrete position taken in the document is with regard to Vietnam, support being offered to the demands of the Front for National Liberation and the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, ©
On the international economic tendencies and the characteriza-~ tion of the Common Market we quote verbatim:
"The West European Common Market is one of the fields where this struggle Leompetition among. the capitalist countries] is unfolding. It is tending to reinforce the position of the West. German: mono polies at the same time as the American monopolies are obtaining a-‘'<: preponderant place there through massive investments." (Paragraph 18.)
This characterization of the Common Market, which has dis= pleased certain rightist currents (particularly those represented by the Italian Socialists), must be criticized, not because it is false, but because it is put in such a banal way. The objection, moreover, should be lodged against its absolutely unilateral estimate as to the beneficiaries of the Common Market --. who belong in reality to the capitalist sectors of all the European countries -- and the clear exaggeration of the role of American capitalism at this stage which cannot be.correotly characterized as “preponderant."
Another point has troubled the rightists (including those in the Italian Communist party, to judge by the declaration made by Lama, a leader of the CGIL LConfederazione Generale Italiana del Lavoro]). This is a paragraph that mentions planning in a capitalist society: "The attempts at planning undertaken by the monopolies are nothing: but attempts on the one hand to overcome their own contradictions and on the other hand to intensify the exploitation of the workers," (Paragraph 22.) Once again, the statement is a little summary but not false, :
In addition, the whole section of the document dealing with the situation in the advanced capitalist: countries is confined to generalities and platitudes. The impression one gets is that the authors preferred to beg the question rather than make a real analysis. The result is ‘that even where things are stated that are not false, a whole series of problems that cannot be ignored in the West European countries and the United States, are evaded. We would wager that not a single Social Democrat would be led to doubt his ideas and
- a5 On
options reading such stuff. It can be added that when the document broaches an analysis of a situation in the workers movement, it is limited to summarily hailing a series of strikes and struggles, all stuffed into the same sack and given evaluations that correspond very little to the reality.* ;
In setting their ‘objectives, the theses of the outgoing execu= tive committee again run along well-known grooves. "The working .class and its organizations, in face of the supremacist and antidemocratic - policies of the monopolies, propose the democratic and antimonopolist alternative which, on the basis of the present economic and social . needs of the broad layers of the population, tend to provide satisfaction for those needs, while reducing the political and economic power of the monopolies." (Paragraph 26.) At the same time, the theme is again sounded about the need to establish an alliance with the non-= proletarian social layers, victimized by the monopolies.
The section on the workers states is still worse, The prob-= lems arising in the transition phase are not even touched on. All the themes advanced by the bureaucracy since the days of Stalin are repeated on the role of the unions. In fact these paragraphs arenothing but an insipid résumé of the official propaganda of the various parties and governments. Here the rightist tendency, in which the CGIL has already been mentioned, unquestionably scored some points in their polemics.
‘For the colonial countries, or those that have recently gained their independence, the WFTU made a special effort, by adopting -- in addition to more than a section in the first document -- a special document, Nonetheless the results are not any more remarkable. With regard to countries still under direct colonial rule and those in the grip of neocolonialism, completely banal affirmations are again repeated in a style discouraging to the most patient readers. When the crucial problem of methods of struggle is considered, the main preoccupation is not to displease anyone and not to risk being given the lie by this or that possible development: “the workers struggle has forms, methods and procedures that are very diverse and which go from strikes and mass demonstrations up to armed insurrection" (paragraph 6 of the second document) and the same thing is repeated in the specific case of Latin America (paragraph 12). The effort to characterize.the evolution of certain Asian and African countries is certainly not an excessive one: "Algeria, Egypt, Guinea, Mali, Ghana, Indonesia, etc., are countries that have carried out an active. mobil-= ization of resources and domestic forces in the struggle against neo-
*Paragraph 243 states: "Currents favorable to a consistent attitude in the class struggle are growing stronger in all the capitalist coun= tries, even those where the unions have had a contrary attitude." In paragraph 46, one reads: "In all the capitalist countries, the work ers are affirming their desire for unity and their support is growing for the efforts of the organizations working for its realization."
eg RET
-5l-
colonialism, for national independence and social progress. A number of these countries have already openly attained a stage of social. transformation." (Paragraph 25.)
The tasks indicated for this sector of the world are defined as mainly bourgeois-democratic and the well-known formulas are offered on the role of the so-called national bourgeoisie. (Paragraph 12.) In line with certain recent Soviet generalizations, the "noncapitalist" road is spoken of in addition, but it emerges rather: clearly that the "noncapitalist' road does not necessarily mean the "socialist" road.* Thus once more we are served with arbitrary schemas, which, : in the final analysis, are of Stalinist origin. |
A single hasty allusion seems to introduce an interesting note in the "anti~-Fanonist" sense. “The working class," it is said in paragraph 31, “not only is the main enemy of all oppression, but it is also the least contaminated by the disintegrating influence of the. reactionary feudal forces," However, the real problem is: evaded. It is clear that the working class suffers much less than any other social layer from the influence of the "reactionary feudal forces." But the question which some, like Frantz Fanon, pose is whether in the context of a colonial or semicolonial country the working class, if only relatively,-is not a privileged. layer -compared to the broad peasant masses and the plebian masses of the towns. _To this question, the theses of the WFTU offer no answer,
Let. us stress finally that the judgment on the recent regional conferences of the African and Latin-American trade unions, and the affirmation concerning "the end of the split in the trade-union movement on the basis of a program of unity and anti-imperialism" in these sectors of the world are also marked by undue optimism,
We do not as yet know the attitude of the Chinese trade unions with regard to the theses. For several years they have attacked the majority pro=Moscow leadership of the WFTU from the left.
As to the rightist current represented by the Italian unions, to which we have already alluded, we can add a few words. The Italian members of the Executive Committee voted against the theses and the Socialists even utilized them to open a new round in their battle to take the CGIL out of the WFTU.
Now if, as we have said, the Italian criticisms on the section concerning the workers states are well founded (abstraction made of the viewpoint they express, particularly that of the Socialists), and if it is true that the documents offer an extremely summary and schematic picture of the reality in the advanced capitalist countries,
“Aa number of them [freed colonial countries] are hastening their march along the road of noncapitalist development. Some of them have taken a road that is actually socialist.!* (Paragraph 31 of the first document, ) .
2 neem ne Ng
LO oc ca
m52ex
it cannot be overlooked on the other hand that the Italians, includ- ing the leaders of the Communist tendency, do not accept a characterization of capitalist planning which nonetheless is considered a mate ter of course among Marxists. Even more unacceptable is the remark made by Lama and Mosca (Lama is’ also one of the leaders of the Italian Communist party) about~the picture presented. by the theses on the world situation, . , vo
This “analytic" picture, according to them, advanced "on many points an a priori ideological choice." Even the language speaks volumes. Are these bureaucrats making an “a priori ideological choice" in lining up with the workers states against imperialism and capitalism? Would they prefer to take a neutral attitude or play the role of fair-weather friends in the struggle?
At bottom, neither the Italian Socialists nor the Communists are very much interested in the WFTU, its theses and its congress, Both currents would like to utilize the occasion to move away on dif ferent levels from the workers states and the organizations linked with: them ih,order later on to come out for "independence" and "auton omy,'' the better to apply their national rightist policies.
their enthusiasm for "“democratizing" the Italian unions, that the CGIL determined its attitude toward the WFTU theses without consulting the membership or cadres in any way. They did not even have a chance to read the documents which were nonetheless rejected in their name. The Italian translation appeared only on the eve of the opening of the congress in Warsaw.
= eee - | ~ -
Directeur-Gérant: Pierre FRANK. l'éditepr)..