The party, which desired to get control of production through the unions (and it succeeded in getting it) wished to make production as abundant and profitable as possible. But production did not rise; on the contrary, with the decreasing supply of foodstuffs it fell more and more. The party's policy towards the peasants was determined through the grain monopoly. In accordance with this the peasants were to deliver all grain to the state. The peasants did not want to dp this. It came to disputes. The state began to requisition the grain. But the grain deliveries were not increased through these means, and the workers did not receive enough bread. This had a tendency to diminish their productivity. The factory committees were not energetic enough, and the state took to other means. It took the management out )p/ the hands of the committees and placed it in the hands of individuals. The managing councils had thus played their role as managers of production to the end and lost their right of self-determination.
During the period of czarism and capitalism the Russian unions were, in part, organizations similar to the German "free" unions, but a good deal more radical. Their radical position was evident already from the persecution by czarism. They were compelled to be not only relief organizations but also fighting organizations. In how far they served this purpose, we can best learn from the third conference, already mentioned, which took place during the storms of the revolution in November 1917. Already then managing councils were recognized as necessary organs with the function of control over the workers. But during this period the unions were still class struggle organizations. Later they changed from class struggle organizations to productive organizations.
The change in the character of the unions was also accompanied by a change in the form of the organization. While they were formerly organized along craft lines, they now became industrial organizations. Without doubt the industrial form of organization is the best one for unions which shall serve as organs of production. For the workers organized along industrial lines are better in position to manage production than the craft unions. This has been shown in America. The organization of the Industrial Workers of the World is also built on this principle, as in accordance with its theory it intends to take over production. The I. W .W. are, no doubt, the forerunners of this modern form of union movement. But the Communist Party of Russia ( the bolsheviks) contributed to the acceleration of this development. It had, through the above mentioned process, obtained more and more influence in the unions, so that their resolutions always went through at the later congresses. Through the overwhelming influence of the government party the uwiions became more and more the tools of the state; they were made into state organs.
The formal decision to make them state organs was made at the second congress of the unions in January 1919.
There it says : "that the nationalization of all the means of production and the organization of society on a new socialist foundation requires slow and persevering labor with the rebuilding of the whole state machinery, as well as th( creating of new organs of accounting, and organs for contro] and regulation of the whole system of production an< distribution. This requires of the unions a more energetic and more active participation in the exercise of soviet power, through direct representatives in all organs of the state. The whole process of melting the unions together with the organs of state power, must take place as the unavoidable result of their most intimate co-operation."