lutionary ferment from the mass organizations would mean the unquestioned rule by the reformists of the old unions. The winning over of the trade unions means the winning over of the working class, the winning over of those millions which are there, and as long as this is our aim, we cannot propagate a slogan for the destruction of the unions.
There was another reason why we were opposed to that slogan. What does it mean to consider the trade unions as "hopeless" in the revolutionary sense? If the nine million workers of German are "hopeless," then the revolution itself is "hopeless." Thus, we come to unexpected conclusions which are of a Menshevik character.
These are the motives on account of which we were against the destruction of the unions, and why we came out with a clear and unambiguous slogan: The winning of the unions, the winning of the masses. I may say that the last year glaringly proved our point of view, the correctness of our tactics, and mainly in German herself. The leaders, especially the trade union bureaucracy, are hopeless; but the laboring Masses are not, for their consciousness is created not by abstract considerations but by the increasing capitalistic contradictions which we have in every country.
This by no means guarantees us against a split. We have all reasons to expect that the bureaucracy of the trade unions will split the unions as soon as this bureaucracy begins to feel the danger to its rule, but if such a split will take place it will be against our will and against our wishes.
