THIS weekend, Lenin, his life and legacy, will be celebrated right across the world. The leader of the first socialist state will be celebrated for his practical revolutionary role but also for his contribution to Marxist theory, particularly in the areas of imperialism and internationalism, the role of the party, the state and revolution, democracy and dictatorship, the struggle for peace.

However, he should also be celebrated for his contribution on the questions of trade unions, the role they play in class struggle, and the attitude that Marxists should take towards them and work alongside or within them. Lenin was the first Marxist to really concretise Marx and Engels’ views on the potential role that trade union struggle, and economic struggle more broadly, could play in the development of class consciousness and advancing proletarian revolution.

While Marx, and particularly Engels towards the end of his life, had begun to develop a detailed theory of the role of trade unions, and on the other hand were clear that the “constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable,” they had not mapped out clearly the relationship between the two, or the role members of a revolutionary working-class party should play in relation to trade unions.

Indeed, the resolution to the London Congress of the First International in 1871, which the above quote is taken from, continues in relation to trade unions, “this combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economic struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists.”

While recognising there is a role for trade unions to play, as a “lever” for political struggles, it says nothing about how this is to be achieved or indeed, how Marxists should respond when the “combination of forces” constituting trade unions do not play this role, or indeed play the opposite role, one of dampening down political struggle and ameliorating the worst excesses of capitalism, making a minor modification of the status quo more acceptable to the workers.

Lenin starts from the perspective that Marxists recognise the economic struggle as a key component of working-class struggle and that broad trade unions are the most effective form of organisation for this aspect of the struggle. However, at the same time, he argues that, “the economic struggle can bring about a lasting improvement in the conditions of the masses of the workers, and a strengthening of their truly class organisation, only if this struggle is properly combined with the political struggle of the proletariat” (Draft resolution to the RSDLP unity congress of 1906). This point is crucial because, as Lenin argues throughout his writings, revolutionary class politics will not arise spontaneously from the working class but must be consciously developed within the class by a Marxist party guided by the most advanced revolutionary theory.

On this basis, Lenin argues that the role of the Marxist party in relation to trade unions consists of five tasks. First, to promote the formation of “non-party trade unions” within which the broad mass of the working class can be organised. Second, to “induce” all party members to join the relevant trade union for their respective trade, industry, area of work. Third, to educate workers who belong to trade unions about class struggle and socialism, developing their revolutionary class consciousness. Fourth, to win a “virtually leading position” in these broad trade unions through the activity of the party and its members. Fifth, and finally, to bring these broad unions “under certain conditions” into direct contact with the revolutionary party.

On this final point, Lenin is clear that this does not mean compromising the broad nature of the trade unions, or confusing their role with that of a revolutionary party, but rather bringing them into contact with the party as a force leading the revolutionary struggle of the workers.

Lenin is often quoted out of context, in support of the idea that economic class struggle leads “spontaneously” to the development of political consciousness and revolutionary class consciousness. For example in 1896, in his draft and explanation of the social democratic party programme, when he says that the struggle for higher wages “develops workers’ political consciousness” and “spurs the workers on to think of state, political questions.” Or in his 1899 article on strikes, when he argues that, “every strike brings thoughts of Socialism very forcibly to the workers’ mind.” 

However, in these and other cases he is clear that this does not happen without the conscious intervention of a Marxist party. Lenin’s entire political approach was to fight, on the one hand against the economist position that socialism is inevitable and we simply have to sit back and wait for the conditions to be right, and on the other against the spontaneist position that militant economic activity alone will develop the consciousness of the workers. It is the combination of the experience of economic struggle and an engagement with Marxist political education which provides the basis for the development of revolutionary class consciousness.

This has three key lessons for Marxists today, experiencing the first genuine strike wave for several decades:

1) It is not enough to simply engage in economic struggle, to simply carry out trade union work. That work must be guided by revolutionary theory, and directed by a revolutionary Marxist party. Its focus should be to achieve a leading position in the movement through actions and leadership.

2) Marxists must combine this trade union work with conscious political education of the mass of workers in the trade union movement. Militant trade union action is necessary but not sufficient to develop class consciousness. It must be connected directly to opportunities for political discussion and education.

3) The focus of Marxist trade union work is directly on the broad mass of workers organised within unions, developing their consciousness and sharpening their struggle. While it is necessary to criticise reactionary approaches, it is not about shouting from the sidelines about the “betrayal” of the “leaders.” It is about elevating class conscious workers to the leadership of the movement and building the strength of the entire class to take on the bosses and the state.