Datasets:

pkd

/

marxism-medium

like 1

“Godless Bolshevism” The Roman Catholic hierarchy is the deadly foe of socialism and communism, not alone for “spiritual” reasons, but above all because they threaten the truly gigantic property and financial interests of the Vatican. Religiously speaking, the Roman Catholic Church holds all non-Catholics as benighted heathens subject to eternal damnation. But today it reserves its unrestrained furies for “godless Bolshevism.” The reason is summarized by Li Fu-Jen in his article, The Vatican in World Affairs, published in the Fourth International magazine of October 1946. He wrote: “Tribute flows into its (the Vatican’s) coffers from the most advanced lands and from the most backward. The Vatican publishes no balance sheets, gives no financial accountings. Only the inner circle of the top hierarchy knows the extent of its enormous properties and income. In addition to cathedrals and churches, monasteries and convents, seminaries and schools and mission establishments, the Catholic Church is the owner of vast secular properties, which make it the greatest real estate owner on earth. “Among Catholic properties are to be found commercial structures of various kinds (including even movie palaces), apartment buildings and slum tenements. As owners of slum dwellings in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, the Catholic Church squeezes rents from the poorest of the poor. Owning great tracts of plantation and farm lands in colonial countries (that is, the Philippines, French Indo-China, North Africa, Latin America) it wrings profits from the labor of the most exploited among rural workers. “The huge income from all this property, not to speak of the property itself, is imperiled by the rising revolution. This constitutes the explanation, the whole explanation, for the ‘moral crusade’ of the Vatican against Communism and Bolshevism. It explains the intense hatred of the Vatican for the Soviet Union, the first country successfully to breach the system of capitalist private property.” Recent disclosures in the French National Assembly, resulting from a scandal involving Vatican agents in the illegal manipulation of French currency, have thrown light on the Vatican as one of the most powerful institutions of finance capital in the world. The May 29 La Lutte Ouvrière, organ of the French Trotskyists, reports these disclosures. Mussolini’s Adviser The Treasurer of the Vatican is Bernadino Nogara, former adviser to Mussolini. His most important associates are Marquis Schetti, Prince Giulio Pacelli, nephew of the present Pope, the Christian Democratic deputy Montini, and the former Fascist Oddasso, who resides in Switzerland and directs the flow of profits of the Church. The Vatican Treasury directly controls the Bank of Rome, the Bank of the Saintly Spirit (!) and the Italian Commercial Bank. These Vatican-controlled banks in turn control a whole series of subsidiary land and credit banks in Italy, one Of them, the Ambrosian Bank in Milan, directed by Count Franco Ratti, nephew of the late Pius XI. One third of all Italian savings – 400 BILLION lire – are under the control of the Vatican. In France, the Vatican owns a third of the shares in the Bank of H. Worms & Co., which financed the Nazi-collaborationists during the last war. It controls outright the Italian-French Credit Bank – which financed the Cagoulards, the French fascist terrorists – and the French-Italian Bank for South America. The Vatican likewise owns the most notorious gambling resort in the world, the Casino of Monte Carlo, and the Demouhy, Galicier and Lehideux banks. Various Catholic orders have enormous capital investments in the Lyon Credit, Northern Credit and Industrial Credit banks, and the French Dupon & Co. These banks in turn control numerous industrial enterprises. The total financial investment of the Catholic hierarchy and Vatican in France is estimated at more than 30 BILLION francs. Similar huge sums are invested in Belgium, where the Church in addition receives state subsidies. In the United States, the Vatican alone has millions of dollars in real estate and industrial stocks and bonds, and collaborates closely with the House of Morgan. These facts – but a brief glimpse into the capitalist interests of the Vatican – show the real reason why the Roman Catholic Church, the ancient feudal enemy of the rising capitalists, now whole heartedly collaborates with Wall Street – the main bulwark against “godless Bolshevism.” It also explains why American capitalism, which adopted at its birth the doctrine of the separation of church and state, is now cementing its political ties with the Vatican, the second most substantial prop of capitalism left in the whole world. (This is the third in a series on the political role of the Vatican) Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis The ERP Program (3 May 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 18, 3 May 1948, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). With all the millions of words written and spoken in favor, of the European Recovery Program, with the months of Congressional study of the ERP bill and the voluminous text itself, it seems almost incredible that such a slip-up could take place. Yet it is a fact that the bill as passed suffered the omission, in explicit phrases, of its very heart and soul, its core, its fundamental purpose. You are no doubt surprised to hear this. But it is a demonstrable fact which you will readily accept once certain information is brought to your attention. We know that leading figures in the labor movement have repeatedly assured us that the bill is designed to “aid the hungry” and so alleviate their suffering as to deprive “communism” of any allure. We have not waded through the huge text of the ERP bill, but we presume it is effectively studded with similar expressions of humanitarian purposes and aims. But now we have it on sound authority, no less a person than Dwight P. Griswold, head of the American Mission in Greece, that one of the primary purposes of ERP has not even been mentioned in the text of the bill itself, let alone in all the glorification of the bill from radio, press and pulpit. Your local paper very likely did not carry this vital and illuminating statement by Griswold. It appeared in a special dispatch, datelined Athens, April 13, in the New York Times. We quote: “Dwight P. Griswold, head of the United States mission to Greece, warned a group of Greek industrialists and labor unionists today that wage increases now would create an inflationary spiral that would ‘bring in communism’ ... He made it clear that such demands contravened the purpose of the European Recovery Program.” There you have it. Many things are promised by the ERP, but one thing it doesn’t propose is to raise European workers’ wages. That would be carrying “aid to the hungry” too far. Indeed, paying starving Greek workers a little more in inflated currency “contravenes” the very purpose of ERP. By a strange coincidence, the American workers are being confronted by a similar program, only it’s not labeled ERP. It is frankly the program of the American corporations. They are telling the steel, auto, electrical, meat packing, maritime and other workers here that wage increases would be bad, “inflationary” and no doubt lead to “communism” as well. Now Philip Murray and other top CIO leaders are wailing to high heaven because the corporations have not acted in “good faith” and are refusing to raise wages in the face of the high cost of living. Philip Murray is an expert in “good faith.” Like when he and his lieutenants “forgot” to tell the American, Greek, Italian, French and other workers that the ERP bill is not only designed to “contain” communism, but to “contain” the hungry workers from getting higher wages. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis The Initial Fruits of the New Stalinist Turn To Aid Wall Street’s War, Overnight the C.P. Abandons Fight for Labor and Negro (July 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 27, 5 July 1941, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). A “before and after” summary of the concrete slogans and activities of the Communist Party, as revealed in the Daily Worker for the week immediately preceding the Nazi assault upon the Soviet Union, and the week after, bold-faces the extent of the latest Stalinist betrayal of the class struggle. The Stalinists have surrendered the fight on every battleground – on workers’ rights, on Negro rights, and. against the “imperialist program of war-time suppression and economic degradation.” On June 17, William Z. Foster wrote a front-page editorial in the Daily Worker stating: “... When President Roosevelt sent Federal troops against the aviation workers and broke their strike, it was a taste of the Hitleristic terrorism that Wall Street capitalists have in mind for the working class. These war-mongering imperialists, who dominate the Roosevelt Administration, are determined to compel the workers to accept lowered standards of living and restricted civil liberties, as part of their bigger plans to force the unwilling American people into a ‘shooting’ war. “Roosevelt’s use of troops at Inglewood was not an isolated act of impatience with these strikers, but a considered phase of a developing anti-labor policy.” What Foster Proposed aWeek Ago What concrete conclusions did Foster draw from this absolutely correct analysis? “Organized labor should draw the full political conclusions from Roosevelt’s use of troops against the Inglewood strikers. It should realize that an Administration which commits such a monstrous act is an enemy of the workers and cannot be supported by them ... Roosevelt’s whole line, dictated by Wall Street, is contrary to the most basic interests of the masses of the people. “Labor therefore, on pain of disaster, needs to break its alliance with the Roosevelt administration, in the so-called ‘National Unity’. In its great new strength of more than 10,000,000 members, labor needs imperatively to begin an orientation toward independent political action, together with the farmers; against involvement in the imperialist war and in defense of the toilers’ economic standards and civil liberties ...” What Budenz Said the Day Hitler Struck On June 22, the day Hitler launched his attack on the Soviet Union, Louis Budenz, editor of the Daily Worker, explained the kind of political action the Communist Party advocated. Budenz declared: “Thus, the warning of the Communist Party to labor – that the Roosevelt administration’s engaging in war abroad also entailed warring upon the workers at home – takes on flesh and blood. Its truth is visible in life before the eyes of the workers. “What does such realization oblige labor to’ do? It makes it imperative that the workers strive more vigorously to take this country out of war. It makes it urgent that they recognize the Roosevelt administration as their enemy, bound in ‘national unity’ against them with the Bourbons and the Republican Party. It puts upon the immediate order of business for the workers, the inauguration of an anti-imperialist Farmer-Labor political party.” The Daily Worker, June 18, four days before Hitler began his war on the Soviet Union, proclaimed editorially: “The events of the past week – ‘labor’s blackest week’ – should serve to make more evident than ever the need for a new party of labor and the people ... What is needed is leadership and the organizational work which can weld these masses together in an anti-imperialist Labor-Farmer political party.” On June 16, six days before the outbreak of the Soviet-Nazi war, the Daily Worker reported that the Stalinist-led left-wing of the New York American Labor Party was calling a city-wide convention to be held June 27–28 to consider “the most effective means in the September 16 primary of advancing the party’s program, to promote the election of the most progressive, efficient and honest anti-war administration possible for the people of New York City.” What They’ve Abandoned Since June 23rd On June 30, the Daily Worker, in a tiny and obscure item announced the postponement of the ALP convention to July 10. No mention was made of anti-war candidates. The Daily Worker, since June 23, the day after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union, has not only discontinued all references to an “anti-imperialist” Labor-Farmer Party – it has ceased calling for “independent labor political” action” altogether. The entire week preceding the beginning of Hitler’s attack on the Soviet Union, the Daily Worker was flooded with stories and union resolutions in denunciation of Roosevelt’s strike-breaking use of federal troops and the administration’s strike-breaking legislation and edicts. The Daily Worker, June 21, featured a call by the “National Labor Committee against War, an American Peace Mobilization affiliate” asking all organized labor “to observe the week of July 27 to August 2 as ‘National Peace and Labor’s Rights Week’.” Since June 23, the “National Peace and Labor’s Rights Week” has disappeared completely from the Daily Worker, as have the “National Labor Committee Against War,” the “American Peace Mobilization,” and the resolutions and articles announcing Roosevelt’s strikebreaking. On June 18, four days prior to the Soviet-Nazi war, the Daily Worker wrote in connection with the bulletin of Labor’s Non-Partisan League which attacked the anti-labor acts of Rooseveltt “The acts which the LNPL castigates arise directly from the entire war drive of the administration. They are bound up integrally with that war drive, as the Daily Worker has repeatedly stated ... “The anti-labor barrage of the administration, moreover, is ...

a product of the ‘national unity’ which has welded together all the Wall Street monopolists in one common pro-war and anti-labor front ...” And what action does the Daily Worker now propose against this anti-labor drive “bound up integrally with the war drive”? Since June 23, the Daily Worker has not printed a word about all its campaigns, committees, projects, resolutions, etc., etc., to defeat Roosevelt’s anti-labor, strikebreaking war program. What Stalinists Then Said on Fight for Negro Rights One of the principal points of the Communist Party program two weeks ago was the fight.for Negro rights against discrimination in the war industries and the armed forces. The Negro Job March on Washington, which had been planned for July 1, was criticised by the Stalinists, because they claimed the march did not have a militant-enough program. The Daily Worker, June 16, featured an extensive article, which sharply denounced the leadership and motivation of the march on the following score: “... (The March) is the supreme effort of America’s big shot businessmen to win the masses of the Negro people for the war program of the Administration ... “Their supreme aim is to build up a nationalist movement among the Negro people, with Randolph as its leader, in an attempt to direct the healthy strivings of the Negro people for full equality, for full citizenship rights, into channels of support for the imperialist war ... “But this march on Washington can become a real demonstration for the rights of the Negro people. To become that, the Negro people while giving support to the March, must make their demands known. They must first of all demand their right to live, a demand that cannot be realized by those who, with support of an imperialist war program, are consciously betraying the Negro masses. Therefore the Negro people must make their sentiments known. Opposition to the imperialist war! Demand that our country get out and stay out of the war! End Jim Crow in the ‘defense industries’ and armed forces!” On June 22, the day Hitler started his march against the Soviet Union, the Daily Worker correctly denounced the Social-Democratic New Leader for placing the blame for Negro discrimination on “the American people.” The Daily Worker declared: “This is a shameless whitewashing of the sinister anti-Negro capitalists who rule the country and want to plunge it into a shooting war ... Who issued the order officially up-holding jim-crowism in the armed forces, ‘the American people’ or President Roosevelt? Who continues to give contracts to ‘defense’ employers, who arrogantly refuse to employ Negroes, ‘the American people’ or President Roosevelt? Who refuses to enforce the constitutional rights of the Negro people, ‘the American people’ or President Roosevelt and the Department of Justice? To ask these questions is to answer them.” On June 17, the Daily Worker declared: “The President is the fountainhead of this discrimination and set the pattern himself ... “... All of these and other vital rights of the Negro people and various minorities are being ruthlessly sacrificed by the President in the name of ‘defense’ ... The President spoke, therefore, not to end discrimination, which he could do, but to deceive the Negro people and their supporters into surrendering to the war program. Since this program is the root of the intensified violations of Negro rights, the fight against job discrimination necessitates opposition to every move of the President toward belligerency ...” James W. Ford, the Communist Party’s “beloved leader” of the American Negroes, graced the front page of the June 17 Daily Worker with a solemn warning to the Negro masses: “Backsliding on the part of the initiators of the March is in the making. With bitterness and fear Roosevelt and his agents are getting alarmed ... The Negro people must continue their fight against the whole jim-crow set-up. They must not allow any backsliding and turn-coating on the part of the initiators of the March to Washington.” When Randolph did “backslide” and call off the march, one reason he could do so was that the Stalinists were now pro-Roosevelt. The Daily Worker, June 26, casually reported the fact in one paragraph in the middle of another story. The Daily Worker and Ford have said not a word in criticism of this turn-coating. Since June 23, the Daily Worker has become dumb as a stone about the whole fight for Negro rights. Roosevelt has become a “defender” of the Soviet Union and is no longer, according to the Stalinists, the “fountainhead of this discrimination.” Abandoning The Fight Against The Profiteers Prior to June 22, the Daily Worker conducted an elaborate campaign against the high cost of living, the war tax program, and war profiteering. On the high cost of living, the Daily Worker wrote, June 20: “A well organized national fight against the high cost of living is in order, taken up by the trade unions and community organizations. But such a fight has to be, at the same time, a campaign to get this country out of the war. Let the trade unions tell the nation ‘to protect your living standards from high prices, you must battle against this war!’” (Emphasis in original) On June 16, the Daily Worker said: “Only the American people, and above all, the organized labor and progressive movement, united in militant struggle, can defeat the war and hunger plans of the Administration.” Since June 23, the Daily Worker has carried one small article and one weak editorial on the question of food profiteering and high prices. Both appeared on June 27.

Both appeared on June 27. Neither made a single reference to the war! The rising prices and profiteering, according to the new line of the Stalinists, grow out of a vacuum. When the Daily Worker, just two weeks ago, was stating that the intensification of labor suppression, the increase in Negro discrimination, the higher prices and taxes were a direct product of Roosevelt’s imperialist war drive, and could be combated only by combatting that war drive, the Daily Worker spoke the truth. Today, the Stalinists have dropped their opposition to the imperialist war drive and at the same time, naturally, have dropped their pretence of fighting for the rights of the workers and the oppressed minorities. Supporting the war drive, Stalinism must therefore support “the bitter consequences of the war drive.” (Daily Worker, June 16) Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 May 2016

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis The Iron Curtain Around Probe of duPont Empire (29 November 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 48, 29 November 1948, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). America’s Big Business press and radio have lowered a curtain of silence around one of the most sensational, criminal proceedings in U.S. legal history – the current federal grand jury investigation of anti-trust law violations by the duPont financial and industrial empire. The mere names of the key defendants and witnesses who have been summoned to testify before the Chicago grand jury should have made thundering headlines. They include Lammot duPont, Alfred P. Sloan and other heads of 22 giant corporations. The grand jury investigation, in process since September, is based on charges by the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice that E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., the chemical and munitions trust, is the chief corporation in a network of monopoly corporations spreading through dozens of other industries, including auto, aviation, rubber and steel. Control of this vast empire, worth tens of billions, rests in the duPont family. This is the first case in which federal law-enforcement agencies have sought the dissolution of a monopoly cutting across many different industries. Subpoena Records Although only a hint of the nature of the case has leaked through the iron curtain of the daily press, it has been revealed that the grand jury last Sept. 24 subpoenaed the records of eight leading corporations under duPont control; These were the E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., keystone of the vast monopoly structure; General Motors, world’s largest industrial corporation; United States Rubber; Ethyl Corporation; Bendix Aviation; North American Aviation; Kinetic Chemicals, Inc.; and Remington Arms. It is charged, among other things, that the duPonts own over 22% of the voting stock of General Motors, more than sufficient for effective control. This fact has long been known and was reported by The Militant three years ago when the General Motors strike began. The inquiry has now been extended to more than 60' top-ranking corporations, all linked by the Department of Justice to the duPont interests. In addition, the grand jury has asked for all correspondence between the officers of E.I. duPont de Ne-mours & Co., Remington Arms and Kinetic Chemicals and the German I.G. Farbenindustrie, the British Imperial Chemical Industries, J.P. Morgan & Co. and the United States Steel Corporation. Buried in Press An example of the conspiracy of silence the press is maintaining around this case is the treatment of the news about the appearance before the grand jury of the first witness, Lammot duPont, a director of E.I. duPont de Nemours, who was questioned on Nov. 17, 18 and 19. One of the wealthiest and most powerful men in America, Lammot duPont’s personal appearance before a criminal investigating grand jury – a unique and sensational fact – rated four brief paragraphs on pg. 14 of the Nov. 18 N.Y. Times, one paragraph on Page 48 of the Nov. 19 issue and four paragraphs in the Nov. 20 issue on the radio page. The single bit of information as to what actually transpired in these secret proceedings was given out by duPont himself. He is quoted as saying, “I still don’t know what it’s all about.” He added: “I made a bad showing at the end of the session. I testified that I had not written a certain letter and then the Government pulled the letter out of the files. It was most embarrassing.” No Monopolist Jailed But it is unlikely that duPont and his co-conspirators and co-monopolists will be embarrassed by the proceedings as a whole or their eventual outcome. From Department of Justice charges and a grand jury investigation to actual indictment and trial is a long step in itself. And in the more than 50 years of anti-trust laws and trials not a single Capitalist has even been sent to prison, nor has a single monopoly ever been broken up. Even in the most outrageous cases of anti-trust law violations, the corporations have nothing to fear. No capitalist judge will ever send a big monopolist to jail. A striking demonstration of this occurred on Nov. 12, in a seven-year long case involving General Electric Corporation. Back in 1941, several officials of GE and its subsidiary, Carboloy Company, were indicted for anti-trust law violations involving the monopoly of carboloy, a metal alloy used for cutting edges of machine tools. The government charged GE with maintaining a patent cartel agreement with Nazi corporations in Germany which had seriously impeded U.S. war production.

war production. Overhead Expense It was such an open and shut case that the indicted companies and three officials were found guilty – unusual in itself. Malcolm M. Hoffman, the government’s prosecuting attorney then pleaded with Federal Judge John C. Knox to impose prison sentences on the convicted defendants. Hoffman said: “The present feeling which seems to prevail in the! business community is you need not be alarmed if you are caught in a violation of the anti-trust laws because so far as past transactions are concerned you can pay a fine which is merely a license fee which may be charged off as the cost of doing illegal business acts. Frequently, the amount which is to be gained by such law violations is very large compared with the amount which would be lost by fines if the violator is caught. “If this feeling of indifference to the penal provisions of the Sherman Act is allowed to prevail ... there seems little possibility of using the criminal sanctions of the anti-trust acts ...” Judge Knox confirmed this when he refused to jail the GE officials, giving them and their companies fines totalling $36,000 for criminal acts over a period of 15 years that had netted tens of millions in profits. The Judge said that after all, these crimes were “stale.” Campaign Stunt As a matter of fact, the present charges brought against the notorious multi-billionaire “Merchants of Death” – as the du Pont arms trust has been called since World War I – were begun by the Department of Justice as a pre-election stunt in line with Truman’s campaign propaganda about, “gluttons of privilege.” Not expecting Truman’s re-election, the Justice Department officials undoubtedly, figured the case would never get very far. On Sept. 30, the Attorney General’s representatives asked Federal Judge John P. Barnes to issue an order impounding books and records of eight duPont companies. Judge Barnes complied, as he said, with reluctance, because he did not believe the case would be carried through to the end. “Sometimes,” he said with candid cynicism, "they result in indictment, but seldom do they result in trial. I am now entering this order, because you are asking me, but if anyone comes in here and asks me to vacate it, you know how I feel.” May Be Shelved The grand jury has already announced it will go into indefinite recess after Nov. 22. In all likelihood the case will drag on for years, or gradually and quietly be shelved. Meanwhile the du Pont empire and profits swell. E.I. duPont has just announced a year-end dividend fol stockholders of $3.75 per share, bringing the grand total for 1948 to $9.75, the technically highest dividend since 1928, which was $17.50. Since the stock was split 3½ for one in 1928, this year’s dividends actually amount to $34.15 for every share of old common stock. General Motors has likewise declared a special $2-per-share dividend on the basis of the highest profits in its history. The duPont empire will continue to drain profits from hundreds of thousands of workers, maintain high monopoly-fixed prices and reap billions from war until the American working class does its own “trust-busting” by expropriating the basic industries and operating them without profit under the control of the workers themselves. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 28 March 2023

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis ‘Captive’ Mine Workers Forced to Arbitrate Government Strikebreaking Threats, Lack of Full CIO Support Lead to Ending of Strike (29 November 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 48, 29 November 1941, pp. 1 & 6. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Overwhelming government and employer pressure, aided by the refusal of the Hillmanite-Stalinist leaders of the CIO to give more than lip-service to the fight of the United Mine Workers, CIO, has forced the “captive” coal mine workers to end their strike for the union shop with an agreement to submit the issue to binding arbitration. Faced with the threat of large- scale military intervention – 50,000 fully-equipped regular army troops were mobilized for strikebreaking duty – and lacking the assurance of decisive support from the pro-war leaders of the CIO, representatives of the “captive” mine locals met last Sunday and agreed to the settlement approval by the UMW policy committee at the demand of Roosevelt. It is possible that Dr. John L. Steelman, “resigned” director of the United States Conciliation Service who was named as the decisive arbiter on Roosevelt’s three-man arbitration board, may finally vote the union shop or some compromise to the “captive” miners as an attempt to revive faith in the government’s “impartiality.” But there is no question that labor has suffered a blow with respect to those basic issues – the right to strike and to oppose compulsory arbitration – that developed out of the mine controversy and far transcended the immediate union shop demand directly involved. Roosevelt used the strike to invoke his “no-strike” policy and to establish in practice the principle of compulsory arbitration. This raised the mine strike from the plane of a dispute over the union shop to a conflict between the entire CIO and the government over the right to strike. Roosevelt’s Anti-Labor Hand Strengthened In this latter sense, the miners’ acceptance of arbitration under compulsion of Roosevelt’s threat of army strikebreaking has undoubtedly strengthened the antilabor hand of Roosevelt and heightened the assurance and boldness of the Administration in its drive to force the union to surrender their right to strike and submit to government domination and control. It is no discredit to the militancy and courageous union loyalty of the striking miners that they have been compelled to yield on their traditional opposition to compulsory arbitration. They showed by their overwhelming support for the strike, backed by the growing sympathetic strike action which involved almost 200,000 commercial mine workers by the time of the settlement, that they were ready and willing for a last-ditch fight. They held their picket lines in the face of the murderous violence of the companies, whose agents shot and knifed over a score of strikers, and against the almost unprecedented pressure of the government, big business forces and the propaganda barrage of the capitalist press. Miners Faced Tremendous Odds If the miners retreated it was because they felt that they were confronting insuperable odds against which they would be smashed to pieces in a continued frontal assault. They had to withdraw to a defensive line which they continue to hold. This position was forced on them in part by the attitude of the Hillmanite-Stalinist leadership of the CIO. which ran hog-wild in the recent CIO national convention in its sycophantic demonstrations of support for Roosevelt’s war program. They were restrained from openly backing the Administration against the miners only by the tremendous pressure from the CIO ranks and the fear that their own union would be undermined by a ruinous defeat of the mine union, the very heart of the CIO. The action of the CIO convention in voting unanimous support to the miners unquestionably was the decisive factor in staying the hand of Roosevelt from an immediate and violent strikebreaking attack on the miners. But this action was so far nullified by the unqualified political support accorded Roosevelt by the vast majority of CIO leaders, that the CIO resolution of endorsement for the mine strike constituted no guarantee of continued united CIO backing should the strike have eventuated in a real showdown. Strike Brought Out Contradictions The mine strike brought into sharpest focus the insoluble contradiction in the policies of the CIO and the trade union leadership generally. The necessities of Roosevelt’s imperialist war program, which the Hillmanite-Stalinist CIO leaders support unconditionally, demand a totalitarian organization of the economic and political life of the country. The boss war economy comes into inevitable conflict with the needs of the workers, whose rights and freedom of action the government seeks to stifle at all costs. The trade union leadership wants to reconcile this fundamental conflict of interests. This is impossible. An example of this is the policy of that group in the CIO which is centered around Philip Murray. CIO President and former right-hand man of John L. Lewis. At the CIO convention, Murray initially took a strong stand in support of the mine strike. But this support became increasingly weakened as his political support of the war became the dominant expression of his position. He could not reconcile the Irreconcilable contradictions between his support of the strike and the war. His political line determined his final attitude, which was a clear readiness to capitulate on the mine issue. Murray’s position was distinguishable from that of the Stalinists and Hillmanites only to the extent that he still reflected some desire to attempt to reconcile the basic contradictions. The Hillmanite-Stalinist leaders have since abandoned the attempt. They are unreservedly for the war and have openly made their choice with the bosses as opposed to the workers. As for John L. Lewis and bis followers, their position in the mine strike was weakened basically by the failure of Lewis during the past two years to mobilize the CIO forces around a program of fundamental opposition to the war.

Lewis and bis followers, their position in the mine strike was weakened basically by the failure of Lewis during the past two years to mobilize the CIO forces around a program of fundamental opposition to the war. As a result there was an absence of sufficient pressure from the ranks of other unions upon the CIO leaders to fully support the strike. Immediate Conferences As an immediate consequence of the advantageous position Roosevelt has achieved through the outcome of this strike, the Administration is now pressing ahead with its plans for legislative curbs on labor. It is a virtual certainty that Roosevelt will demand the enactment of antistrike and compulsory laws despite the opposition of the unions, confident that this opposition will not express itself in militant and effective forms. This does not at all mean that Roosevelt has already succeeded in shackling labor. It merely means that he is in a more favorable position to do so. On the other hand, the actions of the Administration in this union struggle have made the labor policies of the government more suspect than ever to millions of workers Roosevelt’s open partiality to the steel corporations, his strikebreaking threats, the exposure of the anti-labor role of the National Defense Mediation Board, have immeasurably reduced the prestige of the government in the eyes of important sectors of the workers. Moreover, as the war progresses, Roosevelt will attempt to make greater and greater inroads into their living standards and impose ever severer regimentation. Inevitably, the conflict between the needs of the war and of the workers must flare up into renewed and fiercer battles. The mine strike crisis has revealed the crisis of organized labor as a whole. It is a crisis of program and leadership. Defense of the interests of the workers is predicated squarely on opposition to the war. Only that leadership can successfully lead the workers in defense of their rights and conditions which upholds a program of uncompromising opposition to the imperialist war. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 22 March 2019

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Who Is the Despot? (14 June 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 24, 14 June 1948, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). T. Alan Goldsborough, the Democratic wheel-horse and federal judge who grinds out strikebreaking injunctions for the Truman administration, abandoned his pretended juridical calm toward the close of his latest injuhction decree against the coal miners and delivered himself of some poisonous personal remarks against John L. Lewis. The issue involved was the refusal of the United Mine Workers to deal with the Southern Coal Producers Association as the bargaining agency for all the southern coal operators. The reason for this refusal was simply stated by the miners’ spokesmen. The SCPA is an organization designed to frustrate and defeat the legitimate demands of the mine workers and is a notorious strikebreaking outfit. Its purpose – as has been proved repeatedly in the past – is to obstruct and prevent collective bargaining and union contractual relations. Now, Justice Goldsborough was not content to order and direct the UMW to bargain with the SCPA. He wound up by hurling a number of literary quotations, inappropriate but venomous, at Lewis. He quoted Lord Acton’s saying that “Power always corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” He recited from the ancient Cicero’s Oration against Catiline: “It is your boundless audacity, O Catiline.” And he added for good measure that “there is no such thing as a benevolent despot.” All in all, he drew the picture of Lewis as a “tyrant,” running roughshod over the country and doing as he damned pleased to the poor coal bosses and everyone else. The word “despot” in the mouth of Goldsborough has a peculiar ring. Here is the judge who twice has decreed, under threat of fine and imprisonment, that the 450,000 soft coal miners must work under conditions dictated by the profiteering mine owners. Here is the judge who by his single order decreed forced labor for the hundreds of thousands of miners and abrogated their right to strike. Here is the judge who by his sole word established a precedent whereby any federal judge can break any strike that the 15 million organized American workers might be forced to undertake. This same judge, when his injunctions were twice defied, levied fines of $3,500,000 and $1,400,000 against the miners – one man made a law, then acted as judge, prosecutor and jury in penalizing alleged violations of his law. Goldsborough, of course, isn’t really concerned about Lewis being a “despot.” He’s concerned with defending the profits and privileges of the coal operators. If Lewis used his great influence and prestige in the UMW to curb the workers’ struggles, as so many union bureaucrats do, Goldsborough would be ready to hail Lewis as a “labor statesman.” The truth is that Lewis’s great authority in the UMW rests on his militancy as a leader, his readiness to fight for what the members want. Lewis’s politics are utterly reactionary but when he fights the coal bosses, he speaks the will of every miner. Goldsborough is the hand-picked juridical tool of a corrupt political machine run by the rich. Lewis is the elected representative of the half million miners, the struggling poor. One dictates in the interests of the greedy few against the many; the other defends the will of the many against the few. Who is the despot? Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Murray Intervenes to Bolster No-Strike Policy in UAW Poll (27 January 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 4, 27 January 1945, pp. 1 & 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Two sharply opposed forces are locked in bitter struggle as the climax approaches in the CIO United Automobile Workers’ referendum battle over the No-Strike Pledge. The militant rank and file, local committeemen and officers, who daily feel the whiplash of corporation provocations, are mobilizing to scrap the no-strike surrender policy. Arrayed against them is the entire top bureaucracy of the UAW and CIO, backed by the corporations, the Roosevelt administration and the Stalinists. Exploiting the vast resources arid prestige o£ the CIO, the pro-Roosevelt Murray-Hillman machine is how intervening directly in the UAW struggle. So powerful is the rising offensive of the auto workers against the no-strike policy which has placed them at the mercy of the corporations, that the CIO chiefs have been impelled to rush openly to the aid of the hard-pressed UAW leadership. CIO President Philip Murray proclaimed his policy of open intervention in the UAW referendum in his letter of January 12 to UAW President R.J. Thomas, declaring that “this is directed through you to the membership of the largest union in the world.” A full-page reproduction of this letter appears in the January 15 CIO News. Murray’s Lies Murray resorts almost entirely to the most hypocritical anti-strike propaganda of the corporations and their political agents, who always advance their antilabor policies behind a “boys in the foxholes” smokescreen. He appeals to the auto workers to reaffirm the “sacred pledge made to the soldiers, sailors and marines.” Of course, this “sacred pledge” is the one-sided agreement – originally palmed off as a “three-way commitment between labor, management and government” – handed to Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor by the top labor fakers, who had never even consulted their memberships. Murray’s flag-waving appeal, which reads as though it were plagiarized from an advertisement of the National Association of Manufacturers, is topped off by a truly fantastic claim. He asserts that the “peaceful pattern of labor relations” was responsible for “a year of progress on the home front.” He has the brass to put into public print the obvious and absurd lies that the labor movement has actually been strengthened because the “CIO helped to re-elect Roosevelt and elect a more progressive Congress. CIO unions, maintaining their no-strike commitments, have scored decisive gains for millions of workers.” This fiction is dished out to the auto workers as rising wails emanate from the pro-Roosevelt labor leaders themselves asking “Who won the elections?” This “progressive” Congress already looms up as one of the most reactionary in United States history. Its first act was to establish a permanent Dies, Witch-Hunt Committee as a slap, in the face to labor. Since the start of the new session its members have been competing for the “honor” of drafting the most viciously anti-labor legislation. The past year wound up with Roosevelt turning over the State Department and the leading government agencies to the direct agents of Wall Street. The year concluded with Roosevelt and his brass hats demanding a Nazi-like system of universal forced labor. It was the year during which the War Labor Board turned down all the basic wage demands of labor, most notably of Murray’s own steel union, and hardened the wage freeze. It was the year in which brazen corporation provocations led to the greatest volume of defensive strikes in four years. Rank and File Talks But Murray’s absurd arguments and downright lies are being most effectively answered by the auto workers themselves. The National UAW Rank and File Committee to Revoke the No-Strike Pledge is hammering home the truth in an organized campaign inside the shops, supplemented by leaflets, newspapers, radio talks, stickers, meetings, etc. One of the most powerful expositions of the reasons for rescinding the no-strike policy is contained in a typical rank and file leaflet, being circulated by members of Chicago’s huge Chrysler-Dodge Local 274. Summing up the “balance sheet’’ of the no-strike policy, the leaflet shows: “LABOR SACRIFICED: The right to strike, that is, the right to its most powerful weapon in the fight against the big monopolists who are ALWAYS working to lower our living standards and crush our organizations. The right to fight for higher wages – because wages were frozen. The right to look for or get another job or a better job – because jobs were frozen and we could move from place to place ONLY by the permission of the employer. The right to have our wages go up as the cost-of-living went up – because our wages were frozen by the 15 per cent ‘Little Steel Formula’ while the cost-of-living has gone up, since January 1941, by more than 45 per cent, according to the figures of our own International, President, R.J. Thomas. The right to collective bargaining – because all demands and grievances went to the War Labor Board, which denies our demands and ignores our grievances, or else buries them in its vaults for months and years. “LABOR GAINED: Nothing!” What is the no-strike “balance sheet” for the employers? “INDUSTRY SACRIFICED: Nothing! Nothing except their comical pledge not to lock out labor at a time when a lock-out meant suicide for them. INDUSTRY GAINED: Land bought for them at government expense. Factories erected on this land at government expense.

Machinery placed in these factories at government expense. Raw materials guaranteed to them by a hundred government agencies. An ample supply of labor guaranteed to them by the government, with jobs frozen and wages frozen and strikes frozen and grievances frozen. “Juicy cost-plus contracts, with profits guaranteed by the government. A War Labor Board, set up by the government, which looks carefully and tenderly after their interests. The highest salaries in history for corporation executives, with NO ‘$25,000 limitation’ as was promised. The corporations moan and weep about the ‘high taxes.’ What are the facts? Let us quote just two simple ones from the statement by CIO President Philip Murray, and remember them well: ‘Corporate profits for 1944, AFTER TAXES, increased 198 per cent over the 1936–1939 peacetime era. Corporate profits for the same year, before taxes, show an increase over the peacetime era of 449 per cent.” “Boys in the Foxholes” Indignantly, the Dodge workers ask: “What about the boys in the foxholes? Who shouts the loudest about this? The corporations chiefs, their spokesmen and tools, their paid editors and scribblers. Their nerve is almost as colossal as the profits they are making. They want to teach US patriotism! They are the same people who would not convert to war production, who would not produce a single airplane, tank, cannon, rifle or bullet for the ‘boys in the foxholes’ until the government guaranteed them their heavy blood-profits. “Who are the ‘boys in the foxholes?’ They are OUR sons, brothers, OUR sweethearts or husbands, OUR fathers. We are a million times more concerned with them than the ice-hearted corporations who squeeze a brutal profit out of everything those boys wear and everything they use. We are so concerned with them that: We do not want them to come back to open shop conditions ... to low-paid jobs and back-breaking hours ... to smashed or paralyzed unions. When we fight to make our union strong and effective, we are also fighting for THEM!’” That is the fighting auto workers answer to the spread-eagle and corporation-inspired anti-strike propaganda of the Murrays. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 April 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Roosevelt and Wall St. FDR Plans Same “50–50” Break for Labor in Coming War As Workers Received in the Last Imperialist Conflict (23 November 1940) From Socialist Appeal, Vol. 4 No. 47, 23 November 1940, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). III. During World War No. 1, 21,000 new American millionaires were created. Every slaughtered American soldier was worth $500,000 net profit to Wall Street. As for labor, it received an average 30 percent monetary wage increase. This was more than wiped out by an average price increase of 100 percent. The fiction that all the American workers wore silk shirts during the war, is refuted by the fact that total overage real wages declined as much as 40 percent. Labor Regimented In addition, the entire labor movement was regimented. Strikes were met by ruthless suppression; strikers were court-martialed and given long prison terms. In some instances Army troops marched into struck industries and operated them at Army pay, $21 a month. When the war was over, the “defenders of democracy” came back to unemployment and accumulated debt. By 1921, there were over 5 million without jobs. The national debt, which was $9.88 per person in 1914, was $228 per person at the end of the war. Despite terrorization, patriotic pressure and the complete capitulation of their own leaders, the workers were compelled to fight back against unendurable conditions. Starting with 1916, a tremendous strike wave swept the country. In 1917, there were 4,450 strikes, more than in any year except 1937. Vivid Memory The memory of this tremendous struggle is vivid in the mind of the ruling class. Through its agents, like Roosevelt, it now seeks to re-assure labor in preparation for the coming war. This time, say the pay-triots, labor is in for a fifty-fifty break. The initiation of this “break” started in July 1939. During mounting unemployment, WPA appropriations were suddenly sliced in half. But more significant, the Roosevelt administration abandoned the principle of the “prevailing wages.” This was a calculated provocation of union labor. Strikers Thrown in Jail When the WPA workers struck, Roosevelt declared, “You cannot strike against the government,” Federal agents, acting as spies, brought charges against 156 Minneapolis strikers. 32 received prison sentences. Roosevelt ignored the plea of the entire labor movement to pardon the convicted men. The principle layed down by Roosevelt in July 1939 is now in effect in private industry. During the past year, the government has moved into every important strike to break it with the dictum, “You can’t strike against the government.” Every industry becomes part of “national defense;” every strike is “against the government.” War Orders to Open Shops While Bethlehem Steel received over a billion dollars in war orders, despite a federal court ruling that the company is in violation of the federal labor laws, the government ruthlessly curbed a threatened strike of Bethlehem workers. At the same time, it struck a deadly blow at all New Deal labor legislation by openly declaring a policy of granting war orders to the vilest open-shoppers, DuPont, Ford Motors, Bethlehem Steel, etc. The General Motors Corp, cracks down on the auto workers with a thousand provocations, speed-up, wage-cuts, firing of job stewards. A strike threat in Flint is countered by a lock-out, and the cry, “Fifth Columnists!” Big Business drapes itself in an American flag, and hopes to crush labor with impunity. Civil Liberties Threatened A gigantic program for handcuffing labor is underway. The American Civil Liberties Union, in its recent annual report, stated: “At no period in the twenty years of its existence have the Civil Liberties Union and other agencies engaged with protecting civil rights been confronted with such an array of threatened measures of repression.” These are tokens of the “fifty-fifty” break labor will get from the third-term. And there are other straws in the wind. From August 1939 to November 13, 1940, according to official government figures, average wholesale commodity prices advanced 17.2 percent. All labor has taken a huge wage-cut – “the easy way.” Workers Taxed An income tax on incomes as low as $800 a year, $15 a week, was slipped over last July. New “defense” taxes on movies, tobacco, gasoline have been slapped on the workers. A hint is given of the tax burdens yet to come by the announcement of Treasury officials that they are going to propose new taxes on soft drinks, etc. Labor is playing checkers with the Roosevelt administration. The “jumps” permitted labor by the New Deal have been “give aways,” – to maneuver labor into position where all its pieces can be swept off the board. Behind Roosevelt’s chair Wall Street stands grinning, holding the bets. Behind labor stand Hillman, Green and the rest of the labor “kibitzers” nudging labor’s shoulder, urging it to the fatal moves toward boss war. “That’s your play! What are you waiting for?” Labor scratches its head and studies the board. It senses something tricky in the set-up. Yes, your move, labor! – And watch out for traps! End Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 16 November 2020

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Truman Democrats in Retreat All Along Line on ‘Fair Deal’ Not a Single Pledge Fulfilled In Eleven Weeks of Session (21 March 1949) From The Militant, Vol, 13 No. 12, 21 March 1949, pp. 1 & 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). After eleven weeks in continuous session, the Democratic-controlled Congress has not passed a single one of the “Fair Deal” reforms promised by Truman and his party before elections. Instead, the Truman Democrats are yielding all down the line to the open reactionaries, labor-haters and Negro-baiters. The failure of the Truman machine to put up a real fight has led once more to the triumph of a Southern Democratic filibuster in the Senate. With the Truman forces offering only feeble and token resistance, the Taft-Hartley elements and right-wing Democrats are pressing their attack with ever-greater boldness, arrogance and ferocity. Not only have the promised social improvements been blocked, but there is real danger that in some fields even worse bills than those passed by the Republican-controlled 80th Congress will be enacted. This threat has given the Truman Democrats the pretext for abandoning the civil rights program, the immediate issue behind the filibuster, and for watering down their pledged reforms. The “Fair Deal” – a frail craft even for calm waters – has met its first squall and is already leaking at every seam. Truman and his supporters, including most of the top union leaders and liberals, will now try to foist the whole responsibility for Congressional stalling onto his Southern contingent and the Republicans. But from the start he had no intention of pressing the fight to the point where it might crack the recemented alliance of the Northern and Southern wings of his party. For the sake of this unholy alliance of the big city bosses and poll-tax “white supremacists,” Truman is prepared – after the usual for-the-record gestures – to give ground on his whole “Fair Deal” program. The successful Southern filibuster has already put the knife to any effective civil rights bills to safeguard the rights of the Negro people. It was Truman’s promise to press these measures that led to the Southern “states rights” walkout at the Democratic national convention last July and helped secure widespread Negro and labor support for Truman’s election. But he has kept virtually mum on the question since the elections and it was an open secret, even before the filibuster, that the Truman Democrats were talking “compromise.” Now they are tossing the whole issue out of the window. Other key “Fair Deal” promises are facing similar disposal. Rent Controls Going At the very first test, administration supporters in the House, under fire from spokesmen of the real estate interests, disemboweled their own rent control bill. As it came out of committee, the bill proposed to extend controls for only 15 months instead of the promised two years. Democratic leaders then cut more of the guts out of it by supporting an amendment permitting the boosting of individual rents to guarantee landlords a “’reasonable return” on the “reasonable value” of their property. This would open a hole in rent ceilings big enough to drive a truck through. It is even worse than the bill passed by the 80th Congress which limited rent increases to a voluntary 15%. In order to line up enough Democratic votes for continuing rent controls at all, the administration promised to decontrol rents in more than a hundred areas and a “list of these areas which might be decontrolled was circulated privately among House members.” (Associated Press, Mar. 11.) The House went this one better on Mar. 15 by voting 227 to 188 for a clause in the rent control bill giving state and local governments the power, by simple resolution, to decontrol all rents in their own political subdivisions This, in effect, completely destroys federal rent control. To Retain Most of T-H From the opening of Congress, Truman has been hedging on the promise of unconditional Taft-Hartley repeal, which he used as his chief inducement to win labor votes. He has opened the way for restoration of much of the Taft-Hartley Act under a different label by tying repeal of this act to simultaneous adoption of an amended Wagner Act. These amendments include curbs on various types of strikes, a “cooling off” period and government machinery for intervention in “national emergency” strikes. Although the union leaders pretend that Truman’s bill eliminates the use of strikebreaking injunctions, Truman himself has publicly approved their use and has claimed for himself “inherent powers” to invoke injunctions without any law. For weeks Taft-Hartley repeal has been stalled in Congressional committee hearings and the Truman Democrats have made no attempt to speed up action. They are obviously intent on keeping the Taft-Hartley law in force for possible use against the miners or other workers m major industries who might go on strike for wage boosts this spring. When the new labor bill does go before Congress as a whole, it will then be loaded down with union-busting amendments. Will the Truman Democrats show any more fight on these Taft-Hartleyized amendments than they have on the civil rights filibuster? Housing Betrayal After all this talk about what he was going to do for housing, the specific proposal Truman made to Congress has evoked openly-voiced dismay from housing experts. His proposal for 1,050,000 new government-financed, housing units in seven years would not even make up for the normal loss of housing due to fire and deterioration. Even this proposal has been “compromised” in the bill now pending before Congress, which whittles the program down to 850,000 units in six years.

Even this proposal has been “compromised” in the bill now pending before Congress, which whittles the program down to 850,000 units in six years. The Truman-sponsored 75-cent, minimum wage bill is being similarly whittled down. A Democratic-controlled House committee has already performed a major surgical operation. Despite the Democratic promise to extend coverage of the bill, the committee, revised the bill to exclude millions Of agricultural and other low-paid workers from minimum wage law protection. Truman’s promise to broaden social security and increase the amount of benefits has given way to “states rights” measures which will turn over federal funds to reactionary state governments to administer and distribute. These measures are to be financed in large part by soaking all the workers with additional payroll taxes. And the record of the 81st Congress to date, as well as the feeble showing of the Truman Democrats, indicates that even the inadequate measures advocated by Truman will be trimmed on the Congressional chopping block. But while the Truman Democrats are in ignominious retreat on their promises to the workers and Negro people, the Truman administration is advancing with blitzkrieg speed toward its real objective – militarization of the country, war alliance of all the capitalist countries under U.S. domination and suppression of all domestic opposition to war preparations. The Truman administration has contemptuously ignored any Congressional voice of opposition to the North Atlantic Pact, which has been secretly drafted and is being set into motion even before the Senate has received a copy of the actual text. When it was pointed out that this greatest military alliance in history, which commits this country in advance to go to war in the event of “attack” on any signatory, is inoperative without the approval of the Senate, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hastened to give it an O.K. to keep up appearances. Truman is showing no timidity about pushing his monumental armaments budget and his program for militarizing Western Europe. We can be certain that he and his Congressional supporters will ruthlessly brush aside any opposition that might arise to impede speedy passage of all military and war measures. Indeed, administration spokesmen are already pleading the “pressing nature” of the war program as an alibi for yielding quickly to their Congressional opponents on social reform measures. It is taking even less time than we predicted originally to expose the contradictions of Truman’s program for both “guns AND butter.” Now it is becoming frightfully clear that it is “guns OR butter.” Truman’s demagogic vote-catching promises of social reform are being swallowed up by the voracious war program. To push this program through, whatever the cost to the people, the Truman administration is determined to stifle all opposition. Truman is remorselessly intensifying the witch-hunt purge of all government workers suspected of having the slightest difference of opinion with the administration. With the Truman administration giving the lead, Congress is readying a whole series of witch-hunt and thought-control laws against “communists” or anybody else who dares to oppose American imperialism’s headlong drive to war. The immediate need is for the full-scale mobilization, on a nation-wide basis, of organized labor and its allies for a mighty counter-offensive against the reactionary onslaught of Congress. A United Congress of Labor, with rank and file representation from every union, should be convened immediately in Washington, on the very doorstep of Congress, to plan and lead the fight. The American workers in the next period are going to learn that the politics of the “lesser evil” of supporting one capitalist party and candidate against another capitalist party and candidate – will not solve a single one of their major problems. The contradictions of American capitalism – leading either to another depression or atomic destruction in another war – shape the course of both parties of Big Business, Democratic and Republican. Only a party dedicated to the interests of the working class – the overwhelming majority of the people – can solve the problems of the working class. The record of Truman and Congress in the past eleven weeks brings forward with renewed force the need for labor to build its own party and advance its own program. There is no other way out of labor’s political blind alley. The demonstration of labor’s strength in the last elections shows what a mighty independent political power the workers could wield through their own party. The rank and file of labor must now throw off the shackles of capitalist politics by which the union officialdom has so far been able to keep that power bound and helpless. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 March 2024

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis British “Democracy” in India – An Eyewitness Report An Uncensored, Exclusive Story of War Conditions An American Seaman Tells Sights of Recent Trip (May 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 18, 3 May 1941, pp. 4 & 5. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). For many months, British imperialism has imposed an almost impenetrable censorship over all news from India. Occasionally some brief dispatch from India appears in the American press, with the obvious imprint of the official British propaganda ministry. “All’s well,” cries the British government. “The Indian peoples are giving loyal support to the Empire’s war efforts.” American foreign news commentators, such as Ludwig Lore of the New York Post, have been supplying the American people with “interpretive” analyses of what goes on in India behind the black veil of British censorship. Their analyses show a striking conformity with British government press releases, whose “optimism” grows as their “facts” shrink. What is the truth about India? The Militant herewith presents the first eye-witness account to appear in the American labor press of what has been happening since the war in the greatest colony of the British Empire, where over 350,000,000 human beings are preparing to cast off the British Imperial bondage which they have suffered for three centuries. The giver of the interview is a young American sailor who has just returned after a five months voyage to the Far East on an American freighter delivering supplies to the Burma Road at Rangoon. He spent a month visiting the principal cities and ports in India. He observed India with a fresh and clear eye, with class-conscious understanding. This sympathy combined with a friendly and agreeable personality enabled him to meet many Indian natives – workers, students, soldiers – and to penetrate their reticence toward all foreigners, particularly those whom they have reason to suspect might be friendly toward the British rulers. No one observer in a month can hope to catch more than the minutest segment of India. Bearing this in mind, the reader will nevertheless appreciate his account as an authentic clue to the present mood of the Indian masses. “If I were to give one general impression about my experiences in India, I would say: ‘This is the horrors of war, without the war.’ This thought persisted in my mind wherever I went in Karachi, Bombay, Calcutta. It was like looking at some scene of war refugees, starving, homeless, diseased. Only there Has been no war. No bombed buildings, no wreckage, no burnt homes. It’s just, how shall I explain it – as if some terrible war had passed over the country sparing everything but the people themselves.” For a moment, the young seaman paused. A shadow seemed to pass over his face; his eyes looked off into space. He was staring back through time at unforgettable experiences. At another point in the interview, he stated: “You know, whenever I’d get in with one of the natives – of course, after I’d broken down his natural suspicions – and we’d get on the question of the war, sooner or later I’d have the same question popped at me: ‘How soon do you think the British will be defeated?’ Natives Anti-British but Not Pro-Hitler “It’s not that they’re pro-Hitler, or anything like that. When I asked one friendly native soldier if they weren’t afraid of what would happen to them under Hitler, he just slowly swung his arms out and said softly, but with such bitterness ... ‘Look at us ...’ It was all he could say, ‘Look at us ...’ What he meant was that nothing could be worse than what they were already suffering. “I got the impression that Hitler is something too far away from their present misery. He just doesn’t concern them. I can’t say how wide-spread the feeling is, but I came away from India with the notion that they would welcome a military defeat of Britain for one reason – it would be an opportunity for them to drive out the British and gain their independence.” ”If We Only Had Arms ...” At a further point in his narrative, the young sailor supported his impression about the widespread desire among the people of India for a British defeat by recalling that on different occasions he had heard the wish expressed among groups of workers, “If we only had arms ...” “When I heard a worker say this in Karachi, our first stop in India, I thought it might be just an isolated sentiment. But I heard it in Bombay and again in Calcutta. And always the same words, ‘If we only had arms ...’ A weakened British army and arms for themselves. That’s what many of them seem to be thinking about – and planning about.” The speaker then told of meeting a group of workers in Bombay whose complete confidence he managed to secure. A leader of these workers in greatest secrecy drew for him a rough map of the surrounding section of the country, marking the points of British troop concentrations and arms stores. “He burned it up again on the spot. I never saw such longing in any man’s face as when he said to me, ‘If we only had arms... If we only had arms.’” The interview with the young seaman had started in the customary fashion, with the reporter asking questions about the trip – the ship, the cargo, the length of time at sea, the ports where they stopped, how long the sailors had leave at each port, etc. He had shipped on a large freighter out of New York last November. It was his first trip to the Far East. They were at sea for 31 days before docking at Capetown, Union of South Africa After only 12 hours ashore, the continued their trip around the Cape of Good Hope. They ploughed through the Indian Ocean for another 22 days, hitting Karachi, India, for their next stop. Conditions in Karachi “Karachi was quite a shock to me. It was only after I saw Bombay and Calcutta that I realized^ that Karachi was quite a decent place by comparison.

“The first thing I noticed when we docked was the condition of the native longshoremen who came aboard the ship. They seemed so thin and scrawny that I wondered how they could lift the heavy loads they had to carry. They wore nothing but loin cloths – no shoes. I guess they have tough feet, but I couldn’t imagine an American longshoreman working around lumber and heavy steel cargo without heavy shoes and clothing for protection. “We had two days ashore. I’ve seen some of the foulest East Side slums and been down around the Negro quarters in Baltimore and Washington. But the worst in America couldn’t equal this. The natives live in tiny shacks, some of rotted wood, others just weeds. Whole families – and several families live in a shack about ten feet square. Ten and 15 persons sleep together on the ground in one shack. Here I got my first smell of India – that mixture of dirt, dung, crowded bodies and rotted flesh, diseased or dead. And the beggars! But that was nothing in Karachi! Wait until I tell you about Bombay and Calcutta. “I was taken through one area of a few square blocks in Karachi which I was told housed more people than the rest of the city. After one trip through that particular area, I was convinced that this was true. “But remember that conditions in Karachi are far better than in the rest of India. It’s a comparatively new city being built up as a port. Many British officials have built palatial homes on the city outskirts.” Bombay Crowded with Beggars At this point, he seemed so anxious to tell about Bombay and Calcutta, the two chief cities of India, that the reporter switched the question’s over to his experiences in these two ports. “Bombay was our next stop. Bombay! That’s where you’ll see a real example of the true conditions in India. The first thing that hit me were the large troops of beggars everywhere. They reminded me of human beings out of a nightmare. They were in every condition of disease and disfigurement. Many seemed to be in the last stages of starvation dying on their feet. Many bore the open sores of terrible contagious diseases, small pox and, especially, leprosy. You could see their bodies rotting away. The British government does nothing to help them. Human life is the cheapest thing in India. I shall never forget the feeling of horror I had the first time a pitiful leprous beggar came up begging for an anna (2 cents American) and touched me with his hand. “Here I saw tens of thousands of people, whole families, who had no homes but the streets. They sleep in the streets, amongst incredible filth. They have no place else to go, and the British haven’t got around to giving them such benefits of civilization as street cleaning departments and sewage. They lie uncovered in the streets. I saw only a few who managed to get hold of some old rag or cloth to cover themselves with. Most of the men have only a loin cloth covering. Children up to 12 go naked. I frequently saw little infants playing in the gutters amidst mud and manure. This is typical. Tens of millions live like this throughout India. It’s the normal thing. Every other native one passes on the streets seems to have the obvious signs of disease. Nine out of ten have the physical marks of acute hunger – from the emaciation of continuous undernourishment to the last stages of outright starvation.” It was at this point that the speaker used the expression, “like refugees in a war zone – but worse.” He broke in with an observation summing up his entire impression. “I’ve tried to do some reading. I’ve read some of Trotsky’s writings. I remember he once wrote about fascism being an attempt to organize the misery of the people. Well, I got the feeling that the British in India can’t do even this. The poverty just spills over into the streets like pus from a running sore.” Riots and Revolts Suppressed Was there any resistance to the British now? Did he have a chance to talk with any industrial workers in Bombay? “I had the luck to meet a British dock official who came aboard our ship in Bombay. I managed to get him to open up to me a little, although I had to be very cautious in asking him any questions. American sailors are watched very closely. The British know how well organized and how militant the American seamen are. He told me that just recently – that would be about three months ago now – there had been virtual civil war in a town north of Bombay, “uncontrollable riots” he called it. British Militia, which are mainly English troops – they don’t trust native soldiers for jobs like this – took four days to suppress the revolt using all the modern paraphernalia of war, including artillery. He said there were only 40,000 people involved. “It immediately occurred to me what a job it would be for the British to suppress a revolution of 350,000,000 people, if it took four days for trained troops with machine guns and artillery to subdue 40,000 practically unarmed people. Incidentally, all news of this was suppressed within India itself. It’s hard to say how many similar incidents have occurred that we cannot learn about. Workers Receptive to Revolutionary Ideas “Another piece of luck I had was to get in with a group of workers employed at a big printing plant in Bombay.

Workers Receptive to Revolutionary Ideas “Another piece of luck I had was to get in with a group of workers employed at a big printing plant in Bombay. After we talked for a while, and they became assured of my sympathy for them and their fight against British imperialism, they eagerly asked me all sorts of questions about the American workers. I told them some of the things I knew about the labor and radical movements in America. When I mentioned, among other groups, the Trotskyites, they shot questions at me through a couple of workers who spoke English and acted as interpreters. It turned out that they were extremely receptive to revolutionary ideas, and, in fact, volunteered the information that they themselves were preparing for a revolutionary situation in India which they were certain was going to come soon. “It was during this conversation that I again heard the question which I first heard in Karachi, ‘How soon do you think the British will be defeated?’ They hastened to assure me that this implied no sympathy with Hitler, but ‘we are unarmed ...’ and they felt that a decisive military defeat for Britain would accelerate their own struggle for freedom. Underground Movements Thrive “It was during this conversation that I first learned of the many underground political groupings that are growing throughout India. Many of these groups believe in socialism. Most of them are becoming convinced that the British will be driven out of India only by forceful means. All of them are for national independence and. don’t want any part of the British rulers’ war. “The printing plant workers were particularly pleased when I explained what I knew of the Trotskyist international outlook. When I mentioned the fact that I believed that if a workers revolution developed in America the American workers would do everything possible to aid their Indian brothers, their faces lighted up. They were so glad to hear about support for themselves in other countries. They are so isolated from the outside world, that they have felt all alone in their struggles. They did not even know up to then that an international revolutionary movement existed. After this, they displayed an almost touching effort to show their appreciation of my news by offering me little services, bringing me coffee, a chair, posting a look-out for the ‘dicks’ who infest the sections around plants and spy on every little grouping of workers. “They did know a little about the Stalinists, but said the Stalinists were mainly among the students and had very little connections with the workers and the general masses. They also informed me that strikes were continuously breaking out among the various sections of the workers in Bombay, and that these strikes were bitterly fought and suppressed with much bloodshed. I was able to confirm this by a daily reading of the British papers. Every day I would see some obscure paragraph about 20 workers being killed, 30 workers being killed, in some ‘disorders.’ That’s all it would say. They don’t bother to mention the number injured. British Graft “There was one incident in Bombay that gave me a real idea of the graft and exploitation that operates against the Indian people. Some of the sailors from our ship wanted a day’s shore leave and were permitted to hire native longshoremen in their place. The American sailors paid the longshoremen each a dollar a day. This is enormous pay in India, longshoremen usually get around 12 annas – 25 cents – for a twelve to 16 hour day. We later found out that the British port officials had grafted two-thirds of the money paid the longshoremen away from them. We were plenty burned up, but what could we do in a British port dealing with British officials whose whole system is one big graft from the ‘dirty beggars,’ which is what British officials term the natives on whose backs they live.” Life in Calcutta The main portion of the interview dealt with the young sailor’s two weeks in Calcutta, largest city in India. “Calcutta was the worst city of all. As we tied up in the mouth of the Ganges River, the first thing we saw were human bodies and dead cows floating down the river. All waste – including dead human beings – is thrown into this river, it seems. The corpse of a cow caught in our anchor chain, and we had a little trouble in freeing the chain. Then there were the vultures. They fly all over the city, circling above dead bodies. All the signs of death, the very smell of death hangs over this city. It is impossible to escape the terrible foul odor. “The docks were swarming with beggars. I thought I had seen the worst in Bombay, but the human misery which crawled and dragged itself over the Calcutta docks was beyond description. “And then I noticed that it wasn’t merely the beggars who were begging. The longshoremen who came aboard the boat also were furtively begging the American seamen for a cigarette or a spare anna. The longshoremen, mind you, are among the BETTER PAID workers of India! “It wasn’t, lack of self-respect that drove these workers to beg even while they were working. I soon found that out. They had to work as long as 16 hours a day at inhuman physical labor for a few annas. Among these longshoremen I met educated men, white collar workers, college students. Their food was enough to make you heave up. All it was – or looked like – was a mixture of wormy rice and dirt. “A crust of bread, I found out, was a luxury. These longshoremen used to hang around our mess-room eager for the scraps from our tables. A piece of the most rotten food dropped on the filth of a Calcutta street is snatched up in a second. The vultures haven’t a chance against human hunger. “When we got shore leave, we began to get a real picture of Calcutta. As you head toward the. main center of town, the conditions get worse and worse. In the center of town we saw the most revolting sights. That is where they burn the dead bodies right out in public view. The burning ghats are all along the river bank. The air reeks with the smell of burning flesh. “But then, this is the only measure of sanitation permitted the Indian people.

At least cremation provides a sanitary means of disposing of the dead. And the death rate is enormous. The Blessings of British Civilization “British civilization – in Calcutta, a city of almost two million people – doesn’t even provide inspection of city water. Only in the few places where the British and the few native rich live is there purified water. Typhoid plagues are so common, the natives think nothing of it. Hundreds of thousands are wiped out each year in epidemics. “There are beggars on every block, some obviously dying where they sit or lie. Mothers with infants appeal to you everywhere. I saw infants lying on the ground patting their swollen stomachs. And disease, sores, rotting flesh everywhere. Little naked children of one and two will toddle up to you and pat their stomachs and say the only words of English they have learned, ‘Me dirty beggar’. Dirty beggar! They don’t know what it means. But it’s the only English they have learned from the British. “Everywhere we went, we were swamped by hordes of beggars, mostly women and children. They stopped our taxis and even the trolleys on which we rode. Once a group of us seamen riding in a cab were stopped for a matter of 10 minutes by about 50 to 60 hungry women and children. The ‘Bobbies’ broke it up finally – and they weren’t gentle about it.” British Police Abuse the Natives What was the outward attitude of the British officials and police to the natives? Was there much open, general physical cruelty? “I just scratched the surface. But what I saw on the streets of Calcutta with my own eyes was sufficient to make me understand why the Indian people don’t jump every time the British yell, ‘Hitler!’ I saw the way the police – mainly British – customarily treat the natives. “I remember one incident particularly. A group of us sailors were walking along a main street through the market place. A miserable old beggar came up and begged for an anna. A British officer approached and without warning slammed the old fellow across the knee-caps with a heavy club. From the crack, I am sure the knee-caps were fractured. The old beggar staggered away. At a little distance, he stopped and muttered something in Hindustani at the cop. For me, the expression of hatred on that old beggar’s face was the symbol of all the faces in India. “I noticed that the native passers-by were looking on. Their faces bore the same look as the beggar’s. “That is the way the British police treat the natives everywhere. Aristocrats in big cars drive through the swarming streets, never slackening pace. If some poor soul is knocked down and injured, that’s his tough luck. And besides, he knows better than to complain to the police. The British rob the natives right and left. In a shop, a British official will name his price for an article. The shop-keeper will give it to him even if he loses money on the sale. He does not dare to argue. One of our boys got run in for being drunk, and later told us about what he saw at the police court. The arrested natives were openly kicked about and clubbed in the court room.” Universal Poverty and Filth What else about living conditions? “Well, as an example, the closer you get to the town center, the more people you see lying in the gutters. Tens of thousands of men, women and children have no homes but the streets. There are no sidewalks in many sections, just mud and filth, including animal and human dung. At times the streets are so packed with sleeping humans that a car cannot pass without running over them. “Without an adequate water supply, no cleaning materials, the British being too cheap to provide even a semblance of municipal sanitation, the dirt and dust almost blinds and chokes you on certain streets. In the market places the food is handled with hands covered with filth. Food will pass through 20 different hands before it is finally bought. Cleanliness is secondary when poverty is so acute that the masses will shop around in a dozen places to get the best bargain for an anna.” Meets Longshoremen On one occasion, during his stay in Calcutta, he had the opportunity to speak to a group of 12 to 15 longshoremen on board the ship. This was while there was an absence of officers about. He discovered a couple of the workers who could understand English, and translated for the rest. “After I had won their confidence, I asked them what they thought about unions. ‘Very good,’ I was told. They wanted to know about American unions, because their wages were so miserable compared to that of the lowest paid American seamen. When I described something of the American labor movement, they crowded around with eager attention. One of those who spoke English expressed the keen desire of the India workers to attain to some of the conditions of the American sailors. They look up to the American workers, with much respect. “They then told me something of the workers organizations in India. Organization among certain groups of workers, including-the longshoremen, is illegal. Nevertheless, the workers maintain an illegal organization. The longshoremen have a tradition of militancy in struggle, and are particularly suppressed by the British authorities, lest their struggles give an impulse to other workers.

The longshoremen have a tradition of militancy in struggle, and are particularly suppressed by the British authorities, lest their struggles give an impulse to other workers. “Among the jute and textile workers, there are legal unions, of rather semi-legal unions. Strikes are always breaking out. In Calcutta, as in Bombay, I was able to note in the British papers a hint of the continuous struggles taking place, despite the fact, as the longshoremen informed me, that strikes were very difficult to conduct at this time. All strikes are immediately physically suppressed. The strikers are shot down without mercy. Thousands are thrown into jail, from which they are lucky ever to come out alive. The British authorities impose 10 to 20 years at hard labor just for striking. “A few lines at the bottom of a Calcutta, newspaper will tell that so many and so many were killed in a strike yesterday. One day I read in such a brief and casual item, of over 100 workers being killed. But the papers never mentioned anything about unions or give details. “When I told the longshoremen that the time would come when the American workers would be able to help them in their struggles, they became very excited and enthusiastic. They stated that they were very anxious to get the aid of the American sailors and hoped that we would bring back to the American workers word of their conditions and struggles. “They were all bitterly opposed to the war and to aiding the British government’s war efforts. I found this same sentiment everywhere I went, incidentally. All the enthusiasm for the war was in the controlled press. But nowhere else. The papers were carrying big ads for recruits to the army, but I heard that the results were very meager. Among all types of native peoples whom I met, from many different stations of life, I got the same response on my questions about the war. They didn’t want any part of it. I wouldn’t want to be a British official in India when the natives start demonstrating in earnest their ‘loyalty’ to the government. Opposed to War “From these same longshoremen I heard some significant political remarks. They seemed to feel that there was a tremendous, leftward tendency taking place in India. They stated flatly that only force would drive the British out. I asked about Ghandi. They declared, that he was losing much support among his followers. They said he was getting rich in the pay of the British. I cannot tell how widespread this idea is, but other workers I spoke to had the same viewpoint. “In reference to Ghandi and the native capitalists he represents, who have aided the British in maintaining their rule, one of the longshoremen said, ‘You American workers have only one club to dodge. We have two.’ By that he meant the native and foreign exploiters combined.” Talks with Army Officer The, young sailor then related a conversation that he had accidentally struck up with a native dock official. The official was a Mohammedan and a lieutenant in the army. He was well-dressed, but was paid only one-third as much as ordinary American seamen, although he held the highest army post open to natives of India. “I soon discovered that he was an ardent nationalist and hated the British. When I told him of my own international outlook and my sympathies with the Indian independence movement, he expressed deep appreciation. “Then he told me his ideas, which amazed me, coming as they did from an army officer in the pay of the British. ‘There is no reason for this, appalling misery,’ he told me. ‘We have all the natural resources to become a great industrial country. But India can only develop after she has won her independence. In the last few years in particular, there has been little industrial development. The British have strangled it. The British say that if they left the country the Mohammedans and Hindus would turn the country into a shambles in a religious war. This is an outright lie. The British themselves are deliberately stirring up conflict between the two native groups. But we should unite. That is our only solution. Why – when we are all one in this filth and misery – should we not unite against those who strangle us both?’” “I don’t imagine the British regard the native soldier-recruits with too much trust. I’ve told you about this high-ranking native officer. I occasionally witnessed native soldiers marching by. They were invariably led by British officers on horseback. I managed a brief conversation with a couple of native soldiers on guard near the docks. I found out they were very dissatisfied with their pay – $4 or $5 a month.” Feelings of British Seamen He recalled an interesting meeting with some British seamen off a captured French freighter. “They had been having a pretty tough time of it. They asked us for hand-outs and spare cigarettes. I saw them pick up our discarded cigarette butts. They have been receiving as little as $20 a month pay. Although many of them are married, they get scarcely any news from home, and some of them have been away from their homes for three and four years. They have to send every penny of their pittance home, and have nothing for themselves. “These British seamen told us that, there have been strikes on a number of British boats. In at least one instance, the government sent out a battleship which took over an entire ship. The leaders or ‘trouble-makers’ were shot. Other seamen were given 10 year prison sentences at hard labor.

Other seamen were given 10 year prison sentences at hard labor. “They were eager to trade ideas with us. They wanted to know all about the war bonuses which the American union seamen are getting for travelling in the war zone. They were astounded to learn that we were getting three times as much regular pay sis they. They wanted to see Hitter defeated, but they expressed quite bitter hatred for their own capitalists. They mentioned the huge profits the British corporations were making out of the war sacrifices of the common people. They were particularly angry about the taxes, and spoke of the 101 different taxes on food, etc. ...” Trotskyism in India Did he come across any evidences of an international revolutionary sentiment in India? “My impression was that there was no centralized or leading revolutionary organization at present in India. But there was a general revolutionary sentiment which would enable such an organization to grow very quickly. “I did manage to meet several professed Trotskyists, but under circumstances which do not permit me to disclose any details. Suffice to say, there are Fourth Internationalists in India. “I did notice, both in Bombay and Calcutta, that Trotsky’s works, particularly his History of the Russian Revolution were widely displayed in the book shops. I went into one Calcutta book-shop and asked the dealer if he had any other Trotsky works beside the History. He showed met a couple of others. Then he said that he had heard that Trotsky’s last book, on Stalin, was coming out soon, and that he had received many inquiries about it. While he was telling me this, several others in the store gathered around us and began asking when the Stalin book would be available.” Attitude Toward Indian National Congress What had he been able to learn about the Indian National Congress? “The Congress now represents; the small group of native bourgeoisie almost exclusively. And these feel more in a blind alley than during the last war. All their old privileges are being taken away, because the British no longer have any confidence in the native bourgeois leader’s ability to stem the tide of revolt. I did not come across any signs of enthusiasm for this group. Their only sign of protest at the treatment they are now being given by the British rulers is to resign, from the National Congress. But they are a miserable lot. Even when they resign, they take pains to make it clear to the masses that their actions are not to be misunderstood as suggestions for mass revolt. No one has confidence in the British promises any longer. In fact, I learned that, the papers which used to play up the British promises, don’t bother to mention them any more. The British no longer make promises anyway. “I’ll tell you one thing about the people of India, though. They hate the British rule with an everlasting hate. You can feel it like a live thing in the air. I felt it by indirection, just as a foreigner, even when I was buying something at some small street store. Until I let my sympathies be known, that is. “Everywhere you go, you hear the British referred to as ‘gonametika’ – that’s as close as I can get to the Hindu word. It means ‘bastard’, – with special trimmings. I hear shop-keepers, workers, beggars refer to the British as ‘British pigs.’ I didn’t hear anything about ‘loyalty’ to the British Empire. But I did hear, wherever I went, such sentiments as these: ‘Now is the time’, and ‘How soon do you think the British will be defeated’, and ‘If we only had arms ...’” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 November 2015

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis America’s Sixty Families and the Nazis The Role of the US-Nazi Cartel Agreements (June 1942) From Fourth International, Vol. 3 No. 6, June 1942, pp. 165–170. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The Standard Oil officials “hampered the development of synthetic rubber in the United States and ... engaged in activities helpful to the Axis nations” through their cartel agreement with the Nazi IG Farbenindustrie, but they are, nevertheless, “personally patriotic men,” declared the Truman Senate Investigating Committee May 26 report. Similarly, Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold, condemning the Standard Oil-Nazi cartel, added that “these arrangements were not entered into with any desire to aid or assist Germany.” Neither of these claims can be denied. The American monopolies are anxious, desperately so, to win the war. They are the real masters of this country; and they would never have entered this war had they not considered it essential to their interests. At the same time, however, the system of monopoly capitalism compels the monopolies individually to engage in activities that interfere with the war objectives of American capitalism as a whole. The consolidation of capital, which at an earlier stage of capitalism served to expand the means of production, now tends inexorably toward opposite ends. As a means of self-preservation, the monopolies must now drive in one general direction: Curtailment and limitation of production, in the international as well as domestic sphere. The safeguarding and increasing of profits is the sole objective of the monopolies, of course. Monopoly profit-making requires: arbitrary limits to production, restricting the output of goods which might glut the market, the elimination of competition. Capitalism, in its early progressive stage, created the modern national state within which the productive forces might develop unhampered by feudal restrictions. Today, however, national boundaries have become a noose strangling the productive forces. The capitalists are compelled to reach out beyond the national borders for new markets, sources of raw materials and cheap labor, and especially for new fields for the investment of their surplus capital. Hence the war. But the law of monopoly rules even on the international plane. The individual monopolies of every country, while instigating wars to win more of the world’s markets and productive resources, at the same time seek to free themselves from competition and to restrict production through internation cartel agreements with the foreign monopolies which their class as a whole aims to subdue by force of arms. There is not a single monopoly, in any capitalist country, which does not have international cartel agreements, and which is not attempting to continue these agreements despite the war. Thurman Arnold reported on June 3 that the Department of Justice had “discovered last week” a list of 162 agreements between IG Farbenindustrie, the German chemical trust, and American corporations. In his March 26 report to the Truman Committee on the Standard Oil-Nazi patents-pool conspiracy, Arnold had to admit “There is no essential difference between what Standard Oil has done in this case and what other companies did in restricting the production of magnesium, aluminum, tungsten carbide, drugs, dyestuffs and a variety of other critical materials vital for the war.” The same is true of the British, German, Japanese and French monopolies. An outstanding example is the world aluminum cartel, an agreement by the American, British, German, French and Swiss interests to parcel among themselves the world markets. They pooled their resources, bought up all surpluses and withheld them from the world market, drastically limited world production and fixed the world prices. The chemical and dyestuffs cartel agreement between du Pont and IG Farben also included the British Imperial Chemical Industries, the Etablissements Kuhlmann of France, and the Mitsui interests of Japan. Although Standard Oil and the other monopolies now claim that their agreements with the Nazis have been “suspended” for the “duration,” the evidence indicates that the agreements are being maintained, so far as possible, during the war. The American monopolists are keeping a weather eye fixed on the post-war period. They expect and desire a postwar epoch retaining all the fundamental characteristics of the pre-war capitalist era. They have no perspective other than a return to “normal” capitalist relations, to a post-war world in which German capitalism will continue to rule in Germany, and with which they will have to continue their monopoly agreements, though they hope it will be a defeated Germany – a weaker partner in the cartels. Moreover, the American capitalists are not too sure about the outcome of the war. They are keeping the way open, in the event of a protracted stalemate or a failure to score a decisive victory, for resuming relations as equals with their German cartel partners. As Thurman Arnold on June 3 was constrained to admit: “There is another danger from the existence of these cartels which we have yet to face. It is a danger which will be felt in their influence over the peace that is to come. That danger arises from the fact that these cartels have not been terminated, they have only been suspended during the war.

That danger arises from the fact that these cartels have not been terminated, they have only been suspended during the war. The small group of American business men who are parties to these International rings are not unpatriotic, but they still think of the war as a temporary recess from business-as-usual with a strong Germany. They expect to begin the game all over again after the war.” So far as the monopoly rulers of America are concerned, even if Hitler must go, his masters, the German capitalists, must remain. This perspective of the monopolies is shown by provisions they placed in the cartel agreements as soon as the war broke out in 1939. The American trusts hastened to implement and extend their cartel agreements with the Axis corporations. The files of the Standard Oil Company have provided a typical example of such a “full marriage,” as Arnold called it, of the US-Nazi monopoly interests. On October 12, 1939, the Standard official in charge of the negotiations with IG Farben wrote a letter stating: “They [IG Farben] delivered to me assignments of some 2,000 foreign patents, and we did our best to work out complete plans for a modus vivendi arrangement for working together which would operate through the terms of the war, whether or not the US came in.” (Our emphasis.) Another example is the cable which a Standard official sent on Sept. 11, 1939 from New York to the company’s agent in Japan. This cable states: “Also, as we fear United States Government in near future may have grounds for action, unfavorable to American-Japanese trade, we consider timely for us to organize with Japanese partners whose influence would be valuable later towards re-establishment after Interruption in our trade.” For Standard Oil, the war with the Axis is not an ideological battle to the death. It is merely an unfortunate but necessary “interruption in our trade.” According to one confidential memorandum in its files, Standard had received an offer from IG Farben, after September 1939, to purchase Standard’s German subsidiary in order to “safeguard Standard Oil of New Jersey’s interest for the duration” – i.e., to prevent its seizure as enemy property. Very likely Standard accepted the offer, since it has attempted to do as much for IG’s interests in American firms. Likewise the General Electric agreement with Krupp, the German steel and munitions trust, was extended after the start of the war. A special clause was inserted into the agreement fixing the formal date for its termination as 1950. That cartel agreements were to be operative, as far as possible, during the war itself, is proved by the royalty provisions under which American corporations agreed to put aside a share of the profits from American war production to be paid their German cartel partners afterward. An example of this practice was revealed at the Senate Patent Committee hearings. An official of Rohm and Haas, a du Pont subsidiary maintaining a monopoly on synthetic glass by cartel agreement with IG Farben, was forced to admit that his company had continued “after Pearl Harbor” to set aside royalties on US military orders for post-war payment to the German interests. These, he belatedly assured the committee – after the facts were out! – are now being held “with the hope and expectation that they will be seized by the Alien Property Custodian.” How the Cartels Curtailed US Production The American monopolies have used every conceivable device in carrying out their cartel agreements to restrict production. A. Restricting the Number of Producers. The primary method is to exclude any independent companies from entering the field or to rigidly limit the number of producers and the quantities they may produce. This was the device used by the Aluminum Company of America to restrict American production of the vital war metal, magnesium, to one-twentieth of German production. ALCOA’s agreement with IG Farben provided that only one American company, Dow Chemical, could produce magnesium and that it could sell the metal only to companies designated by ALCOA. General Electric, which controlled the patents on tungsten carbide, the finest and cheapest metal alloy for the use of cutting tools, informed the German Krupp steel trust, at the time of the signing of its cartel agreement, that GE desired to limit American licensees “to a small number, preferably not more than two.” It was actually limited to just one, GE’s own subsidiary, Carboloy, Inc. GE’s agreement even gives Krupp the right to determine what companies GE may license. Perhaps the most glaring example is tetracene, the best and most easily produced chemical agent for ammunition priming. The tetracene patents are jointly owned by Remington Arms, a du Pont subsidiary, and IG Farben. According to the agreement between the two, Remington could not license the United States and British governments to produce tetracene, nor could Remington or any of its private licensees produce tetracene to be used for war purposes by the American government or “in ammunition sold to the British government.” B. Dismantling Plants. To curtail production American partners in the monopolies went to the extreme of dismantling costly plants. Standard’s agreements with IG Farben covered acetylene and acetic acid, best and cheapest raw material base for rayons, plastics, paints, dyes and other important chemical products. Jasco, Inc., a holding company owned jointly by Standard and its Nazi cartel partner, had built an acetylene plant in Baton Rouge. At the behest of IG Farben, the plant had been closed down prior to the outbreak of war between Germany and Britain. Subsequently, Standard agreed to the complete demolition of the plant, through an agreement signed after the outbreak of war on Dec. 1, 1939. The Standard officials sought to cover up their tracks by pre-dating the agreement back to August 31, 1939, the day before war was declared. In another instance, work on Standard’s government-financed Baton Rouge plant for the production of butadiene, basic element of synthetic butyl rubber, was impeded for several months.

In another instance, work on Standard’s government-financed Baton Rouge plant for the production of butadiene, basic element of synthetic butyl rubber, was impeded for several months. According to the testimony of W.S. Parish, president of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, “in September 1941, the rubber corporation (division of the government Reconstruction Finance Corporation) instructed Standard to suspend all work on the government butadiene project for one year.” It was only after Pearl Harbor, Parish claims, that the government rescinded this order. C. Limiting Production Through Price-Fixing. When independent companies seek licenses to produce commodities protected by American-Nazi patent agreements, they can secure such licenses only by agreeing to sell their products at the high price established by the monopolies. Although it was manufacturing tungsten carbide at a cost of $6.50 a pound, General Electric, from 1928 until confronted with an anti-trust suit early this year, maintained a price as high at times as $453 a pound, and never lower than $200. According to the testimony before the Truman Committee of L. Gerald Firth, president of the Firth-Sterling Steel Company, a GE tungsten carbide licensee, “a large number of firms never used it because of the price.” In accordance with its agreement with IG Farben, du Pont has fixed prices so high as to prevent any independent production of vital dyestuffs. Speaking of this conspiracy, Thurman Arnold stated that “it not only resulted in high prices to the American consumer, but has also restriced the full development of the chemical industry which is essential to our war effort.” D. Prohibitive Royalties. Sometimes the monopoly simply refuses, on one pretext or another, to license any other manufacturer. More often, however, independent producers are discouraged by the exorbitant royalties demanded by the monopoly. When Goodrich Rubber Company sought the use of Standard’s butyl rubber patents, Standard brushed the request off by demanding prohibitive royalties. A letter written on Jan. 10, 1940 to Goodrich by Frank Howard, vice president of Standard Oil Company of New Jersey, states “quite frankly, it was our intention that the license would not be a suitable one under which to operate if the licensee expected to go beyond producing a relatively high-cost specialty product.” E. Discouraging Plant Expansion. During the past two years of government war preparation the monopolies sought to avoid expansion of productive facilities and the erection of new plants. Only when the government agreed to pay for new plants did the corporations finally agree to expansion. A principal method for discouraging expansion has been the circulation of false reports that existing facilities and stock-piles of materials are large enough to meet any contemplated needs. The present acute shortage of aluminum resulted from the deliberate efforts of ALCOA. For two years prior to American entry into the war ALCOA repeatedly assured the government that no new plants were needed. The Office of Production Management accepted these assurances and passed them on to the public: “For months the Defense Advisory Commission and the OPM had said that talk about a shortage in aluminum was misleading and that it was unpatriotic to talk about the possibility of such a shortage ... The OPM had apparently completely relied on ALCOA as a source of information as to the availability of aluminum and had discouraged anyone else from going into the business of producing aluminum. ALCOA had long followed a policy of maintaining high prices and building new capacity only when certain that it could sell at its fixed prices all that would be produced.” (Truman Committee Report, June 1941.) When ALCOA did finally permit the erection of new plants – at government expense – it received the lion’s share of the contracts. These new plants will not reach full production until 1943 or thereafter, and will still fail to produce sufficient aluminum for the country’s civilian and military needs. This is a calculated scarcity, enabling ALCOA to maintain its monopoly prices and conform to its cartel obligations. The catastrophic rubber shortage is also due in great measure to discouragement of synthetic rubber plant expansion by the Rockefeller-du Pout-Mellon interests controlling the synthetic rubber processes. A year and a half before Pearl Harbor, Jesse Jones, head of the RFC and the government’s Defense Plants Corporation, was informed of an impending rubber shortage and was urged to facilitate expansion of synthetic rubber production. Acting undoubtedly at the instigation of Standard and the other monopolies, Jones took the position that sufficient crude rubber stocks were available, even if all imports were cut off, to meet the country’s needs for more than a year of war. A year later, Jones finally agreed to start an “experimental” program for producing 40,000 tons of synthetic rubber. When Singapore was about to fall, Jones informed the Truman Committee that he was making plans for the production of 400,000 tons of synthetic rubber – in 1944. He also told the Truman Committee that “the president had concurred in this (previous) course.” Likewise to prevent expansion Standard Oil falsely denied that its butyl rubber process, which it had made available to IG Farben, was the best and cheapest synthetic rubber available. It turned aside government investigators with the excuse that butyl rubber was “still in the experimental stage,” and anyway was “too costly.” Jesse Jones testified before the Truman Committee that “Standard had not encouraged any of us in the belief that butyl rubber was a success.” In 1939, an official of the Navy’s Bureau of Construction and Repair tried to get “first hand information on the compounding” of butyl, but was prevented, a letter sent by a Standard employe to the corporation officials boasted: “You will recall,” says the letter in part, “that I took up this question with you before his arrival. As agreed upon I took Mr. Werkethin [the Navy official] over to see the K plant when it appeared that I could not very well steer his interest away from the process.

However, I am quite certain that he left with no picture of the operation ...” (Our emphasis.) Four months after Pearl Harbor, and after Standard had already agreed, because of a government suit, to release its butyl patents, Parish and Howard, heads of Standard Oil of New Jersey, still sought to mislead the government as to the true value of butyl rubber. They argued that it was still in the “experimental” stage, even though the committee had before it Standard’s own documentary evidence to show that butyl is superior in many respects to natural rubber. The Standard officials also claimed that butyl was “too costly” to produce, although documents taken from Standard’s files showed that it cost only 6.6 cents a pound as compared to the 21 cents a pound being charged by the British and Dutch interests for crude rubber. In addition to curtailing production, the German capitalists exacted other payments which their American partners were willing to meet. A. Giving the Nazis Industrial Processes. The first important price was granting the Nazi interests the patents on exclusive and invaluable industrial processes. To IG Farben, Standard Oil gave the secret of butyl rubber manufacture, its superior acetylene process and its method for producing high-octane aviation and synthetic gasoline. For the gasoline processes, the Nazis have special reason to be grateful. They have kept the Luftwaffe in the air for two and a half years and enabled Hitler to keep his gigantic motorized army in motion. The tungsten carbide formula perfected by General Electric has helped German industry to speed up certain tooling and metal cutting processes by as much as five hundred per cent. B. Direct Material Aid. The American monopolies supplied German industry with the necessary capital for expansion. American capital investment in Germany was $5,000,000,000 in 1933. By 1939, it had increased another $3,000,000,000. Among the leading American corporations owning or holding large interests in German corporations are Standard Oil, General Motors, Ford Motor Co., Anaconda Copper, General Electric, International Telephone and Telegraph, US Rubber, International Business Machines, International Harvester, E.I. duPont de Nemours. Standard Oil designed and directly supervised the construction of Germany’s synthetic gasoline and high-octane aviation gas plants. When Nazi and Italian fascist airlines, prior to American entry in the war, could not secure fuel in South America, Standard’s Brazilian subsidiary supplied the necessary petrol, in defiance of objections from the American State Department. The Standard officials claimed they had contracts which, as a matter of “business honor,” they had to fulfill. A.A. Berle, Jr., Assistant Secretary of State testified on April 3 that: “Their (Standard officials) position was they would keep the contract they had already made, irrespective of the interests of the United States.” On the same day, William La Varre, chief of the American republics office of the Department of Commerce, denied that any contracts existed, calling the claim a “subterfuge.” C. Military Information. Information of military value relating American and British production was regularly provided to the Nazis. Through supplying Krupp with a complete list of the sources and amounts of royalties paid by its tungsten carbide licensees, General Electric’s Carboloy Company kept the Nazis informed on the number and location of plants producing tungsten carbide and the exact quantities of this vital war metal being produced in this country. DuPont “gave a German company access to military information through Remington Arms royalty payments (on all tetracene produced in America) to the German company.” (AP dispatch, April 17) Under the agreement between ALCOA and IG Farben, the Nazis were able to learn through royalty payments what companies in America were producing or using magnesium and how much. After the outbreak of war between Germany and Britain, Standard Oil made an agreement with the British oil interests, pooling patents for the important hydrogenation and polymerization processes in the production of synthetic gasoline. In order to get this agreement, Standard had executed a fake dissolution of its arrangement with IG Farben. But as late as March 18,1940, as documents from Standard’s files revealed, Standard was secretly passing on to IG Farben all the confidential data and technical information it was securing from the British and other American oil firms in the Anglo-American pool. Most of the information about how American corporations gave military information to the Nazis is buried in the Department of Justice files. It is too explosive to make public. But here are two examples, which the New York newspaper PM unearthed: “In one American company Arnold’s investigators have found a patent license for making steam turbine engines, used by the Navy, with an agreement by the American company to furnish the German licensor with ‘duplicates of all correspondence with the United States Navy as well as drawings worked out by the former.’ “In another case, the German trust was permitted to veto the appointment of the man in charge of military production for the American company.” (PM, April 5.) D. Withholding Military Information from US. An important form of indirect aid has been given the Nazis by the refusal of American corporations to give information of military value to the American government. Not a single great American corporation has willingly released its patents for war production. Standard Oil and ALCOA, months after Pearl Harbor, forced the government to initiate anti-trust suits to secure release of the butyl rubber and magnesium patents.

Standard Oil and ALCOA, months after Pearl Harbor, forced the government to initiate anti-trust suits to secure release of the butyl rubber and magnesium patents. General Electric has been able to secure an indefinite postponement of a threatened government prosecution aimed at releasing its tungsten carbide patents. Even where the patents have finally been released, as in the Standard and ALCOA cases, the companies have been able to retain the vital “know-how,” the developed industrial techniques. Without this “know-how” which the companies have refused to release, the patents are of little value, since most of them are purposely incomplete and obscure. American companies “failed” to give the government information about the patents they gave the German interests, or to keep the government informed of patents secured from Germany. The following letter, sent by Standard Oil’s Howard to his superior Parish, demonstrates the reluctance of the monopolies to cooperate with the government when this is against their cartel interests. In part, the letter states: “Any program by which the Army Air Corps can obtain their objective of a one or two year start over the rest of the world In this vital matter [high grade aviation gasoline] bristles with difficulties and sacrifices from, our standpoint ... “To meet the very proper desires of the air corps as expressed to us, we shall have to violate our agreements and perhaps forfeit the confidence of our associates, both American and foreign ...” (Our emphasis.) That letter was written in 1935. To date, Standard has not forfeited the confidence of its principal foreign associate – IG Farben. The Impotence of the Government The findings of the Department of Justice and of two Senate investigating committees have disclosed the above outlined consequences of the American-Nazi cartel agreements. Yet the government has proved impotent to cancel these agreements or force Standard Oil, ALCOA, du Pont, General Electric and the other monopolies to discontinue honoring the terms of these agreements. For more than a year the facts about the American-Nazi patent-pools were in the files of the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice, but the government was reluctant to make them public through anti-trust prosecutions. Only after the fall of Singapore and the Dutch East Indies and three months after Pearl Harbor, did the Department of Justice initiate suits against Standard Oil, ALCOA, General Electric, du Pont, and a few other monopolies to secure release of the American-Nazi patents. But these suits collapsed under the pressure of the corporations. Standard Oil threatened to stall the suit through years of lengthy litigation. To save face, the government was compelled to give Standard a so-called consent decree on Standard’s own terms. Standard agreed not to contest the case and to pay total fines of $50,000, if the government agreed to drop all charges. Standard further agreed to formally release its butyl rubber patents, with the understanding that the government was to have no power of supervision over the company’s future cartel agreements or its laboratories. The government in return obtained only the privilege of investing its funds in butyl rubber plants to be controlled by Standard. Other companies can use Standard’s patents provided they agree to pay a “reasonable royalty” on all production after the war. Standard is permitted, however, to charge its butyl rubber licensees royalties during the war for providing them with the “know-how,” the technical explanation which is needed to give the purposely obscure patents any value. The only other case which has thus far come to trial is that of ALCOA. This case also was settled by a consent decree, which Thurman Arnold admitted was “even worse” than Standard’s. Before the pending government suits against General Electric, du Pont and the other monopolies could come to trial, the Roosevelt administration took steps to halt further prosecutions “for the duration.” On March 20, Attorney General Biddle, Secretary of War Stimson, Secretary of the Navy Knox and Assistant Attorney General Arnold sent a joint letter to Roosevelt, informing him that “some of the pending court investigations, suits and prosecutions under the Anti-Trust statutes by the Department of Justice, if continued, will interfere with the production of war materials ... In those cases we believe that continuing such prosecutions will be contrary to the national interest and security.” Roosevelt pointedly made this letter and his reply public on March 28, the day after Arnold exposed the facts about the Standard-IG Farben conspiracy to the Truman Committee. Roosevelt’s reply said, “I approve the procedure outlined in your memorandum to me ...” The subsequent developments in the government’s projected suit against General Electric’s Carboloy, Inc., illustrate how this policy is now being carried out. This suit was originally scheduled to begin last October. It was postponed to February 1942, again postponed to March, then postponed again to April. In the third week of April, Federal Judge Philip Forman of Trenton, N.J., was about to open the trial, when he received a telegram from Undersecretary of War Patterson and Under-Secretary of the Navy Forrestal. The telegram asked Judge Forman to postpone the case once more, because “we desire time to study the question of whether trial at this time of US vs. General Electric Co. and others would interfere with war production.” Judge Forman agreed, indefinitely postponing the case. Whether it will finally go to trial is up to the War and Navy Departments, which have an “inter-departmental” agreement with the Attorney General permitting them to halt any antitrust prosecution which they deem an “interference with war production,” unless the President orders such prosecution on the direct appeal of the Attorney General. To cap this process, Attorney General Biddle on May 27 urged prompt passage of legislation exempting concerns from prosecution under the anti-trust laws when they are complying with specific requests from the War Production Board in furtherance of the war effort. “Already,” said the Associated Press, “business men are receiving formal assurance that they will not be prosecuted for anti-trust violations directly ordered as part of the war drive.

The Attorney General issues certificates under a plan worked out by President Roosevelt.” This is nothing less than unconditional surrender to the monopolies. Why the Government Will Not Act To interfere in any effective fashion with the monopolies’ cartel arrangements, with their control of patents and production, would mean to squeeze the very heart of monopoly capitalism. This government, whose sole function is to safeguard the interests of the capitalist class, cannot and will not take measures which would inevitably tend to undermine private property “rights” in the means of production. In war-time particularly, the government is often constrained to establish certain rules and regulations which, if carried out, may step on the toes of this or that group of capitalists. This is done in the interests of the capitalist class as a whole. But, as the present situation reveals, this government will not curb the cartel system and its practices because this means to impose on the basic interests of all the monopolies. Since the cartel agreements, even those with the Nazi capitalists, are an inevitable and necessary part of the capitalist process in its present stage – monopoly – the government cannot and will not prevent them, just as it will not attack the monopoly system. The government dares not even seriously expose the cartel practices. For this might serve to discredit the capitalist ruling class in the eyes of the masses. The government seeks to preserve the prestige of the monopolists for that prestige is essential to their continued domination of the economic and political life of the nation. If the capitalist government cannot resolve this contradiction, still less can the assorted liberals, reformist labor leaders and the Stalinists, who are anxious above all else to maintain “national unity” with the owning class. The liberal, trade union and Social-Democratic papers have been wailing woefully at the US-Nazi cartel conspiracies. The “solutions” they offer are beneath contempt. A typical liberal newspaper, PM, which has published more on these conspiracies than any other daily, seriously called on the small stockholders of Standard Oil to take steps to oust the trust officials responsible for the agreements with IG Farben. The editors of PM must be aware of the absurdity of this proposal. The majority of small stockholders with a few shares of common stock, have no more say about the operations of a giant corporation than any ordinary depositor has in the operations of a bank. They cannot hope to carry through a long, costly legal fight against the tremendous wealth of the leading corporation share-holders. The trade union leaders and Social-Democrats would “solve” the problem by appealing to the administration to give the labor leaders a few more government posts. Naturally, they do not question the “right” of the private owners to control industry, nor do they dare to challenge the monopolies’ domination of the government and its war production and procurement agencies. As for the Stalinist leaders, their press has systematically suppressed the facts about the US-Nazi cartel conspiracies. From March through May, during the height of the exposures, the Daily Worker and Sunday Worker carried exactly five tiny items, in obscure positions, on the conspiracies. This policy was “explained” in an editorial in the Daily Worker, April 24, assuring its readers that the “large American corporations and their leading personnel” are patriotic, and that they are “part of the camp of national unity.” The same editorial attacks those publications which are exposing the monopolies as “naive ‘trustbusters’” whose attitude “can be dangerous” and who are imitating the “demagogy of Hitler.” Neither the monopolies nor their cartel agreements can be eliminated within the framework of the capitalist system. They are bred by the system. They will disappear only with the end of that system. The first effective step to mobilize the workers for that purpose is the transition slogan of the Socialist Workers Party: For the expropriation of the war industries and their operation under workers’ control! Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 13 November 2014

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Roosevelt Puts on Pressure for Forced Labor Measures (3 February 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 5, 3 February 1945, pp. 1 & 5. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Confronted by mounting labor opposition to his “National Service” scheme for regimenting the workers and undermining the unions, Roosevelt and his leading brass hats are pressing ever more urgently for speedy enactment of the May-Bailey forced labor draft bill, now before Congress. This bill contains features more harsh in some instances than the original Nazi slave labor code on which the Roosevelt plan is modeled and which inspired his cynical slogan, “This is a war of free labor against slave labor. The success of the administration’s conspiracy to enslave American labor in the interests of the profiteering corporations required the strategy of speed and surprise. Roosevelt’s plot, therefore, was to shove through a forced labor bill before the labor movement had time to mobilize its ranks for resistance and before his sinister anti-labor intent could be fully exposed. With this aim of speed in mind, Roosevelt timed his renewed forced labor drive to go into high gear at the moment when popular fear of a prolonged war slaughter was at its height, during the unexpected military reverses on the Belgian front. Roosevelt unleashed a fraudulent propaganda scare-campaign about munitions “shortages” that was designed to play upon the fears of the masses for their loved ones in the battle lines and break down their opposition to labor regimentation. However, despite the careful planning of the administration, its forced labor blitz timetable has already been upset. It has run into several unforeseen obstacles, causing delays which increasingly imperil the administration’s original scheme. Anti-Labor Amendments One unanticipated snag has been created by the very eagerness of reactionary Congressmen to respond in the same labor-hating spirit as Roosevelt’s forced labor demand. In their desire to “strengthen” the bill and eliminate any possibility of loopholes, Roosevelt’s more unrestrained Congressional colleagues, particularly from the Democratic South, are competing to attach to the forced labor measure all sorts of cruder anti-labor amendments. Their slobbering eagerness to embrace Roosevelt’s plan and even “improve” it has not only delayed its enactment but exposed the original bill for the viciously antilabor measure that it is. One amendment was designed to undermine union security by abrogating closed shop union contracts for workers forced into jobs in closed-shop plants. Another was intended to make all strikes illegal. Differences arose among the Congressmen as to the most effective means for enforcing the labor draft scheme. Some wanted “work-or-fight” penalties. Some wanted to establish “slacker work battalions” under Army rule. Others preferred “civilian” penalties – $10,000 fines and 5 years imprisonment. Fearful that all these amendments were stalling the bill and exposing its real slave labor character, Roosevelt’s aides rushed to Congress and insisted that it hold back all the trimmings until the basic measure is passed. Under this pressure, the House Military Affairs Committee eliminated the anti-strike, anti-closed shop, “work-or-fight” and “slacker battalions” amendments. The committeemen were aware that the bill as it stands, which enables the administration to move workers in and out of jobs at will under threat of huge fines and imprisonment, is sufficiently broad and drastic to satisfy even the most hard-bitten, fascist-minded employers. The administration wants speed, in addition, because the change in the military, picture, due especially to the Red Army offensive toward Berlin, has reduced the popular fear of a prolonged war. Talk of an immediate Allied offensive – with assurances that there are now sufficient munitions for it – has reduced the effect of the munitions “shortage” scare. Fake Shortage Most of all, the real facts about the “need” for forced labor due to manpower shortages are coming to light. The Mead Senate War Investigating Committee, for instance, has disclosed “labor hoarding” and huge waste of manpower at the Norfolk Naval Yard, where the officials had been clamoring for “4,000 more workers.” The War Production Board report for December showed that despite the holiday letdown substantial increases in all the major munitions programs were registered. During the last half of 1944, the WPB report admitted, “every one of the critical programs showed a substantial gain” ranging from 20 to over 200 per cent. Roosevelt’s Moves And then came the startling disclosure by John L. Lovett, Michigan Manufacturers’ Association general manager, that in the allegedly key “tight spot,” Detroit, the factories are in position to handle 20 per cent more war contracts and that 50,000 experienced workers are right now forced to live off unemployment compensation. CIO United Automobile Workers President R.J. Thomas put his finger on the biggest flaw in the claim of manpower “shortage.” He last week challenged the government estimate of 700,000 unemployed, declaring there were no less than 5,000,000 workers seeking jobs. “The bureau (Labor Statistics) must be thinking of 700,000 white men,” Thomas declared. “My estimate includes what they overlooked – the women and Negroes able and wanting to work in war plants and other essential industries.” But the House Military Affairs Committee struck out from the May-Bailey bill a clause prohibiting discrimination against workers for racial, religious or similar reasons. Without even waiting for legislation, the administration has already begun to initiate its forced labor scheme. Allentown, Pa., has been selected as the first test spot. There last week, under orders of the War Manpower Commission, a group of brewery workers were fired from their jobs and forced to take work in designated plants at lower pay and longer hours. If the administration succeeds in achieving its aims in this instance, it plans to spread the same scheme everywhere. By hook or by crook, Roosevelt intends to impose industrial regimentation upon the American working class. This Nazi-like scheme can still be smashed, however, if the entire labor movement goes into united fighting action against it. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 21 June 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis World War II and the Monopolies Big Business Grows Bigger (20 July 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 29, 20 July 1946, p. 6. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). World War II didn’t bring the promised “four freedoms.” It didn’t bring lasting peace, plenty and security. But it did make American Big Business bigger. It did increase the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of the giant monopolies. These monopolies – owning most of America’s industries, transport, raw materials, food processing and distribution, financial institutions – are controlled by a tiny oligarchy of America’s sixty richest families. They own most of this country. They rule it. And it is their armed forces and economic penetration which are reaching out to rule the whole world too. How much of this country this ruling oligarchy owns and how much they have increased their ownership and control through World War II, is the subject of a recently-published report prepared for the Senate Small Business Committee by the Smaller War Plants Corporation (SWPC), entitled Economic Concentration In World War II. Packed into the 358 pages of this report are facts which confirm to the hilt the contentions of The Militant and the Socialist Workers Party that the war was inspired by and benefitted only Big Business. “Economic Royalists” Get Fatter Roosevelt, at the start of his presidential career in 1933, promised to “drive the money-changers from the temple” and assailed the “economic royalists.” But, as the conclusive evidence of this Senate report shows, the “economic royalists” fattened during his peacetime regime and during his wartime rule grew to unprecedented wealth and power. “The relative importance of big business particularly the giant corporations, increased sharply during the war, while the position of small business declined,” the report demonstrates. In September 1939, start of World War II, the value of all usable production facilities in the United States was about 40 billion dollars. BUT – just 250 of the largest corporations had 25.9 billion dollars of these capital assets – 65.7 per cent! During the war, 26 billion dollars of production facilities were added – two-thirds from the pockets of the American people by way of the U.S. Treasury. Of these facilities, says the report, “about $20,000,000,000 of the $26,000,000,000 wartime plant is usable for the production of peacetime products either immediately or after only minor conversion.” Thus, there is today “a total of some 60 billion dollars of postwar usable facilities.” “Who then controls this vast productive plant?” asks the report. “The answer to these questions may be obtained by examining the holdings of the Nation’s 250 largest manufacturing companies – 31 of which are controlled by five financial interests groups. “If these 250 industrial giants finally acquire the 8.9 billion dollars of usable federally financed facilities on which they generally hold purchase options, their facility holdings will come to 38.5 billion dollars, 66.5 per cent of total usable facilities and almost as much as the entire 39.6 billion dollars held before the war by all of the more than 75,000 manufacturing corporations in existence.” 250 GIANT CORPORATIONS OWN ⅔ OF MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION FACILITIES IN AMERICA TODAY. But that isn’t all. Just 31 of these corporations own a total of 18.2 billion dollars of facilities – 30 per cent of the nation’s productive plant and equipment. AND FIVE FINANCIAL GROUPS, “NAMELY, MORGAN-FIRST NATIONAL, MELLON, ROCKEFELLER, DU FONT, AND THE CLEVELAND GROUP,” OWN THESE 31 CORPORATIONS. The direction in which Big Business has been heading – aided by two bonanza world wars – are shown by other illuminating figures. Corporations with manufacturing assets of more than $50,000,000 each – “the giants of industry” as the report calls them – in 1934 controlled 37 per cent of all such assets in the country. By 1940, these “economic royalists” controlled 44 per cent. In 1942, blessed by war, these 205 corporations owned 49 per cent of all corporate manufacturing assets. The bigger the corporations, the increasingly bigger proportion of all profits gravy they have been lapping up. The report states: “The largest income recipients – those receiving $5,000,000 annual net income and over – have grown steadily in importance. For example, in 1918 they accounted for 34.2 per cent of the total net income received by all manufacturing corporations. During the depression the largest income recipients declined in importance. SINCE 1934, HOWEVER, THE LARGEST INCOME RECIPIENTS HAVE INCREASED THEIR POSITION, AND IN 1942, THE CORPORATIONS WITH $5,000,000 AND MORE ANNUAL NET INCOME ACCOUNTED FOR 50.7 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL.” (Our emphasis) Own 49 Per Cent of Assets By contrast, the small businessmen, those whom Roosevelt and Truman after him promised to save, are being forced more and more to the wall.

SINCE 1934, HOWEVER, THE LARGEST INCOME RECIPIENTS HAVE INCREASED THEIR POSITION, AND IN 1942, THE CORPORATIONS WITH $5,000,000 AND MORE ANNUAL NET INCOME ACCOUNTED FOR 50.7 PER CENT OF THE TOTAL.” (Our emphasis) Own 49 Per Cent of Assets By contrast, the small businessmen, those whom Roosevelt and Truman after him promised to save, are being forced more and more to the wall. “The smallest income recipients – those with annual net income of less than $250,000 – have shown a decrease in importance over the years. In 1918, this group received 23.4 per cent of the total net income of all manufacturers corporations. Their proportionate share had decreased to 19.1 per cent in 1929 ... and by 1942 their share had decreased to only 11.6 per cent.” The only group which improved its relative position in the economy as a whole consisted of the largest firms, with 1,000 or more employes. In 1939, these firms employed 30 per cent of all wage earners. “By 1943, these figures had risen to 44 per cent.” But those “few giants” employing 10,000 or more, “accounted for 13 per cent of total employment in 1939, and for fully 31 per cent of the total in 1944.” Thus the war gave the big monopolies not only a greater share of the wealth and productive facilities – it gave them an immeasurably greater direct control over the lives of the working people. Deadly Blow at “Little Man” At the same time, the war struck a deadly blow at the little business men. “The record of the war years shows a constant increase in the importance of big business and a constant decline in that of the little concerns. This was due, in part, to the COMPLETE DISAPPEARANCE OF HALF A MILLION SMALL RETAIL, SERVICE, AND CONSTRUCTION FIRMS.” (Our emphasis) The same tiny gang who owned most of America and ruled it in 1919 and 1939, own more of it today. Only 10,000 persons (0.008 per cent of the population) owned one-fourth, and 75,000 (0.06 per cent of the population) owned one-half of all corporate stock in 1939i The top one per cent of shareholders owned 60 per cent of the outstanding stock of the 200 largest non-financial corporations. Just eight families and interlocked financial groups – including the Morgans, Mellons. Rockefellers, Du Ponts and Kuhn-Loeb – controlled outright 106 of the 250 largest corporations and two-thirds of their combined assets. They are the ones who own most of America. The war was good to them. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 19 June 2021

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Charter W.P.A. Workers: Major Task Before C.I.O. Industry Pick-Up Does Not Relieve Unemployment; Labor Action Alone Will Open Factories (December 1938) From Socialist Appeal, Vol. II No. 55, 24 December 1938, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The failure of the capitalist system to supply even the most elementary needs of the workers is no more glaringly illustrated than in the persistent phenomenon of mass unemployment in the richest country on earth. It becomes increasingly clear, particularly in the mass production industries, that the organized labor movement and the employed workers in general, face in chronic mass unemployment the most devastating menace to their interests. Despite all the tremendous gains of the past few years, particularly in the field of industrial unionism, constantly recurring economic declines heaping up new and more extensive strata of unemployed have cut wide swathes in the union ranks and hold the terror of insecurity over every employed worker. The knowledge that there are thousands of jobless men, desperate for any opportunity to earn a livelihood waiting just outside the plant gates, cannot help but breed an extreme caution in the average worker. It is a desire to hold on to his miserable portion without complaint rather than risk the loss of all in a fight for more decent wages and working conditions. Mass Unemployment Permanent In the past year and a half of Roosevelt depression, one decisive fact stands out – mass unemployment is permanent. If in the past nine years the workers have constantly renewed their hopes on the illusion that “bad times” were merely temporary and that “relief” was desirable merely as a “hand-out” to tide the jobless worker over until his next job, this illusion is fast disappearing. Where formerly the WPA worker said, “When I get back into private industry ...” today, the workers in mass production industries are saying in increasing numbers, “When we get back on WPA.” A pick-up in production no longer means a proportionate rise in employment. Rationalization of industry has proceeded at a pace sufficient in the past three years to permit a 25 to 35 percent expansion of production from the low norms of last March, without any material increase in employment. Those who worked two days a week work four now, and production is more than doubled. The totally unemployed must look to relief or government relief jobs as a permanent source of mere subsistence. Production Up – More WPA! A striking illustration of this fact was given several weeks ago, by the District WPA Director, William B. Schmuhl, in Toledo, Ohio, in a conference with the representatives of the C.I.O.-WPA Joint Action Committee. He stated that if production in Toledo industry were to rise to the peak of the 1937 boom, a minimum of 8,000 more WPA jobs would still be required now over the 7,000 actually provided previously during the production peak. Included in the hundreds of thousands, rising production will fail to call back to private employment is a high percentage of young, militant union members, particularly in the C.I.O., who possess insufficient seniority. They had a taste of wages in unionized plants back in ’36 and ’37. They do not relish, as a permanent livelihood, WPA with its $10–$14 per week wages. But despite the almost 100 percent political support given by organized labor in the past to the New Deal, that agency is proceeding with its now time-hallowed practice of withdrawing unemployed benefits, rather than expanding them and raising the standards. Up to the present, the organized labor movement has failed to recognize the true character of present unemployment. The jobless worker who looked to his union for help, received little more than the encouragement of occasional resolutions and the sporadic aid of hastily formed, and most often, poorly informed, grievance committees. In addition, the C.I.O. in many instances, especially where the Stalinists had any foothold or influence, simply told its members to join the Workers Alliance. Sad to relate, this organization was not merely numerically weak, but was so interlinked with the New Deal politicians and so anxious to gain the favors of the WPA officials as a “respectable” organization, that it has long since degenerated into its own unique form of company-unionism. Throughout the entire period of the Roosevelt depression, it spent its time fawning before the government officials. Its leaders, like David Lasser and Herbert Benjamin, cooled their heels in the anterooms of the WPA headquarters in Washington, the legislators offices, or the back-gates of the White House, rushing eagerly into print to expand each perfunctory official hand-shake or smile into another major victory for the unemployed. Such concessions are cheap, and the politicians bestowed them lavishly. The specter of 10 to 14 millions of permanently disemployed hangs over organized labor. Hundreds of thousands of union men are jobless. The trade union leaders cannot and dare not permit these workers to continue either disorganized or divorced from the organized employed worker. Such a policy means only a gigantic breeding ground for the doctrines of the Father Coughlins, the Gerald K. Smiths, and all their fascist ilk, who spread the gospel that the unions only want the money of the workers, that the unions by their “excessive demands” are creating unemployment, etc. The only answer organized labor can give to such demagogy, is a national program of organization of the unemployed and WPA workers. More is needed than wordy resolutions or the intercessions of individual labor leaders. Just as the auto workers themselves, in open battle with the industrialists, won concessions, so the WPA workers and jobless are themselves the key to the solution of their problems. The pressure from the ranks of the WPA workers in particular have forced the C.I.O. in cities like Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit to set up unions for the WPA workers. In this, they have begun to follow the spendid example of the Minneapolis Central Labor Union and the General Drivers Union which has followed this practice for four years and won outstanding benefits for the jobless of their community. This move, still in its beginnings, is being bitterly fought by the reactionary elements within the labor movement, particularly the Stalinists, who fear the growth of fighting organizations directed against the New Deal politicians and the government which they so ardently woo. Such elements must and will be brushed aside. The important thing right now is a nation-wide demand by every honest, militant unionist: “Charter the WPA workers!” and “Build the WPA Industrial Unions!” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 24 Febrary 2020

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Inside Story of Toledo Strike Told by a Leading Participant in the Battle with General Motors (May/June 1935) From The New Militant, Vol. I No. 23, 25 May 1935, p. 2, Vol. I No. 24, 1 June 1935, p. 2 & Vol. I No. 25, 8 June 1935, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Part 1 Part 2 Part 3 Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 24 February 2015

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes Textile Wage Case Conspiracy (3 February 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 5, 3 February 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Some workers undoubtedly still have the illusion that the Roosevelt administration attempts to exercise “impartiality” in arriving at wage decisions. But the reality is the exact opposite. The rigmarole of War Labor Board hearings and other government arbitration procedures is designed to conceal behind-the-scenes conniving between the administration and the big employers. The actual mechanics of one such conspiracy have been partially disclosed by recent developments in the textile wage case, including Director of Economic Stabilization Vinson’s intervention in this and other pending cases. This intervention came in the form of his letter to the WLB “requesting” that agency to grant no wage increases of any nature without prior approval of the Office of Price Administration. By his action, Vinson succeeded in blocking a final decision of the WLB after it had indicated its intentions of lifting slightly the “sub-standard” wages of the terribly exploited textile workers. Further, he established an entirely new basis for “settling” wage disputes. Not the “merits of the case” are the criteria, but whether wage increases, however paltry, “affect costs and prices” – as the profiteering corporations always insist they do. Moreover, final authority in wage disputes is no longer to reside in the official arbitration agency, the WLB, but in the “price control” agencies, where the unions do not even have formal representation. Thus, the administration has contrived a neat device for nullifying wage increases even in those few instances where the WLB, in order to preserve its prestige as an “impartial” agency, is compelled to grant “fringe” raises. Apart from the obvious general fact that Roosevelt’s underlings and appointees, including Vinson, merely implement the administration’s wage and labor policies, in this particular case there is concrete evidence that Vinson acted in accordance with White House directions. Moreover, as we shall show, Vinson had a secret “understanding” with the leading textile manufacturers. The first public knowledge of the general contents of Vinson’s letter to WLB chairman Davis came in a CIO statement of protest issued in Washington on January 12. This statement also contained a copy of a letter sent by Roosevelt to CIO President Murray. Roosevelt’s letter – into which the CIO leaders attempted at first to read a message of “hope” – clearly indicates that the inspiration for Vinson’s action came straight from the White House. In his letter discussing the administration’s broad wage policy, Roosevelt emphasized just one point – the effect of any wage increases upon prices. “Naturally, any proposals for a change in our present policy must be considered in relation to their probable effect upon the price structure and upon our general anti-inflation program. The board (WLB), therefore, will submit its report to Judge Vinson whom I then expect to advise me in light of the board’s findings, as well as all other relevant information. As to objectives, we are in perfect agreement. We must not permit the price level to rise.” It may be noted with reference to the last sentence that the compelling reason advanced by the unions to demand wage increases has been precisely that prices have already risen – at least 45 per cent since January 1941. * * * It can now be proved, further more, that Vinson acted not only with Roosevelt’s approval but also upon secret agreement with the textile bosses. That is why Vinson’s letter to the WLB was timed to halt release of the WLB decision in the textile wage case. The irrefutable evidence of this administration-employers conspiracy to defraud the textile workers is contained in a document made public on January 23 by Emil Rieve, President of the CIO Textile Workers Union. This revealing document is signed by William P. Jacobs, Executive Director of the Print Cloth Group of Cotton Manufacturers, Clinton, S.C. It is dated January 12, 1945. It is fittingly titled, Another Progress Report. The document begins: “After spending another week in Washington, I give you another confidential report on price ceilings and wages. On this trip, I conferred with Judge Vinson, having previously conferred with Justice Byrnes. He arranged the conference with Judge Vinson for us.” What a spirit of cordiality and cooperation! The report goes on to confide: “On wages the judge seemed better informed and more interested but still non-committal.” “Better informed and more interested” here means sympathetic to the sweat-shop operators’ view; “non-committal” means cautiously refraining from any open commitments. Then comes the real pay-off. “This matter is now in his (Vinson’s) hands, and from the pressure that we know has now reached him it is possible that FOR POLITICAL REASONS he may be forced to indefinitely hold the matter, or he may recommend a basis somewhat lower than the WLB would authorize. From conferences which I held I know that Justice Byrnes, Senators George, Maybank, Russell and Governor Gardner, and perhaps others have insisted that he do nothing which will wipe out the traditional North-South differential.” To what “political reasons” does this Southern sweatshop representative refer? Obviously the need of the Roosevelt regime to preserve its political ties with the powerful Southern Democratic Bourbons. The whole deal was engineered through Roosevelt’s right-hand man, Byrnes, the so-called “Assistant President.” The report then observes: “The interview (With Vinson) was satisfactory and resulted in a hopeful conclusion, again indicating the effect of pressure FROM HIGHER UP and perhaps from the letters which you have written to members of Congress. I RAN INTO THAT AT MANY POINTS.” Such understanding and co-operation from the “higher ups” and legislators! Indeed, the textile manufacturers had every reason to anticipate a “hopeful conclusion.” And they were not disappointed. * * * It need merely be added that WLB chairman Davis is now engaged in a bit of shadow-boxing with Vinson. Naturally, to prop up the WLB’s tottering authority, Davis is compelled to disclaim responsibility for the administration’s connivery. He is “disputing” in a polite way with Vinson’s “interpretation” – although conceding Vinson’s authority to enforce his “interpretation.” However, Davis and Vinson have cooperated to keep their skulduggery hidden from the workers. The United Press reported on January 24 that the text of Vinson’s letter “was made available despite efforts of both WLB Chairman William H. Davis and Mr. Vinson to prevent it from being made public.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 21 June 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes Stalinist Finks in the Ward Strikes (6 January 1945)) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 1, 6 January 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). During the past three weeks through their press and union stooges, the Stalinists have been conducting their most virulent strikebreaking campaign to date. These rats have been busily trailing their slime across the magnificent strike struggle of the Montgomery Ward workers which has won staunch support in the ranks of the labor movement. One of the most shameful acts of treachery perpetrated by the Stalinists was the stab in the back dealt the Detroit Ward Workers by the Stalinist officials of Local 65, CIO United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employes in New York. They belong to the very same international union which has been directing the strikes in Detroit, Kansas City and Chicago. The Stalinist stooges in this local, headed by Local 65 President Arthur Osman, issued a public denunciation of the Ward strikes. In their statement opposing the struggle of the Ward workers for a union contract and increases beyond their 39 cents an hour wages, these finks slanderously linked the Ward workers with the “treasonous activities” of Sewell L. Avery, the open-shop plutocrat who for four years has been successfully defying scores of WLB and other government agencies’ orders. These deliberate strikebreaking moves of the Stalinist stooges have of course been applauded by the Daily Worker. But these finks have become so brazen that they even boast of the praise of the bosses for their activities. In the December 24 issue of the Local 65 paper, New Voices, right next to a double-banner, double- cross headline attacking the Ward strikers, was “proudly” displayed a letter declaring “we are in complete accord with the views set forth by Mr. Osman” against the Ward workers. This statement was signed by Sidney B. Felsenfeld, Executive Secretary of the Shoe Wholesalers Employers’ Association! * * * While the Stalinists have joined with the open-shoppers against the Ward workers, almost every other section of the labor movement, including the bulk of the URWDSE-CIO members throughout the country, are giving tacit or open support to the strike. The infamous conduct of the Stalinists has aroused so much indignation that over 30 leading locals of the URWDSE-CIO have issued public statements condemning their strikebreaking in the Ward situation. * * * Anger against the Stalinists has been simmering ever since the Chicago Ward strike last May when Harry Bridges, head of the CIO Longshoremen’s and Warehousemen’s Union, ordered the members of his organization in the company’s St. Paul branch to handle “hot goods” from the struck Chicago mail-order headquarters. At the start of the Ward strike in Detroit Bridges’ attorney, Douglas Hall, appeared before WLB hearings in Washington to boast that “there is no strike at St. Paul” despite Avery’s “non-compliance with every directive of the Board,” including directives affecting the St. Paul members of the ILWU. While Bridges and his henchmen were pursuing their servile policies of surrender to the open-shoppers, the Roosevelt administration was prodded by the militancy of the Detroit Ward strike into issuing another WLB “last warning” compliance order to Avery. This order also included Ward’s St. Paul establishment along with those in several other cities. Thereupon the Daily Worker had the gall to bray in a headline on Dec. 16: “Bridges Wins Order on Ward Without Strike.” To be sure, Bridges didn’t call any strike; he did his damndest to break the strike that was going on in Detroit. But that didn’t prevent him and his pack of Stalinized scabs from trying to steal a little credit for themselves by cashing in on the very Detroit strike he assailed. * * * The officers of Local 327, URWDSE, have filed formal charges against Harry Bridges’ ILWU lieutenants accusing them of direct collusion with the Ward management in an attempt to sabotage an impending strike at the Baltimore Ward plant. These charges were filed with the national CIO last week. In a letter to Secretary-Treasurer James B. Carey, Maurice J. Niestadt, assistant business manager of Local 327, urged the CIO to take action against the strikebreaking Stalinist union officials. Niestadt declared that on December 20 a committee of workers from Ward’s retail store in Baltimore solicited the aid of Local 327 in a strike planned for December 22. This committee also asked assistance in securing the backing of other CIO unions in the area. The strike had to be postponed a day because of bad weather. On the originally scheduled day, an ILWU international representative, Jas. More, “with management assistance made a personal survey throughout the entire plant questioning the workers on their attitude toward a strike.” Also, that same day, the company sent an individual letter to each employee with intimidating propaganda against the projected strike. “This act of collusion on the part of the ILWU and management completely destroyed the morale and terrorized the people in the retail store where our people had been working,” Niestadt stated. He also declared that the action of the ILWU officials who were carrying out Bridges’ strikebreaking policy, constituted interference with the internal affairs of another CIO union. * * * A final note. Last week Washington correspondents, including members of the CIO American Newspaper Guild which backed the Ward strike, interviewed a committee of Stalinists and their front men from the Stalinist-dominated, Wayne County (Detroit) CIO Council. This committee had hot-footed to Washington to beg the government to halt the strike. The committee boasted of “emphasizing” unyielding devotion to the no-strike pledge. “Do you regard the Ward strike as a breach of that pledge?” a reporter asked. W.G. Grant, Ford UAW Local 600 president, replied, “Yes.” “Did you notice,” a reporter shot back, “that the WLB made an exception when it did not order the Ward strikers back to work?” Grant was taken aback. “Are you sure?” Several reporters, who had covered the WLB hearings, replied, “Absolutely.” Grant could only answer feebly, “I think I’d check to make doubly sure.” As the reporters were clearly intimating, the Stalinists display a new low in finkery when they attack a strike WHICH NOT EVEN THE CORPORATION-DOMINATED WLB DARED TO CONDEMN OPENLY! Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 April 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Yipsels Unite with Spartacus at Toledo Meet (14 December 1935) From The New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 50, 14 December 1935, pp. 1 & 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). TOLEDO, Ohio – The youth section of the local Stalinists succeeded in capturing themselves and several Y.W.C.A. secretaries at the Toledo Youth Congress held at the Central Labor Union Hall, Saturday afternoon, November 30. Going one better on the Elders of the Church (Stalinist), who held the fort at the recent American League Against War and Fascism conference, the fledgelings succeeded in preventing entirely any discussion on the war and sanctions question, which had been introduced into the conference by a joint resolution against support of imperialist governments and their sanctions submitted by the Young Peoples Socialist League and Spartacus Youth League. Highly advertised and ballyhooed, the conference began on the evening of November 29, with a meeting at the Civic Auditorium featuring a symposium of representatives of the Republican, Democratic, Socialist and Communist Parties on What Our Party Offers American Youth. For over three hours, the 300 of the faithful who lost themselves in the echoing vastness of the huge auditorium were, drenched by the greatest outpouring of reactionary balderdash ever spewed over a helpless audience, – saved only by the forthright utterances of Ben Fisher, national secretary of the Yipsels, who openly denounced the chauvinist policies of the Stalinists and attacked the support of sanctions and one’s own imperialist government in a war crisis. The Minimum Is Zero William Weinstone, who represented the Stalinists in the Symposium, completely skirted the entire war question, ducked the direct challenge of Fisher on the C.P. position on sanctions, and confined the greater portion of his remarks to sugary sentimental plea for organic unity between the Socialists and Stalinists. Waldo McNutt, Chairman of the American Youth Congress, one of the two main speakers on the program, distinguished himself in his remarks by declaring the purpose of the Congress to be “the uniting of the youth on a minimum program on which everyone could agree.” Everyone agreed on the minimum program offered – the minimum being nothing at all. The wind-up speaker, and chief attraction of the evening, however, was Reverend Theodore Adams, pastor of the Ashland Avenue Baptist Church. The Reverend put on a regular revival and offered as the solution of the problems of American youth the slogan “Come to Jesus!” (sic!), and punctuated his pious exhortations with an attack on the Soviet Union, linking the workers’ fatherland with Nazi Germany! Reverend Adams is the respectable front the Stalinists in control of the Congress are using to appeal to the church groups. The actual conference, attended by 40 delegates, a majority of Y.C.L. and New America members in a bloc, lasted about 4 hours on Saturday afternoon. One hour of this time was spent in again listening to Mr. McNutt say nothing in the polished platform manner of a washing-machine salesman who just slays the Y.W.C.A. secretaries. Then the conference was divided into “commissions,” directed in reports on youth and “unemployment, industry, education, war and fascism. This was intended to prevent any full and open discussion before the entire congress on resolutions introduced by the Yipsels and S.Y.L. However, a majority report in favor of the joint anti-sanctions resolution was reported by the commission on war and fascism, of which Sam Pollock was elected chairman. When the report was read to the congress, Lottie Gordon, Y.C.L. representative and wife of the district C.P. organizer, took the floor and charged the contents of the report to be out of order. After an hour’s fight on the floor, in which the Y.C.L. members by parliamentary conniving, succeeded in preventing any discussion on the actual contents of the resolution, it was tabled. During the course of the debate, however, it was revealed that the leaders of the A.Y.C., those staunch defenders of democratic rights, were opposed to “any controversial subject being discussed, since such subjects are against the program of the congress which is limited only to those questions on which all are in agreement.” (sic!) The one significant phase of the entire affair was the genuine and principled united front affected between the Young Socialists and Young Fourth Internationalists on the basis of a fundamental agreement on the war question. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 February 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Coal Miner Railroaded to Jail Under Smith-Connally Slave Law William Patterson Is the First Militant Unionist Victimized by Anti-Labor Act (4 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 23, 9 June 1945, pp. 1 & 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). PITTSBURGH, Pa., June 4 – William Patterson, 40-year old union coal digger from tiny company-owned Daisytown, 50 miles south of here, is the first American worker to be imprisoned under the infamous Smith-Connally anti-strike law. Last Saturday this loyal union man, who has spent the past 17 years toiling down in the dark and deadly dangers of Vesta No. 4, the world’s largest soft coal mine owned by Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp., was thrust into the county prison at Uniontown, Pa. Snatched without warning from his wife and two children, he has been condemned to six months behind bars. Thus Bill Patterson, a mine committeeman whom his fellow workers yesterday at Richeyville described as a “fighting fool for the men,” has become the first victim of the most vicious federal anti-labor law of modern times. Today, he is an outstanding symbol of American capitalist class “justice.” The American ruling class and its government have selected him to serve as an “example” and “warning” to all American labor. The Truth Revealed The truth about William Patterson’s case has been buried in slanderous misrepresentations. Yesterday I visited Richeyville, near Patterson’s home, where Vesta No. 4 is located. I had the privilege of attending a meeting of his local union, Local 2399, United Mine Workers of America. From the lips of the officers and members of his union, who are behind him to a man, I have secured the first authentic account of this unprecedented and historic case. Seated around a table on the platform of the Richeyville recreation hall where the local meets, Steve Panak, Local 2399 president, John G. Harris, vice-president, John Peters, secretary-treasurer, and a score of other officers and members indignantly related the facts behind this frame-up. They described step by step how the government, aided by the courts, which in this area are controlled by the billion-dollar steel trust and the powerful mine operators, deliberately set out to “get” Patterson and make an “example” of him. Took the Rap Over and over again, they emphasized: “He took the rap for us.” They made it clear that Bill Patterson could have been any one of a half million miners who today might be standing in his shoes – or will be tomorrow, if the employing class and government get away with this first imprisonment under the anti-strike law. The fact that Patterson was sentenced to six months, instead of five years as the law permits, is due solely to the “cautious” approach of the government in this first test case. A “light” sentence – throwing a worker into jail unjustly for six months and depriving his family of his support – they figured would not be apt to arouse “too much” protest. Patterson was quickly railroaded to prison last week on the technical charge of violating his probation, after the original conviction and suspended sentence imposed on him and 26 other union miners of this area in the August 1942 trial for alleged violation of the Smith-Connally Act. They had participated in the general mine strike of that summer which was used as the pretext for pushing through the anti-strike law. On the advice of their legal counsel, they had been persuaded not to contest the charge. The government secured a conviction and, above all, a precedent. Then the government and steel and mine bosses lay in wait for their first victim. They found him in William Patterson, who had continued to act as an elected mine committeeman and to defend the interests of his brother unionists despite the suspended sentence hanging over his head. Mine Walkout Last February 12 and 13 there was a walkout at Vesta No. 4. I have the direct testimony of scores of union men that Patterson had no direct or personal responsibility for the strike. I was informed that on last Saturday over 600 of Patterson’s fellow workers had signed a petition stating they were prepared to swear and testify that Patterson could in no way have been responsible for the February walkout. Subsequently, however, the District 5 UMW officials, for reasons of their own about which the local rank and file are very angry, informed Patterson that he had been suspended from his mine committee post. Local 2399 refused to accept Patterson’s resignation under pressure and the subsequent suspension. They felt so keenly about the injustice of this act against Patterson that on May 14 they went on strike for seven days in protest. But this was the pretext the government had been seeking. The workers yesterday informed me that FBI agents had been in the area since the walkout in April in the fight for the new soft coal contract. Members of Local 2399 were questioned and asked to give “evidence” against Patterson. His probation officer, George O’Brien, had even approached some of the other workers who had been convicted in August 1943 and tried to pressure them into “talking” against Patterson. All the evidence points to a deliberate plot to “get” Patterson. Patterson Arrested Without any prior warning, on May 21, a federal marshal walked into Bill Patterson’s home in Daisytown, a few miles from Richeyville, and arrested him on the charge of Probation Officer O’Brien that he had “violated” his probation because of the February and May strikes. The only “crime” he committed was simply not to be a rat and a scab when the rest of the men walked out.

He was whisked away to the Alleghany County Jail here in Pittsburgh and held under a $2,000 bond. For three days, his union brothers worked desperately to raise bond to release him. Those who owned little homes were ready and willing to put them up as bond. But the court refused to accept property mortgaged or owned jointly in the name of husband and wife. Every bonding company they approached turned them down. Finally, from one source and another they scraped together the – for them – enormous sum of $1,000 cash, which the judge accepted as temporary bond. On Friday, June 1, Patterson was brought for hearing before Federal Judge F.P. Schoonmaker here. From all first-hand accounts of the proceedings that I gathered from the workers who had gone to the hearing as witnesses on Patterson’s behalf – although they were never permitted to testify – it was a judicial farce. As one worker put it, “That judge had his mind all made up in advance. Bill never had a chance.” “No Bearing” There were 24 union men who gave up a day’s pay and travelled at their own expenses to Pittsburgh in an effort to bring the truth into the federal court. They were forced to sit in angry silence while the judge, prosecuting attorney and probation officer went through the legal hairsplitting necessary to rush Patterson off to jail “strictly according to the law.” The probation officer claimed that the mere fact that Patterson had acted as mine committeeman while he was on proba tion was “evidence” that he had “violated” his probation. Whether or not Patterson had any direct responsibility for the strikes, the judge ruled, had “no bearing” on the case. The fact that he had not scabbed, that he had stayed away from work, meant he was “guilty.” Of course, the judge stuck to the technicality that this was a case of probation “violation,” in order to avoid a hearing on the real issue – the original frame- up under the unconstitutional Smith-Connally anti-labor law. When Premo Columbus, a former assistant U.S. attorney and Patterson’s defense counsel, pleaded with the judge to permit the testimony of the 24 witnesses on Patterson’s behalf, the judge just brushed the plea aside. Patterson sought to defend himself and showed that it was impossible, even if he had been willing to do so, to go to work during a mine shutdown. One local union officer explained that: “... he told how he couldn’t go to work, even if he wanted to. There was no coal-loader, no motorman, no brakemen, no shot-fer, no cutter. “But the way they put it in court, even if the men went on strike, Bill had to work or go to jail. They said he had to be a scab. He was in a hell of a spot. They had him coming and going. He couldn’t stay out when there was a strike or he would be sent to the jug. But he couldn’t work even if he wanted to, so they knew they had him.” Denied Cigarettes As one final dirty piece of reprisal, the men told me, they wouldn’t even let his fellow workers slip him some cigarettes before they rushed him off to jail after the judge finally ended the farce and ordered his probation revoked. He was shipped almost immediately to the Uniontown prison, some 65 miles south of here, where he will serve his sentence. The union local and Patterson’s union brothers are doing all in their power to aid him and his family, his wife Ruby, a 15-year old son and a 20-year old daughter. Yesterday the local meeting decided unanimously to continue the fight for Bill Patterson’s release and voted a special assessment to provide his family with the full amount each month he would have earned on the job, so his dependents will not want. But the obligation to defend Bill Patterson and to see to it that there are no more victims of the Smith-Connally slave-labor bill must not rest alone on the shoulders of the fine, loyal members of Local 2399. Patterson is “taking the rap” for every militant union man in this country. From all the facts I have gathered on the scene here, I do not hesitate to state that this case stinks to high heaven from start to finish. Far more than local forces have conspired in Patterson’s persecution and imprisonment. It represents a conspiracy on the part of the most powerful federal agencies backed by the greatest anti-labor corporations in the land. Labor Must Protest Only a storm of united labor protest will tear the veil from this rotten conspiracy and open the prison doors for Bill Patterson. Every labor organization in the country should adopt resolutions of protest to the federal government and send their immediate expressions of support to Local 2399, United Mine Workers, at Richeyville, Pa. Elementary labor solidarity for a victimized union man demands such action. But even more, the elementary defense of the entire labor movement requires it. For if one militant miner can be persecuted and imprisoned under the vile anti-strike law without thunderous protest from all labor – what worker, what loyal union man fighting for labor’s rights, can say today that he won’t be next? Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 November 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Hillman Plays Judas in Arms Contract Fight (26 October 1940) From Socialist Appeal, Vol. 4 No. 43, 26 October 1940, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). On September 6, a formal statement of the National Defense Advisory Commission was issued declaring, “All work carried on as part of the defense program should comply with Federal statutory provisions affecting labor wherever such provisions are applicable. This applies to the Walsh-Healy Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, National Labor Relations Act, etc. ...” The Commission’s statement was seconded on September 9, by a formal endorsement from President Roosevelt. On September 11, the Bethlehem Steel Corporation, most notorious open-shop corporation in the country and branded as a violator of the labor laws by the NLRB, was granted the largest single war order yet released, for $625,000,000. Phillip Murray, head of the CIO Steel workers Organizing Committee, expressed “utter astonishment” at this award to Bethlehem Steel just five days after the Defense Commission had presumably called on all war contractors to obey the labor laws. The workers in Bethlehem Steel were puzzled by this contradiction between implied policy and applied fact. Whereupon Sidney Hillman, as head of the Labor Division of the Defense Commission, sought to reassure the workers by a press statement on September 13, proudly quoting the Commission’s original statement and adding, “You will further observe that, in this statement of conditions underlying the awarding of contracts, the Commission has not limited itself merely to the requirements that contractors observe existing laws. It has gone substantially beyond that.” But war contracts continued to go to Bethlehem Steel – to the sum of over $1,000,000,000. The Bethlehem workers became uneasy, and the CIO – organized Sparrows Point shipyard of Bethlehem Steel went out on strike. The CIO wrote Hillman for a little further clarification. On October 3, Hillman hastened to send a letter citing an “informal” opinion of Attorney General Jackson to a gathering in Pittsburg of several hundred SWOC representatives who were considering the crisis in Bethlehem. This opinion declared; “It seems too clear to admit of controversy ... that the findings of the National Labor Relations Board that an employer is in violation of the National Labor Relations Act are binding and conclusive upon the other agencies in the executive branch of the government unless and until these findings are reversed by a court of competent jurisdiction”. This obviously means, and was so interpreted by every capitalist newspaper, that no government agency may ignore a ruling of the NLRB and award contracts to outlawed corporations. Among several score corporations publicly listed as hit by this ruling were Standard Oil, the duPonts, General Motors, Ford Motor and Bethlehem Steel. The Bethlehem conference of the SWOC looked on the Hillman assurance and the Jackson ruling as good coin. No action was taken to spread the Sparrows Point strike. Instead, they hastened to discourage direct action. The Sparrows Point shipyard stride was called off on the urging of Philip Van Gelder, national secretary of the CIO Industrial Union of Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, who declared that Jackson’s opinion “could be used as a weapon for enforcing collective bargaining in the Sparrows Point and other Bethlehem plants without the necessity of strike action.” And After Stifling the Strike The capitalist press showed no gratitude to Hillman for spiking the Bethlehem strike. It did not like the method he employed, and demanded an unambiguous rejection of the principle implied in the Jackson ruling. The New York Times cynically likened a violation of the National Labor Relations Act to the violation of a municipal ordinance forbidding smoking in the subway. What! Hold up “national defense” for such trivialities? The pay-off came – the day of the return to work of the Sparrows Point strikers on Oct. 8. That afternoon a procession filed before the Smith Committee, the Congressional body “investigating” the NLRB. First came Under-secretary of War, Patterson. Said he, “It is not my understanding that a labor dispute is any bar to a contract. It is merely one thing to be considered.” Next, Secretary of the Navy Knox declared, “His (Patterson’s) words accurately reflect the navy’s attitude.” Hillman sat quietly listening to Knox and Patterson brazenly repudiate their own previous statements in letters to him. Jackson then testified. There had been “a great storm of misunderstanding” about his previous opinion. “The effect,” said he, “was not intended to direct or imply that the Defense Commission should withhold contracts from persons or corporations declared by the NLRB to be in violation of the Wagner Act.” Judas-Hillman Apes His Masters Finally, Hillman was called to the stand. He cold-blood[ed]ly put the period to the end of Jackson’s sentence. As the New York Post described it: “Of all the apparent back-tracking, Hillman’s was the most startling, causing gasps among the committee members and spectators.” “I’ve got to agree” with the gentlemen who had preceded him on the stand, said Hillman. “The army and navy have the power (to determine the conditions for the letting of contracts). In every case the first consideration is whether it will help or harm national defense.” After the hearing, Hillman further clarified his stand. “If the cause of national defense is to be served it is entirely obvious that there may be times when a person should not insist upon the final technical letter of the law.” The next day the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an NLRB ruling against an appeal of the Bethlehem Steel corporation. The court declared Bethlehem Steel was guilty of “a plain violation” of the National Labor Relations Act. Two days later, Bethlehem Steel was awarded another fat war contract, for $54,000,000. This was an example of Hillman’s non-insistence upon the “final technical letter of the law.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 17 August 2020

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Union Leaders Continue Stall on Wage Fight (31 August 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 35, 31 August 1946, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Despite their protests against the Price Decontrol Board’s rulings, the union leaders are apparently determined to continue their policy of stalling or openly opposing any fight on the wage front. The reaction of the AFL top leaders to the Decontrol Board’s rulings was stated by Robert J. Watt, AFL member on the Wage Stabilization Board, in an AFL radio program on August 24. He complained that “the price squeeze is aggravated by the government’s rigid freeze of wages” and that “the AFL has become completely disillusioned with bureaucratic control of prices and wages.” “Tighten Belts” He said: “We look forward anxiously to the day when such controls can be wiped out entirely.” Until then, however, the AFL leaders advise the workers only to work harder until “supply meets demand.” In a previous broadcast, Watt had told the workers to “tighten their belts,” and he had echoed the standard propaganda of the employers that a fight for higher wages “would only delay production further and at the same time accelerate inflation.” The CIO leaders, on the other hand, have vigorously condemned the view that the only way the workers can protect their standard of living is by working harder and turning out “more production” – and profits – for the corporations. They correctly charge that the employers have raised the hypocritical cry for “more production” to conceal the responsibility of the profiteers for the rising prices and to sweat even greater profits out of the workers through speed-up and longer hours. The CIO leaders apparently look with more favor on demands for higher wages than the AFL leaders. The CIO tops have been under greater pressure from the ranks. Leading CIO unions, like the United Packinghouse Workers and United Automobile Workers, have raised new wage demands or are reopening wage contracts. But the CIO leaders are putting forward no real program of union action on the wage front. They merely use the threat of new wage demands to put pressure on the government to “roll back” prices. The futility of this policy is once again demonstrated by the results it has attained in the CIO campaign to get the Price Decontrol Board to act in the interests of the workers and low-income consumers. Another Plea The immediate reaction of the CIO leaders to the Decontrol Board’s decisions was not to launch a campaign for wage increases – the only way the workers can protect their living standards. The August 21 statement of the CIO Cost-of-Living Committee indicated that the CIO leaders intend to direct another appeal to the Big Business-dominated Price Decontrol Board to “revise” its decisions of last week. At the same time, they are going to put even more emphasis on the ill-advised and misnamed “buyers’ strikes.” These “buyers’ strikes” – consumer boycotts – have petered out. Workers have barely enough income to get elementary necessities, food, clothing and shelter. They are buying less and less – not because they are on “strike” – but because they haven’t the money. And as prices soar higher, they will “strike” even more – that is go without more necessities. Correct Course The duty of the trade unions is to fight to win more and more for the workers. The correct course is already being pointed out by the packinghouse workers, the Akron rubber workers, the auto workers. They are demanding a new type of wage agreement that will directly and immediately protect them against steadily mounting prices. They are demanding various forms of the sliding scale of wages, automatically adjusted upward with every rise in the cost of living. The packinghouse workers, the Ford and Chrysler workers, are advancing the demand for an adjustable cost-of-living bonus on top of their regular wage rates. The Akron rubber workers, with the Goodrich Local taking the lead, are demanding the inclusion in all contracts of a rising-scale-of-wages escalator clause. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 19 June 2021

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Bosses Push Open-Shop Drive Despite CIO-AFL ‘Peace Pact’ (21 April 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 16, 21 April 1945, pp. 1 & 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). “It’s Industrial Peace for the Postwar Period!’’ shrieked the front-page headline of the April 2 CIO News to the startled ranks of the CIO. Thus did Philip Murray jubilantly proclaim the fact that he and AFL head William Green had signed a “peace charter” with Eric Johnston, president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The surprised membership of the CIO and AFL learned that their top leaders, after months of secret meetings with Johnston and without any prior consultation of the union rank and file, had agreed to call off all struggle against the profiteering, labor-hating bosses. Even more startling to the ranks were the conditions of this “truce.” Labor is pledged to recognize the “sacred right” of the handful of ruling capitalists to control American economy and resources forever and to exploit the workers for profit under the system of monopoly capitalist “free enterprise.” The employers generously agree – in words – to recognize the right of collective bargaining – a right they are already supposed to respect by law. The Real Situation Up and down the labor movement, and in their official press, Murray, Green and their lieutenants have announced that labor must surrender permanently its traditional methods of militant struggle. It must clasp the hand of fellowship now supposedly thrust forth by the corporations. The workers have looked around to see some practical evidences of this miraculous transformation of the bosses into apostles of “good will” toward labor. In auto, steel, rubber and every other major industry, all they can see are the blows of the corporations falling on their heads faster than ever in a rampaging offensive of aggression and provocation against the unions. A “peace pact” with labor? The National Association of Manufacturers, representing the most powerful corporations in the country, has bluntly announced that as far as it is concerned it doesn’t know anything about a “truce” with labor. The leaders of the Automotive Council for War Production – speaking for he largest industry in the country – flatly state that the only “truce” they want is one based on the open shop and the abolition of the National Labor Relations Act. In fact, announced B.E. Hutchison, Chrysler corporation vice-president and a director of the NAM, the NAM is working together with the C. of C. in pushing a 5-point legislative program which would outlaw strikes, guarantee government protection to scabs and strikebreakers and illegalize the closed shop. And, he asked, what was Eric Johnston doing signing a “peace pact” with Murray and Green? These facts cannot be ignored even by some of the blind union officials. As they spout from the right side of their mouths about the new era of “industrial harmony,” out of the left side they are forced to wail about the embarrassing lack of “good will” being displayed by the employers. Thus, Richard Frankensteen, vice- president of the CIO United Automobile Workers, charged on April 11 that “certain” employers “have started an all-out drive to attempt to destroy or greatly impair the usefulness of organized labor.” “Industrial Harmony” The “certain” employers to whom he referred happen to be every single corporation in the automotive, aircraft and farm equipment industries – that is, the employers of about a fifth of the CIO membership. It seems that so far all the “good will” is inside the heads of Murray and Green and any deceived workers who may be soft-headed enough to lower their dukes while the bosses are swinging hay-makers at their chins. The open proclamation of the leading corporations that they are wheeling up their heaviest artillery for a further grand offensive against labor is not helping the Murray-Green sales campaign. It’s pretty tough trying to sell the workers a bill of goods about a “peace pact” when the workers are so busy trying to dodge the blows of the open shoppers. So the labor leaders are shifting into a faster line of sales talk. It seems, according to them, there are two kinds of employers – “progressive and die-hards.” The workers must line up with the “progressive” bosses, represented by Eric Johnston of the C. of C, against the “diehards” like the NAM, the auto, steel, rubber barons, etc. And that’s really something fishy! As a labor commentator for the New York Post – which hailed the “peace charter” – observed: “Somebody is pulling a squeeze play on the nation’s usually shrewd leaders ... Everybody believes that at least one section of American industry has reformed and created itself in the image of the pleasant and progressive Johnston. Hardly. For Mr. Johnston’s C. of C. is tied closely to the NAM. “One part of the day Johnstom’s men are pounding Green and Murray on the back with a hail-fellow-labor’s-swell benevolence. And later in the afternoon they are NAM leaders campaigning for the outlawing of strikes and what sounds mightily like a ban on closed shops.” Who are these C. of C. leaders who are supposed to be so chummy with labor? “Some of the C. of C. key committees are headed by labor’s most bitter enemies – men who are working closely with the NAM to which they also belong.” One of these is James Rand, of Remington-Rand, author of the notorious strikebreaking “Mohawk Valley Formula.” “Another is the head of a huge publishing firm which has not knowingly hired Jews or union people; or one who has fought big AFL unions for years; another whose firm was cited for its employment discrimination policies and antilabor attitudes ... and one has defied a federal collective bargaining ruling since 1943.” In short – the real leaders of the C. of C. are also among the leaders of the NAM who are avowed open shoppers and openly intent on smashing the unions. “Who’s being kidded here?” asks the Post commentator. Not Murray and Green, as he would have us believe. They know what they’re doing. They’re playing a conscious and deliberate role. They’re essential and willing part of the mechanism of this capitalist “squeeze play.” It’s the old game of disarming labor to make it easier for the bosses to slug the workers. “You hold him – while I sock him!” Certain spokesmen for the employers, with the connivance of the labor leaders, aim to tie labor’s hands with a phony “peace charter,” while the employing class as a whole winds up for a knockout against organized labor. And just as Murray and Green have put over such treacherous policies as the no-strike pledge behind the backs of the union members and without their voice or consent, so now they are hastening to shove the “peace charter” – the charter of unconditional surrender – down the throats of the unwilling workers. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 November 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Why the Draftee Army Lacks Morale Soldiers Have No Faith in Cause for Which Ruling Class Wants Them to Fight (August 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 35, 30 August 1941, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). “Morale is to materiel as three is to one.” This famous observation of Napoleon was recalled last week by the United States Chief of Staff, General Marshall, in commenting on the low morale in the new draftee army. Disciplinary examples, threats, appeals to patriotism or army tradition have not sufficed to stem the tide of draftee discontent. The flood of protests against the army term extension from the draftees, swelled by the clamor from the folks back home, has compelled Roosevelt and the War Department to modify their plans. Last week the administration had to promise the soldiers concessions, the release of 200,000 men from army service by Christmas, and the right of the draftees to apply for release after 14 to 18 months service, instead of the 30 months set by Congress. In addition, General Hershey, director of Selective Service, has directed local draft boards to assist draftees at the end of their service to get back their old jobs, as promised. The army stuffed-shirts have come reluctantly to admit that army morale is “not what it should be.” Lieutenant General Ben Lear, of “Yoo Hoo!” fame, voiced the typical officer caste point of view last week, when he said: “If morale is not high, it is no fault of ours. We have done everything within reason to promote the welfare and comfort of the trainees. If the morale is poor, it is only because the morale of the people is poor.” There is truth in this statement, in so far as it deals with the effect of popular moods on the army. The morale and attitude of a conscript army parallels that of the civilians. By and large, the attitude of the draftees is one that has been expressed repeatedly by the people in polls, letters to Congressmen, and the other limited means of expression permitted them. The American people – three-fourths of them at least – are opposed to entering the war. This sentiment of the people is not an alien force operating upon the morale of the troops, as the officer corps pretends. These are the feelings that the men bring with them into the army. The officer staff wants the “ideal” soldier, i.e., one who is cut off from all civilian life, and who asks no questions provided he gets his three “squares” a day and a comfortable bunk at night. The draftees resist. They have – or believe they have – the right to say something about how the army is run. They do not enter the army for a career. And they will fight willingly only for a cause in which they believe so deeply that they will not hesitate to sacrifice their personal welfare and lives to achieve it. Real Reasons for Low Morale Prom several authoritative sources we have been able recently to get an indication of the real factors underlying the poor morale of the army. Pearson and Allen, in their syndicated Merry-Go-Round column, wrote on August 8: “And to date, judging by our poll of selectees, plus the War Department’s own frank fears, the American Army lacks morale ... “... the War Department has given the boys no conception of what is happening in the world, has made no attempt to show them why they are called upon to serve. It has fallen down on the one big weapon which makes a modern army fight.” Life magazine, August 18, 1941, reported the things that the soldiers themselves, in one of the large and typical training camps, gave as their reasons for wanting to get out of the army. “Not more than 5% of the men in this division believe that the emergency is as serious as President Roosevelt insists. They do not want to fight because they do not see any reason for fighting. Accordingly they see little point in their being in Army camps at all. There is very strong anti-Roosevelt feeling. “A second reason for trouble is that the men have no faith in the officers who are commanding them ... The men complain about junior and senior officers indiscriminately. They say most of them do not know their jobs. The officers argue with the noncoms on tactical points and are frequently out-argued, losing the respect of the men.” The draftees see that they are commanded by incompetent officers, who look down on them and won’t hesitate to sacrifice the lives of the privates. As Life indicates, the men are coming to realize that this is not their army; that it is the army of class rule. If officers are incompetent, if the general staff is ignorant, the soldiers must nevertheless submit. There is no way to replace the present officer caste with competent, responsible men from the ranks. “The men complain that there is no way to get ahead in the army. They say that very few draftees are given a chance to take officers’ training courses. They say that initiative on the the part of the privates is discouraged.” The War Department and the army staff cannot do those things which would eliminate the basic reasons for the low morale. They cannot, first of all, provide the soldiers with a cause worth dying for. The draftees sense that they are not being called upon to fight for real democracy or for the “defense” of the nation. They see the preparations being made to send them to Europe or Asia to fight for colonies and markets. They observe the war profiteers growing fatter at their expense; They take account of Roosevelt’s broken promises, the trend toward repression of civil rights, the secret diplomacy and arbitrary acts of the administration driving toward war, the threat of post-war chaos. Nor can the War Department change the class character of the army rule, for that rule is simply an extension of the rule of the bosses.

The first criterion for an officer in this army is loyalty to the ruling class. That is why the government makes no effort to assist men from the ranks – workers, trade unionists – to rise to positions of leadership in the army. The government seeks, above all, to preserve the army as an instrument of the ruling minority. Thus, the method whereby the War Department and the officer caste seek to “build” morale is savage discipline and punishments. A striking instance of this is the court-martial sentence passed last week against Private John Habinyak, who was sentenced to ten years and nine months of hard labor, on five counts of “insubordination”: spitting on the floor; refusing to clean up the spit; refusing to clean his mess kit; refusing to sweep the floor; disobeying an order to pick up some broken concrete. (As we go to press, we learn that Habinyak’s original sentence has been reduced to three years and six months as a result of popular pressure.) Major S. Murrell, judge advocate of the army post where Habinyak was convicted, on August 22 amplified the reasons for the savage sentence. He admitted that the five offenses cited were considered minor. But, he added, Habinyak was sentenced, in reality, for his “attitude.” The officer staff knows that Habinyak’s “attitude” is similar to that of 95 per cent of all the draftees. And that “attitude” is the essence of their morale. Morale is not, as the bourgeois officer caste thinks, simply a question of Prussian discipline, good food, fine equipment and training, or recreational facilities. Pearson and Allen, in the article previously quoted, draw this comparison between the French and the Soviet Russian armies: “In France, battalions, companies, entire regiments, surrendered en masse. The world was astounded. The French Army had been heralded as the best in the world. Its officers had been trained for years. Its equipment, while not as good as the Nazis’, was the next best in Europe. “Yet the French Army collapsed in 11 short days. “... One year later an entirely different story comes from Russia. “There, a huge, unwieldy, green army facing the pick of Hitler’s mechanized veterans, has retreated, but not surrendered. At times isolated and hopelessly cut off, Russian troops have continued fighting – fighting so desperately that he Germans have complained that they did not obey the rules of war. “OBVIOUSLY RUSSIAN TROOPS HAVE BEEN DEFENDING SOMETHING WHICH THEY CHERISHED. THEY HAVE HAD WHAT THE FRENCH LACKED – MORALE.” The Soviet soldiers are indeed “defending something which they cherished” – i.e., their nationalized property, their freedom from capitalist exploitation, their free socialist future, which, in spite of the Stalin bureaucracy, still remains a living reality for them. The French soldiers were defending the COMITÉ DES FORGES (the French Steel Trust) and the 200 Ruling Families of France. The American officer staff professes to “marvel” at the morale of the Red Army. It cannot hope to achieve a similar morale in its own armies. American working-class youth cannot be made eager to die for America’s Sixty Families. The draftees may be whipped together into some semblance of a disciplined fighting force by intimidation and terrorism. But that is not the type of army which will stand up under intensive fire and against imposing odds. Only a Workers’ Army Will Have Morale An army directed and ruled by the capitalists and their officer caste can never be trusted to fight fascism, whether of the domestic or foreign variety. But the workers of this country must be prepared to repel fascism by the only effective means. Those means are military. They are blind men or knaves who counsel the workers to pacifism. Those who speak against the workers obtaining military training and learning the techniques of modern warfare would have the workers stand meek and defenseless against the onrushing worldwide capitalist reaction and fascism. The only kind of army that can defeat fascism is an army which the ruling capitalist class cannot achieve, an army with morale. Morale can exist only in an army which fights for a cause in which it believes. The American workers and farmers must have such an army. Their very lives and liberties depend on it. It must be an army responsive to the will of the masses, fighting in their interests, controlled and directed by the masses. Such an army is possible only under a workers’ and farmers’ government. But even before this government is instituted, the’ workers can take effective measures to safeguard their vital interests in the military field. That is the purpose of our military program, which advocates: Military training of workers financed by the government, but under the control of the trade unions. Special officers’ training camps, financed by the government, but controlled by the trade unions, to train workers to become officers. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 28 May 2016

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Trade Union Notes (6 July 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 27<(a>, 6 July 1947, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Boilermakers Local for Joint Labor Conference The CIO United Auto Workers proposal for a national united labor conference of all unions to combat government anti-labor policies continues to win adherents. In Seattle, Wash., the powerful AFL Boilermakers Local 104, with a large shipyard membership, passed a resolution at its general meeting on June 15 using such united action “All sections of organized labor are menaced by an all-out union busting offensive conducted by Big Business, President Truman and his administration, and the Congress of the United States,” the resolution states. Local 104 therefore went on record “supporting the idea of a National United Conference of Labor and calls on President William Green (AFL) to arrange with the heads of the CIO and the Railroad Brotherhoods for the convocation of such a conference at the earliest possible date.” It also calls on the Washington State AFL and the Seattle Central Labor Council to organize state and local conferences to conduct “mass united protest action” against government strikebreaking and union busting. * * * Stalinist Explanation on Plant Seizures During the war, when the Kremlin and Wall Street imperialism were putting on the brotherly love act, the American Communist (Stalinist) Party hailed Roosevelt’s strike-breaking seizures of the railroads, coal mines, Montgomery Ward’s, etc. Soviet-U.S. relations have soured since. Now the CP has been ordered to take swipes at Truman and talk “militant.” Among other things, the Stalinist leaders condemn Truman’s strikebreaking plant seizures. But the Stalinist leaders are being embarrassed by the pointed question: How come it’s wrong for Truman to break strikes by plant seizures, but it wasn’t for Roosevelt? An answer has been dished up in the June 18 New Masses, Stalinist weekly. An article, What Is Truman’s Game? by Virginia Gardner, explains: “It is rarely pointed out that the administration (Truman) has foisted a completely new concept of seizure on the public, compared to that in use during the war. Then it was used as an aid to workers who had rendered themselves defenseless by forfeiting their strike weapon for the duration. It was used to compel employers to comply with WLB directives. Now it is used to impose unfair settlements, as was done in the rail case ...” The Stalinists can’t admit that their shift in attitude regarding government strikebreaking followed the Kremlin’s shift in foreign policy. So they brazenly lie that Roosevelt’s seizures, which they supported, were “good” seizures. Roosevelt seized the railroads in December 1943 to impose the rail operators’ and government’s terms on the railroad workers. Earlier he had seized the coal mines in an attempt to drive the miners back to work and enforce the wage freeze. Although Sewell Avery of Montgomery Ward and George P. McNear of the Toledo, Peoria and Western Railroad long defied WLB rulings, Roosevelt did nothing. He invoked seizure only after strikes began and in order to break them. Avery and McNear never accepted the decisions. Their properties were finally handed back, after the government helped to weaken the unions. The Stalinists don’t dare tell the truth about Roosevelt’s strikebreaking. That would damn them as well. * * * More Unions Declare ‘Build a Labor Party’ Sentiment for the formation, of an independent labor party is growing ever more rapidly. This is reflected in local union papers. Among union publications which in recent weeks have advocated the building of a labor party are The Midwest Labor World, organ of the St. Louis Joint Council of the CIO Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employees, and The Cable, published by the National Association of Telephone Equipment Workers, independent. The Cable, after summarizing Truman’s anti-labor role, concludes: “In order to secure justice for 53,000,000 American workers and their 70,000,000 dependents, about 85 per cent of the U.S. population; and in order to peacefully wrest the control of the greatest nation in the world away from a greedy and selfish minority, American Labor Unions must unite to form a true Labor Party, capable of electing Congressmen and Presidents sworn to serve America best by truly representing the great majority of the American public – The American Worker. The two-party system has proved not only to be obsolete but also untrustworthy. Labor must place its own candidates in a political field.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 19 June 2021

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Sam Pollock & Art Preis “What If a Foreign Army Invaded Our Country?” Stalinist Jingoes Ask (16 November 1935) From The New Militant, Vol. 1 No. 47, 16 November 1935, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). TOLEDO, O, Nov. 4. – “We can’t be against government sanctions. What would we do if an invading army attacked our homes?” This was not the statement of the Liberty League, nor an appeal by “Stinker” Hearst against the Red and Yellow perils, nor even a quotation from the constitution of the National Civic Federation. It was the full-blown wisdom donated to the Northwest District Conference of the American League Against War and Fascism, November 2–3, by a leading Detroit member of the Communist Party. Fearful lest his party comrades might not make the position of the C.P. on imperialist sanctions sufficiently clear, Francis Murphy, local secretary and organizer of the American League, stated, “The American League is not concerned, with League of Nations sanctions. The U.S. is not a member of the League. Therefore, we are not concerned about the actions of the League of Nations.” Reinforcements were brought from the rear to support Murphy, when Sam Sponseller, New America organizer, emphatically stated, “The American League is against all wars.” These were the arguments used to “prove” that a resolution against imperialist sanctions, submitted by Sam Pollock, a W.P. member who represented the Lucas County Unemployed League, was “pacifist.” The resolution, which was undoubtedly the most important submitted and the only one even discussed or disputed, was permitted only six minutes of debate (two speakers from each side, limited to three minutes apiece) by the mechanical control of the C.P. and its stooges. The resolution, which exposed the entire jingoistic Stalinist structure of the American League, is here quoted in its entirety: “1. Resolved: That this conference goes on record against any war engaged in by American imperialism; and be it further “2. Resolved: That this conference does not recognize any idea that justifies support of one’s imperialist country during war, because that country {has an allegedly democratic form of government, against ft country in which fascism or reaction are in power. Any such war would still be an imperialistic war, a war of despoliation and conquest and would not be and could not be in the interests of the overwhelming majority of the peoples; and be it further “3. Resolved: That this conference is against extending any support to any sanctions that the U. S. government may apply to Italy in the present controversy; such sanctions being only a prelude to a new imperialist war and a world-wide slaughter of the masses of the world; and be it further “4. Resolved: That this conference support only working-class sanctions against Italy, in the form of strikes, refusal to handle Italian goods, etc., etc. Lucas County Unemployed League.” The conference had its auspicious start Saturday, Nov. 2, at a luncheon meeting ($1.00 per plate) at ritzy, Jim-Crow Commodore Perry Hotel, held in honor of Dr. Harry F. Ward, titular national head of the American League. This was followed in the evening by a “monster,” “gigantic” “People’s” rally against war at the huge Civic Auditorium (seating capacity 5,600). After titanic preparations, 300 of the masses were lured into the echoing desolation of the auditorium to hear Dr. Ward and such other fighters against war and fascism as Charles Hoover, vice-mayor of Toledo and an official of the Auto-Lite Co. Resolutions were finally submitted to the evening session, which started late and from which a great share of the delegates were absent. Prior to the report of the resolutions committee, the C.P. majority bloc took the precautions to limit the debate to two delegates for either side of an issue with three minutes apiece. In its report, the resolutions committee “overlooked” the Unemployed League resolution against sanctions. When attention was called to this omission, the chairman hastily reported non-concurrence by the committee, but refused to give the reason for this position. Trade Unionists Balk When the recorded vote on the resolution was taken, of the 36 delegates present, 26 delegates, all of Stalinist or New America connections, voted as a bloc against it. Three delegates, including 2 bona-fide representatives of large trade union groups, endorsed the resolution. The remainder of the delegates, representing unions and other genuine mass groups, abstained from voting. Several of the abstainers later stated to Sam Pollock, “What was the use of voting? he meeting was stacked.” Besides Sam Pollock, a militant trade unionist, representing a local of over 1,500 members, took the floor in support of the resolution, emphasizing in brief and straightforward terms, “Here the government is preparing 24 hours a day for a new war, with most of the money coming from relief funds in one form or another. This is the government which clubs us and jails us, and do you want us workers to support the sanctions of such a government?” The only resolutions passed on the question of war were on a boycott of Italy and Germany and a protest to Japan. The whole question of sanctions was deliberately avoided. While this farcical “conference” was dragging out its fruitless end, another meeting was being held a short distance away at the Toledo Workers School Hall, the regular Open Forum of the local W.P. Comrade Burke Cochran gave a splendid and eagerly attended talk on the 55th Convention of the A.F. of L. before a full audience of workers, the largest share of whom were active trade union progressives. There was no gag-rule at this meeting, for the floor was given over to an hour and a half of free and open discussion, with members of the auto union and other A.F. of L. groups and the M.E.S.A. participating. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 4 February 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (10 March 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 10, 10 March 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Murray “Fights” Back CIO President Philip “Bleeding Heart” Murray greeted the WLB’s approval of the Little Steel Formula with his typical blustering display of verbal indignation. Murray, who has been beating his gums for a couple of years about the “inequity of the Little Steel Formula” While doing all in his power to curb any independent action of the CIO workers to smash the formula, declaimed that “the situation in which labor now finds itself is simply intolerable.” In his very next sentence, however he proposes to continue the very union policy that has brought labor to this “intolerable situation.” He declares: “Now, more than ever, it is of the utmost importance to our war effort that there be maintained uninterrupted production. The CIO and its members are fully conscious of this need and therefore shall observe their no-strike pledge.” Murray believes in the policy of “turning the other cheek” – only it’s the workers who always get slapped. But not forever and not for long. The CIO members are becoming “fully conscious” of the need, not to “observe the no-strike pledge,” but to scrap it. That’s the significance of the Textile Union’s revocation of the no-strike pledge for 100,000 cotton-rayon workers and the growing strike wave in Detroit. Incidentally, it is appropriate to recall how Murray helped disarm the workers about the WLB and its position on the Little Steel Formula. In his appeal for continuation of the no-strike pledge before the rebellious delegates at the CIO. United Automobile Workers convention last September, Murray asserted “I am just as sure as I am living that the Little Steel Formula is going to be revised. I don’t think I would be far from correct.” At that time Murray demanded support for the no-strike policy because he claimed the Little Steel Formula was sure to be revised. Now he insists on the same policy because the formula hasn’t been revised. The one thing Murray is sure of is that no matter how the workers are kicked around, they must not fight back with their most effective weapon, the strike. * * * Telephone Pay Reversing the recommendation of a $5 a week increase made by its own special panel, the WLB in Washington last week granted increases of only $3 to the local and long distance telephone operators in New York City who overwhelmingly voted to strike in January but postponed a final strike vote under the Smith-Connally act pending a ruling of the national WLB. Washington, D.C. operators who participated in the Thanksgiving week strike along with Ohio and Michigan workers were awarded a $4 increase. Louisville and Memphis operators were granted $3. The New York operators were induced to call off their strike in January, when the American Telephone and Telegraph and New York Telephone companies hastily made an offer to pay $4 a week more. This was $1 less than the Federation of Long Lines Telephone Workers and the Traffic Employees Association (local operators) were demanding. The unions continued to press for their original demands before the WLB. Union representatives have declared they are going to petition the WLB for a reconsideration of the case in an effort to secure the $4 raise the companies agreed to pay. If the petition is rejected another strike vote will very likely be taken. The telephone workers are particularly indignant because the WLB made its decision without giving the unions a public hearing. WLB Vice-Chairman Taylor conceded that a “mistake may have been made” by the failure to hold such a hearing. However, it is always the corporations and never the workers who benefit by such “mistakes.” * * * Unionism Grows During the past year, according to the annual National Labor Relations Board report, 1,072,694 unorganized workers voted in NLRB elections for union collective bargaining representation. This brings the nine year total to 5,220,983. The number voting last year was the greatest in the NLRB’s history, and the number of elections held registered “an increase of 3,000 per cent over the number received in the first year of the board’s operations.” Despite all the anti-labor propaganda, the workers in the past year voted union in greater numbers than ever before. * * * 55-Cent Minimum IF — After issuing its decision “recommending” a 55-cent an hour minimum wage in the textile case, the War Labor Board last week granted its regional agencies authority to approve a minimum wage up to 55 cents for all “substandard” wage earners, admittedly numbering over 4,000,000. However, WLB Chairman Davis hastened to assure a press Conference that “this action by the board does not mean, unfortunately, that 4,000,000 workers are going to get a 55-cent wage tomorrow.” All it does is merely “open the way for the workers to get that amount.” In short, they’ll get it if they raise enough hell! The ruling has the usual loopholes enabling the administration to deny in practice what it grants in principle. The workers can secure a 55-cent minimum IF — the employers agree to it and request it; no price increase is involved; an increase to the new minimum does not conflict with the “appropriate prevailing rates” in given areas and communities. The administration’s intent in making this new ruling is far from benevolent. Its purpose is to take the curse off the WLB’s prior “recommendation” upholding continuation of the wage-freezing Little Steel Formula. In addition, the administration is seeking to head off growing union pressure for passage of the Pepper resolution which would fix the minimum hourly wage at 65 cents. The labor members of the WLB had proposed a 72-cent minimum, basing their demand upon the government’s own figures for a minimum health and decency income required by the average worker’s family. Even when the pro-corporation WLB does make a seeming concession to the workers, it is so full of “if, ands, and buts” that the workers can generally expect to get “nothin’ for nothin’ and damn little of that.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 22 June 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (3 March 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 9, 3 March 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). U.S. Steel Contract A “model” agreement containing no major improvements over previous contracts, and, of course, none of the basic wage demands of the steelworkers, was finally signed last week between the CIO Steelworkers Union and the United States Steel Corporation, leading steel trust. Five U.S. Steel subsidiaries signed the contract which is expected to be the pattern for the rest of the industry. The contract includes the so-called “fringe” demands granted by the WLB at the time it turned down all the major demands of the union after stalling the steel wage case for over a year. This includes a four to six cents an hour premium for the two night shifts, one week’s vacation with pay for service up to 5 years, and some dismissal or severance pay. None of these concessions, however, are up to the Standards customarily maintained in the best organized industries. The big “selling” point of the contract for the union leaders is a clause providing for a permanent three-man arbitration board with power to make binding decisions in disputes arising over application of the contract. This board, the usual “impartial” body selected by agreement of company and union officials, is hailed by the union officials as “a momentous advance in management- union relations.” It is actually nothing more than an additional means for stalling the workers’ demands and keeping them from taking independent action to enforce the contract. The previous contract provided for such a board only on a temporary basis from case to case. CIO Steelworkers President Philip Murray crowed about a “great victory” when the WLB turned down the union’s basic demands. The tightening of compulsory arbitration is now hailed as a “great advance.” A few more such “great victories” and “great advances” and the steel workers will find themselves completely at the mercy of the corporations and back to their previous low level of living conditions. * * * Army and Ward ‘Seizure’ Army officials in charge of operating units of Montgomery Ward “seized” by the government to halt strikes provoked by WLB delay in enforcing its orders against the company, last week relinquished control over the two main units, the warehouse and mail-order house in Chicago. These are the central purchasing and distributing agencies for Ward’s 650 outlets, including the 13 now under Army control. By a fancy method of bookkeeping, the government was debited with purchases of merchandise to stock the “seized” retail outlets while all sales receipts were turned over to the company. This meant that the government was constantly going “into the red” – everything going out, nothing coming in. Naturally, the government, which is loathe to infringe upon “private property rights,” has found it almost impossible to operate the tiny segment of Ward’s under its control while the vast structure of the company remains in the control of Sewell Avery. The recent federal district court decision declaring the “seizure” illegal gave the Army officials sufficient pretext for gradually withdrawing from their uncomfortable position of having to enforce WLB orders against an open-shop employer whose antilabor views generally coincide with their own. Thus, Sewell Avery is still successfully refusing to obey the WLB rulings after years of defiance. * * * Auto Barons Assail UAW Charges of deliberate company provocations leading to numerous strikes in the auto industry made by CIO United Automobile Workers Secretary-Treasurer George Addes in a statement before the Senate War Investigating Committee have brought a counter-attack from the automotive barons. Trying to cover up for the companies which have been emboldened to ever greater anti-union acts by the continuance of the no-strike policy, George Romney, managing .director of the Automotive Council for War Production, last week howled that the strikes are part of a scheme to “usurp management’s functions and responsibilities.” “While Mr. Addes and other leaders feign a pious public attitude and pretend they do not want to control production, their union representatives in the plants are trying to muscle in on management for the greater aggrandizement of labor monopoly,” proclaimed Mr. Romney. This is not a new argument. The auto corporations fought unionism in the industry from its earliest beginning by claiming that the unions intend to infringe on their “god-given” prerogatives to control production and boot the workers around any way they see fit. So far as the bosses are concerned, any attempt of the workers to have something to say about their conditions of work is “usurpation” of the “rights of management.” Besides, what’s wrong with the idea of the organized workers assuming the whole function of capitalist management? The capitalists are only profiteering parasites and a brake upon production’. Guaranteed job security and uninterrupted production will be achieved only when the automotive and other basic industries are taken over by the government and operated under workers’ control. * * * CIO Newspaper Guild and Bridges When Milton Murray, President of the CIO Newspaper Guild and reporter for the New York daily PM, exposed the Stalinist “traitors’ lobby” in, the CIO which secretly approached Congressmen urging them to vote for the May-Bailey slave labor bill, he did a service to the labor movement. But he makes a mistake when he. permits his justified and understandable contempt for the Stalinist traitors to influence his position on the question of the government’s attempt to deport Harry Bridges, Stalinist leader of the CIO Longshoremen’s Union. Last week Murray and the Guild executive board turned down a resolution of protest against the Bridges deportation proceedings on the grounds that Bridges is a “misleader of labor” and a “quisling in our ranks.” Everything the Newspaper Guild says about Bridges as a treacherous union leader is true. But neither the government nor the employers are attacking him for that reason. In fact, they praise his pi»sent policies. They instituted proceedings against Bridges because he is a union leader who is a non-citizen and once held radical views. His deportation could then be used as a precedent to harass and victimize other militant union leaders. The job of eliminating elements like Bridges from the labor movement cannot be handed over to the capitalist government, whose motives are entirely anti-labor. That job belongs solely to the organized workers themselves, who need to rid the unions of the Stalinist blight in order to strengthen and protect their organizations against such employer and government attacks. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 22 June 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (9 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 23, 9 June 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Real Score on Stalinists Appraising the significance of the ‘left’ shift in policy which the Stalinists appear to be preparing, the June 2 issue of Business Week, a leading big business weekly, admits the anti-labor role of the Stalinists and their union stooges during the war. Business Week has the function of telling the real score to the employers. A Stalinist change of line from open support of American capitalism to more “militant” phrase-mongering “won’t come any too soon to protect the position” of the Stalinists in the unions, says Business Week. The Stalinists “have outdone all other factions in American labor in making patriotic appeals for more production, labor-management cooperation, ignoring of grievances, and observation of the no-strike pledge.” As long as the workers were passive, or greatly influenced by war propaganda, “this line paid good dividends.” Now, however, “the temper of organized labor is changing.” For example, Business Week points out, “local elections held in C.I.O.’s United Auto Workers have shown Communist (Stalinist)-backed slates losing heavily. These losses are ascribed to the Communist-sponsored candidates’ continued adherence to their platform of employer cooperation end retention of the no-strike pledge.” Throughout the labor movement the same thing is occurring widely, and Communist influence is threatened.” A “left” shift, says Business Week, “would be a direct result of Russia’s changing relations with the U.S.” and not any new concern for the working class. But the Stalinists in the unions are becoming so despised and discredited that they would “profit by being bidden to give leadership to, instead of frustrating, the new militance of American workers.” Whatever shift the Stalinists make, however, we can be sure they will function not as genuine revolutionists, but as foreign agents of the Kremlin bureaucracy. Any “militancy” they may assume will be for the purpose of snatching the leadership of the workers’ struggles precisely in order to frustrate and behead them. * * * Just a “Mistake”! By a 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on May 29 once more demonstrated the kind of “justice” the capitalist courts reserve for the workers. That august body upheld a previous U.S. Circuit Court ruling which denied that the NLRB could rectify a “mistake” in computing an award of back pay to 209 lead and zinc miners of the Eagle-Picher Mining & Smelting Co. and the Eagle-Picher Lead Co. The NLRB, by using a wrong formula, chiseled these miners out of over three-quarters of a million dollars in back pay to which they were entitled. A dissenting minority of the Supreme Court admitted that these workers should not be made to suffer because of a “mistake” of a government agency. “Approximately $800,000 is due these 209 employees instead of $5,400,” admitted dissenting Justice Murphy. But the court majority used expert legal hair-splitting to rule that an NLRB decision is “final.” Of course, this court of corporation lawyers wasn’t thinking of saving the dough of the companies involved. – Oh no, they were just doing their duty in upholding the law – capitalist law! * * * “Muzzle Not the Ox ...” “Muzzle not the ox that treadeth out the corn” is a Biblical injunction close to the hearts of the well-heeled craft union moguls dominating the AFL Executive Council. It’s a rare top AFL official whose salary and expense accounts don’t run into five figures annually. So it’s understandable how they would react to the piteous plea of the Congressmen to get their annual $10,000 salaries raised by a tax-exempt “expense account” of $2,500. Just before adjourning their recent Spring session, reports the AFL Weekly News Service, May 15, the AFL council “went on record unanimously in favor of increased compensation for members of Congress.” “The council, which previously had urged Congress to approve legislation increasing the basic pay of classified government employees, felt that Congressmen also deserve relief from increased living costs,” says the Weekly News Service. The Congressmen, of course, didn’t need this support. They would have voted themselves a 25% increase in “take home” pay anyway. But it must have made them feel good to know that the “labor statesmen” who find it such tough going even though they are in the upper brackets, can appreciate the plight of those forced to exist on “only” $10,000 a year. This just goes to show how far the AFL bureaucrats are removed from the conditions of life of the workers, and how close they are in sympathies and outlook to the agents and beneficiaries of the capitalist class. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 6 November 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis At the Auto Convention Militant Note Struck at the Very Outset (August 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 32, 9 August 1941, p. 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). BUFFALO, August, 4 – A muffled roll of drums sounded from, behind the closed doors at the rear of the mammoth auditorium. Everyone of the thousand auto worker delegates seated at the dozen rows of tables, stretching hundreds of feet along the length of the auditorium, turned his head away from the speakers platform. The formal opening this morning of the Sixth Annual Convention of the United Automobile Workers Union (CIO) had already taken place. But for the workers from all the automobile and aircraft centers of the country the real opening of the convention was just about to start. “Here comes the Ford Local 600 band!” The thousand delegates stood on the tables and chairs, roared, stamped and cheered a titanic welcome to the Ford union local. It was the tribute of fighting union men and women to the living symbol of their mighty victories of the past year, the victories which have smashed through the greatest bulwarks of the open-shop and industrial oppression and have made the UAW-CIO the most dynamic union in the American labor movement today. These are no hand-picked delegates, no belarded business agents of the reactionary AFL craft-union vintage. These are the men and women from the ranks, the leaders of the picket lines, the shop stewards, the workers on the job who have won the greatest confidence and respect of their fellow members. There is an electric atmosphere of vitality, of confidence, of boldness, emanating from the assembled delegates. The Union’s Defense Guards Symbolic of the character of this union, as reflected in this convention, are the hundreds of delegates wearing their brightly colored service caps – the caps of the flying squadrons, the UAW local union defense guards. One white and purple silk banner is lettered in gold: “Local 581, Flint, Mich., Fisher No. 1, The Flying Wedge.” Another, lettered gold on a green background, says: “The Flying Squadron, Chrysler Local 7, Detroit.” On numerous service caps and on the uniform shirts of delegates is proclaimed their function: “The Flying Squadron.” The accomplishments of these Flying Squadrons and their union brothers are recorded in the reports of R.J. Thomas, UAW present, and George Addes, secretary-treasurer. Union’s Great Gains The paid-up membership of the UAW-CIO is today 526,413, an increase of 93 per cent over the membership reported at the last convention. This makes the UAW the third largest international union in the country. The union has contracts covering 982 plants, protecting a total of 703,760 workers. At the previous convention last year in St. Louis the union had 494 contracts covering 398,000 workers. During the past year, through the strike struggles in Ford, General Motors, Allis-Chalmers and scores of lesser plants and corporations, the UAW has secured a general average 10 cents an hour wage increase in the automobile industry. Aircraft Is Next The militant strike struggles at Vultee and North American Aviation have opened the way for an organizational drive in the mushrooming aircraft industry which has already added 50,000 members to the ranks of the UAW. It is clear from the vigorous response of the delegates to every mention of the aircraft organization drive, that one of the key ambitions of the UAW members is to carry through a drive on the scale of the Ford campaign to bring the 500,000 aircraft workers into the UAW in the next year, and thus realize the slogan of this convention – to make the UAW-CIO the largest and most powerful International union in America. The initial proceedings of the convention today clearly revealed the moods and feelings of the auto workers. The kind of language they respond to is fighting language. Every note of militancy struck by any speaker was the occasion for loud applause and cheers. Those speakers who sensed this, and responded in the fashion which the delegates demanded, were greeted with the loudest applause. Thomas Taunts Warmongers The desire of the delegates for militant expression affected the talks of the various union officers who spoke. It forced R.J. Thomas, when he gave his opening address this afternoon, to strike a much stronger note than was expected of him. Perhaps the most significant response to any portion of Thomas’s speech was when he dealt with the war question. After declaring that he was for material aid to Great Britain – a statement which received scarcely any response – Thomas stated: “I was called a war-monger by certain people (the Stalinists) a few months ago when I advocated material aid to Britain. “Today we can hear these same people wanting to go much further than I want to go today. I predict that these same people will be advocating we go to war. “I still say we should keep ourselves on record as against any foreign adventure.” This last remark brought forth an instantaneous and tremendous volume of applause, and indicated that there is potentially no more powerful an anti-war force in this country today than the auto workers. Union Democracy Jealously Guarded The delegates are quick to resent and loudly oppose anything that. smacks of high-handed or arbitrary decisions from the chair, and jealously guard every democratic right. The minority of the Credentials Committee reported that an attempt was being made to refuse seating to the large delegation from the militant Allis-Chalmers local, whose 8,000 members recently won a bitter 79 day strike.

The minority of the Credentials Committee reported that an attempt was being made to refuse seating to the large delegation from the militant Allis-Chalmers local, whose 8,000 members recently won a bitter 79 day strike. The report charged that the seating of these delegates was being held up on the technicality that the local, in violation of a clause in the constitution, had nominated and elected delegates at the same meeting. The minority of the committee put in a motion to seat the Allis-Chalmers delegation immediately. The minority motion was greeted with a tremendous volume of applause and stamping of feet. When Ed Hall, a former board member, took the floor and condemned any attempt to deprive the Allis-Chalmers workers of representation, and charged that this would be an act greeted most warmly by the open-shoppers throughout the country, he nearly brought the house down. The storm was quieted finally by the explanation that the committee majority had not acted against seating the Allis-Chalmers delegation – although it had been the decision of a caucus of the right-wing to attempt this – and by a motion instructing the Credentials Committee to bring in its recommendation on the disputed delegates as the first business tomorrow morning, so as to prevent any stalling of the seating of the Allis-Chalmers representatives. Frankensteen Booed The maker of the motion to refer the decision to the next morning was Richard Frankensteen, the international board member who supported the use of troops against the North American Aviation workers. No sooner had he approached the microphone to speak than he was met by a chorus of boos from all sections of the hail. Thomas in his published report had denied that Frankensteen had condoned the use of troops, but this has not convinced a large section of the delegates. And many of those who do accept the explanation on this point are still bitter about Frankensteen’s arbitrary action in suspending the officers of the North American local. The lesson of Homer Martin’s union-disrupting tactics has sunk deep. Negro Delegates Active Once more, at this convention, is shown the freedom from racial prejudice that has marked the policies of the UAW and the CIO. Almost every large delegation at the convention includes Negro delegates, who participate fully and freely in all the convention activities. It was especially gratifying to see the many Negro workers in the Ford delegation and in the Ford Local 600 band. One of the most vicious features of Ford’s anti-labor policies was his attempt to split the workers by playing Negro and white workers against each other. Many Women Present Women workers are playing an important role in this convention, reflecting the vital part they are playing in the whole organizational life and struggles of the auto workers. One of the brightest spots in the convention thus far was the parade of the Women’s Auxiliaries in the convention hall this morning. As they marched down the aisle, all the delegates rose and cheered them and then broke into the stirring tune of Solidarity Forever. The banner which headed the parade proudly announced that the membership of the UAW Women’s Auxiliary has increased 345 per cent in the past year. No other union has been able to draw the wives and mothers of the workers into the union struggles so well as the UAW. The militancy of the women on the UAW picket lines is traditional. Whatever decisions are made – and some of them may be poor and misguided – one thing is certain: The whole character, tradition and composition of the UAW-CIO will not tolerate for long policies which will lead to the destruction of union democracy and militancy. Time and again efforts have been made to enforce such policies on the auto union – Francis Dillon and Homer Martin tried it – but these attempts have failed. Each time the auto workers have spewed forth these poisonous reactionary elements. And each time the UAW has made new giant strides forward. One has only to sit for a brief time among these delegates to observe their seriousness, their stern sense of responsibility, their boundless militancy and confidence, their innate love of freedom of expression, their hatred of bureaucracy to be convinced that here is a union capable of confronting all the hosts of reaction and ending the struggle victoriously. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 May 2016

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis American Labor – Fact and Fiction (November 1962) From International Socialist Review, Vol.24 No.1, Winter 1963, pp.13-18. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). A mass of evidence contradicts the steady rumors of the current decline of the American labor movement. The future, in fact, promises a different prospect NATIONAL trade union organization has existed continuously in the United States since the founding of the American Federation of Labor (AFL) in 1886. But only within the past twenty-five years has the organized labor movement assumed truly massive proportions. Organization of the industrial workers – most strategically placed and decisive sector of American labor – was not even successfully begun until the 1935-1941 period. Not until the spring of 1941, little more than two decades ago, did the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) win its conclusive victories in the automobile and steel industries with the first successful strikes and union contracts in Ford Motor Co. and Bethlehem Steel Corp. The swift rise and gigantic growth of American organized labor within the historically brief span of a quarter of a century has induced a condition in the American capitalist class akin to what psychiatrists term a traumatic shock. The owning and employing class is like a person who never has been seriously ill and is felled suddenly by a dangerous ailment. Thereafter, he notes every twinge and palpitation, every rise or fall in his temperature, however slight. Just within the past twenty-five years, vast staffs of labor experts, economists and statisticians, both governmental and private, have been mobilized to study and plot the growth or decline, the shifts in composition, the tendencies and trends of the American working class, its organized sector in particular. Now, every day, week and month, new reports on the condition of American labor and its organization pour forth to enlighten us on the slightest change within the wage-earning class and the labor movement. The ruling class and its agencies, particularly the government, track the course of American labor with the absorption and concern of the US Weather Bureau and Coast Guard in charting the path, speed, intensity, area and possible shifts in direction of a hurricane sweeping north out of the Caribbean. Despite the data being collected on labor and the constant refinement of methods used to obtain this data, it is astounding how much inaccurate and downright false information is being circulated both outside and within the labor movement. For, along with the increasing statistical study and analysis has come a sharpening of the fine art of manipulating and misinterpreting the accumulated data. We have to be ever more on the alert against false, one-sided or misleading conclusions drawn from apparently solid, factual evidence. Two startling examples of such manipulation and misinterpretation have come to hand recently. Both have to do with the question of the division of the national income, which is at the very heart of the struggle between capital and labor. In the first example, Herman P. Miller, a special assistant in the demographic section of the Bureau of the Census, exposes the “myth ... created in the United States that incomes are becoming more evenly distributed,” a “view held by prominent economists of both major political parties” and “also shared by the editors of the influential mass media.” Miller’s expose appears in The New York Times Magazine, November 11, 1962. In his article, entitled Is the Income Gap Closed? ‘No!’, Miller names top economic advisers of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, in addition to Fortune magazine and The New York Times itself as propagators of the myth of the more equal distribution of income. In giving his “No!” answer to the question, “Has there been any narrowing of the gap between rich and poor?” Miller cites “data in US Government publications available to us all.” If we stick to these figures, he points out, “the answers are clear, unambiguous, and contrary to widely held beliefs. The statistics show no appreciable change in income shares for nearly twenty years.” The share of the national income going to the lower three-fifths of America’s families has not increased in almost two decades; the share retained by the top fifth, who get forty-five per cent of the nation’s income, has not decreased. The lowest twenty per cent of the family groups continues to get but five per cent of the national income, the same as in the past twenty years. NO SOONER is one myth destroyed, however, than another is created. A week after Miller’s article appeared, the November 18 New York Times published a news story from Washington, headlined: “Gain in Living Standards Found to Top Price Rises”. According to this dispatch, a seven-city survey by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows “that purchasing power has gone up by 20 to 40 per cent in the last 10 to 12 years.” A cross-section of families, including exactly 212 families in New York City, was questioned and it was determined that their spending has increased 39 per cent while the consumer price index has risen only 15 per cent since 1950.

According to this dispatch, a seven-city survey by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics shows “that purchasing power has gone up by 20 to 40 per cent in the last 10 to 12 years.” A cross-section of families, including exactly 212 families in New York City, was questioned and it was determined that their spending has increased 39 per cent while the consumer price index has risen only 15 per cent since 1950. The survey did not go back before 1950. If it had, Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz might not have cited it. For the findings might have been considerably different. The Bureau of Labor Statistics consumers’ price index, which has risen 15 per cent since 1950, recorded a rise in the previous decade of 72 per cent. If purchasing power has actually gone up “by 20 to 40 per cent” since 1950 it means only that the workers have been catching up a bit with the World War II and post-war inflation. The distortion and misinterpretation of data on such vital matters as the division of the national income and the trend of consumer purchasing power are paralleled in the study and analysis of the American labor movement and such closely related matters as the class structure of US society and the composition and weight of the wage-earning sector of the population. Ever since the AFL and CIO merged in December 1955 to form the largest independent labor organization in world history there has been a growing campaign to convey the impression that the labor movement is in rapid decline and that, at any rate, organized labor has reached its natural limits because the so-called “blue-collar” workers, traditionally the main base of the trade unions, are declining in relation to the total labor force and even in absolute numbers. Within recent months a slew of magazine and newspaper articles, some employing impressive statistical data, have been discussing and analyzing the “decline” of organized labor. Prominent labor leaders themselves have been uttering dire forebodings based on shifts in the per capita intake. Leading liberal publications, generally regarded as having a sympathetic attitude toward organized labor, have been participating in the discussion and expressing apprehensions of their own. In my article, The Myth of “People’s Capitalism”, published in the Winter 1962 issue of the International Socialist Review, I examined the claim made in an editorial in The New York Times, February 7, 1960, that the numerical strength of organized labor in the United States had “sharply declined” in the 1956-1958 period, thus “reversing a trend of some twenty-five years.” Citing the actual statistical data, I showed that the “sharp decline” amounted only to 1.7%. On February 21, 1961, at a meeting of the AFL-CIO Executive Council at Miami Beach, Fla., organizing director John Livingston reported with great alarm that all organized workers in the country represented 38% of the organizable workers compared to 40% five years before. He said this could spell union labor’s “obituary.” Seven months before, on June 3, 1960, Jacob S. Potofsky, President of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, declared that organized labor faced the “grave danger” of a fast-shrinking membership. Previously, on November 9, 1959, Walter P. Reuther, United Automobile Workers President and an AFL-CIO Vice President, told a convention of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Department which he heads that “We are going backward” and that the labor movement was “flabby.” His reference to flabbiness came just two days after the termination of the greatest single industrial strike in US history, the grueling 116-day national steel strike. In the same speech, Reuther proclaimed, “The merger we put together in 1955 never got off the ground ... We have been pushed around and put through the meat grinder. If we sulk in our tents we’ll be pushed back and back ... We have to stand up.” The current crop of articles and statements follows much the same pattern as these earlier plaints of leading union officials. One of these articles, however, has aroused particular attention and interest. It is Labor’s Ebbing Strength, by George Kirstein, publisher of The Nation, the venerable liberal weekly. The article was published in the magazine’s September 1 issue. Kirstein came to national prominence during World War II when he served for a period as Executive Secretary of the National War Labor Board. It is not my purpose to discuss the article as a whole and its important conclusions, which are analyzed at some length by Milton Alvin in this issue of the International Socialist Review. I wish to direct attention to the two opening paragraphs of Kirstein’s article in which he states the basic premises on which the entire article rests. He writes that “labor’s power and prestige have sunk in 1962 to a depth unequaled since World War II” and this is demonstrated first of all by the fact that union membership, “continuing its descending curve, has shrunk to new lows for the last twenty-five years ...” BEFORE we look at Kirstein’s less measurable point about labor’s “power and prestige,” let us examine the more tangible matter of the “new lows for the last twenty-five years” allegedly reached by union membership today. Maybe, Kirstein put down a vague impression derived from such sources as the previously quoted New York Times editorial comment about union membership “reversing a trend of some twenty-five years.” Or maybe his entire editorial staff was out having a beer and he asked the office boy, “Do you think organized labor is as strong now as it was back in the good old New Deal days?” and the kid replied, “I wasn’t even born then but I hear tell that the CIO was sure hoppin’ back then and even Roosevelt was scared of John L. Lewis.” So Kirstein figured it was safe to say union membership is at its lowest point in a quarter of a century.

Lewis.” So Kirstein figured it was safe to say union membership is at its lowest point in a quarter of a century. It just so happens that nothing could be farther from the truth. Total union membership, despite extensive unemployment, particularly in the steel and coal industries, remains not much below the 1956 peak of 18,400,000 – a number based, incidentally, on inflated figures issued by the union leaders at the time of the AFL-CIO merger, as I shall presently show. The Department of Labor on last October 8 issued a report on its latest and most accurate survey of trade union membership. Total union membership in the United States is 17,546,000. This must be regarded as a reasonably hard figure because the data was obtained under the stringent regulations of the 1959 Landrum-Griffin Act which exacts severe penalties for inaccurate statements by union officials under the Act’s compulsory reporting provisions. What was the union membership twenty-five years ago in the heroic days of the rise of the CIO which Kirstein recalls in such a glowing light. Let me quote from my article, The Myth of “People’s Capitalism”. A little more than a year ago, I wrote: “But before anyone hangs a wreath on the American labor movement ... let us review certain basic facts. Twenty-eight years ago – in 1933 – there were only 2,782,296 union members, or 7.8% of the organizable workers, after 47 years of AFL activity. In 1935, the year the CIO was formed, organized workers numbered 3,616,847, or 10.6% of potential unionists. By 1937, after the CIO went into action, union membership more than doubled, numbering 7,687,087, or 21.9% of organizable workers.” These figures are from the appendix of Edward Levinson’s classic history of the early CIO, Labor on the March. Contrary to Kirstein’s idealized picture of the American labor movement twenty-five years ago as compared to today, the unions today have two and a third times the number of members and almost double the proportion of organizable workers. Well, maybe Kirstein slipped up on his dates. Maybe he was really thinking about ten or twelve years ago, not twenty-five. All right. Let’s see how today’s nearly 17.5 million union members compare with the number in 1950 and 1953. The World Almanac, which annually collates all the data on union memberships from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and from direct questionnaires to the unions, lists in its 1952 edition the “approximate” total of labor union members on June 30, 1950, as “14,000,000 to 16,800,000.” One reason for the wide spread in the approximation is the fact that the CIO leaders – it was before the Landrum-Griffin Act – had reported grossly exaggerated membership and the fact was well known. The World Almanac listed AFL membership in 1950 at 8,000,000 and the CIO’s at “5,000,000 to 6,000,000.” In 1949, the CIO had reached the climax of a four-year internal “cold war” between pro-State Department and pro-Stalinist cliques. It ended with the expulsion of eleven affiliated unions. At the November 1950 CIO convention, it was revealed that the actual CIO membership at the time of the 1949 split convention had been 3,700,000, not “5,000,000 to 6,000,000.” In the spring of 1953, according to the 1954 edition of the World-Almanac, the “approximate total” of labor union membership was “16,500,000 to 17,000,000.” This included 8,000,000 in the AFL, 5,000,000 in the CIO and 2,500,000 in independent unions. According to my arithmetic, the three breakdown figures add up to only 15,500,000, not “16,500,000 to 17,000,000.” We do know that two years later, at the time of the AFL-CIO merger, the CIO membership was considerably less than the 6,000,000 claimed. J.B.S. Hardman, for many years editor of Advance, official publication of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, one of the major CIO affiliates, revealed in the January 4, 1958 issue of The Nation that at the time of the AFL-CIO merger the CIO “entered as pretty much of a junior partner, its stationary 4,000,000 members unimpressive against the AFL’s affiliation of 10,000,000 and advancing.” Hardman confirmed what most of us surmised at the time of the merger that the CIO membership was closer to 4,000,000 than to the claimed 6,000,000. If this is true – and it is – then the hard figure of 17,456,000 labor union members today remains impressive compared not merely to 1937 but to 1955. WHAT is true about the decline in labor union membership is that a few key unions – notably in steel, automobile, coal and railroads – have had a fall in membership of one degree or another in the past decade. The decline has been most steep in coal mining and railroading. Here it is sufficient to note that even before the great depression of the Thirties, during the “Golden Twenties,” coal was known as a “sick industry” and the current sharp fall in the United Mine Workers membership – some two-thirds in ten years – is the continuation of a trend, based on technological development, which began more than forty years ago and was halted temporarily only during the exceptional periods of World War II and the Korean War.

The railroad unions have gone through a similar technologically based four-decade decline. We come now to the hard kernel of fact in the talk about the “rapid decline” in union membership. What really is at the heart of this question is the drop in the membership of the United Automobile Workers and United Steelworkers, whose organization in the 1935-1941 period is correctly regarded as the CIO’s two greatest achievements. Both these unions are considerably reduced in membership from their peaks at the end of the Korean War a decade ago. But they are not down to mere skeletons or shadows by any means. Not only are they still completely entrenched in the basic auto and steel industries but they are giants both in membership and material resources compared to any time before World War II and rank among the five largest unions. Here are comparative membership figures from 1941: Automobile Workers Steelworkers November 1941 400,000 500,000 June 30, 1950 947,598 960,738 April 1953 1,350,000 1,100,000 June 1956 1,353,993 1,032,346 June 30, 1961 995,000 796,000 At the end of 1961, the net assets of the American unions totaled more than $1.5 billion, aside from huge welfare and pension funds. While the United Steelworkers and the United Auto Workers do not approach the net assets of the United Mine Workers with its $105,355,886, the UAW isn’t doing too badly for a union that owned nothing but debts at the time of its historic General Motors sit-down strike in the winter of 1936-37 which established the UAW for the first time in the biggest corporation of the auto “Big Three.” The UAW, as of December 31, 1961, had net assets of $57,284,000; the Steelworkers, $22,010,035. This compares with the $25,445,296 of the million-member International Association of Machinists; the $18,430,523 of the 771,000 member International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; the $22,249,785 of David Dubinsky’s 446,000-member International Ladies Garment Workers Union; or the $36,760,351 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters with its 1,661,983 members. Of course, there are several dozen capitalist corporations with individual assets larger than those of all labor unions combined. But the unions of today command material resources – cash, investments, real estate – beyond anything even dreamed of in the Forties let alone the depression Thirties. In its first two years, 1935-37, the CIO was largely financed by about a million dollars in grants and loans from John L. Lewis’ United Mine Workers. The Steel Workers Organizing Committee (SWOC), the original organization of the CIO Steelworkers, did not even charge dues during its first great organizing drive in 1937. This is a good point to discuss – and eliminate – one of the major factors most frequently cited as a reason for the membership declines in such unions as the UAW and Steelworkers. That is unemployment due to what has been termed automation – the employment of electronic and other forms of automatic controls in production to reduce the use of labor power to the starting and stopping of the power flow and the maintenance and repair of machinery and equipment. President John F. Kennedy, in his message to Congress last January, termed automation the big economic challenge of this decade. True enough, unemployment has been a very decisive factor in preventing any over-all growth of organized labor in the past five years, except in the case of such unions as the International Association of Machinists and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, both AFL-CIO, and the independent International Brotherhood of Teamsters. But contrary to what the Kennedy administration, many economists and quite a few labor leaders contend, automation is not the critical element yet in unemployment. REPORTING a recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the November 5 Wall Street Journal noted that in a comparison of the years 1959 and 1953, periods of relatively high industrial activity, more than half the decline in jobs in those industries which had falling employment were due to decrease in total output not increased technological efficiency. The Journal wrote that “... job declines totaling 745,000 were associated with increases in efficiency, while declines totaling the somewhat larger number of 795,000 were associated merely with decreases in production by the industries concerned.” Increases in “efficiency,” however, do not mean improved machinery or automation. A survey in the November Factory, McGraw-Hill trade publication, reveals that the major cause of “job displacement” in factories employing 1,000 or more workers is “improvement in business methods” and general “efficiency” rather than “modern machinery,” which runs a poor second to the “real villain” in wiping out jobs. Thus, in the basic metalworking industry during the first half of 1962, improved “work methods” – that includes good old-fashioned speed-up – were responsible for the loss of 54% of white-collar jobs and 30% of blue-collar jobs. Only 5% of the while-collar and 16% of the blue-collar jobs were eliminated by new machinery. Improved “work methods” were held responsible for 34% of the white-collar and 49% of the blue-collar job cuts in the chemical industry;

Improved “work methods” were held responsible for 34% of the white-collar and 49% of the blue-collar job cuts in the chemical industry; slashes due to new equipment were only 19% and 13% respectively. But “decreases in production,” as indicated in the previously cited November 5 Wall Street Journal, has been the arch villain in the unemployment situation. Take the automobile industry, which has been issuing such glowing reports of 1962 last quarter production. Ward’s automotive report on November 12 said that the automobile industry is anticipating a total car output for the entire year of 6,846,000. This is more than a million below the peak annual production of 7,942,000 in 1955, seven years ago. It is little higher than the 6,665,628 cars produced in 1950, twelve years ago. The picture of steel production is even more revealing. During the second and third quarters of this year, the steel industry operated at between 45% and 55% of the 1961 rated capacity. In this month of November, even with the stimulus of the Cuban war crisis, the steel industry has been operating at about 61% of capacity. Based on the tonnage production index of 100 for the 1957-59 period, the index for the four weeks ending November 10 was 95.1. Iron Age, steel industry trade magazine, explained on November 14 that the $1.4 billion capital expenditures expected next year are intended to cut costs and increase efficiency, not to expand production. The steel industry’s present “break-even” point – the point where it begins to make profit – is 42% of capacity. In spite of the factor of unemployment, the major causes of which are “efficiency” and lowered total output, the union movement of today not only remains gigantic in human and financial resources compared to twenty-five years and even ten years ago but it has more contracts and better contractual terms than in all American labor history. More than 100,000 collective bargaining agreements are negotiated each year and it is extremely rare for such agreements not to contain some gain for the workers, although for some key unions, like the Auto Workers, Steelworkers and Ladies Garment Workers, the recent gains have been minimal and not commensurate with the real size and resources of these unions and the capacity of their members for struggle. This year, the Kennedy administration sought to impose a ceiling on wage increases in union contracts. The President indicated a limit of 2.5% to 3% based on the estimated annual average increase in hourly output per worker in industry. On November 10, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in the first nine months of 1962 major collective bargaining settlements covering 3,100,000 workers had been negotiated. The median increase for all the workers covered by these contracts was 3.2% of straight time hourly earnings. (Median is the point where half got more and half got less.) But for those who received raises the median increase was 3.4%. The significant fact is that the majority of workers securing increases got gains of well over 3%. This was particularly true of construction workers, transportation and other non-factory workers. The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area construction workers, after a strike of 200,000, won wage increases of from 7% to 8.4%. Airline pilots won 8%, although the Eastern Airlines strike is still not settled at this writing. West Coast dock workers netted 6.2%; textile mill workers from 3.25% in the North to 5% for some mills in the South; non-operating railroad workers, 4.1%; copper miners, 3.8%; telephone workers, 3.5%. The aluminum, glass and oil workers were restricted to a bare 3% while the steelworkers, under the direct pressure of the Kennedy administration, settled for 2.5%, all in fringe benefits. This latter settlement, involving a half-million workers, seriously dragged down the total average gains.

This latter settlement, involving a half-million workers, seriously dragged down the total average gains. The fact is that the workers won what the union leaders were willing to let them fight for. Thus, the Teamsters Union, headed by James R. Hoffa, in late September and early October, through a brief strike of several IBT locals won New Jersey-New York area contracts providing a 37-cent an hour wage increase for 57,000 truck drivers. One fact cited as evidence of the “rapid decline” of the American labor movement is the smaller number of strikes, strikers and man-days lost due to strikes. In his August 13 broadcast and televised speech on the nation’s economy, President Kennedy boasted of his “extraordinary record of labor peace in the last eighteen months.” The press prominently reported the fact that in July 1962 man-hours lost in strikes reached the lowest point for any month since World War II. Of course, the month in question also saw the greatest number of wage earners enjoying union-won paid vacations of any month in US history. Aside from that, as A.H. Raskin noted in an article in the November 11 New York Times, “The strike front just won’t stay zippered up.” In fact, an examination of the over-all strike statistics for the first half of 1962 shows a total of 9,800,000 man-days lost in strikes – a 62% rise over the first half of 1961. During the first quarter of this year, the number of workers on strike rose 38% over the corresponding quarter of 1961. There are other factors to take into account in analyzing the over-all decline in strikes since 1953 – not just in the “last eighteen months.” A study of the annual strike statistics since 1920 reveals that the eight-year period, 1946 through 1953, coinciding except for 1953 with the last Democratic administration, was the greatest strike period in US history. The years 1950 through 1953, during the Korean war, saw the largest number of strikes for any four-year period, climaxed by the all-time annual record of 5,117 strikes in 1952. The reason for this great upsurge in strikes ranging over an eight-year period has already been indicated in the early part of this article. A rampant inflation, boosting the consumers’ price index 72%, occurred during World War II and the post-war period. In addition, direct federal, state and local taxes levied in the same period took an estimated one-third of the average wage-earner’s income. After a brief pause in the inflation during the Truman recession of 1949-50, the rise was resumed during the Korean war, when more than one-half of the 15% rise in the price index during the decade of the Fifties was recorded. The decline in strikes over the past decade can be attributed neither to Kennedy’s policies since he took office in January 1960 nor to any shift in the programs and attitudes of the top union leaders. The latter were just as permeated with the philosophy of class collaboration, just as opposed to militancy, just as subservient to the capitalist government in the 1946-53 period as they have been since and are today. The difference was the greater inflationary pressure on the workers which forced them to strike and forced the union bureaucrats to go along, even though reluctantly. THERE is another very important element in the decline in strikes over the recent years. That is the long-term contract with built-in automatic annual wage increases. The trend toward long-term contracts, now averaging between two and three years in duration, began with the signing of the notorious five-year General Motors contract in 1950 by UAW President Walter Reuther. It was hoped that such a contract would preserve “labor peace” for a long time in the auto industry and dampen the tradition of militancy among the auto workers. The Korean War was begun about a month after the GM contract went into effect. The renewed inflationary trend brought such rank-and-file condemnation of the five-year “handcuffs” contract that Reuther was forced in 1953 to demand a wage re-opener in spite of the contract. In fear of a strike, GM yielded. It is well to keep in mind, however, that in the glorious days of twenty-five years ago for which Nation publisher Kirstein sighs, it took a major General Motors strike, including the historic “sit-down” occupation of the company’s main plants in Flint, Mich., to win a six-month contract, after CIO President John L. Lewis indignantly rejected President Roosevelt’s offer to propose a one-month contract to settle the strike and get the workers off GM’s property. A recent study by the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that union contracts are increasingly of longer duration. In 1956, about 15% of the contracts covering 1,000 or more workers were for three years, in contrast to the traditional one- and two-year contracts of the previous twenty years. By 1961, the proportion of three-year contracts had risen to more than 30%.

By 1961, the proportion of three-year contracts had risen to more than 30%. In order to get the workers to accept long-term contracts, the employers must agree to automatic annual wage concessions. In a sense, these are deferred wage increases because it is possible that the workers might insist on larger initial increases if the yearly wage raise were not built into the contract. Nevertheless, such automatic increases averaged 8 cents an hour so far this year and 8.2 cents in 1961 compared to average negotiated increases of 7.5 cents and 7.8 cents respectively, according to the Bureau of National Affairs, a Washington research organization in the labor market field. But even with the diminution of the inflationary pressure and the increase of long-term contracts providing automatic annual wage raises, the current period is by no means the low-point of strikes during the past twenty-five years. The impression that organized labor moved steadily onward and upward following the 1937 upsurge of the CIO is wrong. In the matter of strikes, the three-year period following the smashing of the Little Steel strike in the summer of 1937 and the period of US participation in World War II from December 8, 1941 to August 14, 1945 were far more repressed years for labor than the latest period. Here is the comparative statistical chart: Strikes in the United States Year Number Stoppages Workers Involved Man Days Idle 1937 4,740 1,861,000 28,425,000 1938 2,772 688,000 9,148,000 1939 2,613 1,171,000 17,812,000 1940 2,508 577,000 6,701,000 1941 4,288 2,363,000 23,048,000 1942 2,968 840,000 4,183,000 1943 3,752 1,981,000 13,501,000 1944 4,956 2,116,000 8,721,000 1945 4,750 3,470,000 38,000,000 1958 3,694 2,060,000 23,900,000 1959 3,708 1,880,000 69,000,000 1960 3,333 1,320,000 19,100,000 1961 (Jan.-July) 2,010 (est.) 704,000 (est.) 7,410,000 (est.) Even a cursory study of these figures is revealing. In both 1958 and 1959, regarded as “quiet” years on the labor front, the number of strikers was greater than in 1937, the record year for the two decades, 1920-1940. The figures for 1960, low point of the decade, were still far larger in every strike category than in 1938, 1939, 1940 and 1942. Even for the seven-month period in 1961 for which I have available statistics at this writing, there were more strikers than in the entire years of 1939 and 1940 and more man-days lost due to strikes than in all of either 1940 or 1942. And as I showed earlier in this article, the first half of this year far surpassed the comparable period of 1961 both in the number of strikers and the man-days lost. This does not tell the whole story. The strikes of the recent “quiet” years with few exceptions brought material gains in wages, benefits and improved working conditions. Most of the strikes in the 1937-1941 period were fought for simple union recognition – to compel an employer to agree to meet with a union committee and negotiate. The Little Steel strike of 1937 – the largest steel walkout since the smashed 1919 Great Steel Strike – was wiped out in blood. The low figures for man-days lost during the World War II years represent wholesale breaking of strikes by the quick action of the government and the cooperation of the union leaders during a period of fast-rising prices while wages were officially frozen. The facts I have just cited also throw light on the low state of “labor’s power and prestige” which so concerns Kirstein. I do not know if labor’s “power and prestige” today are any lower than during the Little Steel strike of 1937, when the police of Roosevelt’s “New Deal” colleague, Mayor Kelly of Chicago, murdered ten workers in the Memorial Day Massacre at the Republic steel plant and Roosevelt answered John L. Lewis’ plea for help with the cynical reply, “A plague on both your houses.” CERTAINLY, labor’s “power and prestige” are no lower than during World War II when wages were frozen while prices soared and every strike was smashed except the four national strikes of the coal miners in 1943, when John L. Lewis stood up to the lynch cries of the national press and the tirades of Roosevelt and Congress and the miners won their greatest victory. It is not quite clear from Kirstein’s article just how he measures labor’s “power and prestige.” But to my way of thinking, labor’s “power and prestige” can’t sink much lower than it was during the 1947-1952 period of the Truman administration – the same Truman who woke up on the morning after Election Day, 1948, to find out he’d been unexpectedly re-elected to the Presidency and exclaimed, “Labor did it!” It was in June 1947 that Congress enacted the Taft-Hartley Act, condemned by every sector of organized labor as a “slave labor law.” The most significant political fact about the passage of this Act was that the overwhelming majority of both capitalist parties – Democratic as well as Republican – in both the House and Senate voted for this bill.

What is most significant of all is that President Truman invoked the injunctive powers of the Act against actual or threatened strikes seven times in 1948 and three times more before the end of his term in January 1953. This did not include his strikebreaking seizures of railroads, coal mines and steel plants. There was not a single union man in Congress to speak or vote against the Taft-Hartley bill. There was no mass action of any kind initiated or led by either the CIO or AFL national leaders in opposition to passage of the T-H Act. All but a handful of labor leaders, notably John L. Lewis, Charles P. Howard of the International Typographical Union and Matthew Smith of the Mechanics Educational Society, took the degrading Taft-Hartley “non-Communist” oath. In the spring of 1948, the top union leaders, particularly of the CIO, were hurling invectives against Truman and had initiated a “Draft Eisenhower” campaign. On April 4, 1948, the Detroit Free Press carried an interview with Walter Reuther, head of the CIO’s largest affiliate, who complained that “Truman is hopelessly inadequate” and hoped that “some competent man like Eisenhower will be nominated by the Democrats.” Surely, when Reuther and the rest of the labor leaders shortly fell into line behind Truman, campaigned furiously for him and hailed his election as a “great labor victory,” that was a pretty low point in labor’s “power and prestige.” There is one other measurable factor most frequently cited as the conclusive argument against any further possibility of growth of the US labor unions and, indeed, as certain evidence that the unions must inevitably decline. Kirstein raises the argument as his concluding point when he refers to “the white-collar worker, who is now surpassing the blue-collar worker in numbers” and who, “one thing is certain,” will “not join the production worker’s union.” It is not my purpose to take up the arguable point of whether white-collar workers will or will not join a blue-collar workers’ union. I wish to concentrate on the fiction, accepted as unquestionable fact by even well-informed and good-intentioned people like Kirstein, that the blue-collar workers are in decline and that the white-collar workers are inheriting the American earth. In my previously cited article, The Myth of “People’s Capitalism”, I reported the Bureau of Labor Statistics data for July 10-16, 1960, on the occupational division of the gainfully employed in this country. As of that date, I wrote: “Two-thirds of all the gainfully employed are males – 90% of them white. An outright majority – 58.4% – of all employed males are in the manual, service and farm laborer classifications ... Factory operatives and kindred workers form the largest single group of male employees, 19.2%. Then come craftsmen, 18.7%; non-agricultural laborers, 9%; service workers (a wide category including domestic servants, repairmen, laundry workers, elevator operators, janitors, clothes pressers, garbage collectors, barbers, hotel, restaurant and bar workers, police and firemen, etc.) 6.5%; and hired farm laborers, 4.9%. “All income earners of both sexes totaled 68,689,000 in the above-cited BLS report. Of these, 37,449,000 – or a 54% majority – are in physical labor categories, including operatives, craftsmen, laborers, service workers and hired farm hands. Clerical workers number 9,907,000 and sales workers, 4,405,000. The latter two ‘white collar’ groups total 14,312,000. They formed 20.8% of the employed working force in July 1960. Even if we add to them a mixed category listed as ‘professional, technical and kindred workers,’ numbering 7,042,000, or 10.3% of the total, we cannot stretch the ‘white collar’ workers to more than 31.1% of the gainfully employed.” I pointed out, however, that in arriving at the conclusion that white-collar workers outnumber blue-collar workers, the classification of the service workers, who until 1960 were classified with the manual labor group, was transferred to the “white-collar” category and the remaining classifications of “managers, officials and proprietors” and “farm owners and farm managers,” together representing 14.4% of the total, are lumped in with the white-collar wage-earners. TO THIS statistical data, I am now able to add information based on an actual census presented in the October 1962 Scientific American, unquestionably the finest and most authoritative general science periodical published in this country. It is contained in the article, More from the Census of 1960, by Philip H. Hauser, chairman of the Technical Advisory Committee for the census of 1960 and head of the department of sociology at the University of Chicago. Prof. Hauser has broken the census figures down into two general categories, “Providers of Services” and “Producers of Goods.” Before we examine these figures, it should be noted that all managers and proprietors are listed as “producers of services” and all farmers, who are owners of their means of production and very frequently employers, are listed as “producers of goods.” Hauser’s article contains a chart showing the continuous ratio of the various sectors of the labor force from 1900 to 1960. This chart reveals that aside from the farmers, who are in the main petty capitalists, the chief classifications of the “producers of physical goods” – the so-called blue-collar workers or operatives (factory workers mainly) and craftsmen (construction trades, etc.) – have increased in absolute numbers every year since 1900 and, every year right through to 1960, have represented a larger proportion of the total labor force.

This chart reveals that aside from the farmers, who are in the main petty capitalists, the chief classifications of the “producers of physical goods” – the so-called blue-collar workers or operatives (factory workers mainly) and craftsmen (construction trades, etc.) – have increased in absolute numbers every year since 1900 and, every year right through to 1960, have represented a larger proportion of the total labor force. That is, the main base of the labor unions is not narrowing; it is widening. In his two main categories, Hauser lists 54.4% in “producers of services,” including “42.2 per cent in white collar occupations and 12 per cent in household service and other service occupations.” Remember, “service occupations” include the $40-a-week Puerto Rican and Negro hospital workers in New York City who this year engaged in such a militant strike. He adds that “only 46 per cent were engaged in work directly contributing to the production of physical goods.” He immediately adds, however, that “the decline in production workers is entirely attributable to the reduction in the number of farmers, farm laborers and nonfarm laborers. Since 1900 agricultural employment has fallen from 37.5 per cent to only 6.3 per cent of the labor force ...” He further adds that “men are still engaged primarily in the production of goods (three-fifths of the male work force in 1960, compared with four-fifths in 1900), the white-collar and service functions that have come to the fore have been taken over to a large extent by women ...” On the average, women workers earn only two-thirds the average wages of male workers. Here is the break-down for the various classifications of “producers of goods” in 1900 and 1960 as a percentage of the total labor force: Occupation 1900 1960 Craftsmen 10.0% 14.1% Operatives 12.0% 20.1% Laborers (non-farm) 12.5% 5.5% Farm Laborers 17.5% 2.3% Service (incl. Domestic) 9.0% 19.0% If the unions were to stick to only the above categories of manual workers, although such white-collar and professional workers as the New York City school teachers and newspaper reporters went on strike this year, they could double the present labor union membership, from 17.5 million to 35 million. As a matter of fact, the AFL-CIO announced on November 14 a plan for an organizing campaign in the Los Angeles area, where there are about 5,000 unorganized firms with 750,000 potentially organizable workers. IF ORGANIZED labor faces a critical period ahead – and it does, it won’t be because the union membership is in “rapid decline” or because the blue-collar workers are disappearing. It will be due to the policies and program of the union leadership. For one thing, the unions will have to develop a political action program and organization that will be completely independent of the old capitalist two-party set-up. The labor experts of the capitalist class don’t low-grade labor’s potential power and prestige in the political as well as economic arena. Thus, John D. Pomfret, labor reporter, wrote before this year’s elections in the October 24 New York Times about “labor’s principal political asset – sheer mass. The nation’s 17,500,000 union members and their families are an enormous political force.” You bet. If they had their own party, they could turn the Democratic and Republican parties almost overnight into minor parties. They could be the government. November 27, 1962 Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 21.12.2005

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (30 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 26, 30 June 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Annual Wage – How? When the union leaders, both AFL and CIO, raised the demand for a guaranteed annual wage, it was generally assumed they were seeking federal legislation requiring the employers to pay minimum security wages based on continuous employment. The demand was placed directly before the late President Roosevelt, who shunted it into the hands of a committee for “study.” This “study” has yet to begin. But the CIO and AFL leaders have already beat a retreat. William Green says he wants the employers to agree to this demand “on a voluntary, not compulsory basis.” Philip Murray, who raised the biggest hue, and holler on this issue, now states, that “all the union (CIO Steelworkers) is asking with its request for an annual guarantee is that the steel corporations, which have their guarantee (of continued big profits), make a firm commitment to their employees.” In effect, this means that the projected crusade for the annual wage will boil down to numerous disconnected skirmishes with individual employers, most of whom, we can be sure, will merely scoff at the idea. All it would mean would be a host of new cases to be buried among all the others by the War Labor Board, or some other government agency. How does Murray propose to get any big corporation to “voluntarily” make a “firm commitment” on this or any other demand? The corporations have laughed in the face of the unions during the war on even the smallest demand and are mobilizing for an all-out assault on labor in the coming period. But Murray pursues the policy of “peace” and insists on the continuation of the no-strike policy. There is only one way to win the guaranteed annual security wage. That is by a united, militant fight of all labor for a compulsory annual wage system. And if the profiteering employers – who continually demand government compulsion against the workers – can’t ensure steady work and wages, then let the government take over their plants and operate them under workers’ control. * * * Tobin’s Latest Outburst AFL Teamsters President Daniel Tobin is the first and only prominent union leader, to our knowledge, who has come out in favor of Wall Street’s plan to Prussianize the country through peacetime military conscription. All the major labor organizations have gone on record in opposition. Tobin’s personal organ, The International Teamster, in the June issue contains a featured leading editorial entitled Keep Military Conscription! This comes out at a time when armed troops are being used in an attempt to smash the Chicago truck drivers strike, involving among others thousands of members of Tobin’s own union – a grim forecast of what the employing class hopes to do, in part, with the peacetime conscripts. Tobin’s “future war prevention” arguments have the familiar ring of the Wall Street propagandists of permanent militarism. He adds his own fantastic note about “a highly financed campaign against future preparedness,” “smarter people than the pacifists ... supplying the money,” etc. But it’s no secret who supplies the money for the peacetime militarism campaign – the wealthiest and most powerful anti-labor interests in the country. And it’s no secret, either, on whose side Tobin is lined up! * * * “Go On Back Home!’ Millions of workers were lured by employer propaganda and the need for jobs to leave their home towns and go into the war industry centers. In many instances they had to live in shack towns; they were robbed right and left for the necessities of life; their wages were frozen and they were frozen to the jobs. Now that the bosses want to toss them on the unemployed scrapheap, they are being told to “go back home where you belong.” If they have any savings, they are being pressured to use their last cent to return to their pre-war towns, broke and without any prospects for jobs. We expect that from the employers. But now we have the example of a professed union leader, Frank X. Martel, president of the Detroit and Wayne County Federation of Labor, handing out this vicious line in a front page editorial of Detroit Labor News, June 9. His advice to hundreds of thousands of CIO auto workers (he thinks in this fashion he may make it easier to maintain jobs for AFL members who pay their dues) is “for them to leave now, before their savings are used up.” He tells them “there never was before, and there is no hope now, of providing employment for all the people who have been brought to this community” – so pack up and scram! That’s how one so-called labor leader proposes to “solve” the growing unemployment problem. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 6 November 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Textile Union Ends No-Strike Pledge TWU-CIO Leader Resigns From Membership on WLB Textile Workers’ Actions Strike Heavy Blow at Prestige of Roosevelt’s Anti-Labor Board (3 March 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 9, 3 March 1945, pp. 1 & 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The CIO Textile Workers Union of America, representing over 500,000 members in the country’s lowest-wage industry, on February 20 withdrew the no-strike pledge for some 100,000 cotton-rayon workers. This is the first formal revocation of the no-strike policy by any CIO international union since Pearl Harbor. The action was taken by the TWU Executive Council at a meeting in New York City just prior to release of the War Labor Board’s long-delayed decision in the textile wage case. At the same time, the union’s President, Emil Rieve, resigned from the WLB “in protest against the usurpation of its functions and the plain fact that the Board has now been reduced to little more than a rubber stamp.” This is especially significant because Rieve was one of the union leaders who originally committed organised labor to the no-strike policy and helped establish the compulsory arbitration WLB. These simultaneous actions are the most serious blows struck at the union-shackling no-strike policy and Roosevelt’s tottering WLB since the coal strikes two years ago. They are a big advance over the action of the CtO United Automobile Workers’ executive board, which several weeks ago called on the CIO to withdraw its members from the WLB, but did not recall its own members and continues to uphold the no-strike surrender policy. In response to the TWU action, the WLB hastily announced its decision in the textile wage case. This was a rejection of the 10 cents an hour general wage increase demanded by the union. The board also halved the union’s demand for a boost from 50 cents to a 60 cents an hour wage minimum, conceding only a 55 cents wage floor for an industry which the board itself admitted “pays the lowest wages of any basic manufacturing industry in America.” However, this concession, plus some meager “fringe” awards, are not going into immediate effect. The board simply referred them as “recommendations” to Economic Stabilization Director Vinson. He must first determine whether such increases will mean price increases – the administration’s most recent pretext for stalling wage awards and upholding the wage-freeze. ” This belated WLB statement has not altered the TWU actions. Following the WLB announcement, Rieve issued a press statement declaring that the union’s decision “still stands.” He scored the WLB ruling as “meaningless” and stated it would “not raise the wages of a single cotton- rayon textile worker.” The case, he charged, “is still where it was two months ago – in Vinson’s vest pocket.” He frankly predicted that withdrawal of the no-strike pledge for a large section of the industry would lead to strikes. That the TWU top officials were influenced in making their decision primarily by the terrific pressure of the union’s ranks was clearly indicated by Rieve. He admitted that the union’s officers had been “deluged by request for walk-outs in telegrams by the bushel.” The textile union’s action is all the more significant because it is part of important developments reflecting general rank and file pressure throughout industry for scrapping the no-strike pledge and scuttling the pro-corporation WLB. Just prior to the TWU decision, a national gathering of CIO Packinghouse Workers representatives meeting in Chicago threatened to revoke the no-strike pledge if the WLB did not immediately release its decision in the PWU wage case which had been stalled for 19 months. This brought a speedy response with the issuance of a WLB order denying a general wage increase but recommending “fringe” grants. These however must still await approval by Vinson. The CIO United Automobile Workers, largest and most dynamic union in the country, has urged the withdrawal of labor representatives from the WLB. This union has just concluded a national referendum on the no-strike pledge. While the results have not yet been published, it is conceded that hundreds of thousands of militant auto and aircraft workers, if not a majority of the union, have voted to rescind the no-strike policy. A new wave of strikes has broken out in Detroit, key war industry center, with the Chrysler-Dodge workers now taking the lead. Moreover, within a few weeks the over 600,000 members of the powerful United Mine Workers may be enforcing their traditional “no contract, no work” policy. The UMW policy committee on February 26 at its opening session to prepare demands for forthcoming contract negotiations indicated the possibilities of another general mine strike by sending formal notice to Secretary of Labor Perkins, the NLRB and WLB that a dispute exists in the industry – the 30-day notification of strike intent required under the Smith-Connally Anti-Strike Law. Important as all these developments are, they do not yet constitute a genuine, definitive break with the union leadership’s basic policy of reliance on government agencies and compulsory arbitration to win the workers’ just demands. Even Rieve, who has taken the boldest stand to date of all the CIO leaders, still holds out the hope of advancing labor’s interests by collaboration with the employers and their government through a differently constituted board. Time for Action Thus, the TWU’s executive board did not attack the WLB for what it is – a government agency deliberately constructed by Roosevelt, with the aid of the union officials, to curb the unions and enforce the wage-freeze. The TWU resolution urges CIO withdrawal from the WLB “unless the WLB’s original function as a decision-making body, acting in the interest of equal justice, is re-established.” Of course, the WLB never had and was not intended to have such a function. That was merely a fiction used to gain the worker’s support for the, board and their surrender of the strike weapon. Nevertheless, the TWU decisions are further confirmation, of the correctness of the policies consistently advocated by the Socialist Workers Party and The Militant. From the very first, the Trotskyists have warned of the disastrous consequences for labor in the no-strike policy and support of the WLB. Today workers everywhere are learning the truth of the Trotskyist contentions through their own bitter experiences. They must now demand that the lessons of these experiences be translated into decisive action. The union leaders must be compelled to resign immediately from the anti-labor WLB. The no-strike policy must be scrapped. A united militant union offensive must be launched to smash the wage-freezing Little Steel Formula. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 22 June 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (16 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 24, 16 June 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Now They’re ‘Slackers’ Even the most benevolent of capitalists pay off with a lay-off. That’s what half the 8,600 employees of Jack and Heintz Company, Cleveland, found out last week. Some 4,300 of them were “requested” to “resign” because of war contract terminations. It was quite, a shock to the workers, called “associates,” to find out how quickly the bosses would make them “disassociates” when they were no longer needed to make profits. Jack and Heintz were highly publicized as the “ideal” employers. By working 12 hours a day, seven days a week, the “associates” pulled down relatively high “take home” pay. The plant was run like “one big happy family,” – call the boss by his first name, music while you work. On May 29, President William S. Jack broadcast over the plant loudspeakers asking women and professional workers particularly to “come to their foremen and say ‘Here is my resignation’.” He added: “You have done well by your country in its greatest trial and we appreciate it. The time has come for us to help your return to your families and professions.” When only 20 “associates” accepted this “help” to return to their families – jobless; Jack and Heintz “benevolence” evaporated. On May 31, the company announced that there were a bunch of “slackers” and “discord seekers” in the plant who were to be purged. Although the AFL Machinists have a contract in the plant, the union is almost completely “housebroken.” The “purge” will be conducted through the union grievance committee, a company official stated. The union stewards, he said, have an “eye” on the “disrupters.” They don’t seem to have an eye on the contract, however, because the layoffs are being conducted in ruthless violation of seniority provisions. * * * No Union Conventions The Office of Defense Transportation recently announced that for the next 12 to 15 months the government would hot permit conventions of more than 50 people. This decision was turned primarily at the unions, several of which were preparing to hold their annual conventions this summer and fall. Hundreds of thousands of civilians use the railroads and buses daily, with most business men and their families still managing to take their vacations and trips. It would seem that a few union conventions, numbering usually from a couple of hundred to one or two with as many as 2,000 delegates, would not interfere appreciably with the transportation problem. But the government doesn’t think union conventions are “essential.” Millions of workers are facing layoffs. “Take home” pay is being drastically slashed through reduced hours and loss of overtime, while prices and shortages mount. Meanwhile, the administration has put new rivets in the wage freeze. The rank and file of the unions are beginning to put up a fight. All over the country they are starting to scrap the no-strike pledge in action. The workers ere demanding a real program against unemployment and wage cuts. And that’s the real reason Why the administration doesn’t want any conventions – especially big rank and file union conventions. And its a mighty fine decision from the standpoint of the top union leaders. They’re having a hard time holding the ranks “in line.” They’re not anxious to hold conventions where “anything” might happen. * * * Avery Rides Again Although the WLB rulings in the Montgomery Ward case go back several years, and several of the company’s 800 stores and warehouses were “seized” by the Army a year ago, the mills of the capitalist courts finally ground out a decision upholding the “seizure” only last week, on June 8. In a two-to-one decision, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a previous ruling of a Federal District Court and declared the “seizure” constitutional. The Army officers in charge then announced that they would finally put into effect the WLB orders which the company so far has defied successfully. This includes payment of $1,342,000 in retroactive pay to the Ward workers, members of the CIO Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employees. S.L. Avery, Ward’s board chairman and No. 1 Open-Shopper promptly announced the company would fight the latest court ruling to the Supreme Court. Company lawyers sought a stay of execution until the Supreme Court could act. Another long legal stall might mean the complete destruction of the union, which has already taken a terrific pounding. The plea of the company is that payment of the back pay due the workers would mean “irreparable injury” to it. But only a few days before, Montgomery Ward reported that for the first quarter of 1945, it had upped its net profits, after all taxes and costs, 44 per cent over the same quarter in 1944 – $4,767,955 as compared with $3,439,324. That’s just for three months. And yet it claims it will he “ruined” by paying $1,342,000 in back wages stolen from the workers. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 6 November 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller What Can Labor Expect of Truman? (21 April 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 16, 21 April 1945, pp. 1 & 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The death of Franklin D. Roosevelt has suddenly lifted into the office of the presidency of the United States a man who is little known to the majority of the American people. This comparatively obscure figure, Harry S. Truman, now stands at the head of the greatest military, industrial and financial power in the world. As the chief executive officer of the ruling capitalist class in the United States, his words and deeds will directly affect the lives of all American workers and the future welfare of the hungry, tortured, war-weary masses throughout the world. Universal interest is now focused upon this political personage. Every thinking worker wants to know who Truman really is. What are his connections and background? Who are his advisers? What interests will he serve ? What policies will he pursue? American labor needs a clear and truthful answer to these questions as a guiding line for the period ahead of economic convulsions and world-wide social crisis. One thing is certain at first glance. Truman commands the confidence of every sector of the capitalist class today. The entire capitalist press – from the extreme right wing to the so-called “liberal” – have hailed the new President. Their expressions of confidence and pledges of support are no mere products of sentiment and good-will. They are based upon a precise and well-founded appraisal of the policies they expect him to follow. Wall Street’s Verdict The New York Times, mouthpiece of the Morgan financial interests, on April 14 frankly headlined, “Turn To Right Seen.” It characterizes Truman as “imbued with basic conservatism,” “one whose philosophy is far more ‘a little right of center’ than the ‘little left of center’ of recent days.” On this same theme, the New York Post, which professes liberalism, on April 17 indicated that the character of Truman’s advisers, who are expected to play a decisive role jn shaping his policies, “might be accurately described as ‘a little right of center’.” In more concrete terms, Ralph Hendershot, financial editor of the reactionary Republican New York World-Telegram, wrote on April 14: “The stock market yesterday gave President Truman a splendid vote of confidence ... businessmen have confidence in him.” This confidence of Big Business is based on its conviction that Truman will effectively advance its program and protect its interests. This is amply demonstrated by a review of his background and political record. More will be written about Truman’s boyhood on his father’s 600-acre Missouri farm and his activities as an artillery officer in the last war than about his political rise through the notorious Pendergast machine in Kansas City and his record as a loyal machine man in the Democratic Party councils of the big city bosses and Southern poll-tax politicians. The latter affiliations provide the real clue to his political role. After the last war, Truman got his political start with the Pendergast gang – a number of whom, including the big boss himself, were sent to prison in 1937 for vote-fraud, graft and corruption. He was introduced to Tom Pendergast, the big boss of Kansas City politics, by Pendergast’s nephew who had served under Truman in the army. Pendergast Protégé Through Pendergast’s support Truman was elected as county judge, a post he occupied as a faithful henchman of Pendergast until 1934. In that year he was hand-picked by boss Pendergast for election to the U.S. Senate from Missouri. To this day, as the New York Times points out: “Trained in the Tom Pendergast school of politics, President Truman is a party man, with small regard for dreamers in government who have no definite political affiliations.” Marshall Field’s professional liberal daily, PM, while trying to squeeze Truman into a “liberal” mold, confesses with misgiving that he is “fiercely loyal to old political associates... does not break old political school ties easily.” This was written apropos of his present connections with James Pendergast and reports of his intention to draw into influential posts a number of those machine politicians who helped boost Truman to the top. In short, as one commentator expressed it with evident satisfaction, Truman will bring to his appointments the traits of a “good, shrewd horsetrader’’ – that is, of a practitioner of the political spoils system. The liberal press and the union leaders are trying hard to represent Truman as a “practical liberal” on the scant record of his activities in the Senate from 1934 until his elevation to the vice-presidency after he got the backing of the late President Roosevelt, the big city bosses and the Southern poll-tax politicians at the 1944 Democratic convention. Congressional Record His record of routine support for “New Deal” measures does not weigh in the scale with his vote on two decisive measures. He voted originally for the Smith-Connally anti-strike law. He supported the last tax bill which Rooseyelt himself was compelled to characterize as “relief for the greedy.” He headed the Senate war investigation committee – which skimmed the surface of some of the more glaring scandals, but did little to halt the more than fifty-billions in graft that Comptroller General Lindsay Warren admitted has been made in this war beyond “reasonable profits.” The real tip-off on Truman’s future policies lies in his associates and advisers and in his relations with Congress. The present Congress, in the opinion of almost every liberal and labor commentator, rates as one of the most reactionary in American history. Truman’s accession to the presidency, according to conservative commentator Arthur Krock, means “that Congressional influence will once again loom large in the American government, and the voice of the Senate will sway Executive decisions.” That is to say, Truman will act in harmony with the reactionary character of Congress. This is more than borne out by the men associated with Truman and those he is expected to draw into his intimate administrative circle in the future. Truman’s Close Advisers First and foremost will be James F. Byrnes, former War Mobilization Director. He was the first man called back to Washington to advise Truman. A hardened Southern “white supremacy” reactionary, a target before his resignation of the most bitter attacks from all sections of the labor movement, Byrnes looms as Truman’s closest and most influential adviser, who is said to be slated for the key post of Secretary of State. Others in the retinue of Truman’s advisers and possible new cabinet members include John Snyder, Hugh Fulton, Robert Hannegan. Snyder is a St. Louis banker, described by one of his friends as “holding about the same views as Emil Schram,” president of the New York Stock Exchange. Fulton was formerly associated with Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine and Wood, a wealthy New York corporation law firm associated with some of America’s most powerful corporations and cartel interests, including U.S. Steel and the House of Morgan. Hannegan is chairman of the Democratic Party National Committee, spokesman for the big city bosses. These few facts cited here give a warning to labor of what it can expect of Truman. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 November 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis GM, UAW Agree on Sliding Scale; Meat Union Forced to End Strike General Motors Forestalls Walkout with 11-Cent Raise (31 May 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 22, 31 May 1948, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Seventy-two hours before the strike deadline set by the CIO United Auto Workers for 225,000 members in 90 GM plants, the General Motors Corporation broke the Big Business front of opposition to any pay increases and agreed to a general wage raise of 11 cents an hour, effective May 28. For the first time in any major union agreement, the proposed new GM contract incorporates the principle of the sliding scale of wages. This will provide automatic wage increases proportional to rising living costs, adjusted every three months on the basis of the cost-of-living figures of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. UAW leaders hail the sliding scale cost-of-living contract, which must go to the GM workers for final ratification, as a “far-reaching victory” for the UAW’s one million members and “for all American workers.” This present attitude of the UAW leaders is surprising in view of the bitter opposition of UAW President Walter Reuther to the sliding scale, principle. At the delegates conference last February and subsequently, Reuther attacked the sliding scale program advanced by five GM local union presidents in Flint. The sliding scale program has long been advocated by The Militant and demanded by UAW progressives, BUT WITH DEFINITE SAFEGUARDS THAT THE GM CONTRACT DOES NOT INCLUDE. GM Feared Strike The action of General Motors was undoubtedly based primarily ch the threat of a strike which, coming simultaneously with the two-week-old walkout of 75,000 Chrysler workers, could easily have developed into a general auto industry strike at the time of the highest profits in its history. The actual immediate wage increase, however, is only about a third of the original demand of the UAW. This called for a total of 30 cents an hour more. The UAW International Executive Board, had adopted a program calling for a flat 25-cent increase in basic pay, plus five cents in fringe demands. Reuther was instrumental in reducing the basic pay demand on GM to 15 cents, offering to settle for this smaller sum if the company granted an “acceptable” pension plan. However, the contract includes none of the vital welfare demands. Nor does it contain any of the essential improvements in grievance procedure and working conditions long sought by GM workers. The contract still contains all the onerous “penalty” clauses and other discriminatory features that have always made the GM contract the most unsatisfactory in the industry. Thus, the UAW leaders have accepted the sliding scale program not as a fortification of, but as a substitute for the needed increase in real basic wages, welfare benefits and grievance improvements. The immediate effect of the GM agreement is to crack the solid front of the big corporations, including U.S. Steel, General Electric, Westinghouse, Ford and Chrysler, against any wage increases. It«, is expected that it will lead to a speedy settlement of the Chrysler strike and possibly the Ford wage negotiations. Chrysler had withdrawn even a miserable 6-cent offer, and Ford had insultingly “offered” a wage cut. The capitalist press has greeted the GM settlement with great misgivings.. Prices have been rising steadily since the commodity market break last February. The ERP and the expanding military budget are expected to give a new impulsion to the inflation. The GM workers are bound to benefit by automatic wage increases during the next two years, the term of the new contract. Here is how the new sliding scale contract will work: The immediate 11-cent increase includes three cents this year for “living-improvement” and eight cents for a cost-of-living adjustment. Another three cents will be added for “living improvement” next year. The eight-cent cost-of-living adjustment can go up or. down according to the movement of living costs. For each two-thirds of a per cent rise in the consumers prices index of the Bureau of Labor Statistics there will be an equivalent rise in the wage rate. That is, if the index rises 1.14 points above the April figure of 169.3, then the auto workers automatically get a one cent pay boost. THERE IS NO CEILING ON UPWARD WAGE ADJUSTMENTS. If prices decline, then there will be an equivalent percentage decline ip the wage scale, BUT NOT MORE THAN A MAXIMUM TOTAL OF FIVE CENTS Thus, even if there should be an unlikely big drop in prices, the GM workers are assured not less than a six cent increase this year, plus three cents more next year. Two “Gimmicks” There are two real “gimmicks” in the contract, however. First, it establishes as the “norm” for real wages (the actual buying power of money wages) the ratio of living costs to money wages in the depressed year of 1940. Secondly, changes in living costs, for the purposes of the sliding wage scale, are based on the unreliable and doctored consumers prices index of the capitalist government. The original UAW demands had called for a 25-cent increase in basic wages to bring the real wages up to the level of real wages at the end of the war.

The original UAW demands had called for a 25-cent increase in basic wages to bring the real wages up to the level of real wages at the end of the war. By arbitrarily going back eight years to August 1940, GM and the UAW negotiators established as a “norm” a figure for real wages which is only eight cents above the existing real wage. But GM hourly wages, before the present increase, were actually 20 to 25 cents below the real wages two years ago. The three cents “improvement” boost was thrown in to cover up the fact that the “cost-of-living” increase of eight cents does not nearly compensate for the actual rise in the cost of living since the end of the war. The extra three cents does not begin to bring the real wages of the GM workers up to the highest previous peak and is only a slight “improvement” over the real wages of nearly a decade ago. Easy to Cheat The consumers prices index of the government, as the union leaders themselves have repeatedly pointed out, is heavily weighted to minimize the real rise in living costs. It will be easy to cheat the GM workers of increases to which they are entitled if the sliding wage scale is based upon a falsified index. The only reliable cost-of-living index would be one maintained by economists and statisticians of the unions themselves. In the wage program of the UAW progressives, the demands were for a 25-cent raise in basic wages to bring real wages up to the highest previous level and for a sliding wage scale to protect these real wages from future price rises. The UAW leaders adopted the first demand and threw out the second. Reuther falsely claimed that the sliding Wage scale did not permit improvements in real wages. Now the UAW negotiators throw out the progressives’ first demand Slid settle for the second, which they had previously rejected. Naturally, in negotiating a sliding scale contract, the workers must be wary of such “gimmicks” as have been incorporated into the GM contract. In taking over the wage program of the UAW progressives, the Reutherites have distorted it and left out the safeguards which the progressives have always included in their sliding scale program. Forward Step However, the principle of the sliding scale of wages represents a great forward step in this period of inflation. It is the indispensable and only immediately effective program to safeguard real wages against constantly mounting prices. This sliding scale program, with all the necessary safeguards included, must become a great unifying and rallying slogan of the union struggle in the coming period of mounting inflation brought on by the new war preparations. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Search for a White House Tenant (8 March 1948) From The Militant, Vol. XII No. 10, 8 March 1948, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Housing shortage got you down? A couple of real estate brokers named Philip Murray and William Green are seeking a new tenant for one of the choicest residences in Washington, D.C. It’s in an exclusive neighborhood, but close to the shopping district. It’s equipped with a new $15,000 balcony for sun-bathing. And it’s rent free – with a $75,000 a year honorarium. Just to help you keep up this elegant joint. But before you start writing any letters like “Dear Sirs: I’m a veteran with a wife and two kids living in a one-room cold-water flat,” you should know there are a few strings attached to the deal. The lease contains a list of restrictive covenants a yard long – and the usual one barring occupancy by “non-Caucasians” is just a starter. Labor leaders, non-believers in capitalist “free enterprise,” working-class radicals of any stripe are strictly verboten. The new tenant must be some solid citizen, with respect for property, law and order and the established two-party system. He must have some good Wall Street references, comport himself in a decorous and conservative fashion, but at the same time be able, when the occasion requires, to talk a polite brand of “liberalism.” Murray & Green, Inc., would prefer, if possible, a tenant of long-standing devotion to the Democratic Party. But a Republican might prove acceptable if he can meet all the other qualifications. There’s one other very important restriction. Opponents of the Truman Doctrine are barred from the start. Anyone who doesn’t stand four-square for American imperialism, support of anti-labor regimes in Europe and preparations for World War III against the Soviet Union had better not send in an application for White House tenancy to Murray & Green, Inc. But, you will probably ask, why arc these real estate brokers – -whose sideline, incidentally, is holding union offices – looking for a new tenant? Don’t they have a desirable tenant in the White House now? Well, yes – and no. If it were altogether up to Murray and Green, they’d renew Harry S. Truman’s lease in a minute, But there’s one further little hitch. The lease to the White House has to be renewed every four years and signed by a majority vote of the American electorate – meaning principally the workers. And Truman, it looks like now, is suffering from an aggravated case of political halitosis. Even his best friends arc beginning to tell him so. So, Murray & Green, Inc., have to scram around at this late date to line up a possible new tenant, acceptable to the landlord, Wall Street, and yet who can turn on the “liberal” charm like a neon sign and attract the labor vote. That kind of tenant is scarce as hen’s teeth today. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Meaning of Justice Douglas’s Speech to the CIO (13 December 1949) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 50, 13 December 1948, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Justice William O. Douglas’s speech to the recent CIO convention was far more than the hypocritical tributes and trite generalities usually bestowed by capitalist politicians on labor audiences. It was a serious attempt by a capable leader of American bourgeois liberalism to provide a rounded and reasoned thesis for the American union leaders. This thesis formulated and justified in theoretical terms their fundamental social philosophy and perspective. That is why CIO President Philip Murray hailed Douglas’s words in such extravagant terms and why the CIO leaders plan to publish the speech and circulate it widely. National Figures The official union leaders in America today rest on the potentially most powerful organised force in the world, the 15 million-member trade union movement. They are conscious of themselves as national figures, wielding immense influence. They have been pushed by social developments and social forces into the sphere of ‘‘labor statesmanship,” in which they arc called upon to present solutions to the basic economic, social and political questions of this country and the World. The need of the union bureaucracy to formulate a fundamental perspective, to justify and defend it, is made especially imperative by the direction in which the ranks of the unions have been traveling with ever more persistence. That is toward a break with capitalist politics. Although they had resisted and obstructed this movement, with all their means, some of the union bureaucrats themselves were forced before the elections to concede the need for a “new party,” even a "labor party.” A Defense The unexpected outcome of the elections – unexpected particularly to the union leaders – has momentarily relieved them of the pressure for a new and fundamental turn in their political policies. But it has not altered the deep underlying forces that produced this pressure. It will be felt with redoubled strength on the morrow. The union bureaucrats, capitalist-minded beneficiaries of the capitalist system, are mindful that now, more than ever before, they must defend their policies before the workers. Douglas’s speech is, in a large sense, that defense. “Today labor stands astride a world fraught with fear,” said Douglas. “It occupies a strategic position in the affairs of nations. By reason of its new strength, it is wooed as it has never been before.” And by virtue of this new strategic position and strength, Douglas concludes, American labor – and by that he means the leaders – “can no longer take refuge in the slogans of bygone days. It cannot indulge the luxury of complete preoccupation with traditional trade-union activities.” No, it is the duty of America to show “how a human welfare state creates health ... show Europe that it need not be the victim of the concept of a class society ... show how a human welfare state has, managed to distribute in an increasingly equitable manner the dividends of modern technology ...” In short, American labor must be “a missionary of the American way of life” to the whole world. “Human Welfare” What is this “human welfare state”? It is already here, according to Douglas, in the United States of America in 1948. It is nothing less than the “classless” state achieved when the “tide of liberalism” from Bryan to Roosevelt finally succeeded in sweeping away “the remaining threats of an industrial serfdom” and “human rights – not property rights alone – became standards of industrial justice.” Unfortunately, stated Douglas, the European workers don’t seem to understand the virtues of this “human welfare state” which Washington seeks to export through the Marshall Plan. They are downright suspicious and even hostile to it. And therefore it becomes necessary for American labor “to bridge the gap that has been growing between the United States and Europe.” If American imperialism cannot speak in its own name, “American labor carries good credentials to western Europe. Doors tightly closed to all others may open at its knock.” The reason for this sad state of affairs in Europe, says Douglas, is that “history has woven the European fabric with a strange twist that has been omitted from our own.” Its development from feudal times “has been based on the concept of ‘class society.’ ... This was the historical condition which Marx – and those socialist writers and thinkers who both preceded and followed him – observed. This then formed the base for their economic thought.” But “the idea of class is foreign to us in this country. We are unable to function on a class basis for the simple reason that it is no part of our tradition ... Man is born here not to class, but to opportunity.” Douglas Thesis In short, what Douglas presents us with is the thesis that American capitalism has solved the problems of human welfare, that it has resolved the class struggle which has torn all other capitalist countries, that it has hit upon a “democratic middle course” – capitalist to be sure – which if spread by American diplomacy, dollars and arms will initiate the “human welfare state” over the entire globe. Let us look more closely at our model “human welfare state” here at home where we have no class struggle and where everything is distributed in an equitable manner. If there is no class struggle, what have beer these truly titanic strike struggles that have swept this country since the end of the war? Why have even the traditionally most conservative workers – railroadmen, printers, AFL longshoremen – been involved in bitter conflicts with the employers and the government? What is this “human welfare state” that still has a Taft-Hartley Law on the books;

What is this “human welfare state” that still has a Taft-Hartley Law on the books; that permits the lynching of Negroes, that can’t find adequate housing for tens of millions, that swings ominously between inflation and depression that conducts Hitler-like “loyalty” purges and witchhunts against political dissenters? This is a country where, in fact, the division between rich and poor has reached extremes never before known – a tiny and ever-narrowing class of multi-millionaires and billionaires on top and a vast mass of wage earners, proletarians – the propertyless – on the bottom. Every day sees a greater and greater concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of an owning few, who control the basic industries, banks, railrdads, utilities, oil and mineral resources, etc. The Depression Even Douglas admits that before the war “the effects of the depression in the 30’s was so severe that the real earnings at that time dropped practically to the level of forty years earlier. One-fifth of our national labor force was idle. The dent in our national income was so great that it completely wiped out the gain in wage rates that had been painfully obtained since the early 1890’s.” Douglas does not say what has happened since the end of the war, but Murray – who is so eager to spread Douglas’s thesis – stated it in cold figures in his official report to the CIO convention. You will find it on page 5 of his printed Report to the CIO under the heading: Percentage Distribution of Our National Income – 1945–1948. The share of all employees in the national income fell from 67.6% in 1915 to 61.2% in 1948 – and this in spite of the greatest strike struggles in American labor history. Imagine how low it would have fallen had this class struggle never taken place! Corporate profits, however, rose in the same four years from 4.8% to 9.1% of the national income. Non-incorporated business profits rose from 9.2% to 11.5%. Farm-owning incomes rose from 6.8% to 8.5%. War Budgets But the depression, relieved only by the forced march of war economy, was a hurdle which Douglas could not evade. He leaped, but stumbled flat on his face. “Violent swings in the business cycle” under capitalism, he maintained, “are not as certain as death or taxes.” And he added, “It is indeed ironical and shocking to conclude that it is only through war that we can get maximum production and full employment.” But that is precisely the case. The “human welfare state” has thus far escaped a terrible postwar depression solely on the basis of swollen government expenditures for armaments. Without the tens of billions being spent annually for both American militarism and “aid” to military dictatorships abroad, American capitalism would right now be in the throes of severe economic convulsions. What in reality is the “human welfare state” we are actually bringing to Europe. Paul Hoffman, Marshall Plan administrator, told the NAM convention last week that the average per capita income in 1947 in Europe “was only $347,” but “if after four years the European average can be raised to $500, that will be the kind of recovery we are thinking about.” The “human welfare state” – maybe in four years – on an average income of less than $10 a week! The Mirror And Europe is the mirror of America’s future. In it we can see the whole lifespan of the capitalist system, which was born and flourished there. There too, bourgeois liberals like Douglas once abounded and spread the thesis of the “classless human welfare state” that would arise on the foundations of the profit system. There too, the reformist labor leaders and the Social-Democrats envisaged the amelioration of the class struggle, its modification and disappearance as capitalism provided an ever-growing abundance for all, But they proved wrong. And American capitalism will follow the European road, if the system is permitted to survive. No, the Murrays and Reuthers will never sell Wall Street’s “human welfare state” to the European workers. And they will not convince the American workers either that we are already enjoying the blessings of such a state here under the domination of monopoly capitalism. Rather, the division between wealth and poverty will grow here. The Truman Administration and bi-partisan Congress will heap new burdens on the masses through an unbridled program of militarism and war preparations. “Classless” America will experience new and greater class struggles between the workers and the capitalists over the distribution of the national income. And there Will be a vast extension of this class struggle into the political arena. In this sense above all we will embrace the “traditions” of Europe – the traditions of Marx and Marxian socialism – of class parties. Social Forces Against the great stream of social forces unleashed by the contradictions and crisis of American capitalism, the thesis of Douglas and the union leaders who seek to float themselves upon it will be swept under. The “human welfare state” will be – can be no other – than a Workers State under the genuinely classless system of socialism. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 28 March 2023

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis What Colonial People Think About the War British Get Little Aid Now from Their Own Subjects (14 February 1942) From The Militant, Vol. VI No. 7, 14 February 1942, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Some of the capitalist press accounts of the Malaya fighting stoop to the absurd in an effort to “explain”, the Japanese military successes. One of the correspondents, for instance, even has it that the Japanese soldiers have the advantage of being “natural” jungle fighters, although most of them have never seen a jungle, being largely farm boys, factory workers, office clerks, etc., of the sort that make up the armies of the western powers. More plausible accounts reiterate the plaint about Japanese “hordes” and “overwhelming superiority of numbers” and “tremendous concentrations” of mechanical equipment. A New York Times story, Jan. 31, reports the extent of these “hordes”. “A British military commentator in London estimated that the Japanese had six full divisions of 100,000 men in Malaya.” But how does it happen that 100,000 men have made such rapid advances against the British who rule over 400,000,000 people in India, Burma and the Malay States? Britain and China As for aircraft, tanks and guns, the British forces in Malaya are far better off in this respect than the Chinese army. “Yet here are the Chinese, who have nothing,” observes the columnist Samuel Grafton in the New York Post, Jan. 15, “killing hell out of the Japanese at Changsha, and filtering toward Canton, while the Malayans, plus Indians, plus Australians, plus British, are backing down the Malay Peninsula toward Singapore. How is it that Chinese ‘natives’ alone” he asks, “are doing better than Malayan natives plus English?” Here is a question which probes deeply into the reasons for, the British defeats. What about the Malayan natives? What role are they playing? Haven’t they heard the message of the “four freedoms?” The dispatches from the Far East don’t say much about the native peoples. But they do contain somé significant hints on the status of affairs. Reports on the Natives Interspersed in the reports from Malay and Burma one reads repeatedly: “British troops most of the time have had to fight blind ... while the Japanese have had aerial observation constantly and the great added advantage of land reconnaissance by their own men slipping through the lines disguised as Malayans or by hirelings among the natives.” (Singapore dispatch, New York Times, Jan. 15) “The Japanese continue to fight largely in plain clothes ... Japanese troops dressed like Malays and riding in small groups on bicycles, as if going to market, have attempted to filter through the British lines.” (Northern Johore dispatch, New York Times, Jan. 21) And from the Maulmein Front, Burma, comes the story: “Fifth columnists aided them (the Japanese), to some extent, in creating general civilian disorganization ... The Japanese dress in the uniforms of prisoners and advance shouting in Burmese, Indian and English. They force natives to shoulder guns and march along with them to give the impression of numerical superiority.” It sounds strange indeed, that the British who have ruled Malaya for a hundred years are so easily fooled by Japanese “disguised as natives”; that the Malayan and Burmese natives don’t tip the British off about these cunning tricks; that ordinary Japanese soldiers tun around “shouting” in three foreign tongues, no less. One is forced to conclude, at any rate, that the native peoples aren’t giving much aid to the British because they are more or less indifferent about the British fight for the “four freedoms?’ Here, then, is a clue to the British difficulties. Afraid to Arm the Native People Moreover, the British show no eagerness to organize and arm the natives in defense of their own land. The London Daily Express, Jan. 15, lamented that: “... here is the great tragedy of Malaya. We could have had a native defense in Malaya ... But a pack of whiskey-swilling planters and military birds of passage have forgotten this side of the Malayan population.” No, they haven’t “forgotten” it. They deliberately obstruct it. An Associated Press dispatch from Singapore on Feb.

An Associated Press dispatch from Singapore on Feb. 6 tells that the Singapore radio has broadcast an appeal “for all able-bodied European civilians” to join the Singapore defense forces, explaining that “the use of only Europeans for this service likely would prevent the Japanese from trying to land disguised as natives.” Surely, one must ask, wouldn’t the advantages of a greatly augmented armed force offset the possibility of a few Japanese infiltrating “disguised as natives”, and wouldn’t aimed Malayans be the best, preventive of such a possibility? Clearly, this is a pretty thin excuse to cover the fact that the British fear aimed natives as much as they do the Japanese. Why? Because the British authorities feel that the native people hate them no less than they fear the threat of the new Japanese masters. We have a good example on a small scale of what has bred that hatred in the following, reported in an Associated Press dispatch from Singapore, New York Times, Feb. 6: The ranking air raid warden in Singapore is quoted as saying: “It’s no use telling the people that Malta has had a thousand raids and they have stuck it, or that Chungking has had worse than we’ve had. Those places have ideal shelters and we have nothing except drains and trenches.” The report comments: “Before the war came to Malaya, authorities here shelved a proposal for deep shelters holding that the terrain was unsuitable and the cost prohibitive.” Naturally, the native people, who are being bombed mercilessly by the Japanese, resent the fact that the British could spend $400,000,000 for a now useless naval base and find the “cost prohibitive” for air raid shelters. And behind this British indifference to the natives’ welfare is what the CBS correspondent Cecil Brown described in the Jan. 12 issue of Life magazine: “Singapore Mentality” “The atrophying malady of dying-without-death best known as the ‘Singapore mentality’, largely helped to bring the Japanese more than 125 miles inside Malaya (early in Jan.). For civilians (British) this walking death is characterized by an apathy to all affairs except making tin and rubber, money, having stengahs (whiskey and soda) between 5 and 8 p.m., keeping fit, being known as ‘a good chap’, and getting thoroughly ‘plawstered’ on Saturday night.” The Singapore authorities reacted to this disclosure by barring Brown’s broadcasts, over the Singapore radio because they were “damaging to the British cause and inimical to the local morale.” Local morale, it seems, is affected by accurate reporting, but not by the lack of air raid shelters or the activities of the British ruling class exclusively devoted to “making tin and rubber, money, having stengahs.” At least one capitalist press commentator, however, has dared to put his finger on the real reason for the British defeats. Samuel Grafton, in the New York Post, Feb. 5, frankly states: “The natives of Malaya did not care whether the British Won or the Japanese won, and refused stoutly to give their all for what the London press calls the ‘whiskey-swilling planters’ ... Singapore needed a layer of freedom around it a couple of hundred miles wide: this is the only kind of Maginot line which works ... “India’s millions, like the Chinese, could pour across that border (Burma) or over the Bay of Bengal, and rip the heart out of the invaders, save the Burma Road, save China, save India, and save freedom, if only they had a portion of freedom to save. “It is not that the Indians are indifferent to the war, or ‘prefer the Japanese’; it is that the spirit of man or dog dies under sufficient cuffing and one gets sick of hearing about how we are going to free countries we don’t have, and won’t free countries we do have.” Yes, it’s hard for the peoples of India, Burma and Malay to get panic-struck at the idea of suffering a new Japanese master, when three centuries of British “civilization” has brought them little more than a 90 per cent illiteracy, a ragged cotton gown or loin-cloth, and an average life expectancy of 21 years. Somehow the message of the Atlantic Charter has failed to reach the lands of the Indian and Pacific Oceans. And if it has, the natives of India, Burma, Malay and the Dutch East Indies are still so largely illiterate that they cannot read it. Some apologists for western imperialism shake their heads at the “stupidity” of the subject peoples in the Far East Who aren’t willing to fight for the “difference” between their present lot and what they will have to suffer under the Japanese imperialists. They cannot understand that the natives’ minds are too occupied with the whip actually slicing across their backs to worry much about a Japanese whip which has not yet struck. The only message that will arouse these subject peoples is the message of independence from all oppressors. Under the banner of national liberation of all the colonial peonies, they would fight and die gladly against the Japanese invaders. But apparently the British government prefers to risk defeat at the hands of the Japanese rather than give up a single one of its colonies to the people who live in them. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 August 2021

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Truman Urges War-Time Air Force Wants to Add Billions of Dollars to Present Huge Military Budget (26 January 1948) From The Militant, Vol. XII No. 4, 26 January 1948, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). American capitalism is gearing its economy and military machine for another world war. That is the clear meaning of the report issued on Jan. 13 by Truman’s Air Policy Commission. This report, released with Truman’s letter of commendation, projects a vast increase in U.S. military air strength. It sets Jan. 1, 1953 as “A-Day” – the dates when American imperialism must be in position to fight an all-out atomic world war. The Air Policy Commission proposes for this purpose that expenditures for the air forces, totaling four billion dollars in 1948, be increased starting this year until they reach an annual total of 11 billion dollars in 1952. Truman – in his 40 billion dollar budget message – asked for more than 11 billion dollars for the military establishment, 28% of the total budget. But his Air Policy Commission the very next day called for an additional sum for military aircraft if more than 1½ billion dollars annually for the next two years. This would bring the direct military budget total in 1949 to 13.2 billion dollars to be increased progressively to 18 billions by 1952. Only the Beginning This is only the beginning, however, as Hanson W. Baldwin, military expert of the N.Y. Times, points out in his Jan. 15 article, Huge Arms Costs Loom. Direct military costs between 1948 and 1952 will range from 15 billions to 25 billions annually – and not the 11 billions Truman told the public in his budget report. Universal compulsory military training as proposed by Truman and the Big Brass will cost two billions a year (400 million dollars in 1949 just “in anticipation,” Truman’s budget message says.) The National Guard is to be brought to a peak strength of 723,000 with a yearly federal expenditure of 700 million dollars. The Army’s Organized Reserve Corps will get 400 million dollars as against 60 million now. No estimates have been made by the Navy of what it is going to demand to bring its forces up to full wartime peak. The Atomic Energy Commission, now operating on a budget of 600 millions, is asking for another 2 billion dollars for production expansion in the next “four or five years.” A five-year program of “strategic stockpiling” of war materials has already been approved by Congress – cost 2.1 billions. Billions more are being asked for various forms of military construction – new National Guard armories (600 million) new transonic and supersonic wind tunnels (500 millions); new laboratories, testing centers and proving grounds for guided missiles and new weapons (500 millions); modernized merchant marine adaptable to war purposes (600 millions). “These lists are by no means complete,” says Hanson Baldwin. What it all adds up to is this: American imperialism is deliberately and systematically preparing for war. The swollen war budget, growing more gigantic each year, prevents any possibility of halting or controlling the price inflation that is tearing down the living standards of the American people. Will Increase Tm Truman’s Air Policy Commission doesn’t only propose to expand the war establishment now but expresses belief that if conditions do change “substantially for the better” by 1950. “the 1950 review will increase the size of the establishment rather than decrease it.” In other words, the present proposals just a beginning! But suppose conditions do change “substantially for the better?” According to the Air Policy Commission (and that’s Truman and the Big Brass speaking), that will make no difference! Because “our will to carry the financial burden, which will increase from year to year for several years, may weaken, especially if we should have a period of depression combined with calculated changes for the better in the public attitude of a possible enemy. That is our gravest danger.” As I.F. Stone commented in the Jan 15 P.M., “Heads or tails, higher appropriations win.” Quick support for the major proposals of the Air Policy Commission is anticipated in Congress from Republicans and Democrats alike. Senator Edwin C. Johnston, Colorado Democrat who has frequently lined up with Taft and the Republicans, has introduced a bill to increase air force appropriations by 4 billions in the next two years. His bill contains no profit-limitations clause. “I just overlooked it,” he breezily told reporters. Quick Support The Republicans, who talk “economy,” are likewise expected to back the demanded gigantic expenditures. In a recent speech in providence, R.I., Senator Taft demonstratively called for an expanded air force. Truman’s war budget, his Air Policy Commission’s report, plus the tremendous increases in military expenditures envisaged in his universal training’ program, reveal the ominous trend. It is the trend to higher and higher prices, to a war-bolstered economy, to scarcity and want, to militarist regimentation, to atomic annihilation. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 6 October 2020

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Labor Faces Deadly Peril of Goverment by Injunction CIO and AFL Heads Follow Do-Nothing Policy in Crisis (5 April 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 14, 5 April 1948, pp. 1 & 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Government by Taft-Hartley injunction threatens the American labor movement with the greatest menace in decades – although the CIO and AFL leaders are lost in a fog of indifference, disunity and inaction. The ugly face of the Slave Labor Law has been revealed in the sweeping strikebreaking injunction issued by a federal court on March 27 against the AFL international Typographical Union and its officers. Machinery for invoking similar injunctions against the striking soft coal miners and CIO meat packing workers has been set in motion by Truman. Far-reaching precedents that can and will be used against the entire union movement have been established in the ITU case. Drastic Rulings In language that covered every conceivable action of the ITU by deed or word, Federal Judge Luther M. Swygert ruled in effect that: ITU and its local unions cannot strike or take any other form of action to enforce demands which might be in violation of the Taft-Hartley Act, even though these are the subject of an unresolved dispute before the National Labor Relations Board. The ITU and its officers may give no aid or encouragement in any form to local unions on strike for demands that might be prohibited by the Taft-Hartley Act. The court, in a further unprecedented move, arrogated to itself the authority of deciding what can and what cannot go into the union contract. Under peril of imprisonment and ruinous fines, the ITU officials, headed by Woodruff Randolph, are in effect, ordered to negotiate contracts that will eliminate the traditional closed shop. Now, the United Mine Workers’ representatives, whose union has already felt the weight of one federal injunction and a $710,000 fine for “contempt,” have been ordered by a federal judge to appear at hearings of Truman’s hand-picked, pro-employer “fact-finding” committee. At the hearing, Lewis insisted that he had not ordered a strike, that the men had walked out spontaneously under the “able and willing” clause of the contract which the mine operators have “dishonored.” The miners, he said, are angry because they have been “goldbricked” by the operators in the matter of the union’s health and welfare fund, from which they have not drawn a penny. While another Truman “fact-finding” committee is clearing the legal path for an injunction against the CIO Packinghouse Workers, local judges are mass-producing anti-picketing restraining orders at the behest of the “Big Four” meat packers. Such injunctions have already been issued in Omaha; St. Paul; Fargo, N.D.; St. Joseph, Mo.; Tifton, Ga.; and Mason City, Iowa. In this hour of deadly peril for labor, the leaders of the CIO and AFL are displaying a criminally sluggish attitude. Not only as between the CIO and AFL, but within these two major organizations there is a total lack of unity of purpose and action. The AFL top hierarchy has hardly lifted a finger in the ITU case. The CIO chieftains are permitting the packinghouse union to stand isolated. Neither group has so much as said a word against the government’s intervention in the miners’ strike. Two Years Ago Only two years ago, organized labor was aggressively on the march, battling on a hundred picket lines. Today, the government is contemptuously clubbing the unions around while the union leaders sit passive and paralyzed, watching labor’s most cherished rights being trampled upon. They are too busy carrying out State Department chores to bother about mobilizing the workers to defend the very life of their unions. These leaders thought they could “come to terms” with the Taft-Hartley Act. They thought by capitulating to the Taft-Hartley “yellow dog” oaths and playing deaf and dumb maybe the unions could ignore the Taft-Hartley Law. But it isn’t ignoring them. Great Danger Unless the whole labor movement joins forces in action around a unified program of struggle, the unions are in great danger. The injunction against the ITU, the government’s moves against the miners and packinghouse workers, are a LATE warning. There is no time to lose. A Congress of Labor, with full rank and file representation of the CIO, AFL, Railroad Brotherhoods and independents, must be summoned as speedily as possible. A unified program and strategy of action to fight the Taft-Hartley Law, to halt government by injunction for a unified wage fight must be mapped out. The union ranks must demand that their leaders stop peddling the Marshall Plan patent medicine and get on the job of leading labor’s fight for existence. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis First Anti-Strike Law Victim Appeals to Labor from Prison (8 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 24, 16 June 1945, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). UNIONTOWN, Pa., June 8 – I am writing this in white-hot anger. Just a half hour ago I talked with a courageous, loyal and sincere union man, William Patterson, coal miner from Daisytown. He was locked behind the grey walls and thick black iron bars of the Fayette County prison here. He is American labor’s first imprisoned victim of the vicious Smith-Connally anti-strike act. I hope I can transmit my feeling of protest and outrage to every worker in this country. Because after talking to him this morning inside his grim prison, I am more convinced than ever that not Bill Patterson but those who framed him up and conspired against him are the ones who should be behind bars. “This is not a case just of personal persecution,” was the first thing he said to me in his quiet, firm voice with a trace of southern accent. “This case involves all labor. It affects every laboring man who ever comes under the conditions of the Smith-Connally act. It would take his civil rights away, his freedom of speech and make him an industrial slave.” Threat to Others His very next thoughts were not about himself, but the 29 other union miners who have had a suspended sentence hanging over their heads since the 1943 national mine strikes when 30 miners from this area were tried under the federal anti-strike law. They were persuaded to plead no contest of the charges and convicted under the most vicious anti-labor law of modern times. “The labor movement should contest the constitutionality of this bill. What I’m afraid of is the threat against the others who were involved in the 1943 trial. They treated me pretty salty when they said I violated my probation when my local went on strike last February and May. But what I’m worried about is the other poor devils. My case sets a precedent which may leave them in a hell of a shape.” He then told me a few facts about his case. “There were 27 of us called before a judge on August 27, 1943. There were 30 supposed to come up, but three had been hurt in the mine, and were not tried until later. We never did have any jury trial. We had been indicted by a grand jury that we never even saw. All the testimony came from other people. But we were advised by our lawyers to plead nolo contendere – no contest – and threw ourselves on the mercy of the court.” He continued with the circumstances of his imprisonment after a hearing on June 1 for alleged violation of his probation. “They had 11 strikes chalked up against me when I appeared at the hearing. There were a bunch of men from the mine (Jones and Laughlin Steel Corp’s Vesta No. 4, Richeyville, Pa.) to testify that I wasn’t responsible for the strikes, but the judge wouldn’t let them testify. I told the judge that every man was essential to the other in the mine, and I couldn’t work when a strike was on, even if I wanted to. But I guess they wanted a test case and I was a victim of circumstances, so I’m it.” I knew every word he spoke was the truth. I had confirmed it in advance from the officers of UMW Local 2399 at Richeyville where I had attended the union meeting on June 3, the day after Bill was sent to prison. He had been snatched without warning from his wife and two children and shot off to jail after a speedy hearing on June 1. As he spoke, I peered closely through the heavy steel screen and poor light at the man I had come hundreds of miles to interview so that he might have the chance for the first time to tell in his own words the story that the big-business press and anti-labor government officials have tried to misrepresent and bury. He stood within a foot or so of me, with just the screen separating our faces, close so that we could see and hear each other. Against the dim background of the four-story barn-like prison interior, with its lines of cells in tiers along the sides, I saw a tall, slim, dark-haired man dressed in a green jacket and tan work trousers. His features were handsome even strong, and he looked much younger than his 39 years. His face revealed intelligence and firm character and his flashing black eyes looked straight into mine as he spoke quietly, but with deep conviction and feeling. Rapid Interview We had to talk fast, because the prison regulations permitted him only 15 minutes with a visitor, although the local prison officials stretched it. a bit to permit me to finish the interview. I shot a list of prepared questions at him. He answered every question without hesitation During the entire interview there was not a trace of self- pity in anything he said. He was clearly a fighter and a man who understands that he went to prison for a principle in the cause of labor. “I don’t regret a thing I did for the union,” he stated firmly. “I’m a victim of persecution, but I’d conduct the same fight all over again. And when I get out, I’m going to keep up the fight.” At this point, his voice bad the only slight tremor in it during the entire conversation. He was obviously swept with deep emotion when he said: “I was always honest and sincere about everything I did for the union. And I’m going to continue to be so.” From what his union brothers had told me about him, the respect they held for him, I knew he meant it from the bottom of his heart.

And I’m going to continue to be so.” From what his union brothers had told me about him, the respect they held for him, I knew he meant it from the bottom of his heart. Patterson’s Life Then he told me a few facts about his life. “I’ve worked 22 years in the mines, since I was 17 years old. I’ve worked 17 years in that one mine at Richeyville. When I first started in the mines, back in 1923, I joined the union, and I’ve stuck with the union ever since.” With justifiable pride in his fighting union record, he said: “I’ve been in every strike in the mines since 1923. The longest I was ever out was in 1940 – six weeks. I’ve been through some pretty tough times and had plenty of close shaves in the mines, but I was lucky to get off with only slight injuries.” He spoke about his wife, Ruby, who comes from a West Virginia miner’s family. “I was never put out on the roadside myself, but my wife’s family was put out of their house in the 1922 strike and they lived in a tent on the mountain-side for seven months.” His father was in the mines before him, Bill explained. He was born in Virginia, of old American stock. “My ancestors came to this country long before the American Revolution. Why, they fought in the American Revolution. And no one can ever accuse me of any un-American activities.” For all his courageous attitude, I could see that being in a prison was a terrible ordeal for him, a humiliating experience for a man of his self-respect, who had worked hard all his life. Never Arrested I started to ask, “Have you ever before been – “ He broke in, his lips smiling. “I know what you want to ask, have I ever been in jail before? No – never! I’ve never been arrested.” I could feel his deep hurt at the unjust blot which the enemies of labor have tried to put on his record. Some people might say, well it’s only for six months. But that’s six months stolen from a man’s life, a man who values freedom and has fought for it all his life. I was in that prison only half an hour, and I confess I couldn’t wait to get out. I promised not to ask any questions. about the conditions there. But I could see it was no better nor worse than most county prisons. The prison attendant informed me that the Fayette County institution is over 50 years old. Outside, it is built like an imitation Gothic church. Inside, it is dim, bare, cold – a forbidding place of grey stone and iron. It’s a place where you do “hard time.” But there was no complaint from Bill. The only time a note of bitterness entered his voice was when he spoke of the UMW district officials, who let him “take the rap” and have been maintaining a “hand’s off” policy. “It seems that the UMW officials are afraid to stick their necks out. The district officials (Dist. 5, UMW) have made damn fools out of themselves and possibly a martyr out of me.” He spoke not out of concern for himself, but out of pride for the union which he felt the top officials were hurting by their attitude in his case, which grew out of an anti-labor law that was directed in the first instance against the UMW itself. Just before the time was up, he asked me to give a message to his union brothers of Local 2399 who have voted to back him 100 per cent and have established a fund to keep his family as long as he is in prison with the same amount of money they would have received if he had been working. “Tell all the men to keep up the good fight. And tell them how much I appreciate their support and the help they are giving my family, who are being made to suffer for something they had no part in. Let the boys keep on pitching, and I will sure as hell run a few bases when I serve this time.” That’s the spirit that has built the American labor movement, so a working man can lift up his head. That’s the spirit that the Smith-Connally law was intended to crush. For as Bill Patterson emphasized, it’s not just a “personal case.” There will be many more Bill Pattersons, if the whole labor movement is not aroused to protest, if it fails to fight to free the honest union man, Bill Patterson, and to deal with the real criminals the profiteering crooks, labor exploiters and their political henchmen who conspired to make him an “example” and threw him behind prison bars. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 November 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Striking Miners Stand Firm for Social Demands (20 April 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 16, 20 April 1946, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). APRIL 13 – The 400,000 soft coal miners on strike since April 1 mean business about securing their precedent-making social demands before they will even consider the question of wages. This was brought home sharply to the stunned mine operators when AFL United Mine Workers President John L. Lewis and the UMW negotiating committee dramatically broke off negotiations on April 10 and stalked out of the conference room. “We trust that time, as it shrinks your purse, may modify your niggardly and anti-social propensities,” declared Lewis at the conclusion of a scathing statement he read to the operators just preceding his walkout. From the very start of the mine union negotiations, the UMW representatives have insisted on the consideration of a series of life-and-death social demands going far beyond the wage question. What Demands Mean These are directed at eliminating the terrible toll of accidents in American mines; providing adequate health, medical and sanitation facilities in the filthy, decrepit company towns; ensuring the welfare of miners’ widows and orphans; compensating the injured and their families; restricting the price-gouging in the monopoly company stores and rent-gouging on company-owned dwellings. To all these vital demands of the miners the smug, grasping operators replied that the mine union committee was merely bringing up “time-killing trivia with the obvious intent of stalling negotiations and creating a national crisis.” Terrible Toll These “trivia,” as Lewis demonstrated at the very opening of negotiations, include the slaughter of 28,000 miners and injury of more than a million in the past 14 years. This casualty list comes from the refusal of the operators to provide proper safety equipment, their resistance to mine inspection and safety laws, their control of state inspection boards. These “trivia” include scores of thousands of widows and orphans left to starve because the operators have blocked compensation laws. They include disease-ridden, insanitary communities and “homes” because many operators will not use their huge profits to provide even a semblance of modern sanitation and health facilities for their company towns. The miners are determined to secure decent conditions first of all through a welfare fund, provided from the, operators’ profits, which the union itself will control. They are demanding safety equipment at operators’ expense. They insist that the operators provide them such “trivia” as running water, bath facilities, garbage collection and sewage disposal. Company Stores They are seeking an end to the extortionate prices of the company stores through a 10 per cent discount on all purchases at present price levels and 20 per cent on mine clothes and equipment. As Lewis charged, the 3,600 mining company owned stores “were inferior in service and in goods because competition is eliminated and thus prices are high.” Lewis minced no words in characterising the smug attitude of the wealthy operators towards these “trivia.” “When we sought surcease from blood-letting you professed indifference. When we cried aloud for the safety of our members you answer ‘Be content – ’twas always thus’ ... When we emphasized the importance of life you pleaded the priority of profits; when we spoke of little children in unkempt surroundings you said, ‘Look to the State.’” Bread and Roses Now the operators are complaining that they are willing to give the miners the highest pattern of wage increases but have been “refused with abuse.” The miners answer, in the words of the old labor song, “We want bread, but we want roses too.” If they win their social demands, they will set an example for the rest of American labor that may have far-reaching progressive consequences. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 16 October 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Henry Wallace – His Record as Capitalist Politician (8 March 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 10, 8 March 1948, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Henry, Agard Wallace is a middle-class, capitalist politician who feeds on liberal-sounding words. These he chews over like a cow does its cud. He never tires of the flavor of such phrases as the “Common Man,” the “General Welfare” and “Progressivism.” And who dares oppose these? Liberal phonies always use such glittering generalities. Only Wallace repeats them more often, more vaguely and more shamelessly. This windy demagogy is the foundation of his reputation as a “Champion of the People.” Fortunately, we are not forced to judge him by words alone. Wallace has had ample opportunity to demonstrate in deeds his self-proclaimed love for the “common man.” He was a top figure in the government for 13½ years and once bore the proud title of Roosevelt’s “Crown Prince.” In all those years he did not do a single thing of benefit for the “common man” – not for the workers, the Negro people, the poor farmers and sharecroppers or the small business man. His deeds in office were an unbroken chain of reaction. That is a matter, of public record, if not of public knowledge. Most of the facts have now been conveniently compiled in a book, Henry Wallace – The Man and the Myth by Dwight Macdonald. (Vanguard Press, Inc., New York City). Wallace was the Roosevelt administration’s loudest warmonger, jingo and apologist for U.S. imperialist participation in World War II. He was a member of Roosevelt’s secret policy group that initiated the development of the atomic bomb. He hailed this most fiendish instrument of war as a major triumph of Roosevelt and the “New Deal.” He upheld Roosevelt’s wartime demand for Saudi Arabian oil, boasting this “was not ruthless imperialism but good old-fashioned American imperialism” and “the United States: is proud of it.” He defends to this day the dismemberment of Germany, starvation rations for the German people and continued ruthless military occupation of the conquered countries. “World Peace” Formula His “anti-imperialist” program, stated most fully and crudely in his Madison Square Garden speech in September 1946 calls for an agreement between Washington and the Kremlin to divide the world between them. That is his formula for “world peace.” Here are some highlights of his record on the “common man” at home: He put through, as Secretary of Agriculture, a program of “planned scarcity,” whereby the big landowners were paid to destroy crops and livestock to boost prices in a world of unemployment and hunger. He fired his own “New Deal” colleagues out of the Department of Agriculture at the behest of cotton speculators, textile interests and the reactionary Farm Bureau of big landowners. He falsely interpreted a clause in the Agricultural Adjustment Act. to permit wealthy landowners to reduce acreage by evicting thousands of tenant-farmers and sharecroppers. He repudiated, at the climax of the 1946 General Motors strike, a confidential report of Commerce Department economist’s which he himself had released before the strike and which showed that the auto corporations could raise wages 10% without raising prices. He demanded, just after the 1946 coal strike, that the government take over strike-threatened industries and that the workers, “like other federal employeee, give up the right to ... strike.” He rudely refused to see a Negro delegation and sneaked out on them when they came to appeal for aid in saving the life of the Virginia sharecropper Odell Waller, who was later executed for his self-defense slaying of a white man. He surrounded himself, as Secretary of Commerce, with a retinue of conservative big businessmen and proclaimed himself “the representative of business in government.” Defends Profit System He has championed consistently but one program, “the preservation of our democratic free enterprise system” – that is, the capitalist exploitation of labor for private profit. These fully documented damning facts go unchallenged and unmentioned in an attempted reply to Macdonald’s book in a review by Russell Lord in the March 1 New Republic, Wallace’s mouthpiece. Lord treats us to the worshipful disciple’s fanciful portrait of Wallace, “profoundly simple, profoundly practical ... it is certain he will keep growing.” Lord concerns himself chiefly with heated denials of the least important aspects of Macdonald’s book, his psychological and moral appraisals of Wallace. The record cited by Macdonald shows that Wallace is a “trimmer, hedger and chronic reneger” who “lacks the guts to stand up under pressure.” But Macdonald overemphasizes personal quirks and traits and leaves out the key to a real understanding of Wallace. That key is the class character of Wallace, his politics and his movement. In every major test of his career Wallace has proved himself a loyal defender of capitalism and American imperialism. From 1933 to 1940, when Wallace headed the Department of Agriculture, he faithfully served the rich landowners against the poor farmers, tenant-farmers, sharecroppers and low-wage consumers. He worked most closely with the Farm Bureau Federation, the lobby of the “400-acre farmers.” The Farm Bureau’s 1,800 county agents became the local agents of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA). The AAA paid landowning farmers to withdraw a portion of their land from cultivation in order to reduce crops and raise prices. But the majority of farmers are tenants and sharecroppers and only landowners received benefits.

The landowners. first withdrew from production land occupied by tenants and share-croppers. These not only were deprived of a livelihood, but were kicked out of their homes. Wallace’s Sell-Out A clause in the AAA contract said that the landlord “shall permit all tenants to continue in occupancy of their houses on this farm, rent free, for the years 1934 and 1935.” The Southern Tenant Farmers Union protested there were hundreds of evictions in spite of this clause. Wallace fired several of his aides who supported the tenants. He said the clause did not mean the same tenants must remain, only the same number of tenants. The Arkansas courts promptly accepted his interpretation and upheld hundreds of evictions. Ten years later, when he was Secretary of Commence, Wallace followed similar policies. He appointed as his undersecretary Alfred Schinder, a conservative big businessman who had previously served under banker Jesse Jones. Another ton job went to Albert J. Browning, who called for incentive wages. Wallace brushed aside the small business interests who sought his aid against the monopolies. The May 20, 1945 N.Y. Times published a special article describing the surprise and pleasure of Big Business at Wallace’s policies. While Vice President, from 1940 to 1944, Wallace destroyed any claim he might have to being “anti-war” and “anti-imperialist.” He served the special role of whitewashing the imperialist character of the war and dressing up its sordid aims. In his highly-publicized address on the “People’s Century,” he lied about the war as a “people’s war,” even a “people’s revolution,” whose aim was to bring a quart of milk a day to every child in the world. Today, as we all know, not the least result of the war has been to bring starvation and death to millions of children in Europe and Asia. Deal with Stalin Wallace’s campaign for a deal with Russia and his expulsion from the Truman, administration over this issue has led to the charge that he is “pro-Russian” and a “Communist fellow-traveller.” Macdonald’s crude Stalinophobia and lack of a class approach to politics leads him to make similar charges. Wallace is just as much an American imperialist today as he was during the war. He is no more “pro-Russian” than were the capitalist politicians – from the White House down – who whitewashed the crimes of Stalin during wartime, just as the Stalinists whitewashed Wall Street and its chief political agent, Roosevelt. Wallace, today asks no more than Roosevelt and Churchill agreed to, in essence, at Teheran and Yalta, and Truman underwrote , at Potsdam. He wants to give American capitalism a breathing spell through another deal with Stalin to divide the world into “spheres of influence.” Wallace’s differences with Truman are tactical, not fundamental. What Wallace wants he stated in his Madison Square Garden speech, on Sept. 12, 1946. He declared that “by mutual agreement, this competition should be put on a friendly basis” and mutual fears should be “allayed by practical regional political reservations.” These “regional reservations”, he stated, would include the one-third of the world which “Russian ideas ... are going to govern” and “much of the rest” of the world where “American Ideals” will rule, This is dirty horse-trading disguised as a “peace” program. It is Wallace’s chief plank today – the most he has to offer the “Common Man.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Miners Defy Federal Strikebreaking Ignore Injunction Order; Lewis Threatened with Citation for “Contempt” (6 April 1924) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 15, 12 April 1948, p. 1. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). APRIL 6 – True to their fighting traditions, the country’s 400,000 soft coal miners have defied the government’s Taft-Hartley injunction commanding them to “cease” their pension strike and “immediately” return to work, Instead, thousands of hard coal miners have also walked out in support of their fellow members. A compliant federal judge, Justice Matthew F. McGuire of the United States District Court in Washington, issued the strikebreaking order on April 3, within a few hours after Truman directed Attorney General Clark to seek and anti-strike restraining order under the Taft-Hartley Slave Labor Law. The order not only bans the strike until April 13, when hearings on a permanent injunction will be completed, but demands that Lewis “instruct forthwith” the miners to go back to the pits. Stands Firm To date, Lewis has not complied. He has consistently maintained that he did not call the strike. He repeated this in a letter to the mine locals on the day the injunction was issued, stating further that “any action or decision which you may now care to take continues to be entirely of your own determination.” Even the Taft-Hartley Act specifically says that “nothing in this act shall be construed to require an individual employee to render labor or service without his consent ... nor shall any court issue any process to compel performance by an individual employee of such labor or service without his consent.” The government, however, has another ace – the same one it pulled from its sleeve in the 1946 injunction case – “contempt of court” action. In that former case, it was claimed that a union must obey a federal court injunction – even an illegal one – or be subject to “contempt” charges. The judge who issues the injunction, acting as his own prosecutor and jury, can rule the union and its officers in “contempt” and throw the book at them. Attorney General Clark has already initiated “contempt” proceedings against the union and Lewis. The miners and their officers face the threat of harsh penalties, such as the $3,500,000 fine ordered by Federal Judge Goldsborough in 1946, later reduced to $710,000. There is not a shred of evidence that Lewis or the union have violated even the existing Slave Law or the contract in any meaning within the law. The sole contention of Truman’s “fact-finding’’ committee, which “found” against the miners, is that Lewis “induced’’ the miners to strike by the fact of writing them a letter which stated that the operators had “dishonored” the contract by sabotaging the use of the welfare fund. It is, of course, true that the miners have a binding tradition, “No contract, no work.” For them a dishonored contract is no contract at all. What infuriates the employers and their government stooges is the iron-clad solidarity of the miners, their unshakable discipline in action – a magnificent example for the whole labor movement. The government is bringing all its power to bear on tile miners to destroy that solidarity. Once again, and in the clearest fashion, the government has revealed its capitalist class nature. The courts are shown once more to be mere tools of the employing class. The entire course of the government and its agencies has been crudely biased in favor of the operators, at whose nod the federal strikebreaking machinery was set in motion. But the miners’ struggle now far transcends the immediate issues involved. They are spearheading the fight of the whole labor movement against the deadly menace of the Taft-Hartley Law and government by injunction. They are battling for the most precious right of labor – the right to strike. Everyone – that is, everyone but the narrow-minded top leaders of the CIO and AFL – understands that the miners are engaged in a struggle whose outcome will have far-reaching implications for every union and every worker. Yet, because of their organizational conflicts with Lewis, the CIO and AFL leaders haven’t said one word against this infamous government strikebreaking. They have not uttered one protest while the government sharpens the Taft-Hartley knife on the miners to make it keener for the throat of the whole labor movement. It was shameful that the CIO and AFL leadership offered nothing more than token protests when the AFL International Typographical Union was clubbed by the Taft-Hartley Law and. a federal injunction. In the face of the further and even more venomous attack on the miners, their silence and inaction is downright criminal. Every local union should immediately adopt resolutions of support for the miners. The union ranks everywhere should vigorously demand that their national leaders call an immediate conference of the CIO, AFL and mine unions to map out a joint program of action to stop government by injunction and smash the Slave Labor Law. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller United Labor Conference Urged by UAW Officers Seek Joint Action Program to Fight Anti-Union Drive (8 June 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 23, 8 June 1946, pp. 1 & 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). A proposal for a national united labor conference of all unions, AFL, CIO and Railroad Brotherhoods, to initiate joint action against enactment of anti-labor legislation by Congress and President Truman, was announced on May 27 in Detroit by CIO United Automobile Workers President Walter P. Reuther. This proposal, Reuther stated, is backed by the top officers of the UAW-CIO. This is the most positive answer that has yet come from any American union leaders in response to the urgent demand from labor’s ranks for effective united action to beat back the increasingly violent anti-labor offensive of Big Business and its government. This offensive has been climaxed by Truman’s call for a draft-strikers law and Congressional passage of the infamous Case Union-Busting Bill. Foreseeing the tremendous struggle impending at the very start of the Big Business-government drive against labor after V-J Day, The Militant last September 15, 1945, first urged: “Right now one of the most reactionary Congresses in American history is debating problems affecting the destinies of scores of millions. These millions have no genuine voice in the legislative halls and no means of bringing direct immediate and concentrated pressure to bear. The obvious and crying need is for the mobilization of organized labor’s power in Washington through a National Labor Congress representing every union local and labor body in the United States.” On September 15, 1945, the UAW General Motors delegates conference in Detroit adopted a resolution urging the International Union to initiate a Congress of Labor. This proposal was not seriously pressed at the time. Events of the past few weeks in connection with the breaking of the railroad strike and action on the Truman and Case bills have brought the question forward with greater force than ever. In his statement last week, Reuther said: “The top officers of the UAW-CIO today decided to ask President Philip Murray of the CIO to take immediate steps to bring about joint action by all organized labor to prevent passage in the Senate of restrictive labor legislation proposed Saturday to Congress by President Harry S. Truman. “Vice President Richard T. Leonard and R.J. Thomas agreed with me to ask President Murray to confer immediately with officers of the American Federation of Labor and the railroad brotherhoods to plan the calling at the earliest possible date of a national united labor conference for the specific purpose of combating President Truman’s proposals and all other restrictive legislation aimed at labor now pending in the Congress.” Prior to Reuther’s announcement, a resolution had been adopted on May 23 by Detroit Briggs Local 212, which embodied proposals made by Emil Mazey, former Local 212 president and newly-elected member of the UAW International Executive Board. Mazey, a leading UAW militant who spoke against the no-strike pledge and for a labor party at the 1943 UAW convention, was attending his first general membership meeting since his return from Army duty in the Philippines and Okinawa. The Militant hails the UAW’s proposal for united labor action and urges all unionists to call upon their leaders to take immediate steps for the convening of a National United Conference of Labor. United labor action is the most imperative need today in the face of the concerted attacks of Big Business and its government upon the fundamental rights of the working people. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 24 December 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Why the Prosecution? To Aid Tobin, Attack War Opposition, Set Anti-Labor Precedent Government Masks These Real Reasons Behind ‘Seditious Conspiracy’ Charge (1 November 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 44, 1 November 1941, p. 5. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). According to the official federal indictment and recent statements by the prosecution, the Roosevelt administration is trying to convict and imprison the 28 defendants in the Minneapolis ‘sedition’ trial because they “did feloniously conspire ... to destroy by force the Government of the United States of America ...” But all the evidence of the public record and the circumstances and statements leading up to the opening of the trial indicate that this was not the reason for this indictment being handed down at this time. Rather, the evidence shows that the government was trying to achieve three ends by the indictment and the prosecution: To aid Daniel J. Tobin, AFL teamster chief, in his fight to prevent the members of Local 544 from exercising their democratic right to belong to the union of their own choice, and to strike a blow at the leaders of this union who were noted for their opposition to all moves to stifle the militancy of the labor movement in the name of “national defense”; To terrorize, isolate and, if possible, suppress the party which proclaimed its irreconcilable opposition to the war and the warmongers; And to establish a precedent which will be used against all working class opponents of the war in the future. The government comes into this trial “with unclean hands” because in its haste to achieve these ends, and especially the first, its true intentions were made manifest by the statements issued by the prosecution and Tobin, statements which are a matter of public record. Background of Trial The immediate circumstance which inspired the administration to undertake this prosecution when it did was the conflict between the Minneapolis truck drivers union, Local 544, and Tobin, climaxed on June 9 when over 4,000 Local 544 members voted to disaffiliate from the AFL and join the CIO. Tobin, a staunch supporter of the Roosevelt administration, had declared himself unconditionally pledged to the war aims and policies of the government. Furthermore, he had publicly declared that adherence to his pro-war policies were a condition for continued membership in the AFL Teamsters, and that the members of the union must be prepared to make “sacrifices” in the interests of the war program. The leaders of Local 544, several of whom had been known for years to Tobin and the labor movement at large as members of the Socialist Workers Party or sympathetic to its ideas, had condemned the war as a war for bosses’ profits and had advocated that the unions maintain a militant policy in defense of the workers interests despite war. When these leaders refused to abide by Tobin’s ultimatum that they renounce their anti-war convictions, and his further edict that they agree to the establishment of a Tobin receivership over their local, Tobin sought to dust them. This move was frustrated when the local’s members voted to join the CIO. Roosevelt Intervenes Four days later, Tobin addressed a direct telegraphic appeal to Roosevelt, urgently requesting his aid against the dissident local. He declared in part: “The withdrawal from the International Union by the truckdrivers union, Local 544 and one other small union in Minneapolis, and their affiliation with the CIO is indeed a regrettable and dangerous condition. The officers of this local union ... were requested to disassociate themselves from the radical Trotsky organization ... we feel that while our country is in a dangerous position, those disturbers who believe in the policies of foreign, radical governments must be in some way prevented from pursuing this dangerous course ...” (New York Times, June 14, 1941) On the very same day that he received Tobin’s appeal, Roosevelt acted. Through his secretary, Stephen Early, Roosevelt issued a statement to the White House press conference, which acknowledged Tobin’s telegram and recognized Tobin’s claim that the Teamsters’ international leadership was being fought “by all subversive organizations and all enemies of the government, including Bundists, Trotskyists and Stalinists” because Tobin and his colleagues “have been and will continue to stand squarely behind the government.” Early then added: “When I advised the President of Tobin’s representations this morning, he asked me to immediately have the Government departments and agencies interested in this matter notified, and to point out that this is no time, in his opinion, for labor unions, local and national, to begin raiding one another for the purpose of getting memberships or for similar reason.” (New York Times, June 14). Three things are established by these statements: Tobin appealed to Roosevelt for aid on the basis that this was a “political favor” owed him for his support of the administration and its war program. Roosevelt acted promptly on behalf of Tobin at Tobin’s direct request. Roosevelt’s immediate specific actions were to condemn the CIO for “raiding”, without any further inquiry into the situation, and to instruct the “Government departments and agencies interested in this matter” to assist Tobin. The FBI Acts Within a few days these “departments and agencies” did act. On June 27, FBI agents raided the headquarters of the SWP in Minneapolis and St. Paul, seizing copies of works by Marx, Lenin and Trotsky and various publications of the party, all of which are on public sale everywhere. Announcement was then made that these publicly available books and publications would be used as “evidence” in a federal prosecution against members of the Socialist Workers Party. Attorney General Biddle, who was subsequently to brazenly deny that the prosecution had any connection with the fight between Tobin and Local 544, declared on the day of the FBI raids that “the principal Socialist Workers Party leaders against whom prosecution is being brought, are also leaders of Local 544-CIO in Minneapolis ...

Attorney General Biddle, who was subsequently to brazenly deny that the prosecution had any connection with the fight between Tobin and Local 544, declared on the day of the FBI raids that “the principal Socialist Workers Party leaders against whom prosecution is being brought, are also leaders of Local 544-CIO in Minneapolis ... and have gained control of a legitimate labor union to use it for illegitimate purposes.” (Minneapolis Star-Journal, June 28) The St. Paul Dispatch, a representative organ of the conservative business interests in the Twin Cities, announced that an indictment was being prepared against the Socialist Workers Party, with the revealing headline: “U.S. TO PROSECUTE 544.” But Biddle hastened to lie: “The prosecution is not in any sense an attack on organized labor, nor is it an effort to interfere in a dispute between labor organizations.” However, in reporting this very statement of Biddle’s, the Minneapolis Star-Journal, June 28, added that the federal officials themselves had admitted that “the criminal proceedings were stimulated by the bolt of former leaders of General Drivers’ Union 544 from AFL to CIO.” First Main Reason for the Prosecution The facts are iron-clad. The initial purpose of the prosecution was to aid in the crushing of an influential and powerful sector of the trade union movement because of its opposition to the Tobin dictatorship on the question of labor’s policies in the war. There was, it is then apparent, no question of “seditious conspiracy” involved in the events leading up to the opening of the prosecution by the Roosevelt administration. That came later when the prosecution saw that it would have to cover up its real motives. Second Main Reason The second reason for the prosecution was purely political and stemmed from the administration’s decision to use this case for an attack on the Socialist Workers Party because of its outspoken opposition to the imperialist war. This was explicitly admitted by Biddle who stated: “The principal basis for the prosecution is found in the Declaration of Principles adopted by the Socialist Workers Party in January 1938.” (Minneapolis Tribune, June 28) Biddle then made specific reference to those sections of the Declaration which read: “If, in spite of the efforts of the revolutionists and the militant workers, the U.S. government enters a new war, the SWP will not, under any circumstances, support that war but will, on the contrary, fight against it.” There was nothing secret or “conspiratorial” about this Declaration. It was made public three and a half years before the indictment was drawn. It is the expression of political opinions and, as such, the SWP and the defendants had, and have, the constitutional right to express them. But the indictment itself, handed down two weeks later, had nothing whatever to say about “the principal basis for the prosecution.” As a matter of fact it does not even contain the word war. The prosecution acted hastily in its eagerness to help Tobin before it was too late to help him effectively, and it blurted out some truths. Afterwards, they realized that it would not be very easy under the circumstances to get convictions on the basis of the defendants’ anti-war policies, for millions of others share their opposition to the war and would rally to their defense on this basis. Unable to tell the truth about why he was prosecuting the Socialist Workers Party and trying to divert attention away from the obvious fact that the fight between Tobin and 544 had been the initial impulse for the action by the FBI and the Department of Justice, Biddle had to cook up the “seditious conspiracy” charge. To find a legal basis for such a charge, the Department of Justice had to disinter two federal statutes which had never previously been used and which are in clear violation of the guarantees of free speech and free press contained in the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution. One of these statutes is the Smith Act of 1940, which makes the mere expression of revolutionary ideas a felony; and the other is a similar statute enacted in 1861 for use against the Southern Confederacy during an actual armed rebellion. The American Civil Liberties Union, which is actively supporting the defendants in this ease, addressed a letter on August 20 to Biddle, which said: “In our judgment both these statutes violate the First Amendment. of the Constitution; and even if upheld could not be applied to this set of facts under the ‘clear and present’ danger rule.” Third Reason for the Prosecutions But the government wants to get a conviction precisely on the basis of these unconstitutional statutes, because it wants a legal precedent for the future prosecution of any individuals or groups whose opinions the administration deems hostile to its war program. That this was one of the major reasons for the prosecution was indicated by Biddle himself, who was quoted in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. June 28, as stating that this prosecution was to be the first step in a nationwide drive against “dangerous radicals.” “It is a fair inference,” said Department of Justice officials, according to the Pioneer Press, “that the St. Paul prosecutions may be followed by others in other parts of the country.” And Assistant Attorney General Schweinhaut, one of the government prosecutors who signed the indictment, said: “We cracked down here first. Mr. Biddle has said this is only a start. So you can expect other actions to follow shortly.” (St. Paul Dispatch, June 28) There are those in “liberal” circles who say that the Minneapolis case is not important, that the government is not “serious” in its prosecution, that little or nothing will come of it. But they are refuting the facts leading up to the indictment, by the desperate lengths to which Biddle and the prosecution have gone in attempting to hide their real reactionary motives, by the obvious contradictions in the statements explaining the reasons for the trial, by the glaring inconsistencies between these statements and the indictment. No administration would go to such lengths or place itself in such a compromising position unless it was in deadly seriousness.

determined to go through with the case and secure convictions, if only to take the curse off what it has already done and “justify” its course up to now. Most decisive of all is the fact that the Roosevelt administration is serious about the war, and it is serious, therefore, about getting a conviction in this case as an important part of its war preparations. Let there be no mistake about it. The government is in deadly earnest about railroading the 28 defendants to prison. Progressive workers must mobilize all their forces to help the fight against a conviction in this case, a conviction which will jeopardize their rights and liberties in the war days ahead. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 August 2021

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Stalin’s Frame-up Purges Whitewashed Liberals Aid Stalin’s Imperialist Allies Spread GPU Lies About the Moscow Trials (22 November 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 47, 22 November 1941, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Among the obligations undertaken by the bourgeois democrats in line with the diplomatic needs of their new-found friendship with Stalin, is a “re-evaluation” of the frameup Moscow Trials. Belated “justifications” are being advanced for the monstrous purges, which up to now, no one but GPU hirelings, professional apologies for Stalinism, and the official Stalinist press dared appraise as anything but the frameups they were. Far from serving their purpose of discrediting the Trotskyists, the trials boomeranged on Stalin. During the period of the Stalin- Hitler pact, the Stalinist press maintained strict silence about the trials, and the Trotskyists, charged in the trials with being agents of Hitler and the Mikado, were transformed overnight by the Stalinist press into agents of Anglo-French imperialism. Now, such representatives of the American bourgeoisie as Harry Hopkins and former ambassador to the Soviet Union, Joseph E. Davies, are assisting the GPU in its task of whitewashing the Kremlin. Leading publications, such as Time and Life magazines, and the New York newspaper PM, through articles by its editor, Ralph Ingersoll, also have given support recently to the GPU versions of the trials. Davies and the Trials The crudest expression of this campaign so far is contained in an article by Davies in the November issue of American magazine. Davies, after admitting that he had attended some of the sessions of the Moscow trials and had considered them “fantastic” at the time, now claims to have gained “new light” on them. Just what “new” evidence he has uncovered he does not state. He merely gives full credence to the trials and the “confessions,” seeking to implicate Leon Trotsky and his co-thinkers as agents of German and Japanese imperialism. Davies indicates the purposes of his article in his conclusion, stating: “There are no saboteurs, secret agents or Fifth Columnists to co-operate with the invaders, because the Russians were sufficiently far-sighted to eliminate them before it was too late. That is a fact which other liberty-loving nations might well ponder.” Unquestionably this bourgeois support is extremely welcome to Stalin. The sustained defeats and losses of the Red Army have raised new doubts about the Kremlin’s policies among the Soviet masses and the workers everywhere. It has become increasingly difficult for Stalin to conceal the direct connection between the present catastrophic Soviet defeats and the 1937–38 purge of the Red Army command, in which no less than 40,000 officers and technicians were executed or imprisoned. The American imperialists are serving their own ends by aiding Stalin in his criminal task of discrediting and destroying the proletarian revolutionary opposition to his betrayal of the international class struggle and his support of the “democratic” imperialists in the war. Davies is pointing to Stalin’s Moscow Trial frameup method, “which other liberty-loving nations might ponder,” as a pattern to be followed against the working class opponents of the war in this country. Findings of the Dewey Commission The conclusive and irrefutable evidence uncovered and made public by the Commission headed by Prof. John Dewey, which exhaustively investigated the Moscow frameups, has exposed the complete falsity of the “confessions” in the Moscow trials. The Dewey Commission produced documentary evidence which proved the falsity of every alleged material fact permitted to slip into the “confessions.” Since the publication of the Commission’s findings in 1938, literally no individual or group has dared to offer a specific refutation of them. So unanswerable are these findings that the American magazine, after printing Davies’ article, refuses to permit mention of them in its columns. The Nation, Nov. 15, reports: “The American magazine has rejected an article by John Dewey answering one by Joseph E. Davies in which the former Ambassador said that the Soviet Union’s resistance to Hitler was made possible by the purging of pro-Nazis in the Moscow trials.” A despicable role in this attempt to justify the Moscow trials frameups is being played by the liberals. Echoing the direct spokesmen of the imperialists, the liberal exponents of the “war for democracy” are likewise beginning to “revise” their estimates of the trials and purges. The most recent examples of this are contained in the New Republic, November 17, in a lengthy compendium of articles on Russia Today. Some “Liberals” Help Out Some of the writers, wary of stepping on slippery ground, manage to discuss the most fundamental aspects of Soviet military and industrial policies without even mentioning the purges. Max Werner, in Prospects for the Red Army, and A. Jugow, in the Results of the Five Year Plans, write as though the trials and purges had never been. Others offer various “explanations” designed to provide belated hindsight justification for the Moscow trial frameups.

Others offer various “explanations” designed to provide belated hindsight justification for the Moscow trial frameups. Vera Micheles Dean, in discussing the Kremlin’s Foreign Policy, states: “It would seem more accurate to say that, the spectacular Moscow trials reflected a widespread outburst of xenophobia – mistrust of all foreigners.” According to this view, Stalin was only yielding to the “xenophobia” of the Soviet masses in the purges which wiped out the old Bolshevik party, decimated the trained leadership of the Soviet army, government and industry and wound up with – a pact with Hitler. John Scott, who shortly before the Soviet-Nazi war began was ordered expelled from the Soviet Union for articles he wrote in the London News-Chronicle, gives as one reason for the purges: ”I am convinced that many of those high, top-flight functionaries who disappeared between 1936 and 1938 got into trouble originally because of their failure to agree with Stalin’s far reaching and ruthless plans for industrialization.” Scott then goes on to imply that tens of thousands of leading officials, technicians, army commanders, etc., had entered into the services of the German and Japanese fascists. “One of the most important accomplishments of the Soviet administrative system has been the elimination of enemy fifth columnists ... In Russia we have seen no evidence of the existence of any effective Nazi organizations or agents. These were eliminated by the systematic vigilance on the part of the Soviet people, the Communist Party and the NKVD (GPU). From 1936 to 1938 thousands of individuals who were accused of hostility to the Soviet Union were purged. Many innocent men and women suffered unjustly, but the Quislings and Antonescus were liquidated.” What the “Liberals” Are Really Helping John N. Hazard (The Legal Framework) brazenly states: ”... There was no path open for society except self-protection. This approach was extensively adopted for the political offender, whether the sincere dissenter or the paid agents of outside forces. The fifth column was exterminated before it could form.” If Stalin exterminated a “fifth column” before it could form,” that means it never existed. No, these trials were not directed against “paid agents of outside forces.” By giving credence to this GPU argument, Scott, Hazard and the others who repeat this lie are supporting the very essence of the frameups, the deliberate Stalinist amalgam between the hundreds of thousands of pro-Soviet elements who were executed or imprisoned and spies, provocateurs, and wreckers. The disorganization in Soviet military and industrial life that accompanied the purges was as harmful to the defense of the Soviet Union as any conceivable acts of actual imperialist spies and saboteurs. The debacle which today confronts the Soviet Union is in large part a result of Stalin’s ruthless destruction of the competent military and industrial leadership. In order to uphold Stalin as a defender of “democracy,” the liberal apologists for Allied imperialism must become apologists also for the abominations of Stalinism, not the least of which were the Moscow trials frameups and the bloody purges. At the same time, these liberals aid Stalin’s attempts to discredit the Trotskyist revolutionary opposition to his ruinous policies. These “defenders” of democracy are playing the game of the most reactionary American imperialists who are willing to learn from the methods of Stalinism how better to persecute and frameup the Trotskyists and other labor militants in this country. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 August 2021

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis “Educating” Japan’s Crown Prince (7 September 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 36, 7 September 1946, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Suppose a foreign army does rule Japan? Suppose MacArthur did issue an edict last week forbidding Japanese workers to strike. Suppose U.S. occupation forces do keep Emperor Hirohito – a newly-renovated Emperor, of course – on his throne? That still doesn’t mean the Japanese people are to be deprived of the “blessings of democracy.” U.S. imperialism naturally doesn’t want to feed “too much democracy” to the Japanese people all at once. They’re not used to such a rich diet, you see. So Wall Street’s State Department has found a way to nurture Japan with a bit of “democratic” broth without taxing the people’s digestive systems. How It’s Done It will all be done through that ideally “democratic” institution, the monarchy. First, the 12-year-old Crown Prince of Japan, Akihito, is to learn all about “American democracy” from an American tutor, hand-picked by the U.S. Department of State. Then the gracious Son of the Son of the Sun will one day. as Emperor, spread the “democratic” sunshine over the miserable, hungry, exploited people of Japan. Did any conquered people ever took forward to such delightful perspectives – “American democracy” dispensed by a “democratic” Emperor benevolently aided by American bayonets? The honor of inculcating “democratic ideals” into the young Crown Prince has been bestowed by Washington on Mrs. Elizabeth Gray Vining, a Philadelphia writer of children’s books. She is reported “filled with zeal” for her assignment. She says she is going to teach Akihito all about “Washington and Jefferson and Longfellow” – all about “American thoughts and ideals.” She didn’t say anything about republicanism – after all, scarcely a suitable subject for one who is being groomed for Emperor, even a “democratic” one. Not Included There are some phases of American “democracy” which we presume will not be covered in the future Emperor’s studies: Subjugation of racial minorities, like the Jim-Crowing and lynching of Negroes; government strikebreaking and anti-labor laws; discriminatory tax laws favoring the rich; etc. But, then, the Crown Prince represents the Japanese ruling class and he undoubtedly wil secure sufficient schooling in this type of “democratic” practice from traditional Japanese sources. Educating the young Crown Prince in American “democratic ideals” has certain advantages not precisely related to democracy. These will be most greatly appreciated should the Japanese masses “abuse” democracy to the point of trying to kick out the present discredited Emperor. In that event, the U.S. State Department will have a nice new Emperor all ready for them – a Crown Prince just chock-full of American “democratic ideals.” It goes without saying that he will also be a puppet of U.S. imperialism who will do its bidding in urging submission on the Japanese people. At any rate, he’ll do it “democratically.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 19 June 2021

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis The Wailing Liberals (July 1942) From Fourth International, Vol.3 No.7, July 1942, pp.201-203. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). America’s liberals are beginning to beat their breasts in lamentation. “Democratic” imperialism is repaying their faithful services with a weighty boot on their tender backsides. Liberals and sub-rosa and one-time Stalinists are being hounded out of government jobs by the hundreds. A government witch-hunt is in progress against liberals in the shipyards, radio communications and other maritime services by orders of Secretary of the Navy Knox. The liberal literary lights, who have sought to shine in the government propaganda agencies, are being snuffed out. These personal indignities are but half the burden of the liberals’ laments. The other half is that, no matter how loudly the liberals shout, “This is really and truly a war for democracy,” the deeds of the bourgeois rulers cry out even more loudly, “This is an imperialist war.” In the heat of the “war for democracy,” the New Deal is melting away. Its much-vaunted social reforms, the CCC, NYA, WPA, etc., its social and labor legislation are being liquidated. The government war agencies have been tucked away in the pockets of Big Business. Reactionaries of the vilest stripe are being coddled by the administration, not only at home but internationally. The State Department is maintaining toward Petain, Franco and Mannerheim an attitude singularly fraternal for a government that is urging the masses to fight and die “against fascism.” The liberals are embarrassed. Like the dreamer who sees himself exposed in some public place minus his pants and is incapable of running to cover, the liberals are suffering from involuntary indecent exposure. Only they aren’t dreaming. “How Can Such Things Be?” The first personal blows came when ex-Stalinoid Malcolm Cowley, an editor of the liberal weekly, New Republic, and the writer C. Hartley Grattan were unceremoniously booted out of the Office of Facts and Information. This first sprinkling has since turned into a flood, with hundreds of other liberals swept out of government jobs. The Stalino-liberal newspaper PM has been wailing at length about this government witch-hunt. The June 10 PM reports: “Employees of the Government of the United States in this year of 1942, a New Deal Government headed by FDR, have lost their right of free speech and free thought. “This is the direct and most important result of a current ‘Red’ witch-hunt – the color is Dies-tinted – that has already cost several hundred persons their jobs, finds at least a thousand more on the grid, and ultimately threatens thousands more whose only crimp is that they are liberals and have fought for years in the forefront of New Deal reform at home and anti-Fascism abroad.” PM cannot reconcile this witch-hunt with its picture of Rooseveltian liberalism: “In the midst of this extraordinary phenomenon, the Vice President of this country, with the approval of the President, wrote and delivered a ringing speech which identifies our war as the climax of 150 years of revolution – revolution for the people, by the people and for a quart of milk a day for the people’s children ... “In the midst of this phenomenon, a liberal Attorney General of the country spoke at a dinner of New Deal leaders and put heart in them by saying that it was vital to the success of our war effort that they press on with their good works. That this same Attorney General, some weeks later, made a legalistic mistake and a political blunder (deportation order against Harry Bridges) has nothing to do with the fact that he was chosen by the President because of his record for liberalism.” PM simply can’t explain the contradiction it sees: “In the face of all these things, how can this witch hunt be explained? ... How can this be? How can men be persecuted for anti-Fascist ideas in a war against Fascism? We do not know the precise answer to this paradox.” PM finally attempts an answer. It is really the insidious work of the enemies of the New Deal and Roosevelt “who have yet to make up their minds who is more important to their purpose to destroy: Adolf Hitler or Franklin D. Roosevelt.” PM is not alone in its lament. The Nation, traditional oracle of American liberalism, also complains: “The persistent red-baiting patterns of the investigations and the consistency with which only liberals are fired give strong color to the suspicion that officials high up in both agencies [FBI and Civil Service] are neither ignorant nor naive. It is time we discovered who is responsible for the idiotic and dangerous procedure by which men and women appointed to government jobs because they are known anti-fascists are forthwith dismissed – for the same reason.” (The Nation, June 20, 1942.) Likewise the Social-Democratic New Leader puts on a scowl and even dares to shake a disapproving forefinger under the nose of the Commander-in-Chief himself: “With the Department of Justice working overtime (ousting liberals), there are weighty scores against the Roosevelt administration. The White House has done little to force the removal of the isolationist Senator Reynolds from the chairmanship of the Senate Military Affairs Committee, and even less to remove Senator Walsh as head of the Naval Affairs Committee. “The President has permitted Father Coughlin to go free. This was done on the basis of some agreement that the radio priest would keep silent and that clerical fascism would be halted in the United States. Roosevelt has kept his part of the bargain – the other side has not.” (New Leader, June 27.) The New Leader apparently wants Roosevelt to strike bargains only with fascists who will live up to their part of the deal.

And the Stalinists join the wailing, to report that: “... the one man in Congress who cast his vote for democracy on Jan. 6, 1939 in opposing the infamous embargo against Loyalist Spain is being blacklisted today by government agencies. “John T. Bernard (ex-Representative from Minnesota) has been refused his right toiparticipate in this world war against fascism – because he is one of the nation’s most stalwart foes of fascism. It doesn’t make sense but it is true.” (Adam Lapin, in the Daily Worker, June 18.) The Bridges “Mystery” The dilemma of the liberals is most clearly exemplified in the case of Harry Bridges, CIO Longshoremen’s president, who is a model of Stalinist servility to the administration, acting as a “fingerman” for the employers and FBI against labor militants. When Attorney General Biddle, “chosen by the President because of his record of liberalism,” ordered the deportation of Bridges, the liberals found themselves in quite a stew. PM’s editor Ralph Ingersoll struck on the matchless explanation that Biddle ordered Bridges’ deportation because Biddle is a Biddle. “Our Attorney General is an honest, intelligent, educated, highly principled and liberal Biddle – then is it fair to ask what is a Biddle? Regretfully, we leave the answer to wiser heads than ours.” (PM, May 29.) We search for an answer among “wiser heads” in the columns of The Nation. There I.F. Stone, writing on Biddle and the Facts in the June 20 issue, sadly reports that “... the whole case suggests absolutism in decay, rather than democracy in action: the long persecution of a workers’ leader, the use of secret police for political purposes, the mobilization of witnesses from the dregs of society, the readiness of an upper-class liberal to serve as the tool of these forces.” Is there a distinction between “upper class” and “lower class” liberals ? And isn’t Biddle as much the “tool” of Roosevelt, who named him to office, as of “absolutism in decay”? But naturally such questions are not answered by the wailing Nation editors. Common Sense, the liberal monthly, decides in its July issue that Biddle is really but a seeker for knowledge: “How could Mr. Biddle, probably the most liberal member of FDR’s cabinet, be accused of deliberately giving comfort to the enemy at home and abroad? Probably the answer is that Mr. Biddle wanted a test case before the Supreme Court on the question of whether Communists aim to overthrow the government by force.” The Stalinists solve the Bridges deportation mystery in their usual neat fashion – there’s Munichmen “appeaser” work afoot: “Instead of prosecuting and jailing the Fifth Column Coughlinites, Nazi agents and Ku Kluxers, Biddle is trying to deport an outstanding anti-fascist labor leader whose work is a pillar of strength to the war effort ... Biddle’s ‘force and violence’ defamations against the Communist Party are a notorious tactic of Hitler and Goebbels to divide and conquer.” (Daily Worker, May 31.) But since Biddle is also Roosevelt’s flunkey, is Roosevelt also a Munichman? The mystery deepens and Adam Lapin, Washington correspondent, can only shake his head in the June 25 Daily Worker: “There sure are some queer goings on in the Department of Justice under the Biddle regime.” Terrible Doings in Washington Pointing to the blows being struck at the social agencies of the New Deal – the CCC, NYA, WPA, etcetera – PM, on June 15, complains: “There seems to be a very real danger that the New Deal is losing the domestic front while its attention is absorbed with the job of licking the Fascist foe without. Bit by bit the reactionary clique in Congress is nibbling away the New Deal bases that gave the common man a real stake in democracy and saved him from succumbing to Fascist demagogues. It makes one angry to see good New Dealers in Congress on the defensive, uttering apologies, for things that ought to make our Nation proud.” Then there is the sad case of the Roosevelt-majority Supreme Court. Of one of its recent reactionary decisions, Samuel Grafton, the liberal columnist, says complainingly: “I hope everyone has noticed the remarkable similarity between our ancient poll taxes and the recent Supreme Court ruling that it is all right for a municipality to charge a book peddler $10, or more, or less, for a license to sell books. “Under the poll tax, as it exists in eight states, one must pay from $1 to umpty-ump dollars to exercise the right to vote. Under the new Supreme Court decision one must pay $10, in Fort Smith, Arkansas, to exercise the right of free press. “If anything were needed to show that the Supreme Court decision, a bare 5-to-4, put over by the perfectly shocking acquiescence of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, was a retrograde decision, that by it the Court speeded backward into a dark tunnel like a man with his foot caught in a roller-coaster, it is this comparison ... Are we going to let local government get up a kind of juridical Sears, Roebuck catalogue with prices on the various items in the Bill of Rights?” By Gad, it’s enough to make one want to get up from one’s easy chair and do something about it, if only Grafton would tell us how to upset a Supreme Court decision short of revolution, and how to make a typical liberal, Felix Frankfurter, not act like a typical liberal in a capitalist government post. The June 27 Nation can only shake its head mournfully at the speedy demise of Roosevelt’s “liberal majority” on the Supreme Court: “It is sad to see Stone, Frankfurter and Jackson taken in by the sweet company-union overtones of Byrnes in the wage-hour case.” The liberal complaints pile up, against every cabinet officer, every government department, and the government war production agencies.

The latter especially, dominated by the corporation dollar-a-year men, come in for some loud wails. The Nation catalogues the “business-as-usual” set-up of the War Production Board and ends with the pitiable plaint: “... Something is still ‘seriously wrong’ ... and it will not be corrected until Nelson, who is as fainthearted as the President about firing people, gets out the ax and keeps the promise he made when he became head of the WPB. When, Mr. Nelson, will the heads roll?” (The Nation, April 11.) Yes, when? Evidently, Mr. Nelson was too busy that week to read the Nation. At any rate, the streets of Washington have been singularly free of rolling heads except those of liberals. I.F. Stone sadly concludes in The Nation of June 27: “Carefully read and considered, the Truman report on the Guthrie case is the key to the continued setbacks suffered by ourselves and our allies. The arsenal of democracy, as the Guthrie case and the reactions to the report show, is still being operated with one eye on the war and the other on the convenience of big business ... “The Guthrie report shows that, months after Pearl Harbor ... the big-business crowd is as powerfully entrenched under Nelson as it was under Knudsen.” Stone ends with the happy suggestion that: “The solution of our problems lies in a more democratic direction of our industrial effort,” although he confesses dolefully, “the trend is the other way.” And even Dorothy Thompson, who can say “war for democracy” in every language including the Sanskrit, complains that the government is giving $600,000,000 worth of new plants for synthetic rubber production to “finance enormously rich corporations to manufacture a product for which the people themselves are a certain market ... Why didn’t they put up their own money?” Why indeed? She finishes off with the profound suggestion: “If we are going to survive this epoch we have got to do imaginative thinking. And stop letting people whose brains have grown dull on monopoly do it for us.” The problem that is beginning to trouble the liberals more than anything else is the strange international company the “democratic” rulers are keeping these days. Freda Kirchwey, editor of The Nation, had some strong words to say on this subject on January 3, after the State Department had “advised” the Free French to withdraw from St. Pierre and Miquelon islands in favor of Petain. “Mr. Hull Should Resign” was the title of her indignation piece: “If the State Department, without consultation with the President or the Cabinet, has plunged the nation into its present humiliating position, its officials should be called into account as promptly as were the military leaders at Pearl Harbor. Without the least delay, the President should demand the resignation of the officials who on their own say-so betrayed the cause to which this country has been pledged not only by the terms of the Atlantic Charter but in many pronouncements by the President ... Why should men who have demonstrated their failure with such undeviating success be permitted to direct the policy of a great power committed to a life-and-death struggle?” Hull’s Bedfellows Embarrass the Liberals Why, indeed ? Miss Kirchwey can’t answer her own riddles but, evidently, President Roosevelt knows why, because Miss Kirchwey was compelled to report six months later in the June 20 Nation: “But it must be admitted the future is still obscure. . . . The agreements made in Washington and London (with the Kremlin) are only a blue-print ... on the very day when the new coalition was proclaimed, Secretary Hull announced the resumption of shipments of food and other supplies from America to the Vichy government in North Africa. “No promises, no pacts, no fine speeches by Welles or even (!) Wallace or Winant, can wipe out the demoralizing effect of the old diplomacy pursuing its old discredited maneuvers while the struggle against fascism reaches a climax of danger and effort.” Samuel Grafton, who poses many questions well and knows none of the answers, stated: “The best I can make of our current policy is that we insist the French people shall rise in revolution, but not against their government ... Hitler thinks the French resolution is more important than the French fleet, for he has kept his hands off the latter to avoid the former. We have reached the remarkable situation in which Hitler lets the French fleet alone, to sustain Vichy’s prestige, and we sustain Vichy’s prestige in order to save the fleet. “One of us must be taking a hell of an ideological beating. Who are the French people to revolt against? Hitler doesn’t want them to know, either.” (New York Post, June 16.) And echo calls in the Stalinist press: “How long is Marshal Petain going to be allowed to make a sucker out of the United States?” (Daily Worker, June 13.) The liberals are also taking “a hell of an ideological beating” about Finland as well. Here the Stalinist press gives the lead that the liberals follow. Adam Lapin goes in for some illuminating society reporting in the Daily Worker, June 9: “Mannerheim’s envoy to Washington, Hjalmar Procope, spent his Sunday evening chatting and dining with high administration officials and with leading United States Senators ...

Adam Lapin goes in for some illuminating society reporting in the Daily Worker, June 9: “Mannerheim’s envoy to Washington, Hjalmar Procope, spent his Sunday evening chatting and dining with high administration officials and with leading United States Senators ... As plans for a new Finnish-Nazi drive against the Soviet Union, personally mapped by Hitler, were under way, some of the officials who dined with Finnish Minister Procope included: “Milo Perkins, Director of the War Economic Board; Paul V. McNutt, Chairman of the National Manpower Commission; Assistant Attorney General Thurman Arnold; Associate Justice Stanley Reed of the Supreme Court; Senate Majority Leader Alben Barkley and Senator Joseph B. Guffey of Pennsylvania. “... it seems about time they realized that Finland is Hitler’s ally, and that attending social evenings with Procope can hardly he construed as a friendly gesture toward the Soviet Union ...” The concern of the liberals about the particular attitudes of the “democratic” rulers toward Vichy and Finland has begun to broaden out into a more generalized worry about where this whole “struggle against fascism” is heading. This is best expressed by J. Alvarez Del Vayo, Foreign Minister in the Spanish Loyalist Government, in one of a series of articles on World War III? in the June 20 Nation: “The Petains and Francos were not merely tolerated. They were, and they yet are, considered by the ruling diplomacy a useful element of counterpoise in a Europe which tomorrow might swing too far to the left. That is why the diplomacy which today still directs foreign policy on the side of the Allies, when it has a choice, prefers an Otto of Hapsburg to an Austrian Socialist, an Eckhardt to a Hungarian democrat ... One cannot but maintain a certain reserve when considering the question what kind of peace would emerge if the present governments of the United Nations could vote secretly on the transcendental question of the organization of the world of tomorrow.” How long? How is it possible? How can this be? How can we convince the masses that this is a “war for democracy against fascism” when liberals and anti-fascists are persecuted, when reactionaries and pro-fascists are handled with kid gloves, when Big Business is in the saddle and the old ruling diplomacy rides higher than ever? The liberals chant their woes and drench the wailing wall with their tears. But they have no answers and would not like the correct answers. They Don’t Want to Tell the Truth If it occurs to them that Mr. Hull does not resign because Roosevelt approves his policies, or that the monopolies are running this war because it is a capitalist war, or that high administration officials maintain a certain fraternal attitude toward Petain, Franco and Mannerheim because this is not and never was an ideological war between democracy and fascism, they do not voice their suspicions. God forbid! They don’t want to tell the truth about this war. They just want to save their own tender hides in the mounting reaction and continue with a straight face to be able to tell the masses that this is “our” war. But it is becoming more difficult for the liberals to be convincing. As the intellectual spokesmen for the petty-bourgeoisie who are being crushed by the war-expedited monopoly control, the liberals are feeling the weight of reaction on their own backs. They look to the past with misgivings and to the future with rising fear. They keep shouting hoop-la for the “war against fascism” but they can scarcely conceal the feeling that somehow this “war for democracy” is writing the epitaph for bourgeois democracy in general and for its liberal exponents in particular. Fortunately for the masses of the world, their fate does not depend on these hired mourners at the death-bed of bourgeois democracy. While the liberals wring their hands hopelessly at the spectacle of the death agony of capitalism, the revolutionary proletarian forces are building their cadres and mobilizing their strength throughout the world. The oppressed of the earth will silence the whines of the liberals along with burying the rotting corpse of capitalism. For the masses, unlike the liberals, are seeking an answer to the question of their destiny, an answer that will sweep the globe – the socialist revolution. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 18.12.2005

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller If War Comes (8 November 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 45, 8 November 1948, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). World War III, even on the scale of the last War, will cost the American people half a trillion dollars. They will suffer not less than 9 to 10 million casualties. All freedoms will be cancelled, strikes outlawed, work-or-fight laws imposed. Civilian goods production will be halted. The national debt will rise to $500 billion. The dollar won’t be worth 10 cents. That is the conservative prediction of The Costs of Another War, a condensation of an article from U.S. News World Report published in the October Reader’s Digest. Ironically, the article is featured in the Understatement of the Month section. In the last war, by 1944, the U.S. was spending $90 billion a year. On the same basis, the next war “would cost $143,000,000,000 a year at present prices.” A war of the same length as the last would cost “$540,000,000,000 without allowing for new inflation.” (Original emphasis.) All war supplies will cost “at least 50% more for any new war that may come.” While the cost in lives is “unpredictable,” the scale of casualties is “suggested by German experience.” The Russian war cost Germany 5 million killed and missing, 4 million wounded. U.S. losses in the last war were 294,000 killed, 670,000 wounded. The losses in the next – not allowing for atomic weapons – will be 10 times as great. In last war, U.S. used 5 billion tons of its “best minerals”; about 8 billion barrels of oil. Plans now being prepared assume a far bigger use of materials in World War III. “By war’s end, the United States would be a ‘have not’ nation.” Impoverishment of resources would reduce U.S. economy to European levels. “Practically everything” will be rationed; autos and trucks “confiscated.” The price situation is already “dynamite” with the military now taking 10% of total production; in war, the military will take “at least 60%.” Competition for what’s left “would set off explosive inflation.” There will probably be a work-or-fight law “applying to adults up to 65.” Strikes will be “outlawed,” job-switching “seldom permitted,” production for civilian consumption “would be stopped,” military needs “would get priority everywhere.” World War II has already left the U.S. with a debt of $250 billion dollars. By the end of World War III, it would increase by another $500 billion and interest charges alone “would be staggering.” The government would face the decision “on whether to repudiate debt as Russia did.” As an alternative to debt repudiation – that is, a declaration of bankruptcy – the government would inflate prices, issue huge amounts of cheapened currency. The present U.S. dollar, now worth less than 60 cents in pre-war buying power, “could become a ten-cent dollar after World War III.” The sober conclusion of this Understatement of the Month is: “War, in other words, would not be a simple solution of U.S.-Russian difficulties.” In spite of this capitalist realization of the cost of another war, as expressed by U.S. News, the U.S. capitalists are preparing to resort to war as the only “solution” to the impending crisis of the decayed profit system. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 28 March 2023

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Highest Paid Labor Leader (1 November 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 44, 1 November 1948, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). One of the evils within the old AFL that helped precipitate the revolt of the CIO was the big salaries and expense accounts of the AFL bureaucrats, When the CIO was formed, the ranks insisted that their officers be paid wages comparable to what a skilled worker getting the union scale might receive. It was not because the CIO workers begrudged their leaders the extra money. But bitter experience had taught them that union officials who are too far removed from the workers in their living standards lose touch with the realities of the workers’ lives, become soft and corrupt. The old-line AFL moguls – the Greens, Tobins, Wolls, Hutchinsons and Freys – not only lived like well-heeled business executives, but thought and acted like them. One feature of the recent mine workers convention that the capitalist press gave much publicity was the raising of John L. Lewis’ salary from $25,000 a year, plus a $10,000 annual bonus, to $50,000 – making him the highest paid union official in the world. John Owens, Secretary-Treasurer, got a boost from $18,000 to $40,000, and International Executive Board members were raised from $500 to $1,000 per month. Lewis and the officials of the UMW are in the top national income brackets. Their scale of living places them closer to the more successful capitalist executives than to the mine workers. This is the outward sign of the fundamental weakness of the Lewis leadership. Like the Greens, Murrays and Tobins, the UMW leaders live in a world apart from the workers. They are accustomed to material security and luxury. They regard their jobs as a source of emoluments and wealth. They thrive under capitalism, live like capitalists and are capitalist-minded. That is why Lewis – personally so aggressive in economic struggles – is an unregenerate reactionary in politics. He clings to the system that nourishes him. He is a Republican in his pocketbook and in his heart. Lewis may fight the capitalist government on this or that issue, and sometimes he may win a point, but in the end, and on the basic issues, he must submit. His great talents, his inspiring combativeness founder on the rocks of his backward social and political philosophy. Lewis’ militancy differs in an important respect from that of the early CIO. That latter militancy was linked with the rights of the members and was the democratic expression of their will. It could not be turned on or off at the whim of a leader. But the UMW is internally throttled. Lewis runs it with a well-paid machine based on personal loyalty to himself. He appoints two-thirds of the district presidents. He is a bureaucrat – albeit a far more capable one than most – lacking in faith in the powers and intelligence of the workers. Which means he is blind to the real source of his own powers. And in this too he reflects the psychology of the capitalist class system – ruler and ruled – which he upholds. That is why the labor movement, if it is to go forward, cannot depend on even so talented a man as Lewis. For the job of fundamental social reorganization that labor is destined to undertake, new and superior leaders are demanded, leaders linked integrally with the way of life of the working-class, leaders with real social vision and understanding of the class forces that move society. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 28 March 2023

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Green, Reuther Hand Out Same Political Bunkum Offer No Positive Labor Program in Speeches at Convention of Truman Doctrine Liberals (1 March 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 9, 1 March 1948, p. 1. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). AFL President William Green and CIO United Auto Workers President Walter Reuther were the chief union spokesmen at the Americans for Democratic Action convention on Feb. 22 in Philadelphia. The ADA is the organization of Truman Doctrine liberals. Green, an ancient mossback, represents the horse-and-buggy era of craft unionism. Reuther is a star graduate of the newer school of streamlined labor bureaucrats who pose as up-to-date and “progressive” in their thinking. But they spoke the same language before the ADA convention. They expressed identical views on political action and the Marshall Plan – and all their views were reactionary. Ignored Labor’s Problems The problems of American labor before advancing Big Business reaction found place in their speeches only in a few brief complaints. They had another program to peddle – the Truman Doctrine, currently disguised as the European Recovery Program. When it came to a political program for labor and progressives in 1948 they came forth with a hollow negative – “Get Henry Wallace!” Green ranted about Wallace’s third-party venture as “ill-conceived and ill-timed”, not to speak of “red-starred.” Reuther proclaimed, “We’ve got the job of taking on Wallace and his Joe Stalin associates.” From their concentration on Wallace, you’d think that all evils stemmed from him rather than the Democratic and Republican freebooters who have mutually held a political monopoly for eight decades. But you will search in vain in their speeches for any direct intimation of who these big “labor statesmen” are for. And that’s what shows them to be such sad bankrupts. They’ve literally nothing to offer. Blind Alley Wallace is a phony who doesn’t represent labor. Good. Taft is the co-author of the Taft-Hartley Slave Labor Law. Nuff said. Truman? Well, he’s the author of the Truman Doctrine and they’re all for that. But still they didn’t dare let his name pass their lips. Not yet anyway. That is the blind alley that the whole past policy of the top trade union leaders has led to. At this late hour and at this critical stage in American and world developments. the Greens and the Reuthers have no political answer for the American workers. Shall they continue to play the politics of the “lesser evil” and go down to defeat with strikebreaker Truman or some, other Democratic stumblebum? Shall they stall around until after the Democratic and Republican conventions in the hopes that from one or the other they’ll get a name to which they can attach a “liberal” label? Or shall they just forget all about national politics in this year of decision and put the stress on “local politics,” as some are counselling? This Gordian knot of political ineptness and indecision can be cut through at one stroke. Let the 15 million organized American workers. through their elected representatives, hold a national united labor conference, form their own Labor Party and run their own presidential and local candidates in November. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Joseph Keller Trade Union Notes (19 May 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 20, 19 May 1945, p. 2. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Mine Union Affiliation The labor reporter for the New York Post, Victor Riesel, states from San Francisco in his May 9 column that “John L. Lewis will take his 600,000 followers back into the AFL within a few weeks.” The Post reporter was told this by AFL President Green, “who is here today to consult with U.S. delegates to the World Security Conference.” Riesel quotes Green as stating: “The United Mine Workers will be a part of the AFL before long. This is my personal opinion based on the facts and occurrences of the past weeks.” This is the first definite statement of this nature from any high AFL official. It would indicate that the AFL intends to admit the UMW once the hard coal strike is over. The reaffiliation of the UMW would boost the AFL’s membership to over 8,500,000. Such a move is likely to presage an intensification of the conflict between the AFL and CIO, with the hand of the craft union chiefs strengthened against industrial union organization, Riesel contends. * * * How Not to Win The workers at Macy’s Department Store in New York City, the largest department store in the world, have initiated a campaign for wage increases and against wage cuts. Department store employees are among the lowest paid workers in America, while department store profits have soared more than a 1000 per cent since 1939. However, their union, Local 1-s, CIO United Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Employees, is dominated by Stalinists, whose idea of putting up a fight is a leaflet distributed to customers after closing time asking the customers to write letters to the management. The most prominent feature of the leaflet is the heading, We Will Not Strike! That’s Why We’re Asking You To Help Us! The only people inspired by such a headline are the employers. * * * Rieve Retreats President Emil Rieve of the CIO Textile Workers has used the authority granted him by the union’s National Executive Council to re-impose the no-strike policy on the 100,000 cotton-rayon workers freed by the Council from the no-strike pledge last Feb. 20. This step backward was taken on April 10 in a letter to the local unions involved and the WLB, reports the May 1 Textile Labor. The previous rescinding of the no-strike pledge together with Rieve’s resignation from the WLB got more real action out of the WLB and the administration in one day than months of prolonged hearings and pleadings. The WLB hastened to announce a 55 cent wage minimum and various other concessions previously withheld from the textile workers. These concessions were at best pretty small and far less than the union had demanded. Certainly they were no warrant for once more putting the no-strike noose around the neck of the textile workers and bolstering the wage-freezing WLB. This retreat is still less justified in the face of the general anti-labor offensive of the corporations today, which Textile Labor describes in the very same issue. Moreover, Rieve’s action throws light on the whole bureaucratic manner in which the no-strike policy has been foisted on the workers. Rieve and the top union officials put over the no-strike pledge. Then they withdrew it. Then they arbitrarily re-imposed it. But what did the workers have to say in all this? Nothing. They were never consulted about the no-strike policy to begin with. But if Rieve can withdraw the pledge when he sees fit, why can’t the workers? Especially since it was his pledge and not theirs. * * * Auto Firms Fire Vets Ford, Chrysler and General Motors have started a campaign of firing returned veterans under the pretext that they are compelled to do so by the seniority terms of the CIO United Automobile Workers contracts. The May 15 United Auto Worker, Service men’s edition, exposes this attempt to incite the returned soldiers against the workers and the unions. At Chrysler Dodge in Chicago, for instance, 50 veterans were fired with the blame being thrown on the union. At Ford Lincoln in Detroit three were discharged with the same propaganda. The union paper reveals that both these companies, as well as General Motors, have for eight months refused to sign a Model Contract clause to protect veterans who have not previously worked in these companies and give them seniority for their time in service. Some 40 other companies have already accepted it. In the cases cited at Ford and Chrysler Dodge, the paper reports that: “Neither Chrysler nor Ford had to lay off those veterans EVEN UNDER EXISTING CONTRACT PROVISIONS!” The contract provides that those not employed less than six months are probationary and have no seniority. The companies deliberately selected veterans for dismissal when they were free to lay off other non-veterans. This was done to initiate an attack on the unions and create anti-union sentiment among returned soldiers. “As soon as the union exposed these facts, the veterans were offered reinstatement,” says the UAW paper. But not before the daily press made a lot of anti-labor capital out of the incidents. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 6 November 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Results of the First Year of Conscription Adequate Direct Relief Is Immediate Necessity for Victims of Priorities Unions Must Fight to Prevent Suffering of Workers Unemployed Because of Latest Results of Anarchy in Capitalist Production (25 October 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 43, 25 October 1941, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). Priorities unemployment is the major immediate problem confronting workers in the automobile, radio and electrical appliance, textile and other leading industries. Hundreds of thousands of workers, who had been led to believe that the war boom would ensure them a measure of job security, are already walking the streets. It is frankly admitted by government agencies that the dislocation of industry, because of material shortages and the resultant operations of the priorities rationing system, will shortly create a new army of no less than two or three millions of unemployed. The industrialists and the government are doing little to relieve the situation. But the workers, who face the bleak prospect of repeating their experiences of the ten years of pre-war economic crisis, view the menace of priorities unemployment with growing concern. A number of plans have been projected by union officials, both AFL and CIO, in an attempt to cope with this problem. The Union Plans The major emphasis of all these plans – elaborated in detail for the auto, steel, radio and electrical, textile and other specific industries – is placed upon the need for the reorganization of the industries in order to expand production or to replace production of consumer goods by an equivalent production of war goods. All of these plans, however, immediately bump up against the solid wall of the monopoly control of the basic industries by the handful of capitalist owners. It is these owners who now have the exclusive power to operate industry, regulate production, determine what is to be produced, and when, how, where and why. They exercise this monopoly of industrial control for one end: Profits. The very existence of priorities unemployment is the direct consequence of this profit motivation. The shortages in aluminum, steel and other vital materials, which have led to the application of priorities, result primarily from the unwillingness of the big monopoly corporations to expand their own production facilities or permit the government to build other facilities. Above all, the trusts are determined to maintain their monopolies, to regulate prices and output, and thereby maintain their volume of profit and prevent the possibilities of competition. The most technically-sound plans for reorganizing industrial production to eliminate priorities unemployment – and there is no lack of such plans – fail to surmount the key obstacle: the control of industry by the monopoly owners. While every union plan attempts in some measure to deal with the question of control, their proposals end by leaving the control of industry intact in the hands of the owners. In each case the success of these plans depends on the good will of the bosses or on the illusion that the government is a “neutral” agency which places the interests of the nation as a whole above the interests of the ruling capitalist minority. The Question of Control The employing class, on the one hand, will fight to the death against sharing the control of industry with the workers. The monopolists ruthlessly brush aside the suggestion that the workers might have even an interest in the control and management of industry. That is a “right” which the owning class reserves exclusively for itself. On the other hand, the government, which is the agency for administering the state power of the ruling class, pigeon-holes or sabotages all plans for the reorganization of industry which, involve infringement on the present monopoly of control and management by the private owners of industry. Moreover, all the union plans are an attempt to solve the problem of the capitalist anarchy of production – which is just as much a fact in war-time as in peace-time – within the framework of the existing economic system. For each capitalist, or group of capitalists, is in ruthless competition with other capitalists. The big industries are trying to drive the small industries to the wall. The manufacturers of one kind of metal compete with manufacturers of substitute metals. Far from being interested in planning and coordinating the production of each industry as a whole, the few big competing corporations within the industry try to wipe each other out and gain complete control. There can be no question of the necessity for the reorganization of industry in order to provide jobs for the workers. But It is pursuing an illusion to believe that this can be satisfactorily accomplished without first divesting the monopoly owners of their control. For, even should the capitalists succeed temporarily in meeting the immediate crisis of priorities, new and worse crises are certain to follow. For it is impossible, except on a most limited scale, to separate the problem of priorities unemployment from the general condition of the decline and decay of capitalism as a whole. That is why any feasible and sound plan to combat priorities unemployment must first of all deal with the question: Who will control and manage industry? Who Shall Control Industry? It is clear that the owning class is incapable of planning and coordinating production in the interests of the masses of people. Their control has led to priorities unemployment as only the most recent addition to all the other monstrous evils of the existing social order. Only the working class, upon whom all production and distribution depends in the first place, can possibly organize and manage industry in the interests of the people as a whole. Today, the only realistic beginnings of a solution to the workers’ problems, of which priorities unemployment is the most immediate and pressing one, is contained in the slogan of the Socialist Workers Party: Expropriate the war industries and operate them under the control and management of the workers! But in the meantime, the workers must be provided for when they become unemployed. They cannot sit idle waiting for long-term solutions to their problems and their immediate suffering, as a consequence of joblessness, must be alleviated. An Immediate Demand Are the workers to suffer hunger and privation because of the mismanagement and greed of the ruling class? Regardless of what the owning class and government do with respect to the management of industry, the workers must not starve or face the winter without decent homes, clothing, blankets, fuel. If the government and the bosses cannot provide jobs for the workers, then they must nevertheless continue to provide the workers with the means of subsistence. Every worker deprived of the right to work by priorities unemployment must receive from the government relief in the form of money equivalent to the wages he normally would receive in private industry, and no less than union wages. This is the demand which the organized workers, all the trade unions, must raise and fight for. Regardless of what promises and plans the government puts forth for a future solution to the problem of priorities unemployment, the victims of such unemployment must be decently fed, clothed, and housed now. To secure this demand, more will be required of the unions than a simple plea to the “humanitarian” instincts of the government officials. Mass pressure and mass action of the workers alone will force the government to provide decent incomes for the millions of workers who will shortly be jobless. This immediate program must be placed on the agenda of every union which is forced to deal with priorities unemployment. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 22 March 2019

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Union Brothers Solidly Behind Wm. Patterson (3 June 1945) From The Militant, Vol. IX No. 23, 9 June 1945, p. 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). RICHEYVILLE, Pa., June 3 – Part of the frame-up against William Patterson, union miner from Daisytown and first imprisoned victim of the Smith-Connally anti-strike bill, was the story spread by the corporation-dominated daily press that his union wasn’t in back of him. This afternoon I attended the meeting of United Mine Workers Local 2399 here in Richeyville’s recreation hall. That’s the local to which Bill Patterson belongs and which he has served loyally for many years. Members Outraged No one was more indignant and outraged by the press reports than Bill’s fellow union members. The 1,400 union men who worked along with him in the Vesta No. 4 mine are back of him solid – to a man. Their actions on his behalf at the union meeting were a conclusive and inspiring demonstration of union brotherhood and labor solidarity. When I arrived at the hall, the meeting was already in session. I inquired for one of the officers from the sergeant at arms. To my great pleasure, several of the workers who came out to examine my credentials were men I had met during the July 1943 strike and whose activities I had then reported in The Militant. Among those who remembered me and the support The Militant gave them two years ago were Steve Panak, president; John Harris, vice-president; Emil Maslow and a number of others. They welcomed me warmly and were particularly glad I had come to them to get the truth about the frame-up against Bill Patterson. They were so eager to tell the facts and so indignant that they all seemed to talk at once. I caught one sentence that told what they all felt. “Bill Patterson? Why that’s the dirtiest, rawest deal ever pulled – a goddam frame-up just to make him an example.” Militant Welcomed As they invited me in to attend their meeting, a privilege not accorded to reporters of the capitalist press, they let me know that The Militant is its own best credential. One of the leading members stated with genuine enthusiasm as he greeted me, “Your paper’s all right. I read it right along. At first I thought you were just coming out strong for labor before the election. But now I see your paper comes out strong every week.” There were a couple of hundred workers at the meeting. As I took my seat on a bench along the wall, I noticed a red and gold service flag hung behind the chairman. It recorded 469 members of Local 2399 in the armed forces. Noticing that I was observing the service flag, a worker next to me said: “That’s out of date. We now have 550 men in service. We’re down to 1,400 in the mine from 2,100.” This is one of the locals that the yellow press has been howling is “against the interests of the soldiers.” The main business of the meeting was devoted to the William Patterson case. As soon as the meeting concluded its preliminary business, John Harris took the floor and gave a full report on the persecution of their union brother and the action so far taken by the union. This was the first chance the local had to meet since Patterson’s hurried trial and imprisonment just two days before. Miners Testified Every man sat still and tense in his seat as Harris told in simple words the background of the case and all the moves that were made to hound Bill Patterson to prison. The silence was so great you could almost reach out and touch it. You could read on the faces of every one present the deep feeling of anger and outrage they felt. Harris told with special indignation how he and 23 others went to Pittsburgh to testify in the trial. He told how the judge refused to let them speak and how Patterson was “railroaded right through to prison.” He concluded with an appeal for every member to sign the petition on which over 600 names had been secured the day before. “The way things are going on around here,” he warned, “we don’t know who’s going to be next!” The silence was suddenly broken by an explosive shout from a score of throats: “That’s right!” One after another the workers took the floor and told their feelings about the case and what they knew of the deliberate efforts to frame Bill Patterson. Caught Either Way “We’ve got to do everything we can to get Bill out,” stated one member. “I was at that trial – and I’ve been at many a trial – but I never saw anybody rushed through like they did to Bill. They never even showed that he had violated his parole. If ever a man got a hooking, it was Bill.” Another declared: “He was caught either way, if he went to work or if he didn’t go to work during the strikes. He was framed in advance no matter what he did. They just wanted one man to be the goat. Then if the rest don’t keep in line, they can go after them.” But the Local 2399 members didn’t express their sentiments in mere words. Every man felt his responsibility to Bill Patterson’s family to continue the legal fight on his behalf. One worker declared: “He’s taken the rap for you and me. He was on the mine committee and he put up a fight for us. We got to raise one dollar apiece from every man in the local for a fund to take care of Bill’s family and to see that they get the same money coming in as if he were on the job.” That motion was passed with a resounding, unanimous “Aye!” Another motion that was also enthusiastically endorsed was that “each and every pay day the officers of the local shall go up to the Uniontown jail and personally give Bill Patterson the money to send his wife.” As the maker of the motion explained: “He’s big enough to take the rap for us, and we have to be big enough to visit him personally every two weeks, and give him the money personally, and let him know that we’re behind him and going to do everything we can for him and his family.” That’s the kind of union men Bill Patterson represents. That’s the kind of solid, loyal union he fought to build. It is for their sake, as well as his, that American labor must fight against the frame-up of Bill Patterson and the vicious law that threatens to put other good union men behind prison bars. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 November 2018

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis Roosevelt Now Imitates Wilson’s ‘14 Points’ Fate of 1918 ‘War Aims’ Shows What Will Happen to FDR’s Eight Points (August 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 34, 23 August 1941, p. 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The Roosevelt-Churchill eight-point statement of “war aims” invited immediate comparison with Woodrow Wilson’s Fourteen Points, enunciated before a joint Congressional session on January 8, 1918, in the fourth year of World War I. The comparison is apt – and devastating. Wilson’s Fourteen Points, of which the Roosevelt-Churchill statement is a pale copy, has been proved the most fraudulent promise in all history. The declaration of Wilson included several claims significantly omitted from the present eight-point statement. Roosevelt and Churchill cannot attempt to justify their war even to the extent that Wilson did. “Open Covenants Openly Arrived At” Wilson’s first “war aim” called for: “Open covenants of peace, openly arrived at, after which there shall be no private international understandings of any kind but diplomacy shall proceed frankly and in the public view.” The “open covenants of peace, openly arrived at” was the monstrous Treaty of Versailles, drawn up in secrecy by the representatives of the four largest Allied powers, Wilson, Clemenceau Lloyd George and Orlando. This treaty simply looted and dismembered the conquered nations for the aggrandizement of the victors. Not even the people of the victorious powers, let alone those of the defeated nations, participated in the establishment of this “peace.” An FDR-Churchill Omission After World War I, diplomacy did not proceed “frankly and in the public view.” On the contrary diplomacy became more secret and devious, on tbe part of the “democracies” as well as the totalitarian nations. The diplomatic dealings of the American and British governments have always been conducted behind closed doors. The very statement of “war aims” just announced followed discussions and decisions of which the American and British peoples had no advance knowledge and in which they did not participate. The Roosevelt-Churchill statement cautiously excludes Wilson’s first point. A mere mention of open diplomacy would expose the shady character of the negotiations between the American and British “democratic” governments. It would embarrass future negotiations for an imperialist settlement. Freedom of the Seas Wilson’s second point, for “absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas,” is the model for the Similar statement in the new eight-point declaration. What was meant by “freedom of the seas” was demonstrated after the last war, when the Allies destroyed German sea power, seizing the German merchant marine as well as navy. American and British imperialism then established the policy of maintaining an absolute naval supremacy over the combined navies of all the other nations. “Freedom of the seas” meant freedom to rule the seas. No “Economic Barriers” The fourth “war aim” of Wilson was the removal – “so far as possible” – “of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace ...” During the years following World War I, there was an unparalleled extension of “economic barriers” and a frenzied competition between all the imperialist nations for trade advantages and control of world markets. Every European country erected insurmontable tariff walls. For its part, the United States raised tariffs to a point which virtually excluded imported competitive products from this country. Roosevelt and Churchill repeat this pious pledge of “trade equality,” with the qualifying phrase, “without disregarding their (American and British) present obligations.” “Present Obligations” Excepted What are these “present obligations”? They are the real war aims of Roosevelt and Churchill, embodied, no doubt, in a secret agreement designating American and British “spheres of influence” with respect to world trade, colonies and markets, in the event of an Allied victory. Wilson’s fifth point was another grim joke. This promised the establishment of “guarantees ... that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest point consistent with domestic safety.” Disarmament Hoax This pledge was carried out with the disarming of – the Central powers. But the armaments race did not slacken. It grew more feverish and intense. Wilson’s “peace” – as every imperialist peace – served merely as the interlude for increased preparations for the next war, World War II. Related to Wilson’s disarmament pledge was his proposal for a “general association of nations,” his fourteenth point. This was the genesis of the League of Nations, which, the United States scorned to join. The League was fashioned merely to further the hegemony of British and French imperialism on the European continent. It crumbled to dust with the impact of the violent resurgence of German imperialism. The Roosevelt-Churchill “disarmament” proposal frankly states that their “future peace” is based on the disarmament of “nations which threaten, or may threaten aggression outside their frontiers” – that is, the imperialist competitors of Wall Street and the “City.” All else is reduced to the nebulous promise to “aid and encourage all practicable measures which will lighten ... the crushing burden of armaments.” Self-Determination in the Colonies “Wilson’s fifth point has no parallel in the present, Allied statement.

the crushing burden of armaments.” Self-Determination in the Colonies “Wilson’s fifth point has no parallel in the present, Allied statement. It deals with the disposition of the colonies. Wilson called for “a free, open-minded, absolutely impartial, adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.” This did not disavow the principle of colonial exploitation, but it did give some “recognition” to the rights of self-determination of the colonial peoples. After the last war, the victorious imperialist nations fought for colonial spoils like jackals over a piece of carrion. Germany was stripped of her colonies, which were parcelled out mainly to Britain, France and Belgium. The possessions of Turkey in Asia Minor were divided up between England and France. In all these transactions, “the interests of the populations concerned” not only did not have “equal weight,” they had no weight whatsoever! One imperialist marched in as the other marched out. Nor did American imperialism pay more attention to the “interests of the populations concerned” in imposing its domination over colonial nations, in the period following World War I, American bullets sang the tune of Wall Street imperialism in Nicaragua, Haiti, Porto Rico, the Dominican Republics, the Philippines and in China. A Significant Silence Roosevelt and Churchill dare not mention the colonial question in their “war aims.” That might raise the question of the “interests of the populations concerned” in the enslaved colonies of American and British imperialism, the questions of India, the West Indies, the Malay States, the African colonies. Seven of the Wilsonian Fourteen Point dealt with specific questions of the restoration of nations and self-determination for nationalities conquered or ruled by the Central powers. Subject Nations After the war, each European nation found itself confronting some counter-claim. The need for alignments had induced the lead ing Allied imperialist powers to promise the same territories to different nations. The Versailles Treaty and the other “peace” treaties revamped but did not alter the system of subject, peoples, in Europe. The Austrian Empire oppressor of half a dozen subject peoples, was ruthlessly pared down to a weak dependency of 6,000,000 inhabitants from a country of 60,000,000. Czechoslovakia was established as an independent nation to play the role of pawn for French and British imperialism in Central Europe, and this new nation became in turn the oppressor of national minorities. An independent Hungary was set up, which included subject Rumanians. Rumania was re-established, with rule over a largc group of subject Hungarians. Poland, which Wilson declared must be established as an independent state “which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations,” was given domination over 15,000,000 Ukrainians. “Poor little Serbia” became Yugo-Slavia, the persecutor of the Croatians. Wilson’s “self-determination” resolved itself into a post-war Europe that groaned with the new sufferings of oppressed nationalities. What the 8 Points Slur Over Wilson was more specific about the restoration of nations in Europe. Roosevelt and Churchill have already made too many conflicting commitments. They have undoubtedly, parcelled out Europe twice over in bribes to win over the small nations to the side of the imperialist democracies. And above all, there are the inevitable conflicting claims between the democratic imperialists and the Soviet Union, a, delicate point which Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin now prefer to slur over. The most fraudulent of the Fourteen Points was the sixth, dealing with the newly-founded Soviet Union. Wilson declared for: “The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing ...” The “Sincere Welcome” The “fulfillment” of this promise was the imperialist armed intervention against the Soviet Union from 1918 to 1921. American troops, sent by Wilson without the consent of Congress, participated in this war. And the “sincere welcome” accorded the Soviet Union by the United States government was the refusal to recognize the Soviet government for 15 years. The Roosevelt-Churchill statement fails to mention their new “ally,” the Soviet Union. They dare not place themselves on record, as Wilson did, for the “unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development” of the Soviet Union. Wilson risked that “concession” solely because he believed the Soviet Union of 1918 would not survive for a year. Imperialist “Peace” History has proved that. Wilson’s Fourteen Points were compounded of hypocrisy and fraud. They were the veneer covering the ruthless imperialist aims for which this nation was thrust into World War I. That is the character of the present Roosevelt-Churchill eight-point statement of “war aims.” Like Wilson’s Fourteen Points, the Roosevelt-Churchill statement will be blown away by the harsh winds of any future imperialist “peace.” Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 27 May 2016

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis You Paid for It – U.S. Steel Gets It (29 June 1946) From The Militant, Vol. X No. 26, 29 June 1946, p. 8. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). During the war, the U.S. government took $203,000,000 of the American people’s money and built a tremendous steel plant at Geneva, Utah. The operation of this plant was turned over to the U.S. Steel Corporation which made high guaranteed profits from government contracts. Last week, Attorney General Tom C. Clark approved the War Assets Administration’s sale of this $203,000,000 government-built and owned plant to U.S. Steel for $47,500,000 – that is, a fourth of its cost. Of course, there was “competitive” bidding. If any of our readers, or all of them together, had made a fair offer of $47,500,001, they could have been the proud owners of a brand-new super-de-luxe steel plant. It might be argued that our readers and the rest of the workers did own this plant. Well, it’s true they paid for it – but they never owned it. The U.S. government owned it; and it’s a capitalist government. Since this government is a great defender of “free enterprise,” and since U.S. Steel had $47,500,000 to pay for a $203,000,000 plant, Benjamin Fairless is now the president of a steel empire owning 32,7 per cent of national steel capacity, instead of 31.4 per cent as in 1945. There is, of course, a trifling matter of anti-trust laws and further expansion of private monopoly. Even the Anti-Trust Division of the Department of Justice had to concede that. The Anti-Trust Division advised Attorney General Clark against the gift to U.S. Steel. Clark opined that “I do not view the sale, as such ... as a violation of the anti-trust laws.” He piously added that this did not constitute approval of “the conduct of practices of the U.S. Steel Corp, in its use of property.” That doesn’t worry U.S. Steel. It has the plant. The modest cost – for U.S. Steel – can be defrayed through tax rebates and tax deductions. It can even afford to junk the plant entirely. After all, it just wanted to keep the plant from competitors. The plant could have been operated by the government under workers’ control. “Free enterprise” has dictated, however, that U.S. Steel must increase its monopoly over national steel capacity by 1.3 per cent even if it means robbing the working people who paid for the plant. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 24 December 2018

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis CIO Wage Campaign Faces Disaster Union Heads Fail to Offer Program of Unified Action as Corporations Gang Up (10 May 1948) From The Militant, Vol. 12 No. 19, 10 May 1948, pp. 1 & 4. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The flabbiness of the CIO top leaders and their lack of a program of unified action is heading the CIO’s “third-round” wage drive toward disaster. Big Business is already gloating over the anticipated loss in influence the CIO will suffer as a result of failure to win its demands for “substantial” wage increases. The CIO leadership’s policy of depending on the corporations to “go soft” and toss the unions a few extra crumbs has paid off in exactly zero. Leading corporations in steel, auto, electrical equipment, meat packing, maritime and other major industries have taken the offensive simultaneously against the CIO unions. In rapid-fire fashion, they have tossed the CIO’s wage demands back in the faces of CIO negotiators. CIO President Philip Murray, also head of the CIO Steelworkers, who is supposed to be leading the wage fight, is giving an exhibition of bumbling, fumbling and downright cowardice that is rare even for the traditionally craven union bureaucrats. Last year Murray slipped over a, two-year no-strike clause in the Steelworkers contract in return for meager wage increases. Apparently, he hoped to get similar concessions this year with the same appeasement policy. Weeks ago, when he reopened wage negotiations with U.S. Steel, Murray assured the steel barons in advance that under no conditions would the union strike. At the same time, his office circulated rumors that a wage increase was “in the bag.” This was reflected in the April 2 Wage Earner, Detroit publication of the Association of Catholic Trade Unionists, with which Murray is reputed to be closely connected. Its headline read: STEEL LABOR TO LEAD ‘THIRD ROUND’. The story, from Pittsburgh, said: “Inside reports here this week said U.S. Steel has a wage increase offer for the CIO’s United Steelworkers of America. The company expects that its offer will prove to be the ‘third round’ pattern. There was no word as to how big the wage boost is, but guesses were ‘somewhere near 15 cents’.” Whose guesses? Murray’s. Certainly not the steel companies? Benjamin Fairless, head of U.S. Steel, had publicly told a Senate committee back in March that his company was opposed to any wage boosts. Murray strung along his membership. But Fairless wasn’t kidding. Two weeks ago U.S. Steel signalled an anti-union offensive all along the Big Business line. It rejected out-of-hand the CIO Steelworkers wage demands under the pretext of a trifling price cut that will not infringe on U.S. Steel’s monumental profits. Retreat and Surrender In the face of this Big Business offensive, Murray once again assured the steel companies that, the steelworkers union would not, strike. Murray was saying, in effect, that the CIO Steelworkers, the second largest union in the CIO, intends to leave the other CIO unions to fight it out alone. He was also saying, that he, as-the elected head of the CIO, was for a continued policy of retreat and surrender. On the same day Murray made his latest no-strike pronouncement. General Electric and Westinghouse turned the cold shoulder to the CIO electrical workers. General Motors disdained even to make a counter-offer to the CIO auto workers, while Chrysler withdrew its original six-cent offer. The East Coast and Gulf ship owners turned down the CIO National Maritime Union’s wage demands and called for the elimination of the union hiring hall. The big meat packing companies, headed by Armour, have been emboldened to launch a violent strikebreaking attack against the seven-week walkout of the CIO packinghouse workers, the one major CIO union which is putting up a real fight for higher wages. The policy of making each CIO union carry on its wage fight individually against the combined might of the corporations and government has already cost the CIO dearly. Serious Setbacks The American Communications Association suffered a complete defeat against the cable companies – the first serious defeat of any CIO union since the Little Steel strike of 1937. After an eight-month strike the CIO Textile Workers at Huntsville, Alabama, have been unable to gain renewal of a contract. And Murray’s own union sustained a serious blow when the Steelworkers local at the Nashville Corp., in Nashville, Tenn., ended a 26-week strike without gaining the union recognition it fought for. The CIO wage campaign is in a completely chaotic condition. Every union is going its own sweet way, without even a hint of coordinated strategy and mutual aid in the face of the united offensive of the corporations. The Stalinist leaders of UE, who oppose Murray politically but follow his wage policy, have answered the turn-down of General Electric and Westinghouse with mere bluster. They have asked the local unions to take action on a local scale. The CIO United Auto Workers has scheduled a strike of 76,000 Chrysler workers to begin May 12. It appears that the UAW leadership is again committing the union to the inadequate “one-at-a-time" strategy which resulted in the long-drawn-out GM s trike two years ago. The National Maritime Union is to hold a strike referendum of its membership during this month. Other CIO unions are expected to take similar votes. But isolated, uncoordinated strikes in scattered industries or sections of industries are not enough. Against the unified front of the corporations, single strikes even of an entire national union often cannot prevail, or lead to minor gains after long and costly struggle. It is clear that the CIO workers cannot depend on Murray and his lieutenants for real leadership. Just this past week he spoke on the steel situation over a national radio hook-up. With millions of CIO workers listening for some guidance, Murray offered only complaints about the actions of the steel companies. At the start of the CIO wage drive, The Militant pointed the way to victory. We warned in the March 15 issue: “The half-hearted, spineless manner in which the CIO leader’s are proceeding in the wage drive inspires no confidence, whatsoever. If there is no drastic revision in the CIO leaders’ wage policies, the CIO workers are going to end up with mere crumbs and less than that. “A successful wage drive depends on the CIO unions, being swiftly consolidated into a single, effective fighting front with a unified strategy.” This program holds good today and can turn threatening disaster into victory. It is up to the union ranks to compel their leaders to cal! an emergency conference of all CIO unions to work out and put into practice a program of united militant action on the wage front. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 2 February 2022

Art Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis AFL Chiefs Uphold 2-Party Misrule Council Stages Political Farce at Miami Parley (9 February 1948) From The Militant, Vol. XII No. 6, 9 February 1948, pp. 1 & 3. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). FEB. 3 – While warming their senile hides and thin blood in Miami sunshine, the 15 “elder statesmen’’ of the AFL. Executive Council have been disporting themselves since Jan. 26 in a shameless political farce. They have decked themselves in the fetching costumes of “independent” politics. But their gestures and postures are those of solicitors for the two-parity dive of Big Business. On Feb. 2, the entire AFL Council lined up in chorus formation for the first act of their burlesque. This was their unanimous rejection of Henry Wallace and any third-party candidacy for the U.S. Presidency. Their theme song was “Do Not Split the Liberal Vote.” The next act played the following day, was performed largely in the vein of low slapstick comedy. Here the cast of characters was seen trying to contrive their own political program and set-up. Falling Apart They were seated around a machine called Labor’s League for Political Education, blue-printed at the San Francisco convention last October to be the AFL’s political conveyance. Then, right on the stage, one of the biggest parts of the machine dropped off – the carpenters’ union led by William L. Hutcheson. Daniel Tobin’s teamsters’ union started coming loose. John L. Lewis had wrenched off – in technical parlance, “disaffiliated” – the miners’ union a number of weeks ago. But the denouement, came in the attempts of the Council members to get a “reputable” driver for the machine. For months they had been hunting high and low for some old-line capitalist politician in need of a $20,000 a year job, to take the steering wheel of LLPE. They had reached a point of frustration and desperation when they were actually considering appointing one of their own number to keep the job from going begging. At the last moment, however, they dug up a likely candidate ex-Senator Burton K. Wheeler, and even announced his acceptance. Then the farce got out of hand altogether. Wheeler advised them that he could only take the job on a “part-time” basis, if at all. Besides he could not accept without the understanding that he did not go along hook-line-and-sinker with the Marshall Plan and did not subscribe to the AFL’s position of opposition to all Congressional candidates who voted for the Taft-Hartley Slave Labor Bill. This led to a free-for-all among the Council members that did not appear to be in the original script of their show. A section of the Council, headed by David Dubinsky, “revolted.” They said they would not accept Wheeler. A Thin Disguise Seldom has the American labor movement been so disgraced as by the Miami spectacle put on by the AFL big-wigs. In the very breath that they opposed Wallace for his “false liberalism,” they revealed their own complete subservience to reaction. They complained that supporting Wallace “would play into the hands of Soviet Russia’s expansionist policy” – but that’s a thin disguise for their own slavish support of Wall Street’s imperialist program. They also claimed a third party would “split the liberal vote.” We’ve heard that song before – at every election since 1932 and every time the workers demand their own political party. The last time we heard it was in 1946. The workers didn’t “split the liberal vote” and got the most reactionary Congress in decades anyway. If the AFL leaders don’t go for Wallace’s third-party movement – and they are correct when they say it does not spring from the labor movement – how do they propose to free the American workers from subjection to the two old political machines of Wall Street? It was on this issue particularly that the AFL leaders in Miami staged an exhibition that would be comic – if it were not so serious for the life of the American labor movement, and such an insult to the more than 7 million hard-working AFL members who pay the salaries of the “fat and stately asses” of the Executive Council. Nobody Is Fooled The game of the Council majority is to swing labor’s votes once more behind strikebreaker Truman and the Democratic Party. They haven’t dared to say this in so many words, but nobody is fooled by their pretenses of “non-partisanship.” But some of these “labor statesmen” can’t agree on what capitalist party to sell out to in the 1948 elections. Hutcheson of the Carpenters has declined to go along with LLPE, because, as an old-time standby of the Republican National Committee he’s still playing for a deal with some “acceptable” Republican candidate. Tobin of the Teamsters has been gyrating around their political weather-vane – at the last sighting he was pointed toward Republican Governor Warren of California. But in essence, they all represent the same kind of politics. They are company unionists in the political arena, opposed to all genuine independent political action by labor and supporting established political reaction through the two-party system. How symbolic have been their frantic efforts to secure anybody but a genuine labor leader to head LLPE. They have been scouring the political swamps for months to drag up some Democratic politician who will graciously take $20,000 a year to cover up the word “Labor” in Labor’s League for Political Education. They went after Robert LaFollette and Mathew Neely and James Mead and Maury Maverick. They were almost ready to settle for Andrew Biemiller of Wisconsin, until he decided he would rather run again for Congress. Besides some of the Council members thought Biemiller was “too radical” because of his former New Deal sympathies! Then they finally latched onto that old Democratic wheel-horse and pre-Pearl Harbor darling of the American Firsters and isolationist ultra-reactionaries – Senator Wheeler. Wheeler brought this whole farce to a head when he telephoned the AFL leaders that before he’d take the $20,000 a year for the use of his name they’d have to know “I just couldn’t abandon my law business” – aiding the railroad corporations. At this writing the LLPE is still without a national figurehead. What voice have the AFL members had in the life-and-death question of the political course they must travel? None whatsoever. The 15 bureaucrats luxuriating in Miami have never given a thought to consulting those who pay the dues and assessments. It’s high lime for the AFL members to put a stop to the disgusting conduct of those who presume to speak in the name of seven million workers. The voice of the ranks must be heard. They must decide. The demand must be raised in all the great bodies of organized labor for a National United Labor Conference, with rank and file representation from the AFL, CIO, Railroad Brotherhoods and independents, to map out a program of independent political action for the labor movement. Such a conference could end the shoddy maneuvers and deals on the top with capitalist politicians. It could launch the mighty legions of labor as a truly independent force by organizing labor’s own party and running its own candidates next November. Top of page Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Last updated: 5 October 2020

Preis Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page Art Preis A Glimpse at U.S. Diplomats Ambassador Dodd Painted a Devastating Portrait of These Parasites (22 March 1941) From The Militant, Vol. V No. 12, 22 March 1941, p. 5. Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’ Callaghan for the Encyclopaedia of Trotskyism On-Line (ETOL). The diplomatic world that William E. Dodd entered he was appointed United States Ambassador to Germany in June 1933 is pictured in his daily personal journal, published recently by his son and daughter under the title Ambassador Dodd’s Diary 1933–1938. Dodd’s description of a dinner at the French embassy in Berlin is a good introduction to that world: “There Was a great room for the accommodation of men’s and women’s wraps, with two servants, in livery, to receive them – expecting tips. Up the magnificent stairway there were pages dressed in the gay liveries of Louis XIV’s. time. At the entrance to the reception hall, there were two other servants to hand out cards indicating dinner companions. In the reception room there was a marvelous rug with a huge letter N in the middle to remind one, especially Germans, of the conquests of Napoleon, Dr. Hjalmar Schacht and Count von Bassewitz were compelled to walk over or around the famous initial ... “The walls were covered with beautiful Gobelin tapestries. The chairs were of Louis XIV style ... I noticed ... also portraits of French generals of the Louis XIV period ... and a lavish table with decorations in the best of form and taste. There were eight or ten servants, in liveries, as pages, all standing at attention. It surpassed the Belgian’s dining hall outfit. “We ate for an hour. Nothing worth while was said ... After we were through, all marched correctly to the reception room where everyone stood gossiping in little groups until 11:45 when the musicians came to open a concert ... There was nothing else to do, so we went out as the great party moved into the music hall. Such was the show of democratic France to autocratic Germany.” (our emphasis) A Typical Example of Bourgeois Hypocrisy In one passage, Dodd sums up the hypocritical character of capitalist statesmen and diplomacy: “I went to the Catholic Cathedral near the old Kaiser’s palace to attend the service in honor of Pilsudski, who was being buried in Cracow, Poland, at the same time ... Hitler took the seat of honor on the right of the altar ... “To me it was all half-absurd. I do not know much about Pilsudski, except that he was a dictator who put people to death when they opposed him. Why so much religious ceremony when no one could have imagined him to be a Christian? But there was probably not one follower of Jesus in the whole congregation. I wondered how German Lutherans and Catholics would honor Hitler, a professed Catholic, if he should die. He has murdered or caused to be murdered hundreds of innocent people. Yet all of us diplomats would be called into the churches to pay tribute to him as a Christian in case of his death.” The American State Department took no second place in pretentious display. Its emissaries and officials were, and are, the spokesmen of huge wealth and private gain, ignorant, mercenary and ruling-class consciois to the core. Dodd so describes them: “... The further I go in my study of State Department policies, the more evidence there is that a clique of kinspeople connected with certain rich families are bent upon exploiting the Foreign Service for their set, many of them Harvard graduates who are not even well informed. Snobbery and personal gratification are the main objects with then.” Dodd’s Descriptions if American Diplomats Here are some individual portraits : “The American Minister in Vienna, George Earle, called at 11 o’clock. He is one of the rich men appointed to foreign posts who know little history of their own or any other country ... He is intelligent, but he has a rich man’s estimate of social values. For instance, servants, valets, butlers were to him a mark of distinction. He thought it terrible that less than 300 families in Vienna have as many as three servants each ...” “Earle thinks Dollfuss was right in his ruthless handling of the Socialist rebellion in Austria during the second half of February.” Earle is now U.S. Minister to Bulgaria. “When I accepted this post, I stipulated that there was to be no complaint if I lived within my official income ... However, I had not been in Berlin long before I received notice that the then Counselor, George Gordon, was to be recalled and J.C. White was to succeed him ... I did not realize the purpose of this appointment until some months later when I learned that White was one of the richest men in the service. “At the same time, I learned that Orme Wilson was to come with the Whites, and he was reported also to be a very wealthy man. This was clearly to supplement my want of millions of dollars. Furthermore, I saw that Jay Pierrepont Moffat, brother-in-law of White and Phillips, uncle of Wilson, both in high position in the State Department, intended to have White and Wilson manage the Embassy.” Dodd’s Picture of the State Department In March 1934, Dodd returned for a visit to the United States. One journal entry during this period is particularly devastating in its depiction of the character of the State Department personnel. “In the afternoon I attended a conference of personnel officers in the State Department: Moore, (now Counselor of the State Department) Carr, Sumner Welles (of doubtful Cuban fame), Hugh Wilson and others were present. I reported that American diplomacy had a new role to play. The Louis XIV and Victoria style and times had passed.