Roosevelt and the American Workers (1932)

From the December 1932 issue of the Socialist Standard

The faith which the American workers have in the new President, Mr. Roosevelt, shows that, like the workers of England, they cherish the belief that somebody, someday, will rescue them from their poverty.

They have been told that the Roosevelt Government will be a business Government. In other words, the Cabinet will not consist of politicians, but of business men—men who will have the trade of the country at heart—men who will understand what is needed to put the U.S.A. on a good business footing.

And, blinding their eyes to the fact that business Governments have held sway in the past without bettering their lot at all, the workers of America are congratulating themselves and expecting Roosevelt and his Cabinet to give them better conditions. The possible passing of Prohibition has played a great part in winning votes in this well-boosted Presidential Election. Superficialities have, as usual, drawn the attentions of the working class away from the things that matter. What should prohibition or its abolition matter to them, when, in many cases they find it difficult to secure the bare necessities of life?

What should it matter to them which set of individuals composes their Government? The means of production, and the wealth the workers produce with these means, will still be in the hands of the capitalist class, and the workers will consequently remain poor.

There will still be a Secretary of Finance to keep an eye on the property interests of the American master class, whilst a Secretary of the Navy will perform his function of maintaining a fleet to protect American territory against other sections of capitalists.

Moreover, there will still be a Secretary of War who will not hesitate to send the youth of America on a mission of killing and mutilating if this is necessary in securing new markets and territorial advantages. And both Army and Navy will be used against the workers when capitalist interests require this.

In short, working class conditions will not be altered in the least. Unemployment and poverty will still exist, and there will still be present the dread of a future war. There is only one remedy. The overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of a new social system—a system with the common ownership of the means of production and distribution as its basis. That, and that alone, will bring about the emancipation of the working class, not only of America, but of all countries.

F. Hawkins

America’s “Radical” Presidents (1974)

From the Special 300th issue of The Western Socialist

A glance at U.S. political history of this century discloses an amazing fact. From Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, to Richard Nixon, a Republican, there have been a number of Presidents from both major parties who have either been labelled communist, socialist or radical leftist by their opponents or have legislated — or advocated legislation — widely thought of as socialistic. Roosevelt the First denounced the "malefactors of great wealth” and was known as a Trust Buster. Woodrow Wilson’s administration introduced the tax on income for the first time and that was definitely branded as socialist by his wealthy Republican opponents. Roosevelt the Second legislated social security, government relief projects and a number of other agencies that were tagged socialist by his enemies. He was widely denounced as a sort of communist. Harry Truman brought in Medicare which was certainly — according to the American Medical Association — the opening wedge to socialized medicine. Elsenhower was denounced by the Birch Society and by the ardent followers of Senator Joe McCarthy as a communist dupe Kennedy and Johnson both continued to talk in the manner of their predecessors with Lyndon going so far as to join in a chorus of We Shall Overcome when he signed the Civil Rights Bill. And now Richard M. Nixon, that one-time battler of Communists has topped them all by going for government economic controls on the home front and practicing blood-brother summitry with the leaders of his erstwhile enemies In Peking and in Moscow.

Amazing? It certainly is when one considers the fact that American capitalism has seemingly thrived on all of its radical presidents and all of its “socialist” legislation. America has become, in this century, the bastion of world capitalism.

And now comes Senator George McGovern and his running mate Mr Shriver. multi-millionaire and member of the Kennedy family by marriage, with more “socialist” proposals, according to those who are frightened by them, and one cannot but wonder: why the alarm? Since what is popularly believed to be socialism has worked to make America the top plutocracy of all time would it not seem practical to have more of it? Or is the widespread fear of Mr. McGovern’s radical ideas merely a reflection of a widespread admiration for Mr. Nixon’s own “socialist” efforts? If we have to have socialism, the worriers might be thinking, let’s continue with Dick’s brand rather than have George do it.

The fact is, of course, that the terms “socialism” and “communism" have come to mean something quite alien to their true meaning. What is socialism? What is communism? They are different terms for the same system of society, a social order without buying and selling, minus wage labor, a world without nations, a system based upon free right of access, by all mankind, to all that is produced.

What has that to do with the creation of government agencies to handle problems of the poor, both working and unemployed? Obviously nothing. Such agencies are but continued recognition of the only real inalienable right of the workers under capitalism, the right to continue in poverty and insecurity. Is It not apparent after seven decades of so-called socialistic legislation and so-called socialist and communist-type political leaders, from Republicans and Democrats alike, that capitalism in any form can only continue to really enrich the capitalists and do nothing to improve the conditions of life for the vast majority? Any attempt to make capitalism work in the interests of the vast majority is fruitless.

Bank for World Trade (1943)

From the August 1943 issue of the Socialist Standard

Discussions have recently been started on the future of banking currency and exchange after the war. Lord Keynes (British Treasury) has put forward one set of proposals for an International Clearing Union. Mr. Morgenthau, Treasurer of the United States Government, has made other proposals for an international currency, based on gold.

Various writers and journals have taken up these suggestions with the usual alacrity, hailing them as serious contributions to the solution of world problems.

Typical of such journals is the dear old New Statesman (April 10th, 1943) :

“Man’s failure to construct a sane system to regulate exchange between the nations is one of the reasons for the ghastly state of the world to-day. . . . The general standard of life which the world enjoys, and on which all hopes of social betterment hang—(our italics)—must depend on the way in which the nations succeed in organising exchange of … surplus goods.”

This is no new idea : it’s as old (almost) as the capitalist system itself. The same issue of the New Statesman carries one of those typical “Left” articles, which they have published for years, calling on somebody or other (in authority) to do something for somebody. This week it's Professor Laski urging President Roosevelt not to support Fascist elements in Tunis. This has something to do with the New Deal in America, although Laski admits “that the essence of the New Deal was not Socialism.” Nevertheless, “freedom from want and fear deliberately organised now can make the foundations of democracy secure in the post-war world.”

“Do you remember, Mr. President, those brave words you used in your inaugural address of March 4th, 1933?” asks the Professor.

“This is pre-eminently the time to speak the truth. . . . Plenty is at our door but a generous use of it languishes in the very sight of the supply. Primarily this is because the rulers of the exchange of mankind’s goods have failed.”—Pres. Roosevelt, March, 1933.

Here, again, the same idea that faulty exchange is the cause of the trouble.

Taking our courage in both hands, we boldly challenge President Roostvelt, Professor Laski and Sir Kingsley Wood to prove this proposition. The crises of capitalism are not caused by faulty exchange.

Exchange itself is but an effect, not the cause. Exchange is the result of private property in the means cf production.

It is the economic relationship of private owners. 

That is why the S.P.G.B. for years, despite charges of pedantry, opposed the S.D.F. and I.L.P., who stated that they stood for the “socialisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.”

This is not Socialism. Socialism abolishes money, banks, cheques, and all the counters of various sizes and names which capitalists require to ensure their pound of flesh. Socialism is a system based on common ownership, which freely distributes to all whatever the community cam produce.

People starve in the sight of plenty because it is privately owned by capitalists.

A new system of international currency after the war may assist British or American capitalists—no amount of alteration of the tokens which circulate wealth will help property-less workers.

Horatio.

Editorial: A Few Words on the Atlantic Charter (1941)

Editorial from the October 1941 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Atlantic Charter drafted by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill lays down the principles of the post-war international settlement as viewed by the U.S.A. and Britain. It has now received the general support of Russia and of the small Powers allied against Germany. It suggests obvious comparisons with the attempt to settle world affairs after the last war and with the scheme the German Government has put forward for enforcement if they are the victors. If it were as easy to dispose of awkward problems as it is to draft fine sounding proclamations we could perhaps agree about the superiority of the Atlantic Charter over the Versailles settlement and over the German plan. There is this to be said for the Atlantic Charter, that it is phrased in terms which do not envisage dividing up the spoils of world trade for the benefit of the victors. In Point 4 it pledges Great Britain and the U.S.A. that they will endeavour, “with due respect for their existing obligations” (more about this later) “to further enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity.”

This has been compared with the third of President Wilson’s 14 points drafted in 1918, which promised similar equality of trade conditions, but only “among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.” In other words, Germany and her allies were in effect barred.

Similarly it may be compared with the plan for world settlement recently elaborated by one of the leading Nazi economists, Werner Daitz. This was summarised in the Times (September 10th, 1941); under this plan the world is to be divided into six groups, the East-Asiatic, the Indo-Malay, the European, the African, the North American and the South American. The European, which is to take in all Western Russia and Great Britain, is to be under German dominance and according to Daitz it will have complete control over Africa, and there is to be no nonsense of equal trading conditions: —

“Europe will exercise a dominating power over the world. She will need much less food and raw materials from oversea than heretofore, but she will remain the greatest selling market for the countries producing rawstuffs. Consequently, she will be able to dictate the terms on which she buys. What will happen to Australia if Germany refuses her wool ? Or to the Argentine if she declines her beef ? Or to the United States if she will have no cotton? Europe will be able to use the fact that she is the world’s greatest consumer and the world’s intensest centre of industrial production as a political lever to control the other Lebensraume.”

Promise and Performance

But while the words and sentiments differ, what about the prospect of fulfilment? It will not be forgotten that when President Wilson had been disposed of other men and other interests actually dominated the settlement, and paid not even lip-service to the liberal sentiments expressed by Wilson in others of his 14 Points.

Already there has been questioning about that innocent little clause in the Atlantic Charter which reads: “With due respect for their existing obligations.” At the meeting of the nine allied Governments held in London, on September 24th, the representative of the Dutch Government raised objection and said “it was the view of his Government that this reservation might diminish the beneficial effect of the whole clause.”—(News-Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

The City Editor of the same journal supported the Dutch Government’s protest though pointing out that that Government too is asking preferential treatment for its own interest. He added: —

“Politicians, business men and leading civil servants are already busily engaged in explaining away Point 4. Some of them are even reported to have argued with scant tact; in the United States that we must maintain exchange control and trade bilateralism as permanent features of our economic set-up, since we “cannot afford” to do without them.

Bilateralism is the system of trade which says, “I won’t buy from you unless you buy as much from me.” That system is in direct and irreconcilable conflict with the equal access principle, which says, “I submit to no conditions from those to whom I sell and impose no conditions on those from whom I buy.”

If Point 4 of the Atlantic Charter means anything at all, it means adherence to the latter, “multilateral,” system of trade, and it is disquieting to find even distinguished economists setting at defiance both our signature to the Atlantic Charter and the most elementary doctrines of their own science”.— (News Chronicle, September 25th, 1941.)

So already it is plain that Clause 4 is going to have a rough passage and if its opponents have their way, to quote the News-Chronicle, “all that in practice is likely to be left of a fine principle is a fine phrase.”

Who will Slay the Capitalist Giants?

All the emphasis in the Atlantic Charter is laid on the relations between nations, but what about the great capitalist combines at home? The Atlantic Charter sees the need to protect the small nations against dominance by the larger ones if they are to trade and have access to raw materials on equal terms. But if capitalism is to continue, as Roosevelt and Churchill take for granted that it will, how is this to be done? How will they deal with the great capitalist concerns like Unilever, Imperial Chemical Industries and similar concerns in other lands? Who is going to slay these giant international semi-monopolies which are the real dominators of world trade? What is the use of saying that trade is on equal terms, a fair field and no favour, when these octopus organisations are left with their tentacles sprawling across the globe, not to mention the fact that they will naturally seek to use their great influence with governments to advance their interests.

This is the acid test of the talk of putting capitalist trade on a better basis. Is there any intention among the upholders of capitalism of reversing a half century of development towards bigger and bigger monopolies? Some twenty years ago a Labour leader, Mr. J. R. Clynes, said that his party thought it better to have a large number of small capitalists than a small number of large ones. Would Mr. Clynes or any other Labour leader say that to-day? Indeed, how could they when they are committed to a programme of amalgamation and formation of great public utility corporations ?

Is Agriculture to be Destroyed by Cheap Foreign Imports ?

There is another awkward fact to be faced by those who think that fine words about equal trade conditions are a contribution to settling the world’s problems. Are any countries to be allowed to impose protective tariffs or give subsidies to agriculture or other industries in order to save them from bankruptcy in face of a flood of cheaper products from abroad ? The News-Chronicle, true to its free-trade doctrines, says that the Atlantic Charter rules out these practices, as it logically does, but where do the Conservative Party and the Labour Party stand ? The Conservatives and many individuals in the Labour Party are already committed to a policy of protecting agriculture in Britain against a flood of imports from countries able to grow food more cheaply. What do they understand by Clause 4? And if they demand protective measures or subsidies for agriculture how will they object to Germany and other countries following a similar line for various industries ? In short, how will the trade scramble after this war be any different from that before the war’?

Twenty odd years ago the Labour Party had an answer. They were prepared to take the free trade line and let agriculture or any other industry sink or swim without aid. In their 1918 “Labour and the new social order,” they said “we ourselves object to all Protective Customs Tariffs,” and on the question of agriculture they said specifically that nothing must be done which would raise the price of foodstuffs here above the price level of foodstuffs imported from abroad.

They would no doubt give a somewhat different answer now but change is not necessarily progress, and the task of making capitalism work harmoniously is at least as difficult now as it was then. Socialists have no doubt about their attitude. Capitalism cannot be made to work satisfactorily. It must be abolished. Those who think differently, and this includes all those who have hastened to applaud the sentiments of the Atlantic Charter, should at least face up to these problems and decide where they stand.

The Ides of March. (1940)

From the March 1940 issue of the Socialist Standard

“The Ides of March are come.

Ay, Caezar? but not gone” (Shakespeare).

Social change often begins in the spring. There is an inherent restlessness at this season of the year which at present is intensified to such an extent by the black-out, and other impositions which our masters have decided are necessary, that a “fed-up” feeling is becoming general.

The bewitching beauty of an Arctic sky canopies scenes of ghastly horror in the fairy land of Finland. Men, women and children are being blown to pieces, burnt to death, and even when horribly wounded gripped in the merciless fingers of an iron frost until petrified into icy carcases; these gruesome deeds being the result of an attempt, on the part of the workers perpetrating them to decide whether this or that brand of profit making shall survive. This land of loveliness, with its small fir Christmas trees, naturally decked, snow-gemmed and bejewelled, dancing stars, the peaceful moon and the Northern Lights, where sound is sacrilege in the awe-inspiring natural scene, is now turned into an inferno because one-sixth of the earth’s surface does not apparently satisfy “the only Socialist country in the world.” Oh! Socialism! what crimes are committed in thy name!

The United States is not supposed to be a direct participant in the war, but she is vitally interested in the peace. Should the war cease now, Hitler would be in a favourable position; he could start again advantageously after a breathing spell; therefore we may expect peace proposals, veiled or open, to emanate from Germany shortly; these are likely to come to nothing. The Presidential election taking place this fall in the land of Uncle Sam causes those interested in American politics to desire first-hand information regarding the situation in Europe. The visit of Mr. Welles is, therefore, of considerable interest to those who are influential in Government circles. It is well known that all branches of big business in God’s country do not see eye to eye with the President. If Roosevelt runs again there will be a clash between those who control the wealth of the United States and those exploiters who desire for themselves a more equitable distribution of it than prevails at the present time; the small fry of the capitalist group will at the end of the coming scrap be wiped out. American capital is striving to get a grip on Sweden; the Swedes are fully alive to the game that is being played, and for that reason refused to declare war on Russia in order to aid Finland. They are fully awakened to the perfidy of Moscow. They can understand also why certain bankers should be pro Stalin and other capitalist politicians pro Finn. The Swedes know the U.S.A. financiers. Sweden has no national debt to function as a vehicle to put money into moneylenders’ pockets, and, worse still from a ruling class standpoint, her working class are well organised. There is a threat here to the exploiter which he apparently cannot ignore. Should Sweden be drawn into a war, however, the working-class organisations may be dislocated. The capitalist class everywhere make the most of the opportunities a war gives them and during hostilities systematically work to weaken or destroy working-class movements. Could Sweden be drawn into a war, the Unions would be weakened at the end of it; education would cease while the war was on and the working class would emerge politically hamstrung, the movement in Sweden would be thrown back for a generation; the strange feature in this connection is that Stalin is aiding big business in the work of entrapping the workers of the Scandinavian countries into a position where they can be crushed. Stalin cannot afford to have on his borders a working-class movement becoming alive to the real fundamentals of its class position.

* * * * * *

The Lion’s Cubs have responded to their parents’ call and many working men have left their homes in the Dominions overseas to take their place in the battle line; the old boy considering all should be in order before he makes his spring. Whether he lands on the Russian Bear or the German Eagle, he is going to make fur or feather or both fly shortly; this will cause certain organisations in the country to imitate the mole and others to dissolve their revolutionary ardour upon the capitalist breast of patriotism.

The Pyramids of Egypt have looked down upon many strange happenings and have often figured as a setting for the stage of world events; civilisations and empires have come and gone, but these works of the slaves of old defy all revolutions and challenge the hand of time. Napoleon and Caezar before him made their entrances and their exits without making any impression upon these colossal monuments, and therefore it is hoped the writer will not be considered disrespectful when he points out that the visit of Mr. Anthony Eden to this ancient land is not likely to set the Nile on fire or to cause the Pyramids to topple.

The bottleneck of the Empire has to be safeguarded and, although not broadcast, it is an open secret that the Arab Federation will play a strong hand in what is about to unfold in the Near East.

It is interesting to note how social production has linked up the peoples of the world; in a war this is glaringly revealed. Britain must not only think of the Suez, but of Mesopotamia, and in fact the world; no nation can live to itself, and not even an Empire so vast as the British can be independent of the rest of the planet. The ties that bind are economic and cannot be broken; the peoples of the world are forced into unity by the development of the system itself. The workers are now called upon to realise they have no country, but are of a class: a class that must make the world a Socialist world—that is their job.

The news spread by the exploiters’ Press, or piped over the ether, is, in the main, what it is considered we should believe; we listen to our master’s voice like the dog in the picture and, naturally, as a consequence most wage slaves subconsciously absorb ruling class ideas and make them their own; the exceptions are considered eccentric and are often designated by their fellows as “batty”; the unearthing of the truth is a difficult task even in normal times, and, now the war is on, to make matters worse, organisations are appearing on every hand whose sole function is to prevent it from being discovered. This being the case, when our masters or their henchmen draw our attention to the north, it is best to look in the south; when they point to the east we should turn our gaze to the west. Never forget, even when war is on, the capitalist class live by exploiting the working class, and they would a thousand times rather lose any war in which they may be temporarily engaged than lose their power to make us work for their permanent benefit.

The aged poor continue to accelerate their journey to the grave by trying to live on the miserable pittance they tremblingly receive.

The extension of the war to the Balkans and the Near East is probable. Egypt is the pivot upon which may turn many spectacular events: she is a vital connection between the Near and the Far East, Palestine, Turkey, Irak, Iran, Afghanistan, and later the whole world will soon feel the dislocating shock of the clash of rival capitalist interests. Blood will flow, and all to no purpose; the economic problem that the system has evolved cannot be solved without destroying the system itself, and this is not our masters’ object; they are at war because they think war, for what they want, is essential to enable capitalism to function. There can be no improvement for our class until we decide to take political action with a view to establishing a new form of society. We should aim at ending exploitation by removing the cause of it. The cause is capitalist ownership and production for profit. The cure is common ownership and production for use. The people in common must own that upon which they in common depend.

During the progress of the war we can expect our masters to make the most of their opportunities to further subjugate us. We must resist every attempt in this connection. Attempts will also be made to lower real wages by financial legerdemain. The working class must be put on their guard. The capitalist class do all the “paying,” but the working class do all the producing. Everything necessary to the carrying on of the war will be produced by the workers, the capitalist class will not produce anything.

The Capitalists will do their “paying” out of the profits they make by exploiting the working class.

During the war the capitalist class will loan to the Government a portion of their profits: this gives them a mortgage on the future production of the working class.

After the war the Government will “owe” the capitalist class countless millions. It will then be discovered that social services, wages, etc., must be cut to the bone in order to meet the interest on what is owing. This is the reward of the working class.

Now is the Ides of March; will there be any stirring in the minds of the workers ? The old timers will look everywhere for signs; they will recall those inspiring periods in working-class history when the deeds of the toilers lent hope to what is to come.

The triumph of Socialism is inevitable, and although “fate or insufficiency may provide mean ends for men who are what they would be,” still we have our consolation.

We know that we are working in the noblest cause that ever appealed to the world or to man.

Charles Lestor

Cooking the Books: Big Deal! (2020)

The Cooking the Books column from the August 2020 issue of the Socialist Standard

When Boris Johnson announced the bringing forward of a modest package of public works, he remarked that,  ‘it sounds positively Rooseveltian. It sounds like a New Deal. All I can say is that if so that is how it is meant to sound to be’ (Times, 30 June). He was referring to the policies pursued by the Roosevelt administration in America in the 1930s.

When Roosevelt assumed office as President in 1933 the US was confronted with an unprecedented economic crisis – a huge fall in output, mass unemployment, a frozen financial system. To try to deal with this, his administration adopted a programme of public works (for which he is remembered) and of restricting production until stocks cleared (which is not remembered, but which is essential before capitalism can recover from a slump).

Re-elected in 1936, he expanded the public works programme. Capitalist production recovered to some extent but in 1937-38 there was another recession. As for unemployment:

‘When Roosevelt ran for re-election in 1936, the unemployment rate was 16.9 per cent, almost twice what it had been in 1930. (…) When Roosevelt ran for the unprecedented third term [in 1940], unemployment was 14.6 per cent.’ (LINK).

No wonder a Times sub-editor, in a note explaining Roosevelt’s New Deal to readers who might not have been familiar with it, wrote:

 ‘The extent to which it helped the US economy to recover from a deflationary recession remains a matter of debate. Some argue that FDR, as the president was known, did not spend enough and that it was the Second World War that finally put the US economy back on track as government spending soared.’

The ‘some’ referred to who wanted FDR to spend more are left-wing reformists, and currency cranks, who do not understand how capitalism works. The Roosevelt administration could in theory have spent more on putting people to work on infrastructure projects but this would have had to have been at the expense of private capitalist investment, a fall in which would have had the opposite effect of more unemployment. But it is true that mass unemployment in the US only ended when the government mobilised resources to fight a war.

The New Deal was opposed by some sections of the capitalist class who regarded it, as Johnson’s hero Churchill put it in an appeal to Roosevelt in 1937, ‘this war on wealth and business, this war on private enterprise’ (quoted in the Guardian, 29 June). Most capitalists, however, were more level-headed. Roosevelt himself was reported as having said, in May 1935, that ‘I want to save our system, the capitalistic system.’

By capitalism he meant private capitalism as production for profit by private capitalist enterprises. This survived as the dominant form of capitalism in the US. It was never really in need of ‘saving’. Nor was capitalism in its more accurate sense of production for profit on the basis of wage-labour, since those Roosevelt wanted to save private capitalism from – the fascists who wanted America to emulate Hitler’s Germany and the ‘communists’ who wanted it to emulate Stalin’s Russia – were merely advocating alternative ways of operating this.

Roosevelt's "New Deal" (1934)

From the June 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

The whole world has been watching with interest the progress and results of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” more correctly described as American capitalism’s strenuous effort to rescue itself from the morass of depression.

After three years of deepening crisis, falling prices and wages, increasing bankruptcies, and unemployment that reached the unheard of total of from 15 to 17 millions, the country was seething with political unrest. The Hoover regime, which had attempted to conjure the depression away by wish-magic and optimism, but had otherwise done practically nothing to alleviate the economic dislocation, was overwhelmed in the democratic landslide of the 1932 elections. Roosevelt and his party swept the country with their attacks on the “criminal inactivity” of the Republicans, and with lavish promises of a New Deal that would bring back “ Prosperity.”

In general, although there is much intertwining of interests in the propertied class the Republican Party stands for big business and the financial interests. The Democrats are the party of the smaller business men and the mass of the farmers. The most voluble, agitated and organised of all those adversely affected by the depression were precisely these latter groups. Millions of small property owners were hopelessly in debt, their savings gone or tied up in closed banks. The farmers’ earnings and standard of life had been declining for years before the crisis which but intensified their problems. Amongst the workers cut after cut in wages, plus mass unemployment and the constant threat of it, had generated a great volume of discontent. This was, however, largely unorganised and inarticulate, notwithstanding sporadic outbursts. All these elements looked to Roosevelt as to a messiah. Emotional tension at the time of the elections was intense and enthusiasm for the victorious “hero” almost universal, even amongst many of the rank and file Republicans.

Immediately after its inauguration in March, 1933, the new Government was granted extraordinary emergency powers by the overwhelmingly Democratic Congress. Then came the passing, almost without criticism, of a series of drastic laws drawn up by Roosevelt and his group of economic advisers which set up a whole battery of new administrative bodies for a concerted attack upon the problems of ”recovery” and “relief.” Of these bodies the Agricultural Adjustment Administration and the National Industrial Recovery Administration (the N.R.A.) are the most important. As we are chiefly concerned with the interests of the industrial workers, it is the N.R.A., and particularly its labour provisions, that we shall mainly consider.

The N.R.A. came into existence in June, 1933. First it established a General or “Blanket” Code of Fair Competition, which all employers were asked to sign and adhere to. A national propaganda campaign, using all means of ballyhoo, mobilised the vast pro-Roosevelt sentiment behind the scheme. By August 1st over 700,000 employers had signed and received the badge of the Blue Eagle. Compulsion was threatened if persuasion failed—a piece of bluff characteristic of many aspects of the New Deal.

The Blanket Code established a maximum working week of from thirty-five to forty hours, minimum wages varying from twelve dollars to fifteen dollars per week, and made certain classes of child labour illegal. Section 7a of the code guaranteed workers the right of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing. The N.R.A. further called upon each industry to draw up a code adapted to its own special needs, each code to be in harmony with the Blanket Code and approved in its details by the N.R.A. The following condensed account of the Steel Industries Code is given as a sample:—

  “The Steel Code . . . provided for a trial period of ninety days. At the end of this period the steel companies declared it workable . . . It provided for a forty-hour week of labour averaged over three months, with a maximum for each employee of not more than forty-eight hours in a 6-day week. The right of collective bargaining was conceded. Representatives of the N.R.A. were empowered to inspect the records of the Iron and Steel Institute to obtain full 'information concerning production, shipment, sales and unfilled orders, hours of labour, rates of pay and other conditions of employment,’ in order to stabilise production.” (The World Almanac, 1934.)

To date, over 400 codes have been put into force and it is estimated that about 20 millions of workers or 90 per cent. of those eligible come within their regulations.

A primary feature of the whole “recovery” programme has been the efforts to artificially stimulate a general rise in prices by credit and currency schemes, and by limiting price-cutting and controlling production through the codes. Because the crisis was accompanied by falling prices it has been assumed by almost all capitalists that if only prices could be pushed up “prosperity” would be here again. Yet it is evident that unless rising prices result from a growing demand for goods, the effect must be to curtail sales. This fact is recognised by the recovery administration. Roosevelt and his economist advisers have, for perhaps the first time in the history of capitalist politics, insisted on the need for greater purchasing power amongst the masses if "prosperity" is to be regained and maintained. This attitude is partly, no doubt, a political manoeuvre to attract working class support. It is certainly emphatic enough, and none of the New Dealers have more clearly expressed it than H. A. Wallace, the present Secretary of Agriculture. In his pamphlet, "America Must Choose" reprinted in part in the New York Times, February 25th, 1934, he says:—

   "There can be little doubt that the trouble traces, in whole or in part, to a maldistribution of income. That doctrine is implicit in our New Deal, which seems to me to rest on irresistible logic. We are trying to build up consumption per capita at home as a substitute for new consumers abroad. Our new method involves a planned redistribution of the national income, in contrast with the unplanned redistribution that takes place regularly, usually unhappily, in every major economic crisis the civilised world over. ...
  "Our New Deal seeks to promote consumption more soundly. It directs purchasing power to those in need by wage advances and alleviations of debt. It lessens the need to force exports. It looks toward balancing production with consumption at home."

In considering this aspect of the New Deal it is important to note that the schemes of the administration to raise wages have been timid in the extreme. Compare them with the bold experiments in banking control, crop reduction and business control through the codes. The fixing of minimum wage-rates affects only the lower-paid strata of workers, directly at all events. How higher-paid workers may be affected is well shown by A. Epstein, a writer on reform questions, in ah article, "Is it a New Deal?" (Current History, March, 1934): —

   "Under the new dispensation, many less efficient workers were completely cast out of industry. On the other hand, many of those who were formerly considered cheap and inefficient were discovered to be able to do almost as good work as that formerly done by employees who received more than the minimum wage in the codes.
  "Since the codes did not abolish the employer's right to hire and fire, he was able either to dismiss entirely his most expensive help or to rehire them later at wages more nearly approaching the minimum. The endless possibilities in such reductions were quite unexplored. Even now there is no way of estimating whether or not the meagre accruals in purchasing power of the lowest-paid wage-earners exceed the reductions in the wages of higher-paid employees. There is no conclusive evidence whatsoever that the N.R.A. . . . with its unwieldy mechanisms for enforcement, has actually resulted in increasing labour's total purchasing power. The contrary is more likely to be true."?

Unorganised white-collar workers are especially liable to be affected in the above manner. L. W. Zimmer, in charge of the employment bureau of New York University, reported last October that "The $20 to $22 job is now about a $15 job, because employers tend to keep their wages around the N.R.A. minimum." He added that the number found jobs was not appreciably above that of the same period of the preceding year. (N.Y. Telegram, October 11th, 1934.)

Despite the fact that one of the avowed objects of the N.R.A. is the abolition of "sweating," the minimum wage rates are only about one-half of the figure, $26.77, which in 1932 was declared by the Department of Labour to be a bare subsistence wage for a family of five. It is well known, moreover, that great numbers are receiving less than the minimum. Fear of unemployment and victimisation effectively prevents complaints to the local N.R.A. Similar evasions in hours of labour are widespread.

The actual increase in individual earnings where there has been a growing demand for workers owing to increasing business has been very small. The American Federation of Labour in its annual review of industry for 1933 reports average weekly wage rates in 16 industries as being $20.53 in November, 1932, $20.56 in November, 1933, and $20.83 at the end of January, 1934. Retail food prices, according to Bureau of Labour Statistics, had risen 20 per cent. between April, 1933, and February, 1934, whilst clothing and furnishings had risen 27 per cent. It is thus evident that the average worker’s standard of living and purchasing power was actually declining during the first seven months of the N.R.A.

The attempt to absorb any large proportion of the unemployed by the reduction of hours to 35-40 weekly is futile so long as business continues at a low ebb. So great had been the spread of short time prior to the New Deal, that the average hours worked in June, 1933, were: crude petroleum industry, 42.6 hours; iron and steel, 37.9 hours; soft coal, 28.5. (Monthly Labour Review, August, 1933.) The average over all manufacturing industries for the first five months of 1933 is estimated at 34.7 hours.

It is, moreover, almost certain that with industrial recovery, machinery and speeding up will enable output at the code hours to equal or even surpass that reached with the longer hours of the pre-depression period. It is extremely significant that the makers of machinery are experiencing what is perhaps the sharpest pick-up shown in any industry. The New York Times (September 24th, 1933) reported that makers of machine tools did 400 per cent. more business in August than in the preceding March. This report further says: “The largest call for new equipment comes from textile mills, which are seeking high-speed machinery to replace the obsolete looms they find too expensive to operate under present high production costs. Producers of men’s and women’s garments are also investing freely in machinery capable of producing more goods in the limited working time allowed under the recovery codes. . . . Manufacturers of machinery attribute the present demand for labour-saving machinery to the desire of producers to keep up previous production schedules while remaining within the limits of the working hour provisions of the recovery programme.” Could anything show more clearly the tangle of contradictions in which the N.R.A. is involved, how its provisions are nullified even when obeyed to the letter, by the inescapable trends of capitalist “enterprise” ? It may be added that so great have been the advances in machinery and other means of production during the years of depression that students of the question agree in believing that with industry restored to its high 1929 level of output, 4,000,000 workers would remain unemployed. Only a further expansion of total production would reduce that figure.

Especially significant is the recent decision to close all of the 900 silk mills for one week on account of large unsold stocks. The textile code authorities have given this order, and violators are threatened with legal penalties. Hundreds of thousands of workers will be laid off.

During the first four months of the Roosevelt administration there was a swift improvement in business. This is generally attributed, in part at least, to the endeavour of manufacturers to lay up stocks before the rise in the costs of production which were expected to result from the Roosevelt policies. The New York Times index of business activity registered its lowest point, of 47.9, in March, 1933. (100 is the estimated “ normal,” but this, to-day, is arbitrary, and a return to it would still be under slump conditions.) The index rose rapidly, and momentarily touched 99 in mid-July, one month after N.R.A. was born. Then began a slow decline, reaching 72.5 in early November. Since then there has been a slow, wavering advance to 87.5 on May 5th. As there has been an improvement in business over most of the capitalist world in the past few months, it is doubtful, to say the least, to what extent the N.R.A. has been instrumental in assisting recovery in America.

There has been a moderate reduction in unemployment. The A.F. of L. report for May, 1934, states that unemployment was reduced from its peak of 13.6 millions in March, 1933, to 10.1 millions in October, but that between October, 1933, and March, 1934, 780-thousand had lost their jobs again. Statistics on unemployment in the U.S. are, however, notoriously incomplete and unreliable. The A.F. of L. figures do not take into account agricultural and certain other classes of workers. The estimate of the Alexandra Hamilton Institute, which does take these into account, places the high point of unemployment at 17 millions. The A.F. of L. estimates that the total wages paid per week increased by 23.7 per cent, between March, 1933, and March, 1934.

Let us now look at the way in which the trend to recovery is affecting the capitalists. In the aforementioned A.F. of L. report it is stated that "the first fifty-one companies to report for the first quarter of 1934 showed total profits of $18,740,000, compared with $6,332,000 in 1933. Dividends, the Federation said, were $15,000,000 higher in March. 1934, than in March, 1933.” (New York Times, May 6th, 1934.) This tendency is precisely what one would expect. It is inevitable that, with the upward trend of production, the increase in returns on capital will be more rapid than the increase in income to the workers. Just as the slump in production was due to conditions which forced down the rate of profit, so the expansion of production can only result from conditions which cause the rate of profit to rise. Profit is the sole motive to production under capitalism, N.R.A. or no N.R.A.

It is evident, therefore, that the principle upon which the labour policy of the New Deal is in theory based, that a greater proportion of the national purchasing power must go to the workers, is not materialising, and it is not likely to.

Next month we will consider the N.R.A. and Trade Unionism.

R. W. Housley

Workers’ Socialist Party (U.S.A.)

Here and There: Colonel Blimps (1937)

The Here and There column from the February 1937 issue of the Socialist Standard

Colonel Blimps

J. B. Firth, reviewing the sixth volume of Mr. Lloyd George's War memoirs in the Daily Telegraph (October 26th, 1936), quotes from Mr. Lloyd George as follows:— 

 In the grand army that fought the World War the ablest brains did not climb to the top of the stairs, and they did not reach a height where politicians could even see them. Seniority and society were the dominant factors in army promotion. Deportment counted a good deal. Brains came a bad fourth.

It is a fitting commentary on the traditional snobbery of our ruling class when engaged in a life and death struggle that promotion depended upon social standing and deportment (!) before brains.

#    #    #    #

On Property

“If you should see a flock of pigeons in a field, and if (instead of each picking where and what it liked, taking as much as it wanted and no more) you should see 99 of them gathering all they got in one heap, reserving for themselves nothing but the chaff and refuse, keeping this heap for one, and that the weakest, perhaps the worst, pigeon of the flock, sitting round . . . and devouring and wasting it, and if one pigeon more hardy or hungry than the rest touched a grain of the hoard, all others instantly flying upon it and tearing it to pieces; if you should see this you would see nothing more than what is every day practised and established among men."—From Moral and Political Philosophy, by Archdeacon W. Paley.

#    #    #    #

Misleading Housing Statistics

The Housing Act of 1935 lays it down that an excess of 2½ occupants per room to a house constitutes overcrowding—children counting as ½. The Manchester City Council (Manchester Guardian, December 9th) considered this standard too narrow, which is not surprising. They therefore adopted a standard of their own for statistical purposes (for argument’s sake, so to speak). The Manchester standard assumed a house to be overcrowded when it had more than 2½ persons to a bedroom. Even this standard, which allows for a living-room, does not err in being a too-palatial conception for working-class houses. Slight though the difference is in the basis of calculation in the Manchester standard and that of the Housing Act, it was found that under the Manchester standard overcrowding in Manchester was five times greater than under the Housing Act. Even under the Manchester standard nine persons, including three children, could occupy three small bedrooms, providing there was a kitchen or a scullery which could be described as a living-room, and still not be classed as overcrowded. The real housing conditions of the workers are obscured rather than brought out by the figures used as the standard by Government statistics.

#    #    #    #

American Contrast

In an article on the depression in America, the Daily Telegraph (January 19th, 1937) New York correspondent estimates unemployment in America as being between 8,000,000 and 9,000,000. He also quotes a statement by a prominent Chicago administrator who believes that there will still be 7,000,000 unemployed in America if the peak production figures of 1929 are reached and a minimum of 4,000,000 unemployed even if the production figures of 1929 are “materially exceeded.” The unemployed are provided for by an inadequate relief system which leaves the unemployed and their many millions of dependants in a state of intense poverty and privation. Despite this, however, things are brightening for the American capitalists. Production is expanding, profits and Stock Exchange prices are rising. “Confidence” is being restored and money is being spent more freely.

And how ?

#    #    #    #

The Amusements of the Ruling Class

The Daily Mirror (January 18th, 1937) shows us how by condescendingly giving us a peep at the refined pastimes of our superiors. It gives a report of a party given by Miss Elsa Maxwell “in honour" of Mrs. Laura Corrigan and Mrs. Randolph Hearst at a New York luxury hotel. There were present prominent members of English and American society. The hotel was transformed into a country farmyard: "Squealing pigs, mooing cows, chickens and a donkey wandered over the floor. There were goats, too—but before the party began they were sprayed with scent. A model cow that yielded champagne instead of milk and a well containing frothy beer were two more novelties.” Just another novelty was a large pair of lady's Victorian bloomers which hung across the ballroom. The animals were apparently scented to obliterate smells. The climax of the party was reached when the scented animals were released and chased the “horrified” (scented) ladies. It is just possible that the animals scented a natural and mental affinity.

Another report (Daily Express) tells us that Mrs. Peter Widener gave a party for her 17-year-old daughter. It occupied three floors and 1,500 rooms of a luxury hotel; cost £20,000 and £2,000 for music. The same newspaper announced another party to be given by Mrs. Evelyn Maclean, "owner of the famous Hope diamond." This, however, was to cost a mere £10,000 or thereabouts.

If evidence were needed that the capitalist class do not owe their privileged position to intellectual superiority, that idleness and wealth is often the breeding ground for debauchery, mental stagnation and crass stupidity, then the capitalist Press provides it.

#    #    #    #

Magic Words by Roosevelt

  I see millions of families trying to live on incomes so meagre that the pall of family disaster hangs over them day by day.
 We are beginning to abandon our tolerance of abuse of power by those who betray for profit the elementary decencies of life.

And here is one comment on that piece of eloquence by the Evening News (January 21st, 1937)

   Probably no inaugural address by a President of the United States has made so great a sensation as that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. In Wall Street, the nerve centre of a nation, traders bent over the tape machines scanning the speech as it appeared in instalments.
  What was it that sent stocks sky-rocketing as the President’s words became known? Just this— that first impressions among the men of money in Broadway’s canyon were that the speech consisted solely of high-sounding and harmless generalities.
  In other words, the market soared because Roosevelt said nothing.

#    #    #    #

Hero Worship in Russia

The wives of Russian army officers attended a meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, at which Stalin was presented with an address from them. It read : —

  Dear and beloved Comrade Stalin, with immense excitement we have come to Moscow to gaze upon our well-beloved friend, teacher and leader. . . .
 We come to you carrying in our hearts the fullest and warmest gratitude any human heart can contain, for your tender care of us, for the life which now so brightly blooms on Soviet soil. . . .
  Wherever we may be—on the Pacific Ocean, in the frozen North, on the sands of Central Asia, on our Western frontier—everywhere we feel the majestic breath of your Government, the powerful rhythm and the never-equalled genius of your leadership.—(Daily Telegraph, December 22nd, 1936.)

The adoration in that address resembles a prayer to a deity. The imagination staggers at the thought of the extent to which the teachings of Marx have been emasculated by the Russians to permit of religious fervour of this kind side by side with the claim that they are Marxians.

#    #    #    #

Workers’ Conditions in India

According to the Daily Telegraph (December 22nd, 1936), 208 workers were killed in a mining disaster at the Poidih Colliery, Bengal, on December 18th, 1936. Among the victims were 63 women. The disaster was reported without dramatic headlines, appeals for funds, or unctuous leading articles deploring the employment of women in mines. As it happened in India, the disaster aroused no exceptional interest. Industrial development in India is a century behind England. Its growth will result in the development of the working class and struggles for a better standard of living. Meanwhile, the conditions of the Indian workers are characteristic of those of the English workers in the days of early capitalism here: long hours, low wages, and the vicious exploitation of women and children. The Daily Telegraph gave a strong hint that the regulations governing the employment of women in the Indian mines had callously been ignored by the employers. One is reminded of the English capitalists of the early nineteenth century, who, under the pretence of apprenticeship, bought workhouse children for exploitation in the factories.

#    #    #    #

Costly Peace

The Daily Telegraph (January 6th) quotes from a report issued by the German Institute for Business Research, which gives the figures spent on armaments by the various capitalist countries to-day in comparison to 1914.

The figures are : —

1913: £833,000,000.
1928/9:    £1,250,000,000.
1936 : £2,500,000,000 to £2,900,000,000.

Another comparison is given: In 1913 the outlay for armaments accounted for 4 per cent. of the world’s net industrial production. In 1936 the figure was at least 11 per cent.

The more armament production grows the louder is the protest that it is for the maintenance of “peace.” Whether war is averted or not, the constant increasing use of their surplus wealth in production of armaments, which bring no return, is likely to create more problems for the capitalist class in future.

#    #    #    #

Purpose of Kingship

Writing in the Evening Standard (December 28th, 1936), Mr. Winston Churchill, commenting on the recent abdication, and Mr. Baldwin’s handling of it, says:—

  It is now clearly his duty, whatever his inclination, to watch over the inauguration of the new reign and the Coronation of a King and Queen, upon whose success British hopes are centred, and British fortunes in no small measure depend. (Italics ours.)

There it is. British fortunes are the measure of the British capitalists’ interest in the Crown. “For King and Country” is obviously a much better slogan than “For Capitalists’ Markets and Profits,” when gullible wage-slaves need persuading to give their lives in their masters’ interests. So also do the capitalists use the Crown as a soporific in all parts of the earth where they require obedience and fear in their wage-slaves.

#    #    #    #

Poverty and Profits

The following quotation is taken from The Times' Literary Supplement (November 28th, 1936), who quote it in reviewing “A Short History of the Future,” by J. Langdon Davies

  Natural causes have again improved the wheat position, when schemes for the artificial raising of prices failed. In 1934 the drought in the United States assisted producers to obtain more remunerative prices, and in 1935 adverse weather conditions in Argentina resulted in a further improvement in the world wheat situation.

The statement originally appeared in The Times’ Annual Financial and Commercial Review for February 11th, 1936. The reviewer in the Supplement takes Mr. Davies to task for reproducing it several times in his book as an ironic comment upon capitalism. He himself sees no contradiction in the fact that scarcity is considered an “improvement” by capitalist economists—and that in a world where millions are in need.

It's a mad world.

#    #    #    #

Fascist Bread and Circuses

There is food shortage in Germany. In order to discourage the German people from buying certain foods, shopkeepers have been ordered, under penalty, not to display cooking fats and other foods. According to The Times (December 22nd, 1936), “three million poor children were entertained by the National Socialists at Christmas parties throughout the Reich.” They were given presents (doubtless having propaganda value) and an address on the joys of Nazism by Dr. Goebbeb, who represented Hitler to be some kind of semi-divinity.

In Italy, developments follow similar lines. In order that the poor can attend the theatre and enjoy operas, plays and musical comedies, “Theatrical Saturdays” are to be inaugurated throughout Italy (Times, January 5th, 1937). The prices of admission will be from 1½d. to 6d. Ten per cent. of the total number of seats are to be distributed free by the relief committees to those who cannot afford even 1½d.

Just a few examples of Fascist window-dressing to offset the intense poverty of German and Italian workers.

Harry Waite

Kennedy to Run U.S. Capitalism (1960)

Editorial from the December 1960 issue of the Socialist Standard

Mr. Kennedy’s victory at the American polls came as the culmination of years of patient ambition and at the end of a campaign of open cynicism, such as we have come expect from capitalist political parties.

When he started his attempt to win the Democratic nomination, Mr. Kennedy had several question marks against him. The principal of these was whether he could unite the trade unions, the industrial cities and the backward Southerners into supporting him. We now know how skilfully he did this, by the careful choice of his Vice-Presidential candidate and by the promises and opinions which he uttered. Such was the success of these tactics that, long before election day, many on-the-spot correspondents were prophesying that Kennedy’s campaign would be irresistible.

Mr. Nixon showed a similar determination to win the presidency. Here is a man with an established reputation for single-minded ambition which has led him into some unsavoury actions. Many people will remember Mr. Nixon introducing his pet dog into a television programme in which he was offering evidence of his integrity as a servant of the American public.

Mr. Kennedy based some of his case upon an appeal to the patriotism of American workers, alleging that United States’ influence abroad has steeply declined during the Eisenhower presidency. Nixon’s reply—similarly an appeal to patriotism—was that it was insulting even to suggest that U.S.A. is a second-rate power.

This, then, was an election campaign of by no means an unusual kind, in which members of the working class were asked to vote on issues of personality, nationalism and capitalist power politics, none of which has the slightest effects upon their basic interest. Nevertheless, the American voters became absorbed in the contest and grew excited when it became obvious that there was to be a tight finish.

Mr. Kennedy has been compared to the late Franklin Roosevelt, who so dominated American politics during the thirties. One of the fallacies left over from the Roosevelt era is that Roosevelt came to power because the Americans supported his New Deal policies as a way of ending the Great Depression. In fact, these policies were not discussed during the 1932 election—the Democratic Convention of that year had produced a platform which promised fewer government agencies, reductions in government spending and a balanced Budget. After Roosevelt’s victory, the New Deal policies were worked out and within a year many new government agencies had been created, government expenditure had increased and the Budget was unbalanced. We may rely on it that, if the interests of American capitalism demand it, Mr. Kennedy’s election platform will be ignored in the same way as that of his famous predecessor.

It seems that Mr. Kennedy both lost and won votes because he is a Roman Catholic. Apparently, many American voters are under the impression that a Catholic president would allow his religion to sway his decisions. It is a ludicrous idea that American capitalism, with its tremendous mineral and industrial resources and its universal military influence, would allow its policy to be dictated from the Vatican. Mr. Kennedy made it quite clear that, if he were elected, he would do his best to administer American capitalism solely in its own interests. In that, he is no different from the rulers of the other capitalist nations. None of them seeks power to promote abstract principles or religions. All of them want power to organise a country for the benefit of its owning class.

It is depressing that American workers should be impressed by—indeed be part of—slick, high pressure salesmanship and cynical drives for power. For after the shouting and the ballyhoo have died, capitalism, in America and the rest of the world, remains unscathed. This social system produces the horrors of war, poverty, insecurity and racial hatred. The Democrats and Republicans, like the other capitalist parties, can offer no end to these. Only the establishment of Socialism can give us a world of peace and plenty. And for that we do not need stage-managed ballyhoo. We need knowledge and the social responsibility that goes with it.

The Passing Show: Public Opinion (1961)

The Passing Show Column from the August 1961 issue of the Socialist Standard

Public Opinion

Our rulers must despise us. Only sixteen years have passed since the end of the war, and yet the governments of the world keep publishing more and more material revealing how far the real Allied war aims were from the “truth, justice, democracy," and so on, which were the professed objectives. They would scarcely do this if they believed that the working class could learn from past mistakes. They seem to have no fear that the workers, having been shown how much they were fooled in the second world war, will refuse to be fooled in the third.

The latest revelation of what went on behind the scenes in the war comes in some American diplomatic papers recently released by the State Department. Marshal Stalin rejected a suggestion that the peoples of the three Baltic states should be allowed to vote on whether they wanted to join the Soviet Union, saying that when the Baltic countries had belonged to Russia before the First World War "no one had raised the question of public opinion, and he did not quite see why it was being raised now"(The Observer, 18/6/61). In other words, the Communist leader defended himself on the ground that he was only doing what the Czarist tyranny had done before him. President Roosevelt rejoined sympathetically that "the truth of the matter was that the public neither knew nor understood."

Having settled—without asking them —the fate of the people of the Baltic countries, the three leaders proceeded to settle the future of the Poles. Stalin wanted a slice of Poland, so proposed to compensate the Poles with a slice of Germany. Roosevelt agreed, remarking he "would like to see the eastern border moved even farther to the west and the western border moved even to the River Oder," although he added that "he could not publicly take part in any such arrangement at the present time" because "there were in the United States from six to seven million Americans of Polish extraction, and, as a practical man, he did not wish to lose their vote." Mr. Churchill concurred; he said that "as far as he was concerned, he would like to see Poland moved westward."

It seems a far cry from this secret carving-up of Europe to the public support for "democracy” and "the rights of small nations."


I did not suggest

So far from telling the workers the truth about what was going on, they weren’t even honest with each other. In 1943 Roosevelt sent a message to Stalin through Joseph Davis, the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow (The Times, 19/6/61):

  I want to get away from the difficulties of large staff conferences or the red tape of diplomatic conversations. Therefore, the simplest and most practical method I can think of would be an informal and completely simple visit for a few days between you and me. . . . this summer. A problem is where to meet. Africa is almost out of the question in summer and Khartum is British territory. Iceland I do not like because for both you and me it involves rather difficult flights and in addition, quite frankly, would make it difficult not to invite Prime Minister Churchill at the same time. Therefore I suggest that we could meet either on your side or my side of Behring Strait.

Churchill got wind of this and sent a message to Roosevelt protesting strongly against being left out in the cold. So Roosevelt replied to Churchill:

  I did not suggest to Uncle Joe that we meet alone, but he told Davis that he assumed (a) that we would meet alone, and (b) that he agreed that we should not bring staffs to what would be a preliminary meeting.

So much for the standard of truthfulness of one of the "leaders of the free world.”


Larger moral issues

Despite the steadily declining influence of the Churches, they continue to give what support they can to the ruling class. The Rev. Dr. Maldwyn L. Edwards, in his presidential address to the Methodist Conference, spent much of his time denouncing the wickedness of the workers (The Times, 4/7/61):

   Dr. Edwards said the need was to realize man's spiritual identity and to halt the discounting of God. The view that man had only himself to rely on had spread into such present day issues as industrial disputes and sex and family life. This wrong philosophy of human nature showed itself in industry, in lack of discipline or interest in work; absenteeism, excessive attention to short hours and long pay packets, and the quick readiness to strike for private interests regardless of the larger moral issues involved or the public suffering caused.

Dr. Edwards counters the fact that most workers spend their lifetimes in monotonous, boring tasks, or in single, meaningless operations not by condemning the society which organises production in such a way, but by blaming the men for “lack of interest” in their work. And how can employers be sure of their profits if there is absenteeism or lack of discipline, or if the men are prepared to strike to defend their standards of living?

Dr. Edwards went on: "It is not only necessary for management to play fair with workers and workers with management, but both must play fair with the community from whom they get their living and whom they are meant to serve.” This is quite erroneous. Capitalist production continues so long as a profit can reasonably be expected: that is its sole objective, not serving the community. And, of course, this fine impartial-sounding phrasemaking about both sides playing fair with each other is, in the context of our society, not impartial at all. It is exactly on a par with the church in a society based on slavery calling on the slave-owners and the slaves to play fair with each other. What is wanted in such a context is not fair play, but an end of slavery: and what is wanted in our society is not "fair play" by the capitalists towards the workers, but the end of wage-slavery.


Happy and useful life

In parliament recently Mr. Ramsden, for the Government, announced that the Vickers machine gun was going to be retained by the regular army until 1965, and by the Territorial army even longer. This produced what Punch (7/6/61) called a "sentimental scene." Colonel Bromley-Davenport roared his approval, and Mr. Ramsden "with a.tear in his eye" paid tribute to "this extremely good gun." The Labour Party was not to be outdone. "Mr. Mayhew from the front opposition bench wished it many years of happy and useful life."

From Conservative M.P.s, belonging to an avowedly capitalist party, this is only what one could expect. But those people who still confuse Labourism with Socialism would do well to ponder Mr. Mayhew’s benevolent wishes for a machine-gun.

Alwyn Edgar

More About Roosevelt's "New Deal" (1934)

From the August 1934 issue of the Socialist Standard

An important element in the N.R.A. is the provision in Section 7a;

   “That employees shall have the right to organise and bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and shall be free from the interference, restraint, or coercion of employers of labour, or their agents, in the designation of such representatives or In self-organisation. . . .” 

The N.R.A. was, of course, framed in such a way as to seem to uphold the prevailing American myth that the interests of capitalists and workers are, at bottom, one and the same. Certainly, Roosevelt, in several broadcast speeches, has attacked certain unnamed, selfish capitalists, who wickedly exploited their workers, but he has made it clear that these are an insignificant minority, that the great mass of employers" are thoroughly fairminded, sound at heart and good Americans to the core. The American Federation of Labour has always officially accepted this absurdly false view of capitalism, and so its leaders saw nothing anti-working class in offering the N.R.A. the fullest co-operation. They openly gloried at the chance to obtain for the first time in American history a sort of quasi-official status for themselves and their organisations.

Under the stimulus of what seemed to be benign encouragement from the President himself, there began a period of intensified activity on the part of the labour unions, and a great drive for membership. Within a few months millions of workers had been recruited, raising the number of organised from about 2½ millions in January, 1933, to around 5 millions in May of this year. Optimism filled the breasts of the unionised workers and their sympathisers amongst the Liberal Radicals. However, within a few months it was dear that the “collective bargaining” guarantee was to have very different consequences from those expected by Roosevelt’s worshippers.

The interpretation of “Section 7a” has led to the bitterest conflict between the unions and employers, more particularly in the Steel and Automobile industries, which have for many years maintained an “open-shop,” anti-union policy with the strongest persistence. Alarmed at the great strides in unionism, and determined to brook no interference from outside organisations, the great capitalist concerns in these and other industries have insisted and acted upon the assumption that “company unions,” largely financed and controlled by themselves, properly complied with the provisions of the N.R.A.

The A.F. of L. has repeatedly urged the Government to come out uncompromisingly in support of the workers’ “rights” under the N.R.A. and against the “open-shop” and company unions. But, as was to be expected, the Government spokesmen, though making rhetorical speeches, apparently favourable to the workers, have sat on the fence on this question, neither daring nor desiring to break the power of the strongest industrial capitalist groups in the country. In the meantime the organisation of company unions has gone on apace, and they now embrace several millions of employees. It is certain that in granting their workers an unsolicited 10 per cent. wage advance recently, the Steel and Auto industries were motivated chiefly by the desire to win over their workers to the company union idea.

The N.R.A. has greatly strengthened the employing class for industrial conflict with the workers. The advantages which they normally possess have been enhanced by the almost complete organisation by industry which the N.R.A. automatically gives them. The workers, on the other hand, are for the most part unorganised. Even after their recent growth the labour unions only embrace about one-tenth of the total number of workers. For purposes of genuine collective bargaining the growing company unions are sheer fakes, having limited “rights” of negotiation, but no means of applying adequate pressure on the employers. In the April, 1934, issue of “The Nation’s Business,” issued by the United States Chamber of Commerce, the chief advantage of company unions over trades unions from the capitalist point of view was stated quite frankly: “The company union does not affiliate in any manner with organisations outside that industry, and generally not outside the operations of a single employer. The employers demand this aloofness or isolation, because its abandonment would mean the strength of alliance for his employees and the ability of his employees to have counsel not dependent upon that company’s pay roll.”

In the numerous strikes that have occurred during the last year a dominant motive has been the desire of the workers to enforce union recognition, which many had naively assumed to be settled once and for all with the coming of N.R.A. In the main, the A.F. of L. leaders have co-operated with the N.R.A. authorities through the Labour Boards in efforts to persuade strikers to return to work on the strength of promises. Where persuasion has been ineffective and the strikes have been prolonged, the State forces have, in the manner usual to pre-N.R.A. days, been used against the struggling workers. The following brief, vivid digest hardly suggests that the workers under the benign wings of the Blue Eagle are on the verge of a millennium:—

   “The New York Sun reported in November that 1,176 policemen were on continuous strike duty, the highest number on record in the department. In the Pittsburgh area the great steel, coal and automobile companies have struck back at their militant workers with the use of armed thugs, barrages of tear and bombing gas and lead. In the coal fields of central Illinois there have been beatings and lawless raids by armed men. In New Mexico the State militia was brought in to break the coal strike, led by the left wing National Miners' Union, and strike leaders were tried by drumhead court martials. In the fruit and cotton strikes, under radical leadership, in the San Joaquin Valley in California, night riders have terrorised Filipino workers; Mexican workers have been threatened with the bull pen and deportation; men have been kept in jail without trial for weeks and then their cases dismissed for want of evidence. The American Civil Liberties Union reports that more than 16 strikers have been killed. 200 injured and hundreds arrested since July 1st, and that more than 40 sweeping injunctions have been issued against workers.” (The Social Questions Bulletin, February, 1984.)

The source of the above quotation is interesting as indicating the intense interest in economic and especially in “labour” questions that four years of depression and the world situation have developed in this country even in the most unlikely quarters. The Bulletin is issued by The Methodist Federation for Social Service.

With the industrial improvement of the past few months has come a rising wave of capitalist criticism directed at the N.R.A. One business house after another has attacked the administration, claiming that its measures are strangling rather than helping recovery. A growing number of capitalists now regret their panicky stampede of a year ago. At that time, as Mrs. Roosevelt in a recent address put it with, shall we say, a little dramatic licence, “Industrial leaders were coming to the government at Washington and saying: ‘Take our business and run it for us.' ” Now, with the first whiff of revival, she complains of their eagerness to throw off all government interference. 

In a summary of the reports of over one hundred local organisations of the Chamber of Commerce throughout the country it is stated that, “There was a large group of complaints about unequal consideration for employers and employees, with so much favour to the latter as to cause disturbances, the effect of which upon recovery locally was feared.” (New York Times, May 1st, 1934.) We have indeed seen how thoroughly the philanthropic policies of the N.R.A. have “favoured” the workers!

The heads of the N.R.A. are wide awake to the rising tide of opposition, and prominent Democrats (who will have to fight the forthcoming elections on the strength of the "vast benefits” the recovery administration has brought to the "common man”) are replying to the attacks with vigour. One class of attack, as, for instance, the much publicised report of the committee headed by Clarence Darrow, claim that the N.R.A. is fostering monopoly and strangling the small business man. There is obviously much truth in this, for by their very nature the clauses in the codes limiting competition mean the virtual suspension of the so-called anti-trust laws. There is abundant evidence that many big industrial concerns which may have strong objections to the labour clauses in the N.R.A. very decidedly approve of the standardisation of trade practices under the control of self-goveming trade associations which the code system provides. From the first, prominent industrialists have been solidly behind the “New Deal,” and have held high official posts in its administration. Charles M. Schwab, head of the Iron and Steel Institute, has declared, “The action of the automobile, textile and other industries in formulating and executing their various codes is . . . the great practical result which has been accomplished thus far. The principles which they adopted are in line with what we have advocated and hoped for over these many years.” (N.Y. Times, May 25th, 1934.) The Nation, which dubs the Steel Code the Magna Charta of Monopoly, points out that “plural voting based upon volume of sales is such as to ensure control by two or three largest steel producers.” "Price cutting loopholes of almost every conceivable variety have been foreseen and corked up.” (May 23rd.)

By the usual irony of history the swarms of petty and middling capitalists who rushed to the support of Roosevelt during his campaign, and who were, according to the rousing speeches of the New Dealers, to be amongst the chief beneficiaries of the recovery programme, are now turning out to be its victims. Many of them must be bitterly wondering if after all they have been but pawns in the game of the powerful interests. They, along with millions of disillusioned workers, will be ready material for the next swing of the political pendulum.

In the old traditional manner, the New Deal is being attacked and defended by appeals to the historical sentiment of the electorate, to their supposed attachment to the ideal embodied in the “glorious constitution.” Ogden L. Mills, cabinet member with Hoover, thunders the awful warning that "the New Deal conflicts with the fundamental principles upon which our government is founded, and to the extent that its philosophy overrides or supplants them it is a revolutionary one.” (N.Y. Times, May 20th.) On the other side of the fence, Richberg, legal counsel for the N.R.A., glowingly proclaims the N.R.A. to be a ”counter revolutionary movement definitely and deliberately designed to perpetuate our American institutions and instrumentalities of individual liberty and self-government.” (N.Y. Times, May 13th.)

All signs point to the developing of a first-class political fight in the near future. Many conflicting capitalist interests are involved, and the form of industrial regulation eventually adopted will necessarily be a compromise between the differing sections. It is impossible to forecast the outcome with any assurance. Much depends on the degree of industrial recovery reached. To any considerable revival of foreign trade there are many obstacles, of which the great growth of artificial trade barriers is only one. Any serious attempt to reorganise American agriculture and manufactures on more nationally self-sufficient lines will entail vast and destructive conflicts, arousing readjustments including the scaling down by government aid of the industries built up primarily on an export basis.

The N.R.A. is involved in a tangle of antagonisms and contradictions. These are a product of the normal development of capitalism the world over. The Socialist does not say that the trends of capitalism cannot be hastened or slowed down by legislative measures, but he does emphatically declare that such modifications are slight and that the general problems of the system can neither be overcome nor circumvented by such methods. This is not to say that America has not now reached a new stage in its evolution, an epoch of still more highly monopolistic and centralized and state regulated capitalism that will bring special problems of its own.

One thing can certainly be said of future developments—that, whatever they may bring, the workers will continue to get the worst of the bargain until they cease to be deluded by the red herring of reform, by attempts to patch up capitalism, and until they unite for the only programme that can solve their problems—the abolition of the whole rotten system itself and the establishment of Socialism.

Though there is abundant discontent, and though the Communists, with their usual cockeyed vision, profess to see “a revolutionary upsurge stirring the American masses,” there is in actual fact a lack of class-consciousness and an abundance of the most confused thinking amongst the workers. This, to a Socialist, is lamentable— but understandable. Economic developments are producing conditions that make the case for Socialism more strikingly clear than was possible in the past era of rampant individualism, and collectivistic ideas of sorts are floating around and being discussed in the most unlikely circles. But in the building up of a sound and powerful party of Socialists, for which The Workers' Socialist Party affords a nucleus, a very great amount of work remains to be done, and must be done. If you are interested, fellow worker, study our principles. If you are convinced, join our ranks.

R. W. Housley

Workers' Socialist Party of the United States