From the stand thus taken by the unions it will be seen that, \ in consequence of the revolutionary situation, the unions occupied themselves with problems, which came to the front even in the German 'revolution, - - control over production, the right of the workers to a voice in engaging and discharging workers, and so on. In Germany also they have occupied themselves with democratic demands, with the transplantation of democracy into industry, something which the capitalists resisted under the slogan that they were "master of the house". In spite of all the progress that this workers' control signifies, it still is nothing else than the introduction of democracy in the economic life, but it is not the social revolution in itself. Even such organizations which are not in principle for the social revolution may put up such demands for joint control, as for instance the German "free" unions did, unions which were free only in the sense that they did not stand in the service of any socialist ideas.
When later the October revolution broke out and ended in a bolshevik victory, the bolsheviks, as a radical-democratic party, wished to carry the revolution over to the place of work. The workers themselves also, naturally, wanted to make the revolution into a social revolution, that is, altogether eliminate the capitalists.
But then it became evident that this was not so easy as was expected. And why not? Because the workers of Russia were not in a position to abolish capitalism, in the hands of which the whole economic life had rested up to that time, without exposing economic life to the worst kind of crisis. The social revolution confronted the workers with tasks to which they were not eqvjoii in their first onrush. But as a party which could only lean on the working class and on no other class (on the peasants only conditionally) had the power in the state, this party also had to take over the responsibility for the economic life, if it did not wish to either leave the capitalists in their position of power on the economic field or again give up its political power. But they could undertake nothing without the workers, as they had no state organs at their disposition for these purposes.
They, consequently, turned to the unions. The workers strove for . economic liberty, for elimination of exploitation by the employers. In many cases they chased the employer to the devil; 1 1 irany cases he left his factory or his works in the lurch, from despair, or from the hope to be able to sabotage production by this means, so that the workers, who would then understand their own incapacity, would call him back again. In a number of cases it has also happened that to-day the old employer is again the leader of the establishment. Not with the old right of ownership, it is true, but as a so-called specialist, who is far better off than the worker.
As the workers now started to run industry, they elected for that purpose committees, so-called factory committees. These factory committees took over the factories. But as the state needed the products created^ it entered into indirect contact with the factory committees through the unions. With the factory committees themselves the state could not do business, because for that purpose a large apparatus would have been necessary. The unions thus received the role of negotiating production for the state. The ruling party soon recognized the important role which falls to the unions on the field of production and on the whole economic field in general, and, as many of the party members belonged to the unions (it continued, after all, to be a party mostly composed of workers) , it sought, through its members, to place the unions under the influence of the party and make them subordinate to the party. This was the best way for the ruling party to secure control of production and to place the whole of production in their service. The bolshevik party also declared in their program that "the organization apparatus of nationalized industry must first of all rest upon the unions."