Pamphlet & Leaflet - Progressive Labor Party

PROGRESSIVE LABOR PARTY PAMPHLET REPRINT EDITION APRIL 1999

A NOTE TO READERS

The Great Flint Sit-Down Strike is a "classic" PLP pamphlet written in 1965—almost exactly halfway between today and the Great Sit-Down Strike itself. It was written at a time when our party was working to put down roots among industrial workers and build a base for revolution—as we are today. It was written at a time when many people who called themselves "left" were putting forward wrong ideas that workers

couldn’t see that capitalism was their enemy and take action against it, and
were too prosperous and bought-off to fight, or
were living off the work of workers in other countries and were the enemy, or
were unimportant because technology had created a "new working class" of technicians and "knowledge workers."

This pamphlet served an important role in defeating those wrong ideas, both among some party members, and among workers and students in the party’s base. In addition, thousands of copies of the original pamphlet were used in college labor history courses, and helped keep alive a piece of history the bosses wanted hidden.

Today, though, you can hear the wrong ideas (or actually, not ideas but reflections of ruling-class ideology) not only in the bosses’ press, but from the mouths of union leaders and false friends of workers everywhere. The fight to defeat this crippling ideology and to build a mass communist base for revolution in the working class, including in basic industry, is still a critical task for our party.

The copy you are reading is a work-in-progress. It contains the original text, altered only to correct a few grammar and spelling errors, and to change some references to 1965 from "today" to "in 1965." A few definitions have been added to footnotes, and the bibliographic references have not yet been scanned and restored, although their numbers appear in the text. A glossary will be added to the final reprint, as well.

As you read, you will see signs that in 1965 we had not yet developed as clear an understanding as we have now of the role of unions, and the correct ways for communists to work in them. Our understanding has changed in other ways, too, and these will be reflected in essays and articles which will accompany the completed reprint. The essays will discuss the development of our line and work in trade unions and other mass organizations, and also the changes that have taken place in the automobile industry and others, as the companies and the industry have become more internationalized and the terms of their competition have changed.

As you use this document, whether on a trip to Flint, or in club discussions, study groups or base-building, please give us your help. If you come across words that should be explained in the glossary, or ideas that should be developed, or have experiences to share with readers, or even find some typos, please send them to the PLP office, marked Attention: Flint Pamphlet.

PROGRESSIVE LABOR PARTY, G.P.O. Box 808, Brooklyn NY 11202,

How Industrial Unionism Was Won:

THE GREAT FLINT SIT-DOWN STRIKE AGAINST GM 1936-37

The foreman paced slowly past his workmen, his eyes darting in and out of the machines, eager for any betraying gesture. He heard no word, and he saw no gesture. The hands flashed, the backs bent, the arms reached out in monotonous perfection. The foreman went back to his little desk and sat squirming on the smooth-seated swivel chair. He felt profoundly disturbed. Something, he knew, was coming off. But what? For God’s sake, what?

It was 1:57 A.M., January 29, 1936.

The tirebuilders worked in smooth frenzy, sweat around their necks, under their arms. the belt clattered, the insufferable racket and din and monotonous clash and uproar went on in steady rhythm. The clock on the south wall, a big plain clock, hesitated; its minute hand jumped to two. A tirebuilder at the end of the line looked up, saw the hand jump. The foreman was sifting quietly staring at the lines of men working under the vast pools of light. Outside, in the winter night, the streets were empty, and the whir of the factory sounded faintly on the snow-swept yard.

The tirebuilder at the end of the line gulped. His hands stopped their quick weaving motions. Every man on the line stiffened. All over the vast room, hands hesitated. The foreman saw the falter, felt it instantly. He jumped up, but he stood beside his desk, his eyes darting quickly from one line to another.

This was it, then. But what was happening? Where was It starting? He stood perfectly still, his heart beating furiously, his throat feeling dry, watching the hesitating hands, watching the broken rhythm.

Then the tirebuilder at the end of the line walked three steps to the master safety switch and, drawing a deep breath, he pulled up the heavy wooden handle. With this signal, in perfect synchronization, with the rhythm they had learned in a great mass-production industry, the tirebuilders stepped back from their machines.

Instantly, the noise stopped. The whole room lay in perfect silence. The tirebuilders stood in long lines, touching each other, perfectly motionless, deafened by the silence. A moment ago there had been the weaving hands, the revolving wheels, the clanking belt, the moving hooks, the flashing tire tools. Now there was absolute stillness, no motion anywhere, no sound.

Out of the terrifying quiet came the wondering voice of a big tirebuilder near the windows: "Jesus Christ, it’s like the end of the world."

He broke the spell, the magic moment of stillness. For now his awed words said the same thing to every man, "We done it!’ We stopped the belt! By God, we done it!"’ And men began to cheer hysterically, to shout and howl in the fresh silence. Men wrapped long sinewy arms around their neighbors’ shoulders, screaming, "We done it! We done it!"

For the first time in history, American mass-production workers had stopped a conveyor belt and halted the inexorable movement of factory machinery.

—From Industrial Valley, by Ruth McKenney, NY, 1939, pp. 261-2.

The victory of the Akron rubber workers revealed the full power of the sit-down strike for the first time. The tactic of seizing possession of, and holding, great plants was not entirely unknown to the workers of the United States, but nothing like its mushrooming during the struggles of the mid-Thirties had ever been seen before. In the sit-down strike the workers found a weapon with which they could conquer the powerful resistance to unionization they met in the drive to organize rubber, auto, steel, electrical and other basic industries. One by one giant manufacturing corporations like General Motors, United States Steel, General Electric and Goodyear, the massive industrial aggregates of monopoly capital, were compelled to recognize and deal with the union. In some cases the resistance of the giants collapsed at scarcely more than the threat of a sit-down because they had seen its power. We could say that industrial unionism was born in the sit-down strikes. Certainly the impetus given to unionization by the sit-down strikes in 1936-7 was the main force that finally brought more than five millions into the emerging Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO).

One union more than any other, the United Auto Workers, can be singled out as the greatest contributor to the organization of the CIO and the success of industrial unionism because it took leadership and because its struggle was fought out most decisively.

One company more than any other, General Motors, can be singled out as ‘the key to the organization of the auto workers’ because it was the largest manufacturer in the industry—and the largest manufacturing corporation in the world—and was the first to be organized.

One part of the GM empire more than any other—Flint, Michigan—was the bastion that the workers had to take in order to smash the open shop among the mass of unskilled workers in the auto industry. It was here that most of the bodies for all GM cars, and all the engines for its biggest money-maker, Chevrolet, were manufactured. Flint was possibly the most completely controlled of any company town in the country.

For 44 days, from December 30, 1936 to February 11, 1937, the GM workers fought the corporation in a great sit-down struggle, centered in Flint, to test whether a union could or could not exist in General Motors.. In this test, GM employed every tactic its strength and cunning could devise, including full use of every level of government it controlled. The workers, employing the tactic of the sit-down to a degree unequalled in the country’s history, met attack with counterattack, took the offensive and finally emerged with a decisive victory.

The Flint strike was preceded by a fresh wave of unionization, born of desperate conditions, that swept through the masses of working people. This power took shape in militant strikes, in bitter struggles and protest actions in many industries, and in the rallying of millions to the cause of labor. And it might come as a surprise to the auto workers of today that in the 1930s it was the communists and the Communist Party that played a fundamental role in the building of the UAW. However, as will be seen, fundamental weaknesses existed within this communist leadership which were partly responsible for the workers’ inability to withstand a later bosses’ offensive that attempted to wipe out all the gains of the 1937 victory.

Despite these weaknesses, the Flint sit-down was a peak at which the workers made a stand and by the strength of collective action turned defeat into victory. It demonstrated the tremendous power inherent in such unshakable unity. It contains more lessons for the working class than any other struggle for industrial unionism, and perhaps than any other labor struggle in our history.

One of the first sit-down strikes occurred in 1906 at General Electric’s Schenectady, New York plant.¹ In 1910, women garment workers in New York City sat down in, a shop to prevent their bosses from farming out work to contractors not on strike.² Variations occurred in Poland, Yugoslavia and France from the end of the First World War to the early Thirties. In 1933, 2,500 workers stayed inside the Hormel Packing Company plant in Austin, Minnesota, during a three-day strike.³

An origin of the concept among the rubber workers is cited by labor historian Louis Adamic.⁴ Two teams of rubber workers were playing baseball in Akron one Sunday afternoon in 1933. Suddenly they refused to continue the game because they discovered that the umpire, whom they and the fans disliked anyway, was not a union man. They just sat down on the field. The fans, mostly rubber workers, ha1f seriously and half in fun, yelled for "a union ump." The "scab" was forced to retire from the field and a union man was found to take his place. A few days later a dispute broke out in the plant. When the foremen denied their grievance, the men, remembering the tactic successfully employed on the ballfield, sat down—and won. The tactic spread rapidly through the industry; the event described by Ruth McKenney in Industrial Valley was the beginning of the first factory-wide sit-down by rubber workers. From there the concept spread to workers of the other basic industries. Adamic attributes the leadership of the early rubber industry sit-downs to left-wingers working in Akron at the time. European press coverage of the 1936 Akron sit-downs was believed to have directly influenced the sit-down strike in the Semperit rubber works in Krakow, Poland on March 22, 1936, in which six workers were killed and 22 wounded.⁵

U.S. workers found the sit-down to have many advantages over the traditional forms of strike. It prevents the use of scabs to operate a factory, since the strikers guard the machines; it is harder for the company to oust men from inside a plant than break through an encircling picket line. Bosses are more reluctant to resort to strikebreaking violence, because it directly endangers millions of dollars of company property, vast assembly lines and unfinished products. The use of machine guns, tear gas and gangsters is much less effective. It is harder to label strikers aggressors while they are inside.

In a sit-down the workers’ morale is heightened. They are inside and therefore know for certain that scabs are not operating the machines; they are really protecting their jobs and this leads to a higher degree of solidarity and militancy. The men are protected from weather. They are never scattered, but are always on call at a moment’s notice in case of trouble. The basic democratic character of the sit-down is guaranteed by the fact that the workers on the line, rather than outside officials, determine its course.

Finally, defense against labor spies—a constant threat in the Thirties—is perfected because a sit-down can be started by one or two rank-and-file leaders over an issue that affects the entire plant. The workers vote by putting down their tools.

The sit-down is not a revolutionary action; it does not challenge the boss’s ownership of the plant but only, as with traditional strike forms, his right to fire the workers and operate with scabs. Nevertheless, the experience of the Thirties in the U.S. demonstrated the sit-down as a more intense form of struggle that stimulates tremendous initiative among the rank-and-file, especially among those on the inside during a prolonged strike.

There is no question that the auto workers needed a new weapon with which to fight the giant corporations that owned them body and soul. GM ran Flint like a feudal barony. Eighty per cent of the population of 150,000 were directly dependent on GM for livelihood, 20 per cent indirectly. Forty-five thousand men and women toiled in the GM Flint plants, heart and nerve center of the corporation’s world-wide empire. In the summer of 1936 every city official—the mayor, city manager, police chief and the judges—were GM stockholders or officials, or both. The only local newspaper, The Flint Journal, was 100 per cent GM, all the time. The corporation controlled the radio station directly: even paid-for time was denied the union during the fight for unionization. The school board, welfare department and all other government agencies were directly under the thumb of the corporation. Billboards throughout the city acclaimed "the happy GM family."

Total domination of the workers and the community in which they lived was part of the system by which GM was able to net an average annual profit of $173 million from 1927 to 1937⁶ during the depths of the Great Depression. Eighty stockholders became millionaires in four years during the late Twenties on GM dividends alone. In 1936 the auto giant completed a quarter-century with profits that totaled an astronomical $2.5 billion, a figure unequalled by any other corporation in the world up to that time. Its 1936 net profit was $225 millions, a rate of 24 per cent on a capitalization of $945 millions. No wonder it earned and kept the title of the "world’s greatest money-maker" among all corporations.

GM, in 1936 employing 55 per cent of all U.S. auto workers in 69 plants, was bigger than Ford and Chrysler combined. Three hundred and fifty of its officers and directors were paid ten million dollars in salaries that year. Its two top officers, Alfred Sloan and William Knudson, received $375,000 each in 1935. Its seventh vice-president, one Charles Wilson, received $190,000.⁷ The giant was controlled by the DuPont interests, which owned about a quarter of the stock.

The condition of the auto workers was in stark contrast to that of their bosses. In 1935, a year in which the government declared $1,600 as the minimum income on which a family of four could live decently, the average auto worker took home $900. Most lived in fearful insecurity. A foreman could fire at will. Layoffs between the old and new model year lasted from three to five months, without unemployment insurance. A compulsory loan system prevailed, under which GM deducted principal plus interest on the worker’s return to employment in the fall, cutting wages 10 per cent.

But it was the speed-up that made life intolerable. A wife described her husband as "coming home so dog-tired he couldn’t even walk upstairs to bed but crawled on his hands and knees"

One witness reported: "The men worked like fiends, their jaws set and eyes on fire. Nothing in the world exists for them except the line chassis bearing down on them relentlessly. They come along on a conveyor, and as each passes, the worker has to finish his particular job before the next one bears down on him. The line moves fast and the chassis are close together. The men move like lightning. Some are underneath on their backs on little carts, propelling themselves by their heels all day long, fixing something underneath the chassis as they move along." ⁸

Young workers, unused to the unbearable pace, couldn’t eat until they threw up their previous meals when they got home. One worker told Atlantic Monthly that he had been made so dizzy by the constant noises of the assembly line that when he left the plant he could not remember where he had parked his car.⁹

Walter Moore, a welder, father of eight and section organizer for the Communist Party in Flint, told a reporter: "Did you ever see a house in the country on fire? They tear up the carpets, rip out the furniture, throw everything out of the windows and doors, work at white heat while great, red flames shoot up to the sky. Well, that’s a shop, only in a shop It goes on and on; the fire never goes out."¹⁰

Flint workers were described as having a "peculiar, gray, jaundiced color," like "a city of tuberculars,"¹¹ and in July, 1936, when temperatures soared over 100 degrees, deaths in Michigan’s auto plants rose into the hundreds.¹²

The speed-up was intensified by the ever-present threat of layoffs.. "The fear of layoff is always in their minds, even if not definitely brought there by the foremen. The speed-up is thus inherent in the…lack of steady work and an army of unemployed waiting outside."¹³

It was the speed-up that organized Flint.

If any worker had "strange ideas" in his head about a union. a vast network of company spies was present to ferret him out immediately. Inexorable working-class pressure had forced exposures like those that came out of a Senate subcommittee of the Committee on Education and Labor, headed by Robert LaFollette. Testimony before that Committee—much of it by workers at the risk of their lives—revealed that GM spent $839,000 in 1934 alone on "detective work,"¹⁴ more than half of it paid to the Pinkerton agency. Hundreds of spies worked in the plants, seeking out those who had union "inclinations." GM was a member of the National Metal Trades Association, a company group that supplied labor spies to terrorize workers and import scabs and helped set up company unions to break or forestall legitimate unions. The Committee reported that the Justice Department and Army and Navy Intelligence worked with this outfit in union-busting forays. Little came of these revelations, since, in the final analysis, it was the union victories of the workers themselves that ended the terror in the plants.

In addition, GM used the forces of the notorious Black Legion, a DuPont-financed terror group that beat, tarred and feathered and murdered active unionists. GM foremen were actually seen donning black robes inside the plant in preparation for a Black Legion raid.¹⁵ Organized force inside the plants had to be defeated to bring the union to auto.

Attempts had been made to fight the auto moguls early in the depression. In July 1930 a communist-led union struck Fisher Body No. 1 and marched into downtown Flint with banners flying: "In 1776 we fought for Liberty. Today we fight for bread."¹⁶

Prior to this there had been little organizing attempted in the auto industry. However, in 1933, the Trade Union Unity League (TUUL), a left-led organizing group, created the Auto Workers Union along industrial lines. It conducted strikes which eventually involved tens of thousands and which were met with ferocious brutality, especially at the Briggs Auto Works in Flint. The TUUL-type militancy not only earned the hatred of the corporations but also of the staid, sellout business unionism of the AFL piecards.^*

The AFL since its birth had opposed the organization of unskilled workers, and especially along industrial lines—that is, placing all the different types of workers in one plant into the same union. The AFL had intended all along to keep auto workers divided, both along craft lines and from one plant or company to the next. It organized federal locals for this purpose—groups of workers in a particular plant responsible directly to the national Federation and barred from joining together with. all other auto workers on an industry-wide basis. These locals were ruled by national officers and an executive board appointed by AFL President William Green.

When the AFL attempted to step into the auto industry soon after the Briggs strikes, the TUUL locals, in a move for unity, dissolved and joined the AFL federal locals. The entrance of the TUUL left-wing militants into these locals was a first step towards the creation of an industrial union.¹⁷ Thus, when the AFL, attempting to contain the auto workers’ rising militancy—which was poison to the narrow concepts of craft unionism—called a national conference of its federal locals, the latter sent rank-and-file leaders who called for an "international industrial union." As they rose to speak, William Collins, the AFL piecard in charge of auto organizing, would snap, "Sit down! You’re a Communist! Every time I hear the words ‘international industrial union’ I know that person…represents the Communist Party."¹⁸

Wyndham Mortimer, a militant left-winger who led the local which he helped organize at Cleveland’s White Motor Company—and later became UAW first vice-president—wrote in 1951: "That there were some Communists among them, there is not the slightest doubt. In fact, had it not been for the Communists, there is serious doubt that the forces of industrial unionism would have lived through this period."¹⁹

In 1934, President Roosevelt ignored GM’s refusal to negotiate-a violation of the NRA collective bargaining Section 7a, He proposed a compromise: proportional representation of all union groups in a plant—including the company unions! He also set up an Auto Labor Board, charged with the responsibility of determining which union should represent the workers; the union later discovered that labor’s representative on the Board was a member of the Black Legion!

Disregarding the interests of the rank and file while negotiating with the companies, the AFL leadership sacrificed every single demand, including the essential one for union recognition. Thousands of auto workers made huge bonfires of their union cards and quit in disgust. The left-wingers organized the Cleveland Auto Council, which sponsored another national conference at which 37 locals were represented, and again the AFL intervened to try to prevent an industrial union from forming.

At that point even a government report warned that because of "insecurity, low annual earnings, inequitable hiring and rehiring methods, espionage, speedup, and displacement of workers at an extremely early age…Unless something is done soon, they (the workers) intend to take things Into their own hands to get results." ²⁰

Finally, with pressure growing for the mass organization of auto workers, agreement was won in May, 1936, to give the auto workers autonomy inside the AFL for what was, in effect, an industrial union. The infant UAW—along with the other unions affiliated to the newly-emerging Committee for Industrial Organization—were suspended in August by the AFL leadership because of their industrial union concepts.

In April, 1936, however, the AFL was still trying to keep Its foot in the door. It succeeded in getting a compromise candidate elected president of the new UAW. He was Homer Martin, a former Baptist minister and Kansas City Chevrolet worker. Martin was long on oratory and had a flair for phrasing the workers’ aspirations, but he was short on organizing ability and on understanding the dynamics of industrial unionism. For these reasons, the AFL officials felt Martin was someone they could use, unlike the militant left-wing industrial unionists. Mortimer was elected first vice-president; Ed Hall, nearing 50. and having spent nearly all his life in Milwaukee’s auto plants, the possessor of a basic understanding of an auto worker’s problems, became second vice-president; and Walter Reuther was elected to the Executive Board from Detroit’s West Side, with what Mortimer charged were forged credentials.²¹

In June Mortimer was selected by the fledgling UAW to be its organizer in the heart of GM territory. Martin agreed to this because he thought Mortimer would be broken there and would cease to be a threat to Martin’s position in the union.²² Mortimer came from a union family; his father had been a leader of the central Pennsylvania Knights of Labor. UAW’s Flint organizer had been a miner, railroad brakeman, steel worker and machinist at White Motor.

When Mortimer arrived to begin his work in the summer of 1936, there were barely 100 union members in the city, and the majority of those were company spies.²³ All the others, 20,000 of them, had quit. The sellout policies of the AFL leadership and Roosevelt’s intervention had helped the auto companies destroy any union organization, however shaky, that had existed in Flint. Recognizing the stoolie-ridden, AFL-organized Flint local for what it was, Mortimer set about organizing a completely independent group, visiting workers from door to door, signing them up, and sending the records to UAW national headquarters. This enraged the GM labor spies, but, though tailed and watched at every turn, Mortimer succeeded in keeping membership lists out of their hands. He began publishing a newsletter which went out to 7,000 workers each week. He also organized a secret union group in the Fisher Body No. 1 "body-in-white" department, where the main soldering and welding was done. This group was led by Bud Simons, Walter Moore and Joe Devitt, a trio of close personal friends who shared progressive views. Moore was a communist and the other two were "political left-wingers."²⁴

When Martin saw Mortimer succeeding, the UAW president—backed by followers of the renegade Jay Lovestone who had been expelled from the Communist Party—pressed for his removal.²⁵ Mortimer succumbed, but managed to arrange for Robert Travis to take his place. In his early thirties, Travis had been successful in leading and organizing Toledo Chevrolet. He shared Mortimer’s left-wing views and was regarded as atop-flight organizer despite his youth.

Slowly but surely the UAW gained strength. The fact that the discredited AFL had suspended the CIO helped draw workers into the new industrial union. Seniority agreements were won at Chrysler Dodge. In Fisher Body, union stickers began to appear on auto bodies and carry their message the length of the assembly line. With GM supporting Landon for President but losing as the workers voted for Roosevelt overwhelmingly, the union began to resist the corporation more strongly. Seven stoppages, provoked by speed-up and wage cuts, occurred at Fisher Body No. 1 in the second week of November, 1936. When Travis asked Simons if the men were ready to strike, Simons said, "Ready? They’re like a pregnant woman in her tenth month."²⁶ On November 9th, Travis met with 40 members, key men from each department, to plan how to organize a sit-down should an incident occur. Three days later, on November 12, it did.

A foreman eliminated one man from a three-man unit and ordered the other two to do the work. Although the other two were not union members, they stopped working and were fired the next morning. Starting from Simons’ group on the incoming night shift, word spread through the 7,000-man plant—"Nobody starts working." The foreman seized the man who had been removed from the group and began to shove him toward the plant superintendent. Simons stepped in and stopped him while the entire assembly line watched. A committee was picked on the spot to meet with the boss as a committee—the first time this had ever happened at Fisher Body.

The super was stunned. He gave in and agreed to rehire the two workers who had been fired, but the men, in spite of an agreement that they would not be docked for time lost in the stoppage, still refused to go back to work. They demanded that the two workers be brought back to the plant. The company was forced to broadcast over local and police radio to find the two men, one of whom was on a date with his girl. No one started working until he had driven her home, changed his clothes and reported for work!

This story spread through Flint like wildfire. Workers began signing up by the hundreds. GM was forced to bargain with various units on day-to-day grievances. Although John L. Lewis, president of the United Mine Workers and head of the new CIO, along with the other CIO leaders, had planned to organize the steel industry first, the young UAW organizers took the lead.

Among units of the GM empire, the Fisher Body "mother plants" in Flint and Cleveland were the heart. They produced dies and chassis on which three-fourths of GM production depended and the company found it too cumbersome to store chassis against a strike. Without the chassis there could be no automobile. Production was crippled if the supply was cut off at the source. Another key plant was Chevrolet No. 4 in Flint. Every engine for one million Chevrolets was assembled there each year. Chevy No. 4 was called the "the hellhole" by its 8,000 workers; it was dominated end to end by its manager, Arnold Lenz, a Hitler sympathizer. But when the union ferreted out and exposed a couple of stoolies at Chevy 4, respect for the union shot up and a rapid increase in membership followed.

Then auto strikers at Midland Steel, led by communists, beat the red scare and won union recognition. A sit-down at Bendix compelled the company to bargain with the union. Still, in the estimate of the UAW leadership, the situation was not yet ripe for a national struggle with GM. In fact, when Martin, on tour, threatened a nation-wide strike without consulting the executive board, he was stopped. He had made this threat after a November 18 walkout at a union weak spot, the Chevy plant in Atlanta, where four workers had been fired for wearing union buttons. From Detroit, UAW vice-president Ed Hall located Martin in Kansas City and told him: " You dumb son-of-a-bitch! You get your ass back here tonight or that’ll be the last trip you’ll ever take!" ²⁷

The decision was made by the UAW leadership not to call a national strike until Fisher Body in Flint and Cleveland were ready, which Travis estimated would take another month. Knowing this, GM tried to force the issue by provoking a strike on December 16 at Kansas City, a union weak spot as Atlanta was. GM hoped to lure the union into a national walkout when it wasn’t prepared. Again the union held firm and the Kansas City strike, later found to have been set off by a Pinkerton agent, was localized.

On December 17, Martin requested national collective bargaining in a telegram to GM management. Management, aiming to split the union into 69 parts, replied that it would bargain only on a plant-by-plant basis. On December 28, the first action occurred at Fisher Body in Cleveland where the workers in the quarter panel department yanked the power when the plant manager postponed a bargaining session for a few hours. All other departments followed and by one o’clock in the afternoon the plant was dead. Through the mediation of Mayor Harold Burton, later a Supreme Court justice, GM tried to bargain on a local basis; but the union turned down the ruse. A unanimous vote at a plant mass meeting decided the sit-down would be ended only as a part of a national settlement. This action had disrupted the timetable of even the UAW leadership, which had planned to begin strike action against GM in Flint. A few weeks later the Cleveland workers had to leave the plant and conduct their strike from the outside because they did not have the strength to maintain the sit-down. It was the Flint workers who had to carry the ball.

Their strike began at Fisher Body No. 1 on December 30, only two days after the start of the Cleveland sit-down. When the night shift came on at No. I on the 30th, they found that the company had backed up a string of railroad cars and was starting to move dies. This was GM’s version of the runaway shop, an open attempt to shift production to a plant where the union was weak and thus destroy Fisher Body No. 1 as a decisive unit. Travis was notified at the union office across the street. He immediately called the workers to a lunch-hour meeting by the pre-arranged signal of a 200-watt red lamp which the workers could see flickering in the union headquarters. When they had filled the hall, Travis said, "What do we do about the dies?" A worker answered: "Well, them’ s our jobs. We want them left right here in Flint."

Travis reviewed the company moves. He pointed out that the Cleveland workers were out on strike to save their jobs, and again he asked, "What do we do?’

"Shut her down! Shut the goddamn plant!" came the cry.²⁸

Henry Kraus, a UAW editor at the meeting, describes the scene: "The men stood still facing the door. It was like trying to chain a natural force. They couldn’t hold back and started crowding forward. Then suddenly they broke through the door and made a race for the plant gates, running in every direction towards the quarter-mile-long buildings." ²⁹

One group raced to the railroad dock where a plant manager was directing the coupling of loaded cars. "Strike on," yelled the men to the locomotive engineer. "Okay," he nodded, waved to the brakeman to stop the work and trotted off.

The workers inside immediately began to secure the plant against any attacker. They moved scores of unfinished Buick bodies in front of all entrances to form a gigantic barricade. With acetylene torches they welded a steel frame around every door. Bullet-proof metal sheets were put in position to cover every window, while holes were carved in them and threaded to allow the nozzles of fire hoses to be screwed into them. Wet clothes were kept in readiness to be placed on the face as protection against tear-gas attacks. Large supplies of metal parts were placed in strategic spots. Paint guns for spraying would be invaders were located throughout the plant.

The back-to-work whistle blew, but there was no movement. Suddenly the third-floor windows were flung open to reveal workers waving arms and shouting, "Hooray, Bob, she’s ours!" The women of the cut-and-sew department were told to report to union headquarters. Nearly all the remaining 3,000 night workers struck.

With a simultaneous sit-down in the smaller Fisher No. 2, GM body production ground to a halt. Thousands of stop-orders went out to suppliers and assembly plants all over the country. On January 1, all Chevrolet and Buick assembly plants were closed. By January 7, 100,000 GM workers were idle. On January 3, a national union conference of 300 from ten cities met in Flint and formulated demands: union recognition for the UAW, reinstatement of all workers fired because of union membership or activity, seniority to govern all layoffs, new wage minimums, a 30-hour, 5-day week with time and one-half for overtime, abolition of piece work, and a slowing down of the assembly line.

The press and the company raved and ranted about a "Soviet-style tyranny" being imposed on the country. The New York Times editorialized that it was "highly doubtful whether union leaders were speaking for the great mass of workers." They were striking "for an abstract principle of labor organization in an industry… (in which) earnings were 20% above the average." (January 4, 1937) There were constant references to "Lewis’ strike" and Lewis "ordering the men in or out" and "Lewis ordering the strike at strategic points,"³⁰ as if the rank and file had determined nothing. It continued to whine that a small minority coerces the majority."³¹ Headlines were constantly slanted against the strikers: "Ultimatum to Knudson by Auto Union;" "Sloan Bars Pact With ‘Dictators.’"³²

Sloan later reported to the GM stockholders that the sit-down "denies the right of dully constituted branches of government to interfere…It is revolutionary in its dangers and implications."³³

The workers in Fisher Body No. 1 paid little heed to the rantings of GM and its press. Once inside they set about organizing one of the most effective strike apparatuses ever seen in the United States. Immediately after securing the plant, they held a mass meeting and elected a committee of stewards and a strike strategy committee of five to govern the strike. Bud Simons was elected chairman, and Walter Moore and Joe Devitt, all leaders of the original sit-down on November 13, had central roles on this body. Then committees were organized: food, police, information, sanitation and health, safety, "kangaroo court," entertainment, education and athletics. Since all committees were democratically elected, their authority was unquestioned. The supreme body remained the 1,200 who stayed to hold the plant, the rest being sent outside to perform other tasks. Two meetings of the entire plant were held daily at which any change could be made in the administration.

The strike committee posted rules on all bulletin boards: smoking only in restricted areas, liquor and gambling banned, information given only through the regular committee and no phone calls by individuals. All questions from the press and "outside world" in general had to be written in advance and answered only in the presence of the strike strategy committee.

The police committee was responsible for guarding every entrance to the plant and posted the names and shifts of every man on the bulletin boards. Within this committee of 65 the most trusted workers constituted the Special Patrol. Their job was to make a complete 35-minute round of the plant every hour, 24 hours a day, throughout the entire strike. They would check out all rumors and report any violations of rules or discipline. Violators were tried by the "court" and initially given minor punishments. After three convictions a striker was sent out.

No one could enter or leave the plant unless checked out by the reception committee. One reporter among the hundreds covering the story describes this process:

A "reception committee of five searched my party and car for weapons outside the plant." Then "we walked up to the plant itself. All doors were shut and barricaded. I climbed onto a pile of packing bags and swung over a heavy horizontally-hinged steel door into the plant. On a platform inside there was another reception committee which checked credentials again."³⁴

Such care was necessary since the company was always attempting to spread rumors of scandals inside. They even smuggled a prostitute in another guise into the plant but she was discovered and sent packing.

Inside, every worker had a specific duty for six hours a day. They were on duty for three hours, off for nine, on three and off nine, in each 24-hour period. Every day at 3 P.M. there was a general cleanup. No matter how cold the weather, all windows were opened wide and teams of workers moved in waves on, and in between, the assembly lines for the entire length of the plant, leaving it spick-and-span. Personal cleanliness also took high priority, every worker taking a "shower a day."

The strikers divided themselves into social groups of 15, setting up "house" in some cozy corner and living family-style for the "duration." They made mattresses of car cushions, took out the seats and made beds of the car floors. Every visitor was impressed with the extreme neatness and the care taken with all plant property. The spirit and determination that developed among the workers was reflected in letters to their families:

"I don’t know how long we will be here but we will never give up. We are holding the fort strong and have everything we need. Cots and cigarettes and plenty of food. We sure done a thing. GM said it could never be done when we took possession…Drop me a line and send my union receipt."

A plant post office was established to handle all mail, which included censoring every letter. Daily visits were arranged whereby workers’ children could be handed through a window while workers talked to their wives as they stood outside. At one point the organization was so confident of its fortress that workers who lived nearby were allowed the liberty of going home for a day at a time.

The class consciousness and absolute rank-and-file democracy was at a peak during the sit-down, as the following story reveals. A cameraman for Hearst’s pro-GM Detroit Times presented his union card to the reception committee but it was torn up. He pleaded to be allowed inside to take pictures and appealed to higher union officials, but was told the plant committee would have to rule on it. A formal debate was held, the cameraman stating his own case, saying he was an "active union man," that he personally differed with his boss, and that "freedom of the press" should be respected. The strikers’ view was presented by one worker who simply said, "But goddamitall, his boss is Hearst!" The ballot was unanimous to keep him out.

The monotony and boredom, away from the family, was probably the most difficult problem to overcome. Calisthenics were organized daily. The entire plant was wired with a loudspeaker system. A 12-piece orchestra was organized from among the strikers and concerts were broadcast every evening. Each "social group" had either a radio or phonograph. Ping pong, checkers, chess, cards (using washers as "money") were provided. The bottoms were knocked out of two wastebaskets and a basketball court set up. Boxing and wrestling teams were organized. The strikers took to writing poems and songs, the best of which were published in the union paper. They put on skits lampooning the foremen, GM and its bosses.

Labor classes were held daily in the history of the labor movement and instructions given in parliamentary procedure, "how to run a union meeting" and in the union constitution. A "living newspaper" presented to allow the workers to act out the specific events of the strike as it went along. Dramatic groups were invited and Detroit’s Contemporary Theatre put on plays. One local movie owner sent entertainers and another who refused to help out was boycotted after the strike. Charlie Chaplin donated his current movie, Modern Times, and film showings were held. A writing class was led by a graduate student from the University of Michigan and workers took to writing plays.

The Women’s Auxiliary—which was to play a key role in the strike—organized dancing, representing all national groups, in front of the plant. They formed "living formations" or mass charades to describe phrases like "Solidarity Forever" or "Sole Collective Bargaining Agent." The strikers, in turn, serenaded them with their own band, whose theme song became "The Fisher Strike," written by the workers to the tune of the well-known southern ballad, "The Martins and the McCoys."

Gather round me and I’ll tell you all a story,
Of the Fisher Body Factory Number One:
When the dies they started moving,
The union men they had a meeting,
To decide right then and there what must be done.

Chorus

These four-thousand union boys,
Oh, they sure made lots of noise,
They decided then and there to shut down tight.
In the office they got snooty,
So we started picket duty,
Now the Fisher Body shop is on a strike.

Now this strike it started one bright Wednesday evening,
When they loaded up a box car full of dies;
When the union boys they stopped them
And the railroad workers backed them,
The officials in the office were surprised.

Now they really started out to strike in earnest.
They took possession of the gates and buildings too.
They placed a guard in either clockhouse
Just to keep the non-union men out,
And they took the keys and locked the gates up too.

Now you think that this union strike is ended,
And they’ll all go back to work just as before.
But the day shift men are "cuties,"
They relieve the night shift duties,
And we carry on this strike just as before.³⁵

The organization outside the plant was no less efficient and vital to the existence of the workers inside. Union headquarters .at Pengelly Hall was the hub. Committees were established for food preparation, publicity, welfare and relief, pickets and defense and union growth. The responsibility of feeding several thousand workers both inside and outside the plants was enormous. The union kitchen was headed by Dorothy Kraus, wife of the union editor, and a union chef from a large Detroit hotel. One day’s food supply included 500 pounds of meat, 100 pounds of potatoes, 300 loaves of bread, 100 pounds of coffee, 200 pounds of sugar, 30 gallons of milk and four cases of evaporated milk. Its transportation was handled by the city’s bus drivers who remembered the solidarity of the auto workers in the bus strike. Two hundred people, mostly women, prepared this food. Some crates of fruit were kept inside for snacks and carefully guarded against poisoning. As it later turned out, a Pinkerton agent was on the inside food committee.

Several hundred workers gave their cars for use by the union. Sound equipment, guarded day and night, was used to talk to the sit-downers from outside the plant. The Flint Auto Worker was distributed by the tens of thousands. A "chiseling" committee was set up to collect food and supplies. Two-thirds of what was needed was obtained in this fashion, the committee going from house to house and to small shopkeepers.

The union headquarters became the center of life for thousands of workers who streamed in and out, bringing their families along. A nursery was set up to take care of the children while their mothers were working for the strike.

There was constant communication between the outside strike leaders and the strike committee inside. Picketing took place around the, clock in front of the plant.

The fantastic spirit and organization of the workers spread across the nation. Sit-downs became a national phenomenon. Workers the country over grabbed newspapers each day to see "if the boys in Flint were still holding out." Companion strikes sparked new methods of organization.^* Only one reason could drag one sit-downer at the Philadelphia Exide Battery Co. outside—he was married at the plant gates. The entire country was union-conscious, A milk company inserted an advertisement in the Daily Worker saying:

"We take great pleasure In announcing that we have signed a closed shop contract with the Milk Wagon Drivers Union, Local 584. Now our milk will be delivered by UNION DRIVERS!"

Support poured in from all over the country. Despite the attempt of the national AFL to sabotage the strike, Its city central bodies in Flint, Detroit, Cleveland and Minneapolis backed the sit-downers with all sorts of aid.

The United Rubber Workers’ Goodyear local sent $3,000. Six thousand came from UAW at Studebaker. Trucks of food arrived from Akron. The Hudson and Chrysler workers began , a "one-hour-a-day club;" one hour’s wages each day donated to the strike fund. Veterans formed a Union Labor Post No. 1 to counteract the "patriotic scabbing" organized by flag-wavers. Even small businessmen joined the ranks, one drugstore owner telling a reporter:

"This whole block of stores is solid for the union. Hell, I never got anything out of GM dividends: a union victory is better for my business."³⁶

Based on the coordination inside and outside, the sit-downers felt as if they were building up an impregnable fortress against the company and police. They were not to wait too long be-fore the first attack was launched.

As production decreased daily, GM turned to their courts for an injunction with which to oust the strikers. It was a ticklish legal situation, since the workers were in no way harming the machinery, and, in fact, kept the plants in better shape than the company had. The tactic was "so new," said one observer, "that no existing law has any relevance in regard to it."³⁷ But that, of course, wouldn’t stop GM.

It got an, injunction from Genesee County Judge Edward D. Black. County Sheriff Tom Wolcott went to the plants to read it to the workers, ordering them out in 24 hours. As the nervous sheriff stood on a table in the Fisher No. I cafeteria reading the writ, workers laughed and kidded him and broke out into "Solidarity Forever" when he had finished. Needless to say, the workers refused to budge.

With GM set to request an order for removal, one of the union attorneys dug up information which proved to be a bombshell: Judge Black owned 3,665 shares of GM stock, worth $219,000.³⁸ Michigan law stated that "No judge of any court shall sit as such in any case or proceeding in which he is a party or, in which he is interested…" While the judge denied that his stock ownership would influence his decision, this was too blatant even for GM. Shamefaced, it forgot the Black injunction and allowed legal matters to cool awhile before seeking another one.

This exposure proved a boon to the workers’ cause as it hit the front pages of every paper in the country and exposed GM’s complete control of the political machinery of Flint. But the company had just started.

All of a sudden there appeared on the scene an organization called the Flint Alliance. It claimed to be composed of "loyal" GM workers who were laid off in other plants because of the Fisher Body strike and who were demanding an end to "minority rule." The president of this group turned out to be one George Boyson, a former Buick paymaster and then owner of a company manufacturing spark plugs—obviously loyal to GM. The treasurer was revealed as a former Flint city official who had been convicted of embezzling city funds. So "widespread" was the "anger" among the "loyal workers" that these two, were picked as the main officers of the Flint Alliance!

In reality, the Alliance was set up both as a strikebreaking group and to mobilize vigilante action against the sit-downers. It was composed principally of GM supervisors, of which there were hundreds, and businessmen. Foremen descended on non-struck plants with membership cards, attempting to intimidate workers into signing. Several received a "going over" when they refused to join. More than half the cards were filled out with "names" such as "John Fink" and "James Stoolpigeon" or "Strikebreaker" and "Mr. Sloan," with the comment added, "I own General Motors and its employees."

GM took pictures of "crowds" of workers supposedly demonstrating to go back to work. The "demonstrators" later turned out to be men waiting for their paychecks. The company was pushing its back-to-work movement through the Flint Alliance, claiming that a minority of strikers were "dictating" to a majority of non-strikers. Actually the union was signing up thousands of men and women into the UAW every day. Even those workers who were not on strike and not in the union let it be known, by their presence at demonstrations and picket lines, that their sympathies were with the sit-downers.

GM continued its refusal even to meet with the union unless the strikers vacated the plants. And, of course, the union said they would not do so unless guaranteed that the company would not fill them with scabs, a pledge which GM would never agree to. The tension mounted. Cries were heard in Congress for outlawing sit-down strikes. A Detroit clergyman saw "Soviet planning" behind the strike. The AFL leadership urged the workers to go back to work.

But the workers, marvelously organized and in high spirits, sat tight. So GM finally turned to violence.

THE BATTLE OF BULLS RUN

On the afternoon of January 11, as workers were handing food in through the main gate of Fisher Body No. 2, company guards suddenly appeared and overpowered them, closing the gate of the smaller plant. The workers quickly ran up a ladder to hoist the food to the second floor, but the guards hauled it down. At that moment, in 16 degree weather, the company turned off the heat.

Word was sent to union headquarters and hundreds of workers raced to the scene. Some were from Buick and Chevy, some were bus drivers who had been helped by the auto workers during their recent strike, some were "flying squads" in town from Toledo and Norwood, Ohio, to help out. The ever-present sound truck appeared in front of the plant. Immediately 20 outside pickets, Fisher No. 2 workers, advanced on the company guards with home-made billy clubs, took their keys and captured the gate, to guard against city cops entering. The company guards phoned the Flint cops and ran to the plant’s ladies’ room where they barricaded themselves and claimed they were kidnapped. It became obvious that the whole provocation had been prearranged.

The cops arrived in minutes, loaded down with revolvers, gas guns, grenades and supplies of tear and nauseating gas. They blockaded the streets, removed parked cars and then attacked the pickets guarding the gate. Women pickets deposited their children at the union hall and raced to the plant.

When the first gas bombs were thrown, the pickets outside retreated temporarily. The wind blew the gas back into the cops’ ranks. Inside the plant the sit-downers dragged fire hoses to the windows and began directing streams of water at the advancing cops. Two-pound door hinges began raining down from the roof. Within five minutes, the cops retreated.

The sit-downers started hauling out a supply of empty milk bottles and hinges to the pickets outside, preparing for a second attack. The cops began hurling gas bombs through the plant windows, which were not as well fortified as at Fisher No. 1. The workers grabbed them with gloved hands and quickly doused them in buckets of water located nearby for that purpose.

The cops then regrouped and made a second rush but were met with a volley of bottles, hinges and lumps of coal outside and water from the inside hoses. They couldn’t get close this time. The sound truck, manned by several organizers, was helping to direct the battle amid a barrage of tear gas. Again the cops retreated, this time with the workers in hot pursuit. The counter-attack was led by Travis, who was later treated for gas burns. The pickets were joined by scores of other workers who were part of a crowd watching the battle.

At that point the cops opened fire. Fourteen were wounded, one, a leader of the bus drivers’ union, critically. While fellow workers carried them off, the rest continued on the attack, overturning the sheriff’s car (with the sheriff inside) and spilling large quantities of gas and gas grenades out of the trunk. The cops continued to retreat up the hill, shooting at the windows of the plant.

One woman, Genora Johnson, whose husband was inside the plant, grabbed the mike in the sound truck and cried:

"Cowards! Cowards! Shooting unarmed and defenseless men! Women of Flint! This is your fight! Join the picket line and defend your jobs, your husband’s job and your children’ s home."³⁹

As the cops stayed on top of the hill, men and women began to organize an all-night vigil. Victor Reuther, manning the sound truck, pointed out that it was not the peaceful workers but GM’s cops who were responsible for the destruction. He told the workers that "they must now fight not only for their jobs but for their very lives. Let General Motors be warned; the patience of these men is not inexhaustible. If there is further bloodshed…we will not be responsible for what the workers do in their rage! There are costly machines in that plant. Let the corporation and their thugs remember that!"⁴⁰

The workers outside barricaded both ends of the plant with abandoned cars. Gov. Frank Murphy arrived in Flint and said he was holding the National Guard "in readiness." But GM’s strategy had failed, for the moment. Attempting to counteract the character of a peaceful sit-down, it had provoked violence at Fisher No. 2, much smaller than its sister plant. It wanted to create a situation whereby the Guard would be ordered in and martial law declared. Its hope was to starve out the workers and eventually evict them, thereby giving impetus to a back-to-work’ movement led by the Flint Alliance.

The courage, organization and solidarity of the workers had overcome this strategy. The "Battle of Bulls Run," as it later came to be known, had ended. The "bulls" had run.

The next day, January 12, 8,000 workers massed in front of Fisher No. 2 to celebrate the victory. No cops were in sight as they poured in from Lansing, Detroit, Pontiac, Saginaw, Toledo, Cleveland, South Bend. and Norwood to visit the scene of the battle. Thousands were signing up in the UAW every day. Fisher No. 1 shored up its defenses against the mobilization of 1,500 National Guardsmen. The huge crane whistle was set to blow at the first sign of attack. The boiler was adjusted at full force to hurl water at an invader. One hose was attached to an air line to blow away possible gas fumes. Workers were practicing heaving the two-pound door hinges at beaverboard targets. Morale was high, especially since many felt Murphy would not use the Guard against the strikers, that he was on their side.

GM had claimed that the battle had been between the cops and the workers; the corporation had "nothing to do with it." But still GM had seven of the wounded men arrested when they were released from the hospital. The very next day, 1,200 "John Doe" warrants were made out to be served on the strikers, charging them with "criminal syndicalism, felonious assault, riot, destruction of property and kidnapping." The last charge was based on the company guards who had run to the women’s room..

One of the results of the victory of Bulls Run was the new importance it gave to women in the strike. Up to that time, though joining outside picket lines, most had been involved in preparing food. Many wives of sit-downers had been the victims of malicious anonymous letters telling them their husbands inside the plant were sick. Some women were tricked into demanding that their husbands and sons be brought home. But Bulls Run turned the tide.

Genora Johnson, who had spoken out so militantly in the heat of the battle, began organizing the Women’s Emergency Brigade, as a vanguard detachment of the Women’s Auxiliary. It was composed of volunteers, mostly veterans of the previous battle, organized along semi-military lines. Squad captains (usually those with phones and cars) were leaders of groups of women whom they were expected to roundup for any emergency on a moment’s notice and transport to the scene of action. One failure to respond meant suspension from the Brigade.

Mrs. Johnson, 23, told them they should expect to face tear gas and bullets on the picket line...be beaten and killed by police attacks" and by "attempts to break the strike." Applications poured in. The Brigade began wearing red berets and armbands to identify themselves as they prepared to answer any attack.

"If we go into battle, will we be armed?" Mrs. Johnson asked. "Yes." she said, "with rolling pins, brooms, mops and anything we can get.." They began carrying long "two-by-fours" whittled down at one end for easy handling. The members of the Brigade were described by Mary Heaton Vorse, noted women’s leader of the day, as "strikers’ wives and mothers, normally ‘homebodies,’ mature women, the majority married, ranging from young mothers to grandmothers."⁴¹ Mrs. Vorse remarked that the women were "doing this because they have come to the conclusion it must be done if they and their children are to have a decent life."

The workers began holding mass meetings, bombarding Governor Murphy with reminders of his election promises, demanding that no troops be used against the strikers. Although Murphy had raised the National Guard complement to 3,000, acting on an "unlawful seizure" definition of the strike, he was extremely wary about appearing to be taking sides. He declared that the troops were there as much to protect against the vigilante Flint Alliance as against violence from the strikers. Some Guardsmen, workers themselves, wore union buttons, vowing they wouldn’t allow themselves to be used as strikebreakers. Murphy was "the man in the middle," trying to bring about a settlement without harming his political future. He had just been elected by an overwhelming workers’ vote two months before.

With the help of the CIO’ s Phillip Murray, an end was being sought to the glass industry strike, which would enable Chrysler and Ford production to shoot back up. This would put pressure on GM, where production had sunk from 50,000 to 1,500 cars per week. The union took the offensive. CIO president Lewis launched a broadside against the corporation, demanding an investigation of its ownership. He pledged full CIO support until the auto workers won their strike, realizing the noticeable effect it was having on the steel organizing campaign. Flying squads of organizers were signing up thousands of steel workers into the CIO’s Steel Workers Organizing Committee.

On January 13, Murphy called both sides into conference and two days later GM agreed to a truce. National bargaining would begin on the l8th—solely with the UAW—-on all eight issues. Seventeen struck plants would remain closed pending a settlement. There would be no discrimination against any worker because of union membership. Neither side could break off negotiations for at least 15 days. The sit-downers would evacuate the plants before the 18th but GM would not remove tools, dies or materials from any of the struck plants. The key issue was that the UAW would be the sole bargaining agent.

The rank-and-file sit-downers didn’t like the smell of it, although GM had finally been forced to sip something. (Prior to that the corporation said they would not even negotiate unless the plants were evacuated first, and had always maintained that the UAW only represented a small "minority.") Travis and the Flint leadership had not been involved in the negotiations leading to this agreement and didn’t like it either. They felt it put GM on the offensive again, since with every passing day in the 15-day period there would be increasing pressure on the union to accept less and less of what it wanted before GM would be able to break off negotiations. Travis pointed out that the strike was built around the occupation of the plants and to evacuate them without a contract would appear to be backing down. Adding to these misgivings was the fact that Travis, Kraus and two Reuther brothers (Roy and Victor) were arrested just at that time for "unlawful assembly" (because of their leadership at Bulls Run). Despite this, the union kept its end of the bargain. Guide Lamp in Anderson, Indiana was evacuated first (and the outside pickets were attacked immediately afterwards by vigilantes); then came Cadillac and Fleetwood on Detroit’s West Side, marching out with banners flying, "Today GM, Tomorrow Ford!"^*

For the rank and file it "was difficult to accept a truce"⁴² rather than definite victory and outright union recognition. Nevertheless, plans were made for Fisher Nos. 1 and 2 to march out in a body on Sunday, January 17, after a special chicken dinner inside. Everything was cleaned up, the workers had their bags packed and Fisher No. 1 was about ready to parade to the buses that would take them to No. 2 for a mass demonstration when the hitch came.

Bill Lawrence, a United Press reporter, happened to hand Henry Kraus a press release which he had taken from George Boyson’s desk, and asked for the union’s comment. The release, scheduled for issuance after the evacuation of the plants, announced that GM had agreed to meet with the Flint Alliance on Tuesday to discuss "representation" and recognition by the company. This was a direct violation of the agreement to bargain solely with the UAW. Travis sent runners immediately to both body plants to halt the evacuations while the workers discussed the new turn of events. Although UAW president Martin, when notified, saw "nothing wrong" in the development, CIO director Brophy and Vice-President Mortimer agreed with Travis’ move.

When the proposal was made to remain inside Fisher No. 1, the workers cheered. A roaring crowd of 5,000 outside applauded wildly when they heard the decision ten minutes after the sit-downers had been scheduled to leave. Horns honked for five minutes as the men lined the windows of the plant, waving to their fami1ies and fellow strikers. A dummy figure labeled "GM stoolpigeon" was lowered to the ground and torn to shreds. Another rally of 10,000 at Fisher No. 2 also cheered Mortimer’s announcement that the sit-downers had decided to stick it out in the face of GM’s doublecross.

There was a victory air at Pengelly Hall. "The strike and the union had suddenly attained full maturity."⁴³ The workers felt GM couldn’t bargain with two unions—"You can’t have an eight-hour shift on one end of an assembly line and six on another."

GM then walked out of the negotiations and the workers tightened their lines once more. It was back to scratch again.

On January 20, all Buick plants were forced to close. New negotiations were undertaken in Washington at Roosevelt’s request. However, GM quit those parleys two days later and, with production virtually at a standstill, vowed to reopen its struck plants. At that point Lewis demanded that Roosevelt enforce collective bargaining under the law and force GM to negotiate. Roosevelt refused to do this, answering: "I think in the interests of peace there come moments when statements, conversations and headlines are not in order."⁴⁴

GM chose to interpret these remarks as a go-ahead signal to open a strike-breaking drive. Economic conditions were worsening, a time when anti-strike movements flourish. While the UAW was fighting to relieve these hardships by getting relief for its members, and was signing up new members all the time, the corporation launched its drive.

It announced that 79 per cent of its workers had "voted to return to work." Since GM was very "concerned" about its workers, it would "make work" for them and get them off welfare. On the 25th the union answered this with a strike in the Oakland plant, one of the few places where actual assembly work was taking place.

On that same day Boyson announced that the Flint Alliance would "take an active part in efforts to reopen the plants." On the 26th GM refused to attend a meeting called by Secretary of Labor Perkins In Washington, which Roosevelt termed "unfortunate."⁴⁵ Then the company launched an all-out drive to break the strike.

Vigilantes smashed UAW headquarters at Anderson, Indiana and ran the union organizers out of town. Five pickets were clubbed by cops on a line in front of the Cadillac plant in Detroit. Mrs. Agnes Gotten, wife of a striker, sought to block police from escorting scabs inside and was clubbed from behind, requiring five stitches in her head. But 1,500 pickets succeeded in preventing any strikebreakers from entering, despite the presence of 200 hose-carrying cops. The Flint Alliance met to whip up a frenzy against the strikers.

The state legislature sponsored a bill to outlaw sit-down strikes. The Alliance besieged four union officials in Saginaw and beat them up, nearly murdering them. Finally, on the 27th, GM reopened non-struck plants, mostly in Chevrolet, employing 40,000 workers. Although it had actually closed them prematurely, to throw workers on the street and blame the UAW for their plight, it was now opening them with no real chance of assembling cars. About all that could be done was to build up an inventory of parts. Travis felt, however, that it wasn’t the worst thing for a lot of laid-off members to be working as long as the body plants were closed and GM couldn’t start actual production.

But the corporation wasn’t content with these counter-moves. It sought out a judge who didn’t own GM stock and filed for an injunction, on grounds—true, of course—that it was losing money to Ford and Chrysler. It demanded immediate evacuation of the Fisher Body plants and prohibition of outside picketing. On February 1st the union was served with a show-cause order to explain why it should not bow to the injunction. On the same day a march to Saginaw protesting the beating of the four union officials was countermanded by national UAW headquarters at Murphy’s request. Travis, angry, pointed out that Murphy could have protected the officials but didn’t.

GM had effectively seized the offensive: it had reopened its non-striking plants, and the union appeared powerless to prevent it. Having passed its peak, the union would inevitably fall back and grow weaker, with the chance that the strike might be lost or demands watered down beyond recognition, unless a counter-offensive were launched. That is exactly what Travis and the strikers produced.

THE CAPTURE OF CHEVY 4

Across Chevrolet Avenue from Fisher Body No. 2, spread out on 80 acres and bisected by the Flint River, stood nine Chevrolet factories. At 3:30 every afternoon 7,000 night-shift workers replaced the 7,000 on the day shift. Half of the 14,000 total worked in one factory—Chevy No. 4, the motor assembly plant which produced all one million Chevrolet engines each year. It was the largest single unit of the GM empire. To seize it would remove the struggle from the courts and put it back in the plants where the workers had an even chance. Yet, to capture it appeared nearly impossible.

The plant superintendent, storm trooper Arnold Lenz, had instituted a reign of terror. He had concentrated an army of armed guards inside to patrol day and night. The union was growing, and Lenz was firing workers left and right for union activities.

As it happened, the union had uncovered a Pinkerton agent, "Frenchy" DuBuc, and was holding and using him to get information. Travis ordered the stoolie to call his Pinkerton boss and tell him that Travis had asked him directly about Chevy No.4—about the docks, the approaches, whether or not a boat could be brought up the Flint River to the plant, etc.

The Pinkerton boss told DuBuc that Travis was kidding him. "He knows goddamn well the union couldn’t take Chevy 4"⁴⁶ Thus Travis established in his own mind that GM was confident the union would not be so foolhardy as to try to sit down in No. 4.

Lenz fired three more men for union activities on Friday, January 29. Travis called a Chevrolet membership meeting for Sunday night and 1, 500 workers responded. He told them the situation, outlined the goon attacks, and said the union must demand that the UAW members be rehired. The meeting roared approval. He then told the workers to "keep your eyes open" and "you’ll know what to do." The meeting was adjourned, but 150 stewards and organizers were told to remain. Travis, Kraus and Roy Reuther went into a nearby darkened room, lighted only by a candle. The men were told to enter one by one. As they did, the three-man committee selected 30 of the "most trusted," sending the rest home with slips of paper containing "secret orders:" "follow the man who takes the lead."

The 30 who remained were told that at exactly 3:20 the next afternoon there would be a sit-down in Chevy NINE. Those in Chevy plants Nos. 4 and 6 were told to sit tight and remain at work, not to help out at No. 9. When some voiced objections to striking No. 9, they were satisfied with the answer that No. 9 was stronger in union membership and "easier to defend."

Travis then took aside the two most trusted union leaders from No. 9 and told them that they had to hold the plant just until 4:10, until Chevy No. 6 was "taken," that No. 6 was the "real target." Meanwhile Travis had told three leaders from No. 6 and No. 4—Ed Cronk, Howard Foster and Kermit Johnson—that No. 9 was only to be used as a decoy; that Cronk in No. 6 was to rally his men and then take them over to No. 4 and help the other two pull it down. Thus, only six people—Travis, Kraus, Reuther, Cronk, Foster and Johnson—knew that No. 4 was the actual target.

But what about the armed camp in No. 4? Reuther and Kraus told Travis they were a bit dubious about some of the 30 "select few" he had picked to tell about the plan to take No. 9. They said they were sure the information would get back to Lenz through at least one stoolie. That, Travis said, was precisely what he wanted. He felt that whatever these 30 men were told would be all over the company in the morning. The only way to defeat the company’s stoolpigeon system was to use it—to go through an intricate, elaborate "secret" procedure, with "darkened rooms," "secret orders" on slips of paper, and the rest.

In this way, when the few "dubious" choices among the 30 brought the news back to Lenz about Chevy No. 9 being the target, Travis reasoned, the "super" would believe it, first, because of the extreme measures taken to keep it a secret, and second because Lenz and the Pinkertons were sure the union would never make an attempt to capture the "impregnable" No. 4. Travis was counting on the GM spy system to give the company the wrong information. In this manner No. 9 was set up as a decoy to draw all the company guards away from No. 4 and allow its seizure by the workers.

The next afternoon, February 1, at the very moment the hearings were taking place in court on GM’s new injunction bid, Travis called a mass meeting at the union hall, billed as a mobilization for a "protest march" on the courthouse. Thousands showed up and the Women’s Emergency Brigade appeared in force. Meanwhile the union sound trucks circled the city, surrounded by union guards, and finally, through devious routes, at 3:05 came to rest facing Nos. 9 and 6.

Five minutes later at the union hall Dorothy Kraus rushed up to Travis "breathlessly" and handed him a slip of paper. Travis turned grimly to the crowd gathered to march to the courthouse and said "They’re beating up our boys at Chevy Nine. I suggest we go right down there." Unknown to the workers, the slip of paper was blank.

The crowd made a mad rush for the stairs and outside a long line of cars was waiting with motors running. The workers were at No. 9 in a few minutes. Newsmen, who had been "tipped off" earlier, were already there. And, sure enough, there was "trouble."

Lenz had fallen into the trap completely. The entire armed force from the whole Chevrolet division had been stationed at the personnel building next to No. 9. At 3:20, when the night shift marched in yelling "Strike"’ the guards closed the doors and rushed in, with Lenz in the lead, shouting "Reds! Communists!" The outnumbered workers fought valiantly. When one woman saw her husband’s bloody head gasping for air at an open window she yelled to the "red berets," "They’re smothering them! Let’s give them air." The women proceeded methodically to break all the windows in the plant. One of the women later described the scene:

"They were fighting inside and outside the plant. The fighting would have been much worse if it hadn’t been for us. We walked right along with our flag at our head. The gas floated right out towards us. But we have been gassed before and we went right on.

"We had to break the windows… to get air to the boys who were being gassed inside. We just want to protect our husbands and we are going to."⁴⁸

When the whistle blew at 3:30, the fighting was at its fiercest. The men were using anything they could lay their hands on against the goons’ clubs and gas guns. At 3:45 the plant manager at No. 4 ran down the lines tapping all the company men and ordering them over to No. 9 leaving No. 4 virtually devoid of any pro-company force. Finally at 4:10, the two inside leaders, Ted La Duke and Tom Klasey, figured they had "done our job" and ordered the men to march out, bleeding and "defeated." The injunction was still being argued at the court.

Then, as Kraus describes it, in "crankshafts" Gib Rose "reached up and pulled the switch and conveyor A-1 was dead. This was the signal for Dow Kehler who headed conveyor A-2. In five seconds she was down too. Kelly Malone… pulled the switch on conveyor A-3 and the entire division was frozen."

Many workers, being "threatened" with dismissal by foremen and straw bosses, wavered as union men marched around shouting: "Strike is on’! Come on and help us!" As the number of strikers grew, "courage added to courage." There was practically no physical violence… Kelly Malone, with wrench in hand (went) tearing down the lines and yelling: "Get off your job, you dirty scab!" Yet he never touched a man—all melted with fright before him."⁵⁰

Soon the strikers were hundreds strong. "Everywhere at key conveyors, squads of union men were stationed. Others were set to guard gates and mount lookout." With several departments still to be shut, "the united union forces… like a swarm of locusts passed among the machines, leaving silence and inertness where they went."⁵¹

When the foremen tried to regroup and one official urged the more passive workers to retake the plant "Joe Sayen ran perilously along the narrow balcony railing and leaping to a cafeteria table right in the midst of the listeners began shouting to drown the plant official out." The foremen retreated to the superintendent’s office and locked the door, but Cronk and his men broke it open and told them, "You’ve got five minutes to get out!" One official tried to call for reinforcements but Cronk pushed him aside and ripped the phone from the wall. The company men fled.

"The fight was over; the enormous plant was dead. The vast complex with its dizzying profusion of conveyors and machines was sprawled out like a wounded giant. The unionists were in complete control. Everywhere they were speaking to undecided workers.

" ‘ We want you boys to stay with us,. It won’t be long and everything will be settled. Then we’ll have a union and things will be different.’

"Many of the workers reached their decision in this moment. Others went home, undeterred by the strikers. About two thousand remained and an equal number went off. But as they left… the majority of them, following an impulse of incipient solidarity, dropped their lunches into huge gondolas, half filling several of them with what proved to be a much needed extra supply of food."⁵²

When, at about 4:15, they "had driven the foremen out, they began barricading the plant exits… The plant guards returning from Chevy 9 after the battle tried to enter by the northeast gate but the men drove them off with pistons, connecting rods and rocker arm rods while others brought fire hoses and squirted water and foamite at the would-be invaders."⁵³

By this time pickets and a sound truck came over from Fisher No. 2 across Chevrolet Avenue. A member of the Women’s Emergency Brigade jumped to the mike and reported that the women from Chevy No. 9’s battle "have gone to the auxiliary hall to wipe their eyes clear of the tear gas and will soon be back. We don’t want violence… but we are going to protect our husbands."⁵⁴

Soon down the hill they came, a procession of women hundreds strong in bright red caps, singing "Hold the Fort for we are coming…" They spread out in front of the plant gates, amid cheers from the men inside and the watching crowd, and locked arms. If any cops or troops were to attempt to break into the plant, it was plain they would first have to go over these women’s bodies. Not one attempt was made as the women entrenched themselves, preparing to stay the night.

Inside the plant, workers were busily filling huge gondola cars with stock, parts and weights. Then electric trucks were hitched to them and dragged the 8,000-pound loads against the rear doors. A crane was used to lift a second layer of loaded gondolas on top of the first and then still a third layer was hoisted into place. At 4:45 P.M. on February 1, Chevrolet plant No. 4, producer of a million motors a year, largest unit in the world-wide General Motors empire, "impregnable" against attack, had been secured by the men of the UAW-CIO. The women were standing in front of them, daring any cop, company goon or National Guardsman to retake it. The brilliant plan conceived by Travis and the ingenuity and heroism of the strikers had stabbed at the very heart of the billion-dollar auto giant.

As darkness descended, Joe Sayen, who shortly before had acted so heroically inside the plant, climbed the fence and addressed the throng:

" We want the whole world to understand what we are fighting for. We are fighting for freedom and life and liberty. This is our one great opportunity. What if we should be defeated? What if we should be killed? We have only one life. That’s all we can lose and we might as well die like heroes than like slaves."⁵⁵

On the 34th day of the great Flint sit-down, the workers had once again taken the offensive.

The GM "back-to-work movement had been stopped in its tracks. Murphy was furious. Negotiations had been "wrecked," he said. Privately, he had "violently castigated" the use of the sit-down tactic.⁵⁶ He ordered troops into the area around Chevy No. 4. They were partly under the command of Captain Henry McNaughton, who had served in the U.S. force that had invaded the Soviet Union after World War I. The troops took possession of all streets and approaches, isolating both the Chevy plant and Fisher Body No. 2 across the street. Virtual martial law was declared. Guards with fixed bayonets surrounded No. 4. Eight machine guns and 37 mm. howitzers were mounted on the hill overlooking both plants. Tear gas was held in reserve. No one was allowed into the plants, which effectively shut off the food supply. Fisher No. 2 was completely sealed off from both union contact and from visits by the strikers’ families. The National Guard was upped to 2,300 and finally to 4,000. An injunction signed by Judge Gladola on February 2 ordered the workers to abandon the plants or face "ejection" in 24 hours. The writ also forbade street picketing. The Women’s Emergency Brigade was forced out of the area.

Then the heat was shut off in the two plants. The workers immediately threatened to start huge bonfires to warm themselves. On went the heat. Next the lights were shut. Again the workers warned that every one of the 3,000 men now inside would light a torch of waste paper in order to "see." On went the lights. On February 3 the National Guard was forced to lift the food ban, under dire threats of "damage" inside the plants. The lunches left by those workers who had not stayed in Chevy Four proved invaluable during those first two days.

This war of nerves was too much for GM. With hundreds of millions of dollars worth of machinery at stake, on February 4 it agreed to resume negotiations. By agreeing to talk while the workers remained in possession of the plants, the corporation was making a fundamental concession. Earlier it had refused to negotiate unless the plants were evacuated.

On February 7 Lewis joined the talks in Detroit, along with Mortimer and attorney Lee Pressman. Mortimer replaced Martin who had been sent on tour to prevent him from fouling up the negotiations. The union reduced its "recognition" demand to one of sole bargaining agent in the 20 struck plants, which included the key ones, and agent for its members only in the rest.

Meanwhile, the AFL continued its treachery. Having previously wired GM its support, and labeled the strike a "defeat," it now "demanded" that the company reopen its plants. Its own craft members had "never voted" for a strike, whined the AFL "leaders," and therefore they were being "ordered" back to work. Cleveland’s Fisher Body plant had six AFL members. When Lewis was asked what effect this "order" might have on the strike he replied, "Did that man go back to work?"⁵⁷

AFL President William Green had reportedly received a promise from Roosevelt that the President would not intervene in the strike on behalf of the CIO.⁵⁸ Now Green asked GM not to recognize the UAW. This AFL scabbing had about as much effect on the UAW as a worm attempting to stop a Mack truck.^*

The tension continued to mount. The sheriff read the injunction order to the sit-downers, demanding they leave the plants. After the workers refused, he asked Murphy for aid in ousting them and arresting their leaders.^** By now Fisher No. 1—-free from Guard patrol, two miles from the besieged plants—had 3, 000 men on the inside. Murphy kept holding off, hoping he could get an agreement and maintain an untarnished image. But the company forces would not let him rest easily.

City officials continued to recruit vigilantes. By February 8 there existed an armed force of 4,000 National Guardsmen, 1,000 deputized vigilantes, the Flint cops and the Flint. Alliance, all "ready to move." The Michigan Sheriff’s Association offered 1,300 additional deputies.

The vigilantes were being put through "dress rehearsals" by the sheriff and city officials. Plans were discussed about how to oust the strikers. Many of these forces were among the lesser lights in the company scheme of things and felt a UAW victory would mean the end of their "cut of the pie."

The question arose among the union strategists of what to do in case of a full-scale attack. Initially, when the Guard had surrounded the two plants, Walter Reuther (who had come aver from Detroit where he headed the West Side Local 174) "felt that the workers should be told not to resist the Guards actively but to sprawl out on the floors and force the troops to carry them bodily out of the plant."⁵⁹ Kraus and others had disagreed with this idea. When "passive resistance" or a "short protest and then surrender" proposal was raised again, Travis shot back:

‘You’ re not going to tell workers to fight five minutes and then stop… They’ve either got to fight or give in—there’s no two ways about it. Well, suppose we tell them not to fight because it’s impossible defeating such a superior force? Do you know what will happen? They’ll march out of those plants like whipped dogs. Not all the talk in the world afterwards is going to change that. By taking the plants away from those boys now it would mean tearing the heart right out of them."⁶⁰

The strike leader then declared that "we’ve got to tell them to be prepared to fight… I don’t think it’ll ever come to that point because Governor Murphy isn’t going to be responsible for bloodshed at this late date. But the only way to assure that is to take the attitude that we won’t surrender to anybody. We fought the cops, we fought the company thugs and we can fight the National Guard, too, the way we did in Toledo… (author’s emphasis) No one challenged this strategy.

Rumors spread that an attack was imminent, that Murphy would finally use the Guard. Inside Fisher Body No. 2, one worker, Francis O’Rourke, had been keeping a day-by-day diary:

"Injunction has been granted and Sheriff Wolcott is coming down to take us out. We’re not coming out. Waiting, waiting, waiting, won’t he ever come.? We can’t get news from the outside and can’t get news out. It’s nerve wracking. Just waiting for the sheriff and wondering when we go into action. I hope none of us get hurt. All good men, they are and don’t want violence. We’re not coming out though…"

Inside Fisher No. 1, 3,000 workers were preparing for the worst. Daily drills were being held, with an "Officer of the Day" in command in case of attack. A certain crane whistle was to signal a call to arms. Everyone had his orders. Four men were to attach each hose to the openings in the sheet-metal plates, already fitted with nozzles in place. Water was kept at full pressure at all times. On February 5 a shanty with pickets inside was placed over a nearby manhole cover, guarding the on1y spot from which the city water supply could be turned off. Foamite guns mounted on two wheels, resembling cannon, were rolled into place. Although banned, there were some rifles and revolvers on hand. The ventilators were plugged to prevent gas from being poured in through them.

A majority’ of the strikers signed up in a fight-to-the-death committee. Their plan was to battle any attacker on a floor-to-floor basis, right up to the roof. They felt they could hold out indefinitely. A two-week supply of canned food had been shifted upstairs. On February 2, the men in bath Fisher Body plants then sent wires to Murphy:

"…The police of the city of Flint belong to General Motors. The sheriff of Genesee County belongs to General Motors, The judges of Genesee County belong to General Motors.... It remains to be seen whether the governor of the State also belongs to General Motors. Governor, we have decided to stay in the plant. We have no illusions about the sacrifices which this decision will entail. We fully expect that if a violent effort is made to oust us many of us will be killed and we take this means of making it known to our wives, to our children, to the people of the state of Michigan and the country, that if this result follows from the attempt to eject us, you are the one who must be held responsible for our deaths!"⁶³

That was the answer of the strikers inside. Outside, the preparations were no less militant. Travis had requested mass assistance for a possible showdown. Locals in his Toledo home base immediately began sending five hundred to a thousand men ready to remain in Flint at least an entire week. Auto-Lite and other plants shut down because so many workers had left their jobs to go to the aid of their brothers and sisters in Flint. Cars were streaming in from all over Michigan. Thousands of workers were pouring over the roads leading from Detroit to the embattled workers. Ten thousand came from that. city’s Dodge and Chrysler plants alone. Kelsey-Hayes had to shut its doors because its workers were marching to Fisher Body. And 20,000 of Flint’s own had begun massing at the two Body plants. Chevy No. 4 had been captured after the injunction had been issued, and therefore was not included in the ouster order.

The union declared February 3 "Women’s Day." Hundreds of women began arriving from Detroit, Toledo, Lansing, and Pontiac. The Flint Women’s Emergency Brigade started massing 5,000 women for the occasion.

The women decided to demonstrate right in the heart of Flint. Parading with their children they carried signs reading: "We Stand by Our Heroes in the Plants;" "Our Daddies Fight for Us Little Tykes." As the deadline neared the women marched to Fisher No. 1, merging with the thousands already there and encircled the entire length and breadth of the plant, six abreast In a loop both ways, the biggest picket line in Flint’s history. There was to be no last-minute surrender. As the 5,000 women wearing their bright red berets arrived at the plant carrying clubs, stove pokers, crowbars and lead pipes the sit-downers inside went wild. A Chevy No. 4 worker aptly described their feelings:

"It was like we was soldiers holding the fort. It was war. The guys with me became my buddies. I remember as a kid in school readin’ about Davey Crockett and the last stand at the Alamo. You know, mister, that’s how I felt. Yes, sir, Chevy No. 4 was my Alamo."⁶⁴

With world-wide interest focused on that "war," the stage was set for a showdown.

Murphy had reached the end of his rope. On the evening of February 10 he brought the injunction order to Lewis’ hotel room to tell him it would be served to oust the sit-downers. Lewis replied that if that happened he would march straight to the plant and go inside to face the Guard alongside the workers.^*65

With tens of thousands of workers in Flint surrounding the plants and refusing to surrender, with the heat and light at Chevy 4 turned off on February 9 and 10, and nearly 5,000 sit-downers prepared to "fight to the death," on February 11, the 44th day of the sit-down, General Motors gave up. It signed a contract with the UAW, recognizing the union as sole bargaining agent in the 20 struck plants, and for all its members in the other plants, and agreed not to deal with any other group for at least six months. The union felt confident—and was later proved correct—that this was enough time to assure an overwhelming UAW majority in the GM chain. All union members were to be rehired and would suffer no discrimination because of union activity. Union buttons, a real organizing tool at that time, were permitted to be worn inside the plants. Formerly, workers had been fired on the spot for pinning one on. The injunctions were dropped. Negotiations would begin in five days on wages and working conditions. GM immediately raised wages 5c an hour in the hope of "taking the play away from the union," but nearly all the workers traced this $25 million raise directly to the UAW victory.

When the settlement was brought to the sit-downers for ratification, sharp discussion ensued. Chevy No. 4 workers were somewhat disappointed because they were not included in the sole bargaining provision, but it was felt that this certainly would be achieved in less than six months. The workers at Fisher Body No. 2 approved it after a long discussion. But at Fisher Body No. 1 the men began firing questions at their leaders: "How about the speed of the line? How about the bosses—will they be as tough as ever?"

Finally, one striker summed it up when he said: "What’s the use of kidding ourselves. All that piece of paper means is that we got a union. The rest depends on us!"⁶⁶

The Flint workers had "struck the blow which shattered the shackles of open shop tyranny!"’

Now the workers prepared to leave the plants that had been their home for 44 long days. One of them—John Thrasher of Standard Cotton, a small feeder plant for Fisher One, where the sit-down closely paralleled that of the major unit"—set down his thoughts on this occasion:

"As the exhilaration of our first union victory wore off the gang was occupied with thoughts of leaving the silent factory....

"One found himself wondering what home life would be like again. Nothing that happened before the strike began seemed to register in the mind any more. It is as if time itself started with this strike.

"What will it be like to go home and to come back tomorrow with motors running and the long-silenced machines roaring again? But that is for the future....

"One must pack. Into a paper shopping bag I place the things which helped make my ‘house’ a place to live in: house slippers, extra shirts, sox and underwear; razor and shaving equipment; two books; a reading lamp; and the picture of my wife that hung above my bed...

"It is near time to go. Already there is a goodly number of cars and people outside, brother workers who have come to escort us out of the plant. The first victory has been ours but the war is not over. We were strong enough to win over all the combined forces of our enemies and we shall continue to win only if we remember that through Solidarity we have been made free.

"Now the door is opening."⁶⁷

At 5 P.M. on February 11 the whistle sounded full blast and the evacuation of Fisher Body No. I began. The thousands waiting outside cheered as Bud Simons headed up the line of workers coming out under a huge sign bearing the declaration, "Victory Is Ours!" All the strikers carried bundles of belongings on their backs. Waves of deafening cheers resounded as entire families leaped at the men, marching like a conquering army. Lines formed and the two-mile parade to the other plants began. As the double row of marchers reached the top of the hill facing Fisher No. 2 and Chevy No. 4, great flares lit up the area. Confetti poured down and the huge gates of No. 4 opened.

As editor Kraus described it: "Lungs that were already spent with cheering found new strength as the brave men whose brilliant coup had turned the strike to definite victory began to descend the stairs. They looked haggard with exhaustion. The mark of suffering was on them. Yet their collective joy and pride submerged all this. As they came out, wives and children rushed to husbands and fathers who had not been seen for ten fear-filled days. Strong, heavily-bearded men were unashamed of tears. Then someone began to sing Solidarity:

Solidarity forever!

Solidarity forever!

Solidarity forever!

For the Union makes us strong!

and as all joined in, the moment was carried beyond its almost unbearable tenseness and emotion.’’ When Fisher No. 2 had emptied, the cheering and noise "exceeded all bounds of hearing."

The thousands sang "Solidarity Forever" as they surged into Third Avenue, a human flood headed for the center of the city. They had made Flint a union town.

As UAW editor Kraus noted,⁶⁸ the spirit of the time was expressed perfectly by one slightly tipsy worker to another celebrating later in the wee hours of the morning: "Emmet, you gotta believe me’. It ain’t me that’s talkin’, it’s the CIO in me."

The immediate effects of this victory were enormous. Although AFL head Green called the settlement "a blow at all labor," a wave of strikes and sit-downs rolled across the country. In Detroit alone, in the next two weeks 87 sit-downs were begun, Packard, Goodyear, Goodrich and General Electric’s Lynn, Massachusetts plant and announced immediate wage increases. Four days after the workers had marched out of GM’s plants UAW membership reached 200,000. Another 100,000 were signed up in the next few months.

Briggs and Murray, two body manufacturers, gave wage hikes on the 15th; Nash-Kelvinator settled the next day; a second Briggs plant in Flint won time and one-half for overtime and a wage increase after a 7½--hour sit-down on the 17th; 3,000 women in various factories sat down in Detroit on the 18th; 2,000 more joined them the next day. By the 22nd there were 75,000 auto workers in the UAW in Detroit alone, and $75 million had been added to auto workers’ wages in that model year. On the 23rd ten strikes were won in a single day and Chrysler offered increases in all departments, while agreeing to negotiate a contract with the UAW for its 75,000 -workers.

On the 24th, less than two weeks after the Flint sit-down had ended, United Press estimated that a minimum of 30,000 workers were sitting in across the country. Seventeen strikes were in progress in Detroit and 9,000 New England shoe workers had just walked out. The next day 14 new sit-downs began in Detroit. And then came the big one.

On March 2, United States Steel—the largest steel company in the world and the other giant bastion of the open shop alongside GM—signed a contract with the CIO’s Steel Workers Organizing Committee—WITHOUT A STRIKE! After long and bloody battles dating back to the l9th century, a union had come to steel. During the auto strike, flying squads of organizers had been blanketing the steel towns of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and other states signing up workers by the thousands. The giant monopoly apparently saw the handwriting on the wall and wanted no part of a Flint-style offensive in its own mills.

The next day General Electric announced it would meet with the United Electrical Workers, CIO, to discuss a contract for its 60,000 workers. By March 3, 47 sit-down strikes had been won in Detroit, and young women working in Woolworth’s had smuggled cots into the stores to attempt to bring down that million-dollar corporation.

The CIO had set its sights on organizing five million workers, a task which was virtually accomplished in less than four years. A half century of battles, of Homestead, Haymarket 1877, Pullman, packinghouse, 1919 in steel, finally came to fruition in the greatest industrial organizing drive the nation had ever seen. It had been nurtured in Akron, spread to Toledo and Cleveland, and then, when the CIO leadership set its sights on steel as the kingpin, the auto workers had come along to upset the timetable. They had determined that GM would be the kingpin, and within GM it was to be Flint, "the belly of the monster." There is hardly any doubt that the 44 days spent inside of Fisher Body Nos. I and 2 and Chevrolet Assembly No. 4 vas the turning point for the unionization at the mass-production industries in the United States. As one observer declared when the strike was barely ten days old: "The future of the Committee for Industrial Organization, most hopeful development in the history of the American labor movement, lies in the hands of the sit-down strikers who have occupied Fisher Body Plant No. I at Flint, Michigan."⁶⁹

That this was a turning point is easily demonstrated: It was the first time that a national union had thrown all its weight behind one of its sections. It represented the triumph of industrial unionism aver the more divisive AFL craft-type unionism. As noted previously, it was the most important single factor in spurring the unionization of Big Steel. It was "the first major test of the industrial union drive… moving forward in steel and other mass production industries.’’⁷⁰ Shortly afterwards, the Supreme Court, "coincidentally," reversed its previous position and declared the Wagner Act constitutional, making certain basic workers’ rights legal.

Even more fundamentally, "the attack on GM was basically an attack on one of the important sectors of Wall Street,"⁷¹ a point well understood by many of Its leaders. Mortimer had told the Fisher Body workers:

"This thing is deeper than most people realize. Behind GM is the Steel Institute. Behind the Steel Institute are the DuPonts. It is a fight between the American working class and the tap root of American capitalism."⁷²

And behind GM was also the fascist Liberty League and Black Legion, spawned by some of the biggest corporate interests in the country. The auto monopoly represented a financial power that was interlocked with finance capital throughout the world. In organizing GM, the auto workers were breaking through the enemy line at one of its strongest points, which is why the repercussions spread throughout the country. While it was not a revolution—it did not, nor was its aim to, transfer state power into the hands of the working class—it was a major confrontation in the struggle between property rights and workers’ rights, and many of the laws established by the ruling class to keep the workers in check were broken. GM’s president, Alfred Sloan, himself recognized this new-found power of the workers when he said:

" Through the… Courts the Illegality of the ‘sit-down’ was established. The strikers were ordered out of the Corporation’s plants. They deliberately refused to obey the orders of the Court. They were found in contempt of the Court. No effort was made by the local enforcement authorities to enforce the orders of the Court and the State itself took no action toward maintaining the authority of the law. (Sloan should have said no successful effort or action was taken, since they certainly tried—author’s note) Under such circumstances, the Corporation stood powerless. Manifestly, it became a matter beyond its power to control."⁷³

What exactly was this power that could strike at the "tap root" of capitalism and render GM "powerless?’

In the first place it was the overwhelming rank-and-file character of the strike. It should be remembered what the workers would have faced in a prolonged organizing struggle: company spies, blacklists, strikebreaking, firing due to union activity, tear gas, etc. The sit-down overcame all of these obstacles. But almost by definition it is in the nature of a sit-down that the rank and file must run it. It cannot succeed otherwise. The sit-down has been described as sort of a "domestic poll of the workers," Solidarity and unity are the cornerstones of its success.

Through such participation of the mass, many things became possible: demonstrations; mass picketing barring entry and discouraging attack through active defense; 24-hour picket lines; agitation through bulletins, newspapers, sound trucks, and mass singing of labor songs to bolster morale; a democratically-run strike committee with direct and large rank-and-file representation and therefore control; relief committees; free food supply, etc. It was this mass participation that enabled the workers to "take possession" of the plants and gain backing from the working-class population of a company town. This helped provide the strong outside support necessary to guarantee the existence of the sit-downers inside. Many times It was the overwhelming, all-pervasive character of the mass in motion that was largely responsible for the tremendous rapid growth of the union. Workers seeing the power of the organized group found it irresistible, especially as it accumulated victories over a heretofore-unbeatable enemy.

So predominant was this rank-and-file character that it moved in advance of the CIO leaders: "It is probably true that if… the CIO had been entirely free to pick (its) own time and place, the struggle in automobiles would have come somewhat later, might even have been postponed until after a victory had been won in steel or in rubber or in coal. The auto workers’ strike was primarily a rank and file movement."⁷⁴

The success of the rank and file and its sit-down was also based on the interlocking nature of the assembly line. On the one hand the corporations had constructed a method of production that set men "apart," concentrating on their "own" job, as a cog in a wheel, what many called "dehumanization;" on the other hand, the assembly line contained within itself the seeds of power to conquer its owners. The key to its operation was usually contained within a few departments, and the organizers set about developing a strong core of union men in those departments, vital links in a spiraling chain. The soldering and welding department, "body-in-white," was a key link in Fisher Body as was Fisher Body itself in the over-all GM empire. The belt is an interlocking form. Once cut at certain spots it becomes inoperative, as was certainly demonstrated in the lightning-like actions involved in closing down Chevy Nos. 4 and 6.

To start a sit-down, a highly organized core was all that was necessary. But a participating and supporting mass was necessary to win it.

The importance of the workers to the assembly line operation-who individually were cogs in the wheel but who collectively were the wheel itself was no better described than in the reactions of one of the sit-downers after the plants were shut: "Now we know our labor is more important than the money of the stockholders, than the gambling on Wall Street, than the doings of the managers and foremen."

But it was not some amorphous, "pure" rank and file that created the victory on its own. There was a core of leadership, and immersed in this core were the communists.

Typical was a worker like Walter Moore, Communist Party section organizer for auto in Flint, an integral member of the five-man strike strategy committee inside Fisher Body No. 1. Communists were permeating the working class, fighting for their long-advocated policy of industrial unionism to break the open shop in the citadels of monopoly capital. As Lewis’ biographer, Saul Alinsky, no friend of the Left, points out in reluctant admiration:

In 1933-34 "when the AFL smashed the spirit of unionism, it was the left-wingers who zealously worked day and night picking up the pieces… and putting them together…

"When the auto workers, filled with disgust, built bonfires with their AFL membership cards, it was the left-wingers mainly who kept fighting against the disillusionment and cynicism that swept the workers. It was they who kept organizing and organizing and organizing.

"The leaders and organizers of the UAW group in General Motors were the left-wingers, Wyndham Mortimer and Robert Travis. These two built the union inside the great GM empire…

"Every place where new industrial unions were being formed, young and middle-aged Communists were working tirelessly…

"The fact is that the Communist Party made a major contribution in the organizing of the unorganized for the CIO."⁷⁵

The Party had organized shop clubs in the auto plants before the strike. During the course of the sit-down they distributed 150,000 copies of the Daily Worker inside and outside the plants, with special sections devoted to the auto workers. Where these shop clubs existed, the strike was at its strongest. The effectiveness of the shop unit of the Communist Party, said William Weinstone, Party Secretary for the State of Michigan, was proven in the Flint sit-down.⁷⁶

The leadership position of communists in these strike struggles was reflected in such situations as the one at Midland Steel, which manufactured frames for Plymouth and Lincoln. Prior to the union victory there, the company tried to bar strike organizer John Anderson from the negotiations because he had been the Communist Party candidate for governor of Michigan in 1934.

It has been generally recognized that communists built such unions as National Maritime, Transport Workers, Food and Tobacco Workers, West Coast Longshoremen and Warehousemen, the old Local (now District) 65, United Electrical Workers, Rubber Workers, and many more. Sixty of the 200 organizers sent out by the CIO’ s Steel Workers Organizing Committee were members of the Communist Party.

The question arises, therefore: If the communists played such a central role in this period, why was the struggle not carried beyond unionization of the mass production industries, as necessary and magnificent a contribution as that was? What permitted the once-great CIO to sink into the morass of business unionism a generation later?

While there is no one simple answer, fundamental weaknesses existed in the Party in particular, and the left wing in general, that had great bearing on the question.

Perhaps the most important was the lack of a forthright position concerning the role of the state, of the Roosevelt-Murphy government. A class analysis of its function was sorely confused.

Not only did the Party fail to explain the class nature of the state, one that represented the ruling class and its laws against the workers, but the C.P. actually called for the use of the bosses’ army, the National Guard, to protect the workers!

After the Battle of Bulls Run, the Daily Worker editorialized:

"The people of Michigan certainly cannot be pleased with his (Murphy’s) initial statement: ‘State authorities under no condition are going to take sides in this controversy.’ Will the Governor not take sides in the issue of justice vs. injustice? Will he not take sides in the question of that degree of industrial democracy which unionization affords as against the black industrial autocracy of the General Motors Corporation ?…

"The progressive forces of this country expect the Governor to use the National Guard, now that it is in Flint, for the protection of the rights of the workers… (Murphy and Roosevelt) must compel the General Motors Corporation to recognize the union…"⁷⁷

Certainly the communists must have known what Mortimer later reported, that "the Roosevelt Administration tried to pressure the negotiating committee into settlement on terms favorable to GM."^*78 And they most definitely knew of Roosevelt’s role in 1934 when he obstructed the auto workers’ efforts to organize their own union under the NRA.

Consider the fact that Roosevelt, the supposed champion of collective bargaining under the New Deal, failed to enforce even this law that his own administration had established. When Lewis demanded that "the law of the land" be carried out, Roosevelt avoided the issue, saying it was "not the time for headlines." This enabled GM to feel even more secure in. attempting to terrorize the workers into submission shortly after that. Roosevelt and Murphy certainly did nothing important to impede GM’s use of armed company thugs, the local police, the Flint Alliance, tear gas, labor spies and other assorted standard ruling class practices. Rather, it was the workers holding the plant machinery as "hostage" that was decisive.

While on the one hand, Michigan Party secretary Weinstone did give a clear analysis in a pamphlet published after the sit-down of why Roosevelt drew back from using federal troops against the strikers, on the other, hand, in a Daily Worker article (Jan. 16, 1937) distributed to possibly 50,000 auto workers, he said that "The people now look to Governor Murphy to fulfill the pledges which elected him to office."

Further illusions on the role of the government along these lines were contained in the aforementioned Daily Worker editorial: "The Federal government and its spokesman in the Governorship of Michigan (must) compel the General Motors Corporation to recognize the union, to accept a national agreement and…the strikers’ demands." Although the Party publication said it had warned the workers previously not to rely on Roosevelt, it continued to talk of the Roosevelt Administration as if it could represent the workers if enough pressure was put on it. In its January 14th editorial it reiterated that the election "mandate was violated again." And again, on the next day it demanded that the "75th Congress… bring out into the light of day sinister details of this giant trust," meaning GM.

In the last analysis, when Murphy said he was sworn to "uphold. the law," whose "law" did it become? Obviously GM’s law, since to carry it out he felt duty-bound to remove the workers from the plants. It was never a question of "upholding the law" by telling GM’s thugs, police and vigilantes would have to fight the National Guard if they attempted to invade the struck plants.

The Party failed to explain the class nature of the law, at a time when hundreds of thousands of workers, inside and outside the plants, were reading its publications, * The fact is that the sit-downers DID break the ruling class’s laws in occupying the factories. This presented an opportunity to explain the nature of the law and WHY it was unjust, what class had enacted it and for whose benefit.

The murky nature of the Party’s attitude on the question of the class nature of the state was clearly revealed in its position on Roosevelt’s "court-packing" plan. When the Supreme Court repeatedly struck down New Deal legislation, Roosevelt proposed to expand the body to fifteen by adding six new justices to what was referred to as the "nine old men." In supporting this plan,, the Party referred to the "nine old men" as "puppets of Wall Street"⁷⁹ It thereby implied that the new Roosevelt-appointed justices might serve the people rather than Wall Street. While the people may certainly conduct a fight for their rights through the courts as one avenue of struggle, certainly the Communist Party was feeding illusions in what could be gained from the Court in a capitalist society, by labeling one set of justices "Wall Street puppets" who could conceivably be overcome by "better" ones who wouldn’t serve the ruling class.

And just in case the new court didn’t do the right thing, the Party declared that the "main job will not be done until the White House and Congress REPUDIATE COMPLETELY the usurped powers of the Supreme Court." (Worker, Feb. 8, 1937) This implied that somehow the White House and Congress might be inclined to "protect" the people against the Court’s arbitrary actions—feeding the belief in the effectiveness of the so-called checks and balances of the three branches of the ruling class government.

Despite the fact that the Party ran a candidate for President in 1936, for the most part it pushed a position that tailed Roosevelt. It put its main blast on the Republican candidate, Alf Landon, labeling him the representative of the most reactionary open-shoppers, like GM and U.S. Steel, who might move to fascism. Even if that were true, the C.P. clearly implied that the Roosevelt Administration would somehow take the workers’ side if "Pushed" hard enough, just the way It implies now (1968—editor’s note) that Johnson would if freed from the Pentagon’s "chains."

The post-war assault on the left-wing leaders of the CIO succeeded, in part, because the Party had failed to give the ideological leadership necessary to withstand such an attack.

The fact is that Roosevelt did not use Federal troops to intervene on the side of GM because of a chain of reasons: 1) The workers had announced in advance that they would offer stiff resistance to any such attempts, and a bloodbath would follow. This would have seriously damaged1the image of the "democratic" New Deal which Roosevelt was so carefully nurturing to save the system during the disastrous depression. 2) Such open intervention would arouse the entire working class against both the corporations and the Administration. 3) These first two reactions would be a severe blow to the Democratic Party, and therefore to the two-party system inside of which the workers were bound so securely. And 4), the final result might become a strong case for an independent workers’ party to challenge the ruling-class parties on a higher level, possibly even having a socialist goal—or at least some form of "public ownership" of the means of production.

Roosevelt (and Murphy) were caught in this contradiction and kept holding off the use of troops because the risk of exposure of the true nature of the state was too great, especially following so closely on the heels of the 1936 Democratic landslide.

In reading more than 100 issues of the Daily Worker, from December, 1936 to March, 1937, one finds no real exposure of the relationship of the state to the ruling class. The Party’s own members, for the most part, were part of a united front behind Roosevelt. It criticized him mainly from the point of view that he either "made mistakes," as with an embargo on aid to anti-fascist forces in Spain, or he didn’t go "far enough" in championing the workers’ cause. The Party rarely declared that Roosevelt was following the age-old policy of the "carrot and the stick," that is, allowing some labor reform while at the same time permitting all kinds of locally, and company-inspired violence to be used against the workers all across the country. Certainly the defense measures taken by the sit-downers in the final days were in expectation that if the National Guard was used at all it would be used against them. From their own experience, that was the only possible conclusion they could reach.

The C.P. based its support of the New Deal on a united front against fascism and monopoly. But by relying on the Democrats, it fed the illusion that a ruling-class party could give this kind of leadership. It left the working class, and its own members, totally ill-prepared for the shift in emphasis from the carrot to the stick that occurred after World War 11, when the left-wing movement and the progressive nature of the CIO were virtually wiped out by a big business, Cold War offensive.

One could say that the sweep of events was so swift and overwhelming that no one could have been prepared to gauge fully its implications and act to guarantee against backsliding. Although a socialist revolution was not necessarily the order of the day, the ruling class greatly feared the working masses might approach that idea if they broke out of the two-party, "state-is-neutral" box. It was precisely this fact that Roosevelt recognized and the C.P. glossed over.

One might conclude that at least the working class could have emerged from this struggle with the conviction that it needed an independent political party (if it didn’t actually bring one into being) and with a much greater understanding of the rule of the state, class society, and "the law." These were functions which the C.P. could have performed but apparently neglected at best, and thus many times fed illusions to the workers on these fundamental questions.

Had the communists developed a long-range strategy for socialist revolution, or at least stuck to the concept that a working-class smashing of the ruling-class state was necessary, along with establishment of a workers’ state apparatus, then they and thousands of workers would not have fallen into the trap of reasoning that events would depend on who pushed the "neutral," "democratic" Roosevelt harder, GM or the auto workers.

Despite any shortcomings afterwards, the Flint Sit-down and its stimulus to the CIO was an historic victory for the U.S. working class. Without it, the ability of the workers in the mass production industries to fight big business would have been severely hampered. The story of how this advance was sold out by "leaders" such as Walter Reuther is a subject in itself. However, the recent period has seen the greatest wave of wildcat strikes in auto in many years. The failure of the Reuther leadership to fight the auto companies is being exposed more and more. Rebellious workers who refuse to be saddled with sellouts under three and five-year contracts are increasingly coming to the fore. Part of the answer to these problems is a program consisting of a thirty-hour week for forty hours pay; an end .to speed-up; worker control of production standards; a worker-enforced safety code; a ban on compulsory overtime; a grievance procedure which can be backed up by strikes in the face of company refusal to settle; and a healthy wage increase to meet the rising cost of living caused by skyrocketing profits.

To fight for such a program not only is the "spirit of 1937" needed, but also a core of rank-and-file militants to organize a national rank-and-file movement on a plant-by-plant basis around the country, similar to the kind of organization Mortimer and Travis brought to fruition in Flint, Cleveland and Detroit. And what is needed to sustain such a movement is true communist leadership with a working-class ideology.

As the sit-downer noted when he left the plant, "The first victory has been ours but the war is not over." To win that "war," the power of the working class must be correctly estimated. If there is one overriding lesson to be learned from the Great Flint Sit-Down, it is that workers acting in unity and solidarity can triumph over the most powerful weapons the ruling class throws against them. Certainly the’ National Guard had an overwhelming superiority in arms with which to slaughter the auto workers. But the strikers won because of the very contradictions created by the system, itself: the Guard would have destroyed not only General Motors if it invaded the plants, but the illusion that workers have something to gain from a bosses’ state, bosses’ laws and a bosses’ party. Superiority of arms could not triumph because the profit system had created an interlocking assembly line, dependent on thousands of workers for its operation, which, if destroyed, would cause a breakdown in that very profit system. Taking advantage of this contradiction, the workers perfected the sit-down tactic and "the door opened" slightly.

It remains for the present members of the UAW-CIO, heirs to an inspiring heritage, to fling that door wide open, letting in the sun of a rank-and-file-led union once more. It could fall to the auto workers to again take the lead—setting the pace for similar movements all over the country—but this time to build a society in which the workers’ law, the workers’ party and the workers’ state is supreme.

A ELECTION CIRCUS MASKS CLASS DICTATORSHIP

No matter how the 2004 electoral circus turns out, the United States is and will remain a class dictatorship. Under the profit system, political parties exist for two primary reasons. The first is to serve individual groups of bosses in the pursuit of their particular profit goals. The second is to mislead workers into backing these profit goals with the illusion that the right to cast a ballot means the U.S. is a democracy.

Many people correctly saw through the crude, racist swindle that enabled Bush Jr. to steal the White House in 2000 by denying black workers the right to vote in Florida. But this isn’t the main reason to call the present government a dictatorship. Swindles and voting fraud are as American as apple pie. In 1960, the Democrat John Kennedy won out over Nixon because the Democratic political machine in Chicago had handed him the Illinois electoral vote on a platter by counting the votes of dead people.

The main lesson for workers in this election is the nature of state power in a class society. By "state," communists mean the entire government apparatus that enables the bosses to rule at the federal, state, and local levels. The state includes all levels of the three so-called "branches" of government. Every elected official, from Bush to the mayor of the least populated city or town belongs to it. Every legislative body, from the U.S. Senate down to the smallest state legislature belongs to it. So do all four branches of the military and every cop, judge, and immigration officer.

The capitalist state apparatus exists to prolong and protect the profit system. This is its role regardless of the party in power at any given moment. The state in this sense came into existence long ago, as a product of society’s first historical division into antagonistic social classes. Under slavery, the state existed to protect the privileges of the slave-owning class. Under feudalism, it served kings and lords, helping them rule over serfs and bondsmen. Now, under the capitalism, it protects the profits and private property of the wealthiest bosses, primarily against the working class, but also against real and potential rivals to U.S. imperialism.

The capitalist state therefore reflects the essential class violence of the system itself. This is perhaps less obvious today in a temporary period of relatively low class struggle, but even under present conditions, we see the class role of the police, for example in their systematic racist war of terror against workers living in the most oppressed sections of U.S. cities. The moment class struggle sharpens, the role of the police becomes crystal clear, as they protect bosses’ interests at gunpoint, shooting workers, protecting scabs, and enforcing back-to-work court injunctions. A classic recent example of the state’s role in class struggle was the decision by the Republican president Reagan to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. This fascistic action set the tone for the increasingly virulent anti-worker policies the bosses have been implementing ever since. The Democrat Clinton followed suit with his racist "welfare reform," which was a thinly disguised union-busting, slave labor scheme. The entire ruling class now agrees with the need for cloaking its post 9/11 moves toward a police state in the form of "anti-terror" measures. Anti-Bush squawking from the Democrats has to do with their discontent over Ashcroft’s clumsy, inept tactics rather than over goals. The real purpose of these measures is to discipline our class by preparing it for the sacrifice in blood and living conditions that the rulers’ long range war plans will require. All the rulers agree on this question.

In foreign policy, none of the big bosses in any significant section of the Republican or Democratic parties disputes the U.S. imperialism’s need to rule the world by force, to control the flow and pricing of all major sources of petroleum, particularly in the Persian Gulf, or to prevent the rise of a serious imperialist rival in Asia or Europe. The rulers differ only on methods and approach.

The post-World War II history of U.S. Middle Eastern policy reflects the consistency of the class role the bosses’ state apparatus has played with regard to this issue.

Immediately after World War II, key U.S. advisor George Kennan warned the Democratic Truman administration that control of Middle Eastern oil must become and remain an absolute priority for Washington and Wall Street.
The Republican Eisenhower organized a coup to overthrow a nationalist government in oil-rich Iran and replace it with the nazi-loving, pro-U.S. Shah. Eisenhower also forced British, French, and Israeli bosses to back down when their 1956 invasion of the Suez Canal threatened potential U.S. hegemony in the Middle East.
After the Israeli fascists proved the strength of their military in the 1967 Six Day War, every U.S. president from Johnson through Bush Jr. has armed Israel to the teeth and given it the assignment of serving as U.S. imperialism’s local gunslinger.
In 1980, when a nationalist-Islamic fundamentalist uprising overthrew the Shah, Democrat Jimmy Carter announced the "Carter Doctrine," which stated that the U.S. would consider any attempt to wrest control of Persian Gulf oil from U.S. companies as a cause for war. Every U.S. president since then has followed this strategic line. The cost in human life has been staggering. The U.S. cynically backed both sides of the murderous 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war. Bush Sr.’s 1991 Desert Storm I in Iraq slaughtered hundreds of thousands. A million people, mostly young Iraqi children, died in the wake of Clinton’s brutal sanctions and bombings. And now the Bush-Cheney war is adding to the toll.

As the Progressive Labor Party has often pointed out, the biggest mistake workers can make is to choose among supposed "lesser evils" under capitalism. Understanding the class nature of the state helps us avoid this error. As long as classes exist, a state apparatus will exist, and its role will be to keep one class in power to rule over the class that directly antagonizes and threatens it.

Communists have an alternative to the bosses’ dictatorship. We call it the Dictatorship of the Working Class (or Dictatorship of the Proletariat). But the working class cannot seize political power by voting for it. Only a prolonged, violent revolution supported by communist workers and led by a communist party can achieve this goal. History teaches us that even when the first stage of the goal is achieved, keeping power and building communism is even harder than the seizure of power. Nonetheless, the future of humanity and the survival of the working class demand nothing less.

These are the goals that our Party expects to win, despite all obstacles and the time needed to win them. As the rulers’ presidential circus unfolds, workers can take an important step in the right direction by shedding their illusions about capitalist elections and the capitalist state and by joining with the PLP to sharpen the class struggle and carry our class forward on the long, violent, and inevitably victorious road to revolution.

ELECTION IS BATTLE OVER TACTICS AND TAXES;
BOTH PARTIES' GRAND STRATEGY IS U.S. WORLD DOMINATION

Just days after George Bush took office in 2001, the Hart-Rudman commission handed him its final, 148-page report. This document outlined the measures the U.S. ruling class deemed necessary for maintaining U.S. capitalism’s worldwide dominance for the next quarter century. It proposed expanding the military, launching oil wars in the Middle East, creating a police state at home, centralizing the state apparatus, and linking business more closely with government. Carrying out Hart-Rudman’s provisions became job one for the U.S. president. Bush’s failures and shortcomings inthis regard, and Kerry’s shaky promise, are, for the rulers, central issues in the coming election.

Hart-Rudman said a terrorist attack on the U.S. would provide an invaluable recruiting tool for the military. Bush squandered that opportunity, was forced to send inadequate forces to Iraq, and now faces the rulers’ wrath for the quagmire there. Hart-Rudman said the National Guard should serve as a homeland police force. Bush sent the Guard to Iraq to bolster the overstretched regular army. Hart-Rudman called for a sweeping restructuring of federal agencies. Bush set up the Homeland Defense Department only grudgingly and is balking at revamping intelligence services.

Hart-Rudman urges that leaders prepare citizens to give up "blood and treasure" in the cause of U.S. imperialism. Bush has spilled the blood of a thousand working-class GIs and many thousands of Iraqis but hasn’t managed, or even tried, to shift capitalists’ profits from their pockets to the war effort. Thus, the Bush-Kerry race represents a conflict inherent in the profit system: the capitalist class’s need to defend itself militarily against foreign rivals cuts into the short-term gains of individual capitalists. Despite its glaring deficiencies in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Bush team remains adamant that U.S. capitalists can benefit from both war and tax cuts at the same time. Rumsfeld in particular believes that the U.S. war machine's vast technological superiority makes adding troops, and paying for them, unnecessary.

But capitalists focused on protecting the U.S. empire over the long haul are becoming increasingly dissatisfied with Bush & Co.'s ineffective imperialism "on the cheap." The Council on Foreign Relations, the foremost of the think-tanks that help formulate U.S. imperial strategy, recently complained, "the Bush administration was never willing to commit anything like the forces necessary to ensure order in postwar Iraq. From the beginning, military experts warned Washington that the task would require, as Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress in February 2003, 'hundreds of thousands' of troops. For the United States to deploy forces in Iraq at the same ratio to population as NATO had in Bosnia would have required half a million troops. Yet the coalition force level never reached even a third of that figure. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his senior civilian deputies rejected every call for a much larger commitment....In truth, around 300,000 troops might have been enough to make Iraq largely secure after the war" (the CFR's Foreign Affairs, Sept./Oct. 04). While the CFR ceaselessly demanded an Iraq invasion, it called for attacking in the Fall of 2003, not the Spring, to give the Pentagon time to assemble a far larger force of U.S. troops and allies. As for paying the bill, CFR director and Goldman Sachs International vice-chairman Robert Hormats warned on the eve of the invasion: "We can afford a war, we can afford domestic programs and we can afford tax cuts. The problem is we probably can't afford all of them at once" (ABC 3/21/03).

John Kerry allies himself with Hart-Rudman/CFR camp. His campaign advisors include Gary Hart, co-chairman of the Hart-Rudman commission, and Leslie Gelb, one of its 12 members, who once headed the CFR. In December 2003, Kerry presented his blueprint for war and fascism (basically the Democratic platform) to the leaders of the CFR in a speech at its New York headquarters. The rulers and their agents applauded when Kerry demanded adding 40,000 soldiers to the army immediately and a national service program to provide cannon fodder for future wars. He also pledged to fulfill Clinton's promise of 100,000 more cops. The New York Times, the rulers’ leading media outlet, expressed delight that "Mr. Kerry instantly embraced every recommendation of the 9/11 Commission"(8/15/04). It called for a sweeping reorganization of the CIA, FBI, NSA, and Defense spy agencies into a centralized police-state apparatus.

Until that CFR speech, Howard Dean had been the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination. Dean had some public support but no program to further U.S. imperialism’s strategy. After the speech, Kerry leapt ahead in the bosses’ polls and shortly thereafter locked up the Democratic nomination, paving the way for an undisputed July convention that turned into a pro-war festival.

Kerry knows that war and fascism don't come cheap. He plans to increase the top income tax bracket to its Clintonian level of 39.6% from the present 35% to help foot the bill. Roosevelt jacked up the top tax rate to 91% during World War II. Though with plenty of loopholes, Kennedy kept it there throughout his launching of the Vietnam genocide until his sudden demise at the hands of rival U.S. bosses. High taxes serve the main, imperialist U.S. rulers not only as a source of funds for their overseas military forays but as a form of control over their domestic competitors. John Forbes Kerry dreams of exerting the kind of domestic economic discipline that his idol JFK did.

Another insight into Kerry's outlook comes from his adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, a CFR headliner, who served as Carter's national security chief. Brzezinski's 1996 book, The Grand Chessboard, calls for the military encirclement of all of Eurasia by the United States. That is why Clinton created so many military bases in and near the former Soviet Union. Brzezinski's idea is that the 21st Century will be a second "American Century," if the U.S. can command the world's chief oil sources via military control of the Eurasian land mass. Brezezinski hopes that U.S. troops in the Middle East and the ex-Soviet Union can block the next threat to U.S. hegemony--an alliance of any two of China, Russia, and the European Union powerful enough to defeat the U.S. in war. The CFR warlords are blasting Rumsfeld's cost-saving plan to shift troops from Europe and Asia back to the U.S. Replacing two U.S. heavy divisions in Germany with Rumsfeld's smaller high tech forces would embolden France as well as Russia, they fear. Richard Holbrooke, a likely Kerry pick for Secretary of State, cautioned, "this is exactly what Chirac wants" (CFR website, 8/17/04). Kerry counselor Brzezinski stresses the need for U.S.-controlled oil pipelines through the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. He also sees the importance of alliances in military actions to prevent isolation of the U.S.

Currently, Brzezinski, the New York Times, and other liberal spokesmen are beating up on Bush for lying about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. These Kerry backers are attacking Bush because they want a change in the way the U.S. is occupying Iraq, not because they disagree with the war or the occupation itself. The liberals want to put a humanitarian face on the occupation and gain the acceptance of more Iraqis. They want to placate the French and Russians, for now, with junior-partner oil deals, with the U.S. calling the shots on the price and flow of Iraqi crude. And they want some co-operation from the Syrians, Turks, Saudis, and Iranians in stopping support for the resistance movements and building acceptance for the U.S.'s hand-picked Iraqi government. This, not objection to the war, is what lies behind the increasing attacks by the Democrats on Bush’s war policy as the election nears.

But while Kerry's proposed policies generally mesh with the needs of the dominant, liberal wing of U.S. capitalists, they worry about his opportunistic flip-flopping. The New York Times (8/15/04) editorialized, "Mr. Kerry, who voted against the first Persian Gulf war, tailored his positions on this one to his presidential ambitions. He was more hawkish when the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination seemed to be Richard Gephardt, and more dovish when Howard Dean picked up momentum. At the height of the Dean insurgency, both Mr. Kerry and his running mate, John Edwards, decided to oppose spending $87 billion to underwrite the occupation of Iraq that they both voted to authorize."

With Bush and Kerry as their best offerings, the rulers are having trouble producing a leader as galvanizing as an FDR or a Hitler. But that doesn’t lessen their need to destroy foreign rivals or crack down on workers at home. Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Patriot Act show that the capitalists’ warmaking and fascism are deadly under inept leadership. If a President Kerry should prove more capable than Bush, the working class would suffer even more.

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PROTEST BUSH BUT DEMOCRATS ARE NO LESSER EVIL

On August 29, about 500,000 people marched in New York against Bush and his wars. Spirited demonstrators took on the NYPD in clashes throughout the Republican convention. They represented millions who reject Bush’s wasting of human lives for oil and his pandering to greedy corporations. While the protests are encouraging, the rulers are hoping to direct these protests into the voting booths for the equally deadly Democrat Kerry. Bush and Kerry both serve the capitalist class that requires expanding imperialist wars and tightening control over the workers. They appeal to different voting bases and have some serious tactical differences over how to maintain U.S. world domination. But their essence is the same.

Democrats and Republicans support U.S. imperialism’s strategic objectives, including an all-powerful U.S. military and control of the Middle East. In July 2003, the Senate voted 95-0 to support President Bush’s $368 billion military appropriation. In July 2004 they voted 96-0 for a $425 billion military appropriation. Like the resolution authorizing the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, not one Democratic Senator stood in opposition.

Democrats and Republicans share U.S. military policy in the Middle East, including annually voting to award Israel $3 billion to oppress Palestinian workers, threaten surrounding countries, and maintain an enormous arsenal of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons to act as U.S. imperialism’s hired gun protecting the oil-rich region’s western flank.

The Democrats supported the Iraq war from build-up to actual attack. Those who conditioned their support on multilateral approval through the United Nations dropped their reservations like a hot potato once the war began. Most Democrats unconditionally supported the war, and as with Vietnam, began to ask questions only when the mission began to falter. Now they want to capitalize on mass opposition to the war to win the election.

Imperialist war is not result of the bad policies of diabolical politicians that we can vote out of office. It is the nature of the capitalist beast. Wars for oil and other resources, for access to markets and cheap labor, and for depriving other capitalists of these things are inevitable as long as capitalism exists. Elections and mass reform movements cannot end imperialism since they just provide a band-aid solution to a deadly cancer.

Only a mass communist movement can organize workers, soldiers and students to wipe out the imperialist warmakers and replace their dictatorship with the revolutionary dictatorship of the working class, abolishing their racist profit system. The bosses won’t give up their profits peacefully, That is why the most important thing we can do is to build a mass international PLP as a way to wage the long and difficult struggle to put an end to the hell of capitalism.

Armed with communist politics, we can turn the horrors of the capitalists’ wars against them. The torture and murder of prisoners at Abu Ghraib disgusted millions. On the job, barracks and schools, in the unions and mass organizations, we could have responded with more demonstrations, forums, and literature. We have the opportunity to transform widespread outrage at these atrocities into a mass movement against the capitalist dictatorship that commits them, at home and around the world.

The enemy isn’t far to seek. On the job, we can attack war profiteering corporations and union bosses who try to sell us out to the imperialist Democrats. The schools and universities are crawling with military recruiters and ROTC programs. We can expose the universities’ role in military research and in shaping the racist, fascistic ideology that leads U.S. imperialism. In the community, we can target politicians who dismantle social programs to fund the war effort. But we can never think that an end to imperialist war will come before the working class, led by a mass international PLP, seizes power with communist revolution.

Democrats’ War Crimes

Wilson led the U.S. into World War I, making it a full-fledged imperialist power.
Roosevelt and Truman directed the unnecessary murders of hundreds of thousands of civilians in Tokyo, Dresden, Frankfurt, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki during World War II.
In the Cold War, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter armed and funded pro-U.S. dictators and insurgencies around the world.
Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson wasted millions of workers’ lives trying to defend U.S. imperialism in Korea and Vietnam.
Kennedy invaded Cuba at the Bay of Pigs.
Johnson invaded the Dominican Republic supporting a rightwing military Junta about to be overthrown by a popular rebellion. LBJ actually diverted thousands of U.S. troops bound to Vietnam to invade the Caribbean island claiming "communists were about to take over the rebellion.".
Carter, who today goes around "overseeing democratic elections," praised Somoza, the Nicaraguan dictator, for his "progress in human rights," just a year or so before he was forced to flee by a mass insurrection. It was also Carter, preaching his "Blood for Oil Profits" Doctrine, who began the U.S. military build-up in the Middle East.
Clinton dropped more bombs on Yugoslavia than his predecessors did on Vietnam.
Clinton enforced U.S. sanctions and "no-fly" zones, starving, bombing and killing over 500,000 Iraqis.
Democrats’ Domestic Crimes
Wilson used the Sedition Acts during WWI and imprisoned thousands for opposing the war and the draft.
After the war, Wilson launched the notorious Palmer Raids jailing and deporting thousands of leftist immigrant workers.
Wilson’s racist Immigration Act of 1917 kept out Asians.
Roosevelt herded Japanese-Americans into concentration camps.
Truman approved the anti-Communist legislation and purges of the McCarthy era.
Johnson diverted troops of the 82nd Airborne from going to Vietnam to brutally put down rebelling workers in Detroit in 1967.
In Operation Cointelpro, Johnson unleashed the FBI on anti-Vietnam War activists.
Clinton signed "anti-terrorist" legislation that sharply curtails workers’ civil liberties.
Under Clinton, the prison population doubled to over 2 million, the highest in the world, especially among black workers.
Gary Hart helped create the imperialist, fascist manifesto known as the Hart-Rudman reports.

Virtually all Democrats in Congress voted for the Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security.

Rock Capitalism

My college campus recently had a "Rock the Vote" rally. A good friend and regular CHALLENGE reader encouraged me to attend and struggle to get on stage. Through friendships I made in an anti-war coalition, I was able to get to speak, and did so about the need for revolution.

I began by saying, "Most people who will speak today will say that the most important thing you can do to change the world is to vote on November 2. I disagree." No one booed. I explained that voting will never bring the social change necessary to end the war and create peace. History proves that such change only happens through massive social movements of organized people who have no interest in maintaining a system that is killing them.

I said whoever’s elected will not only continue the war, but also the massive racist cuts to education and healthcare, because they serve the capitalist system which needs inequality and war. They will cut these services to finance ever-widening war. I said I don’t believe peace and capitalism can ever co-exist. Capitalism breeds terrorism.

I reminded people that the county government recently closed another hospital in our city, and is threatening to close a trauma center, built after a black rebellion, which treats predominantly black and Latin workers. "Every one of us will know someone who dies because of that closure. Closing hospitals is an act of racist terrorism." The audience, especially black and Latin students, loudly cheered and clapped in agreement.

My friends thanked me and I made sure they all received a copy of CHALLENGE. I told them that’s where I learn how the working class fights back.

Later, a man I didn’t know thanked, saying, "You actually talked about something real. Everyone else was just saying the same empty things." I gave him the paper.

PLP’s line contrasts sharply contrast with some famous "anti-war" intellectuals, who are madly trying to convince many honest people that "anybody but Bush" will be better. The Democrats’ record of vicious imperialist war mirrors the Republicans. Kerry promises to manage the war better than Bush, not to end it. In 1964 some urged voting for Johnson during the Vietnam War "because Goldwater would bomb Vietnam into the Stone Age." Johnson was elected and proceeded to bomb Vietnam unmercifully.

The most recent example of this mis-leadership is Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn supporting Kerry with the petition "Vote to Stop Bush": "For people seeking progressive social change in the United States, removing George W. Bush from office should be the top priority." Marxist scholars like Michael Parenti ignore their own understanding of imperialism and openly back Kerry.

Communists’ main job is to serve the workers. That means being the first to speak up when the working class is being misled. Fear of isolation should not stop us. My experience at the Rock the Vote rally showed this.

PLP will not compromise our principles. Especially when there is such a vacuum, we must keep raising our anti-imperialist line and actions. Even if our friends don’t agree with us now, they’ll respect us, and when our analysis proves correct, will move closer to PL. My main error, which I will correct, was not to fight for action against the war and the war budget. As U.S. rulers prepare for greater attacks on workers in Iraq and in the local hospital closing, we must fight for leadership by organizing against them, presenting the alternative to capitalism.

Fight for Communism; we have a world to win!

A Progressive Labor Party Pamphlet

Note: This pamphlet was written in 1996, during the Clinton and Dole presidential campaign. Today in 2004, the ruling class is holding its every four year circus. Workers and youth are now presented with Kerry as the answer to Bush.

The anti-war movement, with its line of "Anyone But Bush," is basically behind Kerry even though most people see that Kerry is as much for the Iraq war as Bush. Their differences are tactical: Kerry wants a UN figleaf for the war, while asking for 40,000 more U.S. troops to be sent to Iraq.

Both Bush and Kerry defend the plans by Exxon-Mobil, Halliburton, etc. to control Iraq and the flow of oil profits from the Middle East. Both support the need for U.S. imperialism to maintain world domination controlling the oil rich Middle East. So the elections become a fight among sections of the ruling class over tactics of how to keep U.S. imperialism as the top dog in the imperialist world.

The Big Con, though pointing out the similarities between Cole and Clinton, failed to emphasize the tactical differences among the bosses, which sometimes become very sharp, as it is the case today in the case of Bush-Kerry. The pamphlet failed to address the fact that the ruling class uses the elections to fight out their contradictions short of civil war, and took the old line that basically there was no difference between the Democrat and Republican candidates. While that is true strategically, tactically there are a lot of differences among the candidates.

Historically, the great danger to the Left and the working class is the "lesser of two evils" illusion, the notion that the working class and its communist party should unite with "lesser evil" capitalists against the "greater evil" or "fascist" capitalists. The Bolsheviks and the Communist International adopted that line, the "United Front Against Fascism" line, in the mid-1930s. It proved to be an utter loser everywhere, and led the communist movement to stop fighting for communist revolution.

Stalin, the Bolsheviks, and the Comintern were blazing new trails. No other communist revolution had ever taken place. They had some excuse for making this error. The communist movement of today has none. The "liberals" remain, strategically, the greatest danger to the working class.

- July 2004

Voting - The Big Con

Voting - The Big Con

The bosses tell us we live in the most democratic country in the world. They tell us that through the sacred act of voting in elections our voices are heard. The bosses push voting and elections with slogans like, "choose or lose" and "rock the vote". We hear it from MTV, NAACP, schools, churches, PTAs, and the mass media, all trying to make us think we can change our lives by walking into a voting booth and pulling a lever.

First only rich white male land owners voted, then most men, then women, and finally black workers in the South. After 220 years most workers, except immigrants, have the ability to vote in the bosses' elections. The result of all this voting? We live in a society where racist cops terrorize our cities, where one in three young black men is in the criminal justice system, where black churches burn, where women suffer degrading sexism, and bosses' wars for profit threaten the lives of our youth. It doesn't make a damn bit of difference if Clinton, Dole, Powell or Perot, is President, or if the Governor or Mayor is black, latin, or white. We still have capitalism.

Is this brutal oppression what workers voted for? Not on your life. But this is what we've gotten and will continue to get as long as we line up and march passively into the capitalist's voting booths. Voting is just picking your poison - strychnine, arsenic, or cyanide.

As Karl Marx said "Every few years workers are given the opportunity to choose amongst their oppressors to decide who will represent and repress them."

Well, we say to the bosses, "No thanks!" We will not choose which of your political parties will be in charge when the next round of world war, layoffs, welfare cuts, or police violence hits. We don't need your democracy. We need communism. Our class, the working class, will take power in a communist revolution under the leadership of our Party, Progressive Labor Party (PLP).

Democracy - Heads they win, tails we lose!

Under capitalism, the government and elections are controlled by the capitalist class, the rich rulers who control the factories, mines, mills, and offices. They use all electoral parties, Democratic, Republican and other parties, to maintain their profit system. Their interests are directly opposed to our interests, the well being of the working class. Our labor produces all goods and services, all value, and creates the profit they steal. No matter who we vote for, they still own everything and control what we produce. To change this we need communist revolution, then we make these decisions. It's either us or them.

Who's really in charge?

If the elected officials are just front men for the ruling class, who is really in charge? The richest and most powerful industrialists and bankers run capitalist countries. In the U.S. they rule through two powerful committees, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Tri-Lateral Commission (TLC). The CFR is headed by a Rockefeller or someone similar. It contains the CEO's of the largest corporations and banks, all present and future candidates for U.S. President as well as virtually all cabinet members. Big generals like Colin Powell are also members as are the Federal Reserve Bank governors. When Nixon was President, 110 members of his Administration were members of the CFR and took their orders from it. Half of Reagan's cabinet came from the CFR. Carter, Mondale and Bush were all members as is Clinton and his entire cabinet. All the top brass of the media, from right-wing to liberal, are in the CFR.

The CFR makes major decisions on the use of the U.S. military and economic power. They set policy on the U.S. entry into World War II, Vietnam and other conflicts. They decide U.S. policy on the Middle East, China, Europe, the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Sharp differences may very well break out in the CFR, but eventually one group of capitalists and their henchmen dominate. Then all CFR members must carry out these policies from whatever position they hold, in and out of the government.

The Tri-Lateral Commission (TLC) is the CFR on an international level. It was organized in 1973 by David Rockefeller and includes the U.S. and Canada, Western Europe and Japan. It grew out of a need for collaboration among the leading capitalist powers. It tries to settle disputes peacefully, but again, it is subject to the decisions of whatever group proves the most powerful. It is inevitable that these profit thirsty bosses will not settle all arguments peacefully. Imperialist war is their only solution.

Why do capitalists hold elections?

If the bosses control both parties and the whole election process, why do they have them? Why spend millions and even billions on elections when the outcome is predictable: bosses win, workers lose? There are two main reasons. 1) Elections are held to distract us and make us think we have a say in what goes on, that we can reform capitalism or improve our lives by voting. 2) The bosses use elections is to settle their own disagreements.

Elections push the illusion that
Capitalism can be reformed.

Elections are a diversion for workers who desperately want to fight for a better world. Instead of taking direct militant or armed action against the system, workers are suckered into trying to reform capitalism by voting for "better" candidates. They try to convince workers that the Democratic party or black, latin, or other minority politicians will save them. If we recruit just 10% of these workers to the communist Progressive Labor Party, the world will be a very different place.

Democratic party - not the lesser of two evils, just evil

In the U.S., the bosses pose the Democratic Party as the workers representatives, opposing them to the ultra-right Republicans. Many think they are the lesser of two evils, but you'll need a microscope to see the difference. In other countries, other parties play this fake pro-worker role. In Mexico its the PRD, the FMLN in El Salvador, the Labor Party in Britain, and in India it's the Congress Party. What have the Democrats done?

Clinton made endless promises to workers to get elected. As soon as he won, the got NAFTA and GATT passed to better exploit workers in Mexico and other countries and drag down conditions of U.S. workers. He didn't pass a jobs program nor anti-scab legislation. He put 100,000 more cops on the street to break strikes and brutalize non-white workers. He broke a railroad strike. He has endorsed the destruction of welfare, Medicare, and Medicaid benefits. He worked with a Democratic congress from 1992-1994, and then with the Republicans to pass a budget that eliminated 254 social programs, and a $20 billion bailout of Wall Street bankers' investments in Mexico during the latter's financial crisis. He invaded Haiti and Bosnia, continued Bush's invasion of Somalia to stabilize that country for the benefit of Conoco Oil, bombed Iraq twice, and is preparing us for war against Iran. It is clear that the Democratic Party serves the bosses, not workers. If the Democrats are no good, are black and latin politicians any better?

Black and latin politicians serve bosses, not workers

Many workers no longer trust Democrats like Clinton and think they should "elect one of their own" to public office to improve things for "their people". Yet all the elected black and Latin politicians supported layoffs and balanced budgets on the backs of the workers in order to pay off the banks. Black politicians, virtually all Democrats, have supported policies which increased the jailing and police murder of young black men. This is the job of all elected officials under capitalism.

In New York City, Dinkins (like other black politicians) cut all social programs while increasing money for more cops. Marion Barry, mayor of Washington, D.C., is dishing out one of the most vicious attacks on black working class people in recent memory. Carol Mosely-Braun, junior U.S. Senator from Illinois, has consistently cast pro-business, anti-working class votes. When the late Ron Brown hit a mountain in Bosnia, he was leading an imperialist investment mission to Yugoslavia on behalf of the biggest U.S. corporations.

In spite of tens of thousands of minority politicians in office, there is more racism and racist unemployment than ever. This is because racism is necessary for the capitalists to make maximum profit.

Some say the height of black representation was the election of Mandela to the presidency of South Africa. No sooner was he elected then he defended the right to private property. He s a "born again" capitalist. He tells workers to stop striking, to stop demanding higher wages, to wait for a better life. He begs foreign capitalists to invest heavily in South Africa even though their profits will be taken out of the hides of black and white workers in South Africa. The face at the top changed, but the capitalist story is the same.

The "race" or nationality of a politician is never any guarantee that he/she will serve the workers. Around the world people in impoverished nations are exploited by "one of their own". Immense poverty in Mexico is presided over by Mexicans. India, the world's most populous democracy, has so much poverty that ten million women and girls have been forced into prostitution. The right to vote for Indian politicians hasn't helped.

Unions and reformists push voting snake oil

The bosses channel all reform movements into the electoral process. The potential for revolutionary fervor is stuffed into ballot boxes. This includes trade unions, environmentalists, health care reformers, the NAACP, NOW, and many groups which claim to be against racism and sexism. The bosses will even create a reform movement where none exists when they have to distract angry workers attention from taking direct armed action. Now they are even creating new political parties, the Perot party, the Green party, and more to come as the old parties are discredited.

Some of the best vote pushers are the trade union leaders. The AFL-CIO honchos tell us to re-elect the same Clinton Democratic gang that spent the last four years passing more anti-labor legislation than any president in the last 50 years. They're using workers' money to mount campaigns and send out youth organizers to get out the vote to put Clinton back with a Democratic Congress. They support the capitalist profit system which requires $400 billion worth of corporate welfare, mass unemployment, falling wages, massive downsizing and war.

Elections are battleground for bosses

Those bosses who have the most money, power, and influence are better able to finance and support a candidate who will win the election and carry out their policies. Elections can become the battleground when groups of bosses disagree. The bosses' tactics for maintaining power vary, but they all agree on maintaining a profit system. Some realize that they must sometimes sacrifice short-run profits in the interest of long-range stability. Others want to make a quick buck and don't worry about the long-range effects.

These differences cause fights between bosses in different industries and even within industries. For example, the recent battle over the cost of health care was waged between large corporations and large insurance companies. Both the health insurance industry and corporations are against the tobacco industry because smoking creates health problems that cost some bosses money.

Sometimes the struggle between different groups within the ruling class plays out in political scandals. Watergate is an example. The Nixon administration, backed by the bosses from the Southwestern and Western U.S., was trying to get "dirt" on their Democratic opponents to give themselves political control. The Rockefeller dominated eastern establishment were out to maintain their supremacy over their Sun Belt challengers.

The Rockefeller forces won out, dumped Nixon, installed Nelson Rockefeller as vice-president and worked through Ford as President until Carter, a long time CFR member, was elected in `76.

So, when differences persist, or a group of rulers rebels, the elections become the battleground. And if one group does not like the outcome of the elections, they will organize a counter-offensive

When these techniques fail sections of the ruling class have resorted to violence and assassinated presidents. The assassination of JFK was the most recent, a result of the battle between old money on the east coast, and up and coming capitalists in the south and west.

Probably the sharpest difference between U.S. bosses was reflected over the future of slavery in the South. The slave owners wanted to maintain slave labor to produce cotton. But the Northern bosses wanted wage labor; that would bring them the biggest profits in their capitalist industries. That clash led to armed conflict, the Civil War. Exploitation of wage labor, rather than slave labor, won out.

Fascist Dictatorship is born from the womb of capitalist democracy

Many of the economic problems which exist in the U.S. today prevailed in 1933 Germany. A "free election" was held. Over 13 million voted for the communists and social democrats. Eleven million voted for Hitler. The German president von Hindenburg then handed over the government to Hitler and his "minority" Nazi party. You know the rest; the Nazis established the most terrorist bosses' dictatorship the world had seen up until that time.

This is not the exception but the rule under capitalism. When it appears that workers have elected an anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist government, the bosses simply nullify the elections with armed force and install fascism. In Iran in 1953, in Guatemala in 1954 and in Chile in 1973, the U.S. CIA directed the violent overthrow of elected governments and helped install fascist dictatorship.

Finally, when workers ignore their elected officials and take direct action, the bosses combine the force of the police and army with elections to divert their struggle back within capitalism's rules. In France in 1968, ten million industrial and government workers organized a general strike and shut down the country. After appealing to the German bosses to prepare to send in the German tank corps, the bosses' president DeGaulle made a deal with the fake Communist Party to convince the workers to end the strike in favor of a new election.

The bosses don't merely maintain democracy and then resort to fascism when the going gets tough. They use democracy and fascism SIMULTANEOUSLY. While some workers may feel slightly better off with steady jobs, adequate food, clothing and shelter, tens of millions of others suffer chronic unemployment, no medical insurance, and police terror. This is especially true in the mainly non-white inner cities with prison-like schools, drug-infested neighborhoods, minimum-wage poverty jobs, and racism in every area of life. For millions of workers in the world, fascism is a daily part of life.

PLP has never and will never encourage workers to vote for the lesser of two evils. We have confidence in the working class and we know that the leaders of communist society will come from those ranks. We can't stop fascism from happening. but that doesn't mean that we should be afraid. Fascism is a stage of capitalism. And during this stage the Party will continue to grow. Even under the extreme repression of fascism our class will continue to fight for communism. How well we conduct the fight in the future is directly connected to how we build the party today.

All capitalist parties lead to war

The bosses are always having peace talks but when their profits are threatened they will resort to war. When workers refuse to make sacrifices for profits the bosses use cops, scabs, injunctions, the National Guard and the Army to whip the working class back into line. They also use force to force weaker bosses to go along with the most powerful. They must streamline their decision making process so they stop fooling around with expensive elections.

World Wars I and II were both caused by different capitalists who wanted a bigger piece of world markets. In Vietnam, first the French and later the U.S. wanted to maintain Southeast Asia as their turf. In Panama, the Gulf War and in Somalia, U.S. rulers wanted to maintain control over a strategic area or resource like oil.

In all these wars it didn't matter whether the Democrats (two world wars and Vietnam) or the Republicans (Panama, Gulf, Somalia) were in the White House. War and fascism are the two main "solutions" for fights among capitalist profiteers.

The revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party, the only party the workers need

Workers don't need a "two-party" system which serves only the bosses. Workers need only one party, the revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party which serves the needs and aspirations of our class, the working class. PLP is organizing in ten countries on four continents to destroy the bosses and their profit system. We will establish a communist society, led by our class's communist party - composed of hundreds of millions of workers, students, soldiers and sailors - eventually everyone on the planet.

Communist revolution means that the working class, led by its communist party, takes power from the capitalist class. We will run society for the benefit of all workers. No longer will the tiny capitalist class decide the types and quantities of goods that we must make. No longer will all production be for profit. The working class will own everything and decide through its communist party what and how much to produce and distribute it according to need. The needs of the working class around the world will be the basis for these decisions. We will end racism, sexism, and imperialist war which the bosses create and use to divide and control us to maximize their profits. There will be no more rich and no more poor.

We Need a Workers Dictatorship - Communism

We will do away with the democracy forced on us by a profit system designed to exploit us. We will answer the bosses' dictatorship of capitalism with a workers' dictatorship designed to abolish all forms of capitalism and the ideas it fosters - greed, selfishness, "look out for number one."

We will be free to fully participate in the process of making society the best it can be for the entire working class. Our efforts will not be limited by ideas like nationalism, patriotism or racism. These promote the attitude "me for mine". Communism means promoting the idea of "us for ours". Where the "us" is the international working class and all that is produced is ours to distribute as the Party sees fit.

We will organize society with communist collective centralism

In communist society there won't be elections to choose leaders. There will be only one party, because workers everywhere (unlike the bosses) all have a common interest. This party will make and carry out all policy decisions collectively, in a centralized way. The choice of leaders -- both individuals and collectives -- will be made the same way it is in the Progressive Labor Party today.

Like all decisions, assignments to leadership positions will be made on the basis of politics, not popularity or chance. Everyone is not the same: there is uneven development here, as everywhere else. There are many different tasks involved in building the Party today. These will expand as the movement grows, and especially after we take power. Not everyone will carry out all of these tasks, but everyone will be encouraged to contribute as best they can, according to their commitment to communism.

Leadership decisions will be based primarily on demonstrated commitment and political skill, taking into account particular strengths and weaknesses and the needs of the Party as a whole. Who will decide these things? The existing leadership, based on their own observations of the comrades in question, and on the opinions of others who have worked with them.

Under capitalism and other forms of class society, those who spend more years in school and who do better there are considered to have greater "leadership potential." With few exceptions, this generally means people who come from wealthier families to begin with.

Communists, in contrast, pay special attention to bringing workers into leadership positions. Experience in the class struggle, lifetime familiarity with the needs of the working class, is far more important for those who would serve the people than any amount of book-learning. Those workers most oppressed by capitalism, black, latin and women workers, are especially chosen to be developed as leaders because they bring with them the experience of super-exploitation.

Communist leadership does not bring with it privilege and prestige, as it does in capitalist and socialist societies. It brings added responsibility. The responsibility of leading the Party to put the needs of the working class, the fight for communism, above all else

Build PLP and Fight For Communist Revolution

Do you think we can vote in a society like this? Hell no! The bosses will fight us tooth and nail. The only way for the working class to take power is through armed, violent revolution. There is no way to sugar coat it.

The bosses will tell us that they are all-powerful; that capitalism is "human nature"; that they can't be overthrown. Every worker and youth who becomes a communist, who joins PLP , proves that this is a lie. When you join and build PLP you are planting the seeds of our communist future. The more seeds, the sooner the flower of revolution will destroy the rotting profit system and encircle the globe.

Don't vote! Organize for communist revolution! Join PLP!

Sometimes you hear people say, "Communism sounds like a good idea, but it can never work. After all, didn't they already try it?" In the final years of the millennium, that seems to be the conventional wisdom: they tried communism,* but it didn't work. Well, it may be conventional, but it has nothing to do with wisdom.

You don't try on a new social system like you try on a new jacket. The revolutions in Russia and China took place over a span of three or four generations and involved over a billion people, one out of every three humans on the planet. These were social transformations which were larger and more important than anything else mankind has undertaken in several thousand years of recorded history. These revolutions represented the first attempts to take entire nations and continents to a social order free of exploitation. The complexity and richness of this historical experience is such that no person can comprehend it. However, a large collective of people, with consistent study and practical experience, can come to understand the most important themes and experiences from this period. Developing and applying this understanding is the role of a revolutionary party such as PLP.

Every worker who has ever felt like seeing her boss strung up, every worker who has ever dreamed of being his own boss, every person who sees the corruption and despair of capitalist society needs to know something about revolutionary history. These revolutions provide us with a glimpse of what is possible. In the U.S., the very heart of the imperialist beast and one of the richest nations on earth, millions are homeless and hundreds die of cold exposure each winter, huddled over grates and in doorways in the major northern cities. Over 30,000 people commit suicide each year in the U.S. -- some years more, some less, depending on the unemployment rate. To deny working people the history of our class, of the revolutions carried out by others like us in other times and places, is to deny us vision and hope. In many cases, it is to deny life itself.

This little pamphlet can't fill in all the information blacked out by the capitalist filter over all the years of your life. It will try to point you toward some of the most useful sources and relate a few accounts so you will at least see these revolutions were not just a little glitch in history. Rather they were the first breakthroughs into a new world. For the moment the passage seems to have collapsed and all is darkness. But there is a way through. The first step toward finding it is to know there is another side.

1. Based on successes of earlier revolutions, how would we organize society if we had power today?

Communism is about organizing society to meet human needs rather than organizing society to produce goods for individual profit. Communist revolutions in the past have begun by trusting ordinary people to identify their greatest needs. For example, early in the Chinese revolution, the most "urgent demand" of the peasantry in communist controlled areas was for the redistribution of land so that every person could earn a decent living from the land which she or he tilled. As a result, land was confiscated from landlords and rich peasants, leaving them only as much as they themselves could farm. The poorest farmers, tenants and farm laborers were all provided with enough land to provide a livelihood for their families. It became illegal to make a living off the labor of others, by just owning land for example. Everyone was expected to work to eat, but everyone was guaranteed a share of land, tools and animals so they could work.

The Chinese revolution was a great experiment in a new form of social organization that underwent many changes as people tried to learn how to most effectively meet their own needs. The organizational changes reflected an evolving sense of what was possible through cooperation and a reliance on the abilities of ordinary members of society to accomplish great things.

Following land redistribution in China, the cooperative movement emerged as an example of a socialist society. Agricultural cooperatives were formed by pooling the resources (land, farm equipment, labor power, etc) of individual farmers. Membership in a collective farm was voluntary. Guidance in formation and governance was given by experienced leaders to ensure success. Individuals, such as widows or orphans, who had no land to contribute were given membership in the cooperative. This was done as "a form of social insurance or social security, doing for friends and neighbors what one hopes they would do for you under the same circumstances." (Shenfan, p118) Members' rights and duties were clearly outlined. Cooperative members were paid according to their work - that is, more work, more pay. Successful production depended on the ability to work together cooperatively. Overall, agricultural output increased with this collective effort.

Because of the success of the cooperative farms, the Chinese Communist Party tried to move to a more advanced form of social organization. Cooperatives merged to form communes. This pooling of land, resources and labor power on a large scale made projects that had been impossible suddenly become practical (Shenfan, p206). Communes were as large as towns and counties and took on the function of government. During the years in which communes operated successfully, China's social and economic development rapidly moved forward. Most communes provided their members with the seven basic requirements of life: food, clothing, childbirth expenses, education, medical care, marriage and funeral expenses. These things were provided to all members of the commune based on need, the so-called "supply system." Some of the more successful communes additionally provided housing, fuel for winter heating, provision of baths and haircuts as well as plays and films. The communist principle of "from each according to commitment, to each according to need" was actually practiced.

A description of the "supply system" of food distribution in one northern Chinese village is provided by William Hinton in his book, Shenfan:

The community dining room, set up at the same time as the nursery [1958], lasted much longer, through July, 1962. At first each of the six teams in Long Bow [Village] opened a dining room but later they paired off, two teams sharing one. Thus three public kitchens operated throughout most of the period. At the start, in spite of mobilization meetings to explain the advantages of collective dining, only a minority of the peasants ate there. Any family that could spare a member to do the cooking at home did so. But later, as the food and the service improved in the dining rooms, almost everyone came. (p. 230)

What made the dining rooms so popular, once they got on their feet, was, first, convenience and, second, free supply. ... Obviously this was not free food in any ordinary sense. Long Bow people ate no grain stocks produced by other people's labor. They consumed no foods that were not paid for with money they themselves had earned. The more food and money they allocated to the dining rooms, the less food and money was distributed as family shares. What free supply meant in this context was that the food was supplied, in part or in whole, equally to all on a per capita basis without regard to work points earned, that is, in part or in whole, on the basis of need and not on the basis of work performed. In regard to food then, the community jumped ... to the Communist principle of distribution according to need. (p. 231)

Obviously the dining rooms set up in 1958 answered a real need. Many social innovations created during the Great Leap collapsed long before the public dining rooms did [under 1962 instructions from central authorities to return to more capitalist methods]. ... They lasted longer in Long Bow than in many other brigades. In at least one other brigade under the Changchih administration they never collapsed at all. (p. 232)

Our party's outlook is that communism offers the best possibility for a good life for the majority of people on earth. What would such a society look like in an industrialized country today? The primary difference between what we have now and the society we envision is that communism would bring true equality. There would be no difference in social standing or getting what we need because of race, job title, gender or type of education. Equal access to opportunities and the basic requirements of daily life for all would be the goal. Many would agree that this is the ideal society, so why shouldn't it be possible? Millions of Chinese collective farmers before us have showed that, in fact, it is possible -- they lived and produced for years under a system of communist economic relations. With dedication and hard work we can build on their accomplishments.

What would it look like? It is hard to say exactly, but a communist revolution would profoundly change how we produce things as well as how we divide up the products. Let's indulge in a little fantasy. Imagine organizing clothing production in the garment shops of Los Angeles after the working class has seized power. We have already eliminated wages and money. Food distribution has been converted to the "supply system" -- groceries are being distributed according to family size. Now stocks of clothing are running low and people must have clothing. So the Party clubs in the garment industry have been asked to reopen as many factories as possible and reestablish production, which was shut down during the past months of civil war. Our comrades there are in touch with hundreds of close supporters. We call a series of meetings, beginning with the people we know who have shown themselves capable of giving leadership. We begin developing a plan for collective management of the shops. We explain the situation of clothing supply around the liberated areas, where the needs are most acute, where stocks remain. Together with comrades and friends from the factories, the Party leadership puts forward a plan for what the collective of garment workers might be able to contribute to the clothing needs of the people. We discuss problems. How many hours should we work? Who else can we recruit to help? How desperate is the need? How should the work be reorganized to make it more interesting and safer?

Workers immediately take on the organizational tasks that used to be reserved for "skilled managers" under capitalism. So the old shop bosses are gone, but what about the clothing designers? Some do have useful skills. Will they come back to the re-opened factories, even though they will get nothing special for working, just their share of food, etc., like everyone else who shows up at the food distribution site, regardless of work. As in earlier revolutions, a small percentage of the skilled work force (people like designers, engineers, architects, doctors and computer programmers) will join the revolution early on to help any way they can. Others will join more reluctantly or try to demand special treatment because they have certain skills.

The workers on the garment factory steering committee put out a leaflet to all who had a role in actually producing clothes before the revolution, even the designers, inviting them back to the factory, now re-opened "under new (workers') management." They welcome those who want to serve the working class and struggle against the elitist ideas of others. First and foremost we put our confidence in ordinary workers, not specialists. The working class has the most to gain from revolution and is always the driving force behind social change that benefits the mass of the population. Among those tens of thousands of garment workers who will eventually come under our lead, there will be many who now become designers-- those who have not been allowed to develop their skills and potentials as designers under capitalism.

The response is slow at first. Only the Party comrades and our immediate base of a few dozen show up on the designated day to start production. But we make some pants. After a day or two workers see what it's like to work in a shop which they organize themselves, and they see that the clothes they sew are being used by other workers who need them, not to make somebody rich. The word starts to get around and others come to check it out. Within a month we have seven shops up and running with close 500 workers and a handful of designers, machine repair people and office staff. Workers who are interested are encouraged to work with the specialists, learning to repair or build machinery, design the patterns or do other work requiring special skills. The schedules, output plans and the choice of clothing to be produced are all discussed at lively meeting of the workers. Party members among them try to keep people thinking about how this particular shop fits into the overall revolutionary effort in the garment district, in L.A., and in the world.

This little fantasy could be something like what will happen one day in Los Angeles, or it could be way off. The degree of upheaval, the incredible release of energy, the nearly super-human efforts and accomplishments of regular people in a revolutionary situation make it hard for a person growing up under dying capitalism to imagine just what it will be like. But we understand certain principles from the way earlier revolutions have unfolded and the way our Party works. "From each according to commitment" does work. Commitment comes from understanding what is necessary and what is possible. Communists lead by example: the first to volunteer, the last to eat, the most dependable when the group is faced with a difficult or dangerous job. Many details of the communist world we can only guess at for now, but we know which direction we are headed.

2. What are some examples of people working without personal gain?

During the Great Leap Forward in China, "people went out by the millions from quiet villages and carefully tended fields to build dams in the wilderness, dig canals that changed the course of rivers, open mines wherever ore or coal could be found, and smelt iron and steel on the spot. With full stomachs, high hopes and infectious zeal, they challenged nature. Never had China's future seemed so bright." (Shenfan, p208) Chao T'ung-min, the first member of a Chinese village to join the iron smelting effort said, "Every time I recall those days I am filled with happiness". (Shenfan p218).

Millions of Chinese participated in the historic changes of that era with enthusiasm and determination. They did it because they had a goal and a belief that their efforts were important in achieving that goal. They did it for the same reasons that parents care for their children, for the same reasons that people volunteer for the PTA, or that church members deliver meals to invalids. All share a sense of commitment and responsibility, a belief that what they are doing is not only right, but necessary.

Earlier it was said that communism is about organizing society to meet human needs. Not all human needs are material. Humans need to believe that who they are and what they do matters. This need, when tapped, unleashes enormous energy. Think about your workplace. If the employees were free to organize the work in such a way that they knew that their input made a difference in the way the job was done, or that they, or people like them, directly benefited from the goods they were producing, how much more enthusiasm and dedication they would have for their work. In a sense, this is personal gain. It's got nothing to do with money. It's a meaningful existence.

An example from the Soviet Union during World War II brings this idea to life. It is taken from a book by Alexander Werth, a British correspondent who was in the USSR during the war. He described the amazing feats performed by Soviet workers when their socialist country, which they had built with their own hands over the past 24 years, was being invaded by the Nazi army in 1941. In order to prevent the Nazis from capturing factories needed to supply the front, workers packed up entire plants, put them on railroad cars, and moved them to safe locations a thousand miles behind the front lines.

Altogether between July and November 1941 no fewer than 1,523 industrial enterprises, including 1,360 large war plants had been moved to the east ... a total of one and a half million railway wagon-loads. (Russia at War, p. 216)

During the war, I had the opportunity of talking to many workers, both men and women, who had been evacuated to the Urals or Siberia during the grim autumn or early winter months of 1941. The story of how whole industries and millions of people had been moved to the east, of how industries were set up in a minimum of time, in appallingly difficult conditions, and of how these industries managed to increase production to an enormous extent during 1942, was, above all, a story of incredible endurance. ... People worked because they knew that it was absolutely necessary--they worked twelve, thirteen, sometimes fourteen or fifteen hours a day; they "lived on their nerves"; they knew that never was their work more urgently needed than now. ... while the soldiers were suffering and risking so much [fighting against the Nazis] it was not for the civilians to shirk even the most crippling, most heartbreaking work.

[He goes on to quote a local newspaper account from Sverdlovsk, a city in the Ural mountains:]

Winter had already come when Sverdlovsk received Comrade Stalin's order to erect two buildings for the plant evacuated from the south. The trains packed with machinery and people were on the way. The war factory had to start production in its new home--and it had to do so in not more than a fortnight. Fourteen days, and not an hour more! It was then that the people of the Urals came to this spot with shovels, bars and pickaxes: students, typists, accountants, shop assistants, housewives, artists, teachers. The earth was like stone, frozen hard by our fierce Siberian frost. Axes and pickaxes could not break the stony soil. In the light of arc-lamps people hacked at the earth all night. They blew up the stones and the frozen earth, and they laid the foundations. ... Their feet and hands were swollen with frostbite, but they did not leave work. Over the charts and blueprints laid out on packing cases, the blizzard was raging. Hundreds of trucks kept rolling up with the building materials... On the twelfth day, into the new buildings with their glass roofs, the machinery, covered with hoar-frost, began to arrive. Braziers were kept alight to unfreeze the machines. ...And two days later, the war factory began production. (p. 219)

Capitalists boast about how much work they can get out of their employees with strict supervisors and "modern, scientific" management techniques. But only believing in what you are doing can really unlock people's creative energy.

3. When workers took power, how did they do at running things?

Capitalists would like us to believe that without their organizational skill and their technical experts, workers would just run around bumping into each other, never accomplishing anything. During the decades that workers controlled the governments of Russia and China, this lie was disproved on a grand scale. The communist parties in these countries drew most of their members from the ranks of factory workers, peasants and those intellectuals (teachers, engineers, etc.) who identified with the cause of the masses. In 1933, 89% of the members of the Soviet Communist Party were workers or peasants. During the decade of the 30s, this party organized and led the most rapid and thoroughgoing industrialization of any country in history, with annual industrial growth rates of around 15%. (U.S. industrial output was actually shrinking during the depression of the 30s, and during "recoveries" U.S. economic growth rarely exceeds 2-3% per year.) Workers under the leadership of this worker and peasant party built the factories - steel, petroleum, machinery - that would equip and mechanize the Red Army for its amazing defeat of the "invincible" Nazi army a few years later. Rather than bumping into each other, it turned out that Russian workers performed much better than their counterparts in capitalist factories in the US and Europe. It turned out that workers worked better where they were led by the most advanced and committed from their own ranks, by other workers. They worked best when they knew they were building their own society, for the good of themselves and their children, rather than to make some boss rich.

The same sort of thing went even further in China during the Cultural Revolution in the late 1960s. Edoarda Masi, an Italian writer who lived in China for many years, described Chinese factories in her 1981 book, China Winter:

The freedom enjoyed by the workers was incredible-- scandalous for those managers accustomed to our factory system. The workplace seemed to be a continuation of the personal world of the workers. In Luoyang, in the famous tractor factory, a worker's family came and went during work hours without the slightest inhibition. On the assembly line, workers would shift and switch duties by mutual consent without awaiting directions from on high. ... in Peking, in the automobile factory, I remembered the Italian diplomat who was stupefied to see coming out of such a madhouse cars produced perfectly down to the last bolt. (p. 292)

Throughout this city [Shanghai] and in many places elsewhere in China, for ten years factories functioned without even the routine rules... there were no controls, people could stop work to carry out some cultural activity, groups took time out of the working day to study; there was a true rejection of supervisory authority. For the first time, workers were for ten years without bosses in the factories. ... [Growth in production] was certainly not slowed down in absolute terms, for starting with the Cultural Revolution there was, on the whole and everywhere, a notable increase in production. (p.295)

This doesn't mean that they did not use the specialized skills of engineers and others we would call "white collar" workers. But it means the factory dictatorship by a small group of owners, managers and their privileged experts could be abolished and perfect tractors kept rolling off the lines in increasing numbers. Engineers added their know-how as equal partners, not as mini-bosses. Scheduling and organizing production was done by the workers themselves. We can do the same.

4. How does revolution tap the unused talents of workers?

AC:

- diagnosis of the ox's hernia ('Away with all pests')

- human relations in the hospital (Pests)

5. Why does our Party believe communism is "human nature"?

We often hear that communism is impossible because it is against "human nature." According to this point of view, human nature, supposedly a permanent quality of all people, is identical to the behavior of capitalists in the marketplace. In other words, human nature is selfish. While most people have their selfish side, saying that people are "naturally selfish" is the opposite of the truth.

On the contrary, history and pre-history show human beings are social creatures. The period of "primitive communism" actually represents most of our time on earth as a species, beginning with the first humans around 250,000 years ago. The long early epoch of human life characterized by hunter-gather society was not a time of solitary cave men, each defending his private territory. Rather, humans lived in groups where the work of food acquisition (gathering edible plants and hunting) was done cooperatively. Sharing was the norm, which is how this early system got the name primitive communism. With the development of agriculture 15,000 to 20,000 years ago, more and more humans began to live concentrated together in larger communities. Hunter-gatherer societies faded, but a few survived into this century, permitting us to learn from them.

It is important to realize that humans have lived over 90% of our existence as a species in communistic hunter-gatherer tribes. Sharing is clearly central to our nature. But can these communal instincts survive in a complex society? Or are people inevitably transformed into more selfish creatures as the community grows beyond the size of a hunter-gatherer tribe?

Several of the examples you have read in the earlier sections of this pamphlet make it clear that size alone does not necessarily lead to increased selfishness: ordinary citizens pouring out of the shops and offices to construct a war factory in the middle of the Siberian winter, tens of millions of collective farmers forgoing private grain payments in favor of public food for all, not to mention the countless selfless acts, small and large, that go into the monumental task of building a country. Groups of people can and have shared and cooperated on a mass scale spanning decades and continents. In fact, the societies based on exploitation which arose in the last few thousand years represent a recent invention, a deviation, not our underlying biological nature as a species. The construction of a society based on sharing and cooperation to satisfy human needs is a return to our true nature.

6. If communism has so much to offer, why did capitalism return to Russia and China?

This is the most important question facing humankind at the close of the 20th century. Progressive Labor Party has an answer. We believe that earlier revolutions didn't go far enough. Socialism, although a vast improvement over capitalism, does not develop into communism, the desired society of complete equality. Is that because most people don't want equality, because most don't want to share with others?

That is the Big Lie the capitalists put forward. The capitalists say workers hate communism and love capitalism. This is not only incorrect, it's downright silly when you think about it. As we pointed out earlier, the communist-led revolutions of the past 75 years established socialist, not communist, systems in the various countries. Under socialism everyone was guaranteed a job. Private ownership of factories was outlawed, but there was still money and some workers got higher wages than others. Still, all the value produced in a factory went to the workers -- either as wages or as investment in other things that would benefit the working class (schools, hospitals, new factories, roads, etc.) Under socialism there was much less inequality than under capitalism. It took a generation or two for the small bit of capitalism (differences in private wages) carried forward into the new socialist society to grow into a new exploiting class. Was it the greater equality, the workers' control of government, in short, was it the revolutionary aspects of socialism that workers rejected? Of course not. The rejection would have happened at the time of the revolutions not a generation or two later had that been the case. Those who actually lived through the revolutions, those who helped build the new socialist societies, were willing to defend them--with their lives if necessary.

As the Nazi troops closed in on Moscow, threatening the heart of the first socialist country the world had seen, the determination of the rank-and-file Russians was remarkable:

There were countless stories of regular soldiers and even opolchentsy [civilian volunteers] attacking German tanks with hand grenades and with "petrol bottles", and other "last ditch" exploits. The morale of the fighting forces certainly did not crack.... Secondly, there was the Moscow working-class; most of them were ready to put in long hours of overtime in factories producing armaments and ammunition; to build defenses; to fight the Germans inside Moscow should they break through, or, if all failed, to "follow the Red Army to the east". [Russia at War, p. 234]

And the Nazis were stopped. They were turned back from the gates of Moscow that year (1941) and the main force of their army was broken a year later at Stalingrad. The Russian working class defeated Nazi fascism at great cost. Fifteen years later capitalism in a new, more insidious form had defeated the Russian revolution.

The process of re-growth of capitalism out of socialism (it's called "state capitalism") was full-blown in the Soviet Union by the late 1950s and in China by the mid 1970s. This transformation came from the very center of the revolutions themselves, from the very communist parties which had lead the building of socialism earlier. But these transformations were also not without struggle. The Cultural Revolution in China was the biggest and longest such battle. The PLP came into existence in the US as the embodiment of the struggle against capitalist ideas inside the old communist movement in this country.

For 40 years in the USSR and 25 years in China, several hundred million people lived under governments controlled by the working class. Nearly a billion working people experienced socialism over a period of decades, but they never tried communism, much less rejected it. As for loving capitalism, the popular anti-government movements in the USSR and Eastern Europe beginning in the late 1980s brought about a change in the form of capitalism from a state monopoly capitalism to "free market" capitalism. It is crucial to understand, however, that the essence of capitalism, exploitation of the working class by a privileged elite (capitalists), had returned to these countries with the development of state capitalism in the 1950s. There had been no socialist society in Eastern Europe for at least a generation by the time the Berlin wall fell in 1991.

Many skilled workers and professionals in Eastern Europe saw the conversion from state capitalism to a more open market capitalism beginning in the late 80s as an opportunity to break the monopoly on power and profits held by Breshnev-era technocrats--a group who have nothing to do with socialism, much less communism. After all, does anyone maintain that these guys believed in the principle of communism stated by Karl Marx: "from each according to ability, to each according to need?" Of course not. They wore the mantle of socialism as long as it could keep them in limousines and caviar, then they became "democrats" faster than you could sell bad stock! And those who led the popular uprisings which overthrew these cynical crooks are every bit as cynical and crooked, as workers throughout the formerly socialist countries are learning.

So what would happen if workers tried actual communism? Where workers came closest to a system of real economic and political equality (egalitarian communism) they liked it and resisted changing back to more capitalistic forms. These struggles are, of course, not well publicized in the West, but they have been recorded by reliable observers. The dismantling of a "higher level socialist cooperative farm" in Shansi province in northern China (similar to the communes discussed under question No. 1) was described by another section of Hinton's Shenfan:

[T]he Changchih City Party Committee did mobilize Veteran Wang, working in the rural affairs department of the city, to dissolve coops that he himself had set up. He recalled this, in 1971, as a bitter experience.

"When asked to organize coops we were determined to get them running well. We all worked hard and did good work. When higher-ups suddenly ordered us to do the opposite, to go out and dissolve coops, we went out with a heavy heart." (p. 161)

The P'ingshun County Committee put great pressure on labor hero Li Hsun-ta's West Gully coop ... to break into smaller units. ... but the people of West Gully refused to abandon what they had already built. "We joined together of our own free will," they said. "If we split that must also be voluntary. Nobody can force us to separate." ...

The struggle at the Central Committee level over the pace and scale of the cooperative movement in the countryside was in reality only one facet of a more fundamental struggle concerning the whole course of the revolution. ... (p. 162)

The same sort of thing happened in the cities. In China Winter Masi describes the "sullen" and dejected attitude among workers in the factories where workers' rule (described under No.3) was dismantled and replaced by Western-style labor discipline. Such discipline was the price that had to be paid to make Chinese factories attractive to Western capital.

As mentioned in the excerpt from Hinton's book, there was a struggle throughout the Chinese Communist Party between the left, who wanted to push on towards communism and the right, who believed that developing technology and industrial might was most important. This was really the issue underlying the Cultural Revolution. A glance at China today makes it clear who won.

Our Party has drawn conclusions from these earlier attempts to build communism. These are presented in earlier PLP writings, the most important being Road to Revolution III (1971)and Road to Revolution IV: A Communist Manifesto (1981). A few of the points developed in these works are:

1. Socialism does not lead to communism; socialism retains the seeds of class society (different wages for different work) which grow into a new class of exploiters over a generation or two.

2. Nationalism is a reactionary ideology; "national liberation struggles" promote capitalism, not communism.

3. Workers under PLP's leadership need to institute communist economic relations when we seize power; we will organize according to the principle, "from each according to commitment, to each according to needs."

4. The only way to keep from moving backward toward capitalism is to move forward toward communism.

7. How does PLP know it can lead a successful revolution?

The short answer to this question is because others have done it before us.

A myth of invincibility is maintained by the wealthy 1% of U.S. society who run the government, control the media and supervise education. That myth is maintained by making sure that certain parts of the world's history are hidden from most people. When is the last time you saw a feature movie about the Chinese revolution? In 1992 the 75th anniversary of the Bolshevik revolution came and went with no big TV specials. When the mass media do mention these earth shaking events, easily the most important history of the 20th century, they do so in a negative light. In other words, capitalists use the apparatus of mass communication to keep working people in the dark about what workers before them accomplished.

So that doesn't answer the question. In fact, it enlarges the question: add "without control of the mass media." But still our Party is confident that we will make revolution here and around the world. That's because we do have the two key things that the Russian and Chinese working people had. We have numbers and we have the truth. Working class people outnumber the wealthy class of parasites who employ us by about 100 to 1. It is true that most workers have never even heard of PLP at this point and, if asked, would not immediately identify communism as the way forward. However, the objective fact is that capitalism cannot work for the vast majority of people inhabiting the earth, and sooner or later (this part depends on us) they will understand that overthrowing capitalism is necessary for the survival of our class.

Truth is a stubborn thing. No matter how many commercials you watch or how much distorted information the mass media spews out in front of you, you also have the experience of your life. And life under capitalism is simply not what the bosses' media says it is. The reality for the vast majority is unemployment or the threat of it, a falling standard of living, an uncertain future for our kids and worsening racism. We experience repression by brutal police in our neighborhoods and constantly fear that our young people will be sent to die in some foreign war for profits. They don't tell it like that on TV, but that's the way it is. People see it.

The truth is, the communists in Russia, who numbered only a few thousand in the years leading up to the revolution, organized tens of thousands of workers and soldiers around a political program which offered people what they needed. In opposition to the rulers of their day (who, by the way, controlled the printing presses, the universities, and so forth), this small and poor party changed the thinking of masses of people. Sailors in the Baltic fleet, Russian soldiers at the front (this was during World War I), employees at the armaments factories in Petrograd and thousands more united around a program of ending the imperialist war, land to the tiller and political power to the workers' councils (elected factory committees, also known by their Russian name, 'soviets'), all under the open leadership of the communists, known at the time as 'Bolsheviks.' At a critical point, the Russian government got to the point where most of its armed forces were either unreliable or openly under Bolshevik leadership and unwilling to obey their officers. At this moment, the communists mobilized their forces to seize the key centers of power.

The determination of the masses under communist leadership was captured in an exchange between a sophisticated crowd supporting the old regime and an uneducated but determined working class soldier.

A tall young man with a supercilious expression, dressed in the uniform of a student, was leading the attack.

"You realize, I presume," he said insolently, "that by taking up arms against your brothers you are making yourselves the tools of murderers and traitors?"

"Now brother," answered the soldier earnestly, "you don't understand. There are two classes, don't you see, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. We--"

"Oh, I know that silly talk!" broke in the student rudely. "A bunch of ignorant peasants like you hear somebody bawling a few catch-words. You don't understand what they mean. You just echo them like a lot of parrots." The crowd laughed. "I am a Marxian student. And I tell you that this isn't Socialism you are fighting for. It's just plain pro-German anarchy!"

"Oh, yes, I know," answered the soldier, with sweat dripping from his brow. "You are an educated man, that is easy to see. But it seems to me--"

"I suppose," interrupted the other contemptuously, "that you believe Lenin is a real friend of the proletariat?"

"Yes, I do," answered the soldier, suffering.

"Well, my friend, do you know that Lenin was sent through Germany in a closed car? Do you know that Lenin took money from the Germans?"

"Well, I don't know much about that," answered the soldier stubbornly, "but it seems to me that what he says is what I want to hear, and all the simple men like me. Now there are two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat--"

"You are a fool! Why, my friend, I spent two years in Schlüsselburg [prison] for revolutionary activity, when you were still shooting down revolutionists and singing `God Save the Czar!' My name is Vasili Georgevitch Panyin. Didn't you ever hear of me?"

`I'm sorry to say I never did," answered the soldier with humility. "But then, I am not an educated man. You are probably a great hero."

"I am," said the student with conviction. "And I am opposed to the Bolsheviki, who are destroying our Russia, our free revolution. Now how do you account for that?"

The soldier scratched his head. "I can't account for it all," he said grimacing with the pain of his intellectual processes. "To me it seems perfectly simple--but then I'm not well educated. It seems like there are only two classes, the proletariat and the bourgeoisie----"

"There you go again with your silly formula!" cried the student.

"----only two classes," went on the soldier, doggedly." And whoever isn't on one side is on the other ..."

This pamphlet is only a short introduction to a new world.

As we dig around in the reports of the many eyewitnesses to the revolutions in Russia and China we get more of a feel for how huge and important these transformations were. Workers throughout the world owe a debt to those who went before us, not whining, "nobody's done this before," but instead stating simply, "This must be done." We must not belittle their sacrifice by failing to study the lessons they learned through experience--sometimes thrilling, sometimes bitter. We must repay them in the only way possible, by taking the revolutionary struggle to the next level.

Several useful books are listed below. They provide a fascinating glimpse of the future, as seen through the window of the past. When we pull our noses out of the numbing day-to-day experience of life under a dying system we can begin to see the big picture: "...a better world's in birth."

Useful Reading

John Reed: Ten Days That Shook the World.
John Reed, a writer and journalist from Seattle, described the first successful insurrection by the working class in this classic book. It has the energy and immediacy of a first hand account.

Alexander Werth: Russia At War: 1939-45.
Werth was a teenager when his family fled the Russian revolution and moved the family from St. Petersburg to England. When he returned to the Soviet Union as a correspondent for the BBC during World War II, he had the advantage of speaking Russian, Polish and Ukranian so he was able to talk with ordinary citizens and soldiers and give a ground-up view of the huge human drama unfolding on the Eastern Front.

Edoarda Masi: China Winter: Workers, Mandarins, and the Purge of the Gang of Four. E.P.Dutton, New York, 1981.
Masi, an Italian writer and translator, lived in China as a student in the 1950s, then returned 18 years later, at the time of Mao's death, as a visiting lecturer. Her book describes what she called "the end of a great revolution" in somber terms.

Strong: Communes

Red Star Over China

William Hinton: Fanshen: A Documentary of Revolution in a Chinese Village.
Hinton was working for an international agricultural releif organization in pre-revolutionary China when the Eighth Route (Red) Army swept through the province seizing the estates of rich landlords and redistributing the land to poor peasants. He requested permission from the new communist authorities to remain in the area and write a detailed history of the events in one village. He makes the process of transformation of people and society real by his careful and detailed account.

Also by Hinton: Shenfan

Twenty years after he left Long Bow Village in northern Shansi Province, Hinton was able to return to see how the village had fared under communist leadership. He describes the history of those turbulent and exhilarating times through the eyes of his old friends, the farmers and organizers of Long Bow.

Away With All Pests

Joshua Horn, a British orthopedist, emmigrated to China in the early 1950s and worked in one of the teaching hospitals in Shanghai. He wrote this book during the height of the Cultural Revolution and it reflects some of the most profound themes of that period. In his introduction he reveals his dislike for the arrogance of senior physicians in the hospitals where he trained in Britain. In socialist China the relations between experts and the masses have been transformed. Patients and orderlies accompany the doctors on rounds and the physicians learn from and serve the people. A remarkable account.

* Words and phrases which may need some explanation are listed in a glossary at the end of the pamphlet. Each of these terms is underlined the first time it appears in the pamphlet. There is also a list of books and articles for the interested reader, including sources quoted in the text.

Glossary

Some words used in definitions will themselves need defining. These terms are underlined and have their own glossary entries.

base - The political use of this word refers to the group of political friends and supporters around an organizer or a party unit

Berlin wall - A wall built in 1961 between the Soviet controlled sector of Berlin and the section controlled by western capitalist powers. Berlin, the capital of Nazi Germany, had been conquered by the Soviet Red Army in the closing months of World War II (May, 1945). The city was divided in two, and half of it was placed under the control of the US, Britain and France (the major capitalist powers at that time). The wall came to symbolize the "cold war" between the Soviet Union and the US. It was torn down in 1991 after state capitalism was relaced by market capitalism in Eastern Europe and the two sectors of Germany, East and West, were reunited economically and politically.

Bolsheviks, Bolshevik revolution - The original name for the communist party in Russia, established in the early 1900s, which overthrew the old government of the czar in 1917. After the revolution the party was renamed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union or CPSU . The Russian revolution they led, sometimes called the "Bolshevik revolution" established a socialist political-economic system and the first worker-controlled nation in the history of the world (see Soviet Union). Important early leaders included V. I. Lenin and Josef Stalin.

bourgeoisie - Another word for the capitalist class (French). Adjective form: bourgeois.

Breshnev - Leader of the CPSU (see Bolsheviks) from 19 to 19 , during the hayday of state capitalism in the formerly socialist USSR. He lived like a typical capitalist politician with luxurious mansions, many automobiles, etc., while the workers made do with second-rate and overcrowded accomodations.

capital - Money or property used to produce other goods. E.g., a shop with sewing machines. See also industrialization. Note that most of what we think about as private property is not capital, e.g., a home, our clothing, a TV set. A capitlist is not distinguished so much by how much property he or she owns as by the type of property: capitalists own property which, by the application of labor, can generate more property.

capitalism - A political-economic system in which a small class of people owns or controls the vast majority of capital. The two major forms of capitalism seen in the 20th century are market capitalism (also called free market capitalism) and state capitalism (or state monopoly capitalism). The two forms differ in how openly different groups of capitalists fight for control of the government and how completely the dominant group of capitalists can eliminate the competition. The forms can be mixed (government appointed capitalists have the monopoly on electricity, railroads or banks, say, while a tiny number of billionaires not directly appointed by the government compete in automobile production). The key feature of all forms of capitalism: the working class has no political power and controls no capital.

capitalist - A person who owns capital; a boss, a member of the capitalist class. Capitalists make their money by exploiting the labor of others (workers). (See class). The word capitalist is also used as an adjective to describe the political-economic system run by and for wealthy capitalists. (Synonyms: bourgeois [adj.], bourgeoisie [n.])

Central Committee - The leading group in a party organized along the lines of the Bolsheviks. This group consults with the broader membership of the party, develops the political strategy and overall plan for the party and leads it in putting this plan into practice.

China - The most populous country in the world, located in eastern Asia. It has an area slightly larger than the US and three to four times the population of the US. The old capitalist regime in China (backed by the US) was overthrown by a peasant and worker revolution led by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1949, and socialism was established. The left within the CCP tried to push on toward communism through various struggles (see Cultural Revolution) up through the early 1970s, but the pro-capitalist elements within the Party won out and the country had a system of state capitalism from the early 70s until the move toward market capitalism beginning in the late 1980s.

class - A social group within the population the members of which share a common way of earning a living, in a general sense. People who earn a living working for wages (who can only make money by working) are working class (or workers). Those who earn money by owning capital are capitalists. A third group in capitalist society, neither working class nor capitalists, is called petit bourguisie or middle class (see also intellectuals).Most people are born into a class and remain in that class all their life, as do their children. In the US and similar industrialized capitalist countries, the capitalists make up about 1% of the population, the working class about 80% and the petit bourgeoisie (professionals plus managers) the remaining 19%.

collective - Something held in common by many people (e.g., a collective farm). Also a group of people who work together on a common project, making decisions by discussion and consensus.

commune - See People's Communes.

communism - The political-economic system in which people share whatever they produce, with distribution according to need. Under communism each person contributes according to their commitment to the common good. Under communism there would be no wages. No fully communist country has been established up to this time.

communist - Related to communism or the beliefs espoused by Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, V.I. Lenin. Sometimes "Marxist" is used as a synonym. Also, a person who believes in communism. The term is often used loosely. For example, political parties which advocate socialism rather than communism, or which oppose revolution sometimes call themselves "communist." Bosses often call anyone who fights against them a communist.

coop - or cooperative - An enterprise in which the means of producing something (e.g., a factory, a store) is jointly held by a group of people who make decisions functioning as a collective.

cooperative farm - The form of farm organized in Chinese villages in the early 1950s. The early coop farms involved families pooling their land, draft animals and tools and farming all the land together in work teams, instead of each family farming their own tiny plot. The coops were more efficient and produced more than the sum of the individual plots.

Cultural Revolution - A massive political upheaval in China lasting from 1965 to the early 70s. The conflict underlying this outbreak of political strife was based on two competing theories inside the Chinese Communist Party about how to build socialism, and eventually communism. One theory held that the technical level of society and its ability to produce things people needed had to reach a fairly high level before people could be expected to share with each other, and that too much emphasis on sharing early on would take away people's incentive to produce and to innovate. Their slogan was "Technique is primary." Others disagreed with this view and called the believers in technique "right wingers." These leftist opponents said the other side was "taking the capitalist road." The leftists pointed to the collective organization of farming and other enterprises as proof that even very poor peasant farmers could be won to communist principles of sharing. Their slogan was "Politics is primary" and they emphasized political control by the masses and downplaying of technical experts.

czar - (also spelled tsar) The Russian king

democracy - One of the political forms used by capitalists to organize the government they use to rule over the workers (see class). This form features elections in which non-capitalists (the other 99% of us) get to cast votes for individuals running for office. Different groups of capitalists may back particular candidates, or, more often, most big capitalists back all candidates. All elected officials end up owing their jobs to people with big money. Important issues are often talked about in campaigns, but no big decisions are made by workers' votes.

democrat - Democrat with a small "d" is someone who espouses democracy.

depression - An economic crisis in a capitalist economy in which unemployment rises and personal income and production fall. Depressions (also called "contractions" or "recessions") occur at various intervals, usually about every 5 to 15 years, in all capitalist economies. In particularly deep and long-lasting depressions recovery may be incomplete before the next downturn develops. Thus in the Great Depression (1929-1940) official unemployment remained over 10% until World War II began (1940). In the current depression in the US (1974-present) there have been official "recoveries" but the number of real jobs has continued to decrease relative to the population.

Eastern Europe - That part of Europe which was allied with or controlled by the Soviet Union from the end of World War II in 1945, until the collapse of state monopoly capitalism in 1991. Important countries in this area, not counting the European portion of the USSR, are Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania, Hungary, East Germany, Bulgaria and Albania.

economic relations - The relations between people which determine how they divide wealth produced by the group to which they belong. Capitalist economic relations are built on private ownership and exploitation of the majority by a minority which owns capital. Communist economic relations are collective or group ownership, sharing of resources and working for the common good. The economic relations are a component of the social system or political-economic system.

egalitarian - Based on complete equality of access to resources, independent of one's position in society; communistic.

exploitation - The process of taking advantage of someone for personal gain. This usually refers to economic gain (e.g., getting rich off of someone else's work) but can also apply to interpersonal matters, such as taking public credit for the efforts of others or pretending to like someone just to get them to do something for you. Capitalist social and economic relations are based on exploitation (that's what working for someone is all about), while communist relations must be based on mutual trust, collective effort and collective reward.

fascist - Related to the political system of fascism in which capitalists rule a country using tactics of extreme police repression and enforced "cooperation" between workers and their employers. It is false cooperation because the workers do the work, fight and die in the wars and take orders while the capitalists make decisions and profit. Fascist ideology uses extreme racism and nationalism to fool workers into participating. (See also Nazi.)

Five Year Plans - The economic plans used by socialist (planned) economies to coordinate the development of projects and to allocate resources.

foreign war for profits - See imperialism.

free market capitalism - See capitalism.

Great Leap Forward - The political-economic campaign in China in the late 1950s during which the left wing of the Central Committee held sway. They tried to develop more communist economic relations in agriculture (see also People's Communes) and pooled the volunteer labor of millions to increase the amount of land under cultivation, carry out flood control projects and build infrastructure (roads, electric production, communication facilities, etc.) There was a thrust to teach everyone basics of an industrial society and to break down the mystique of industrial technology by such campaigns as the back-yard iron smelters and home made ball-bearing production.

history - See recorded history

hunter-gatherer society - A form of primitive human society in which a social group (generally an extended family group of fewer than 200) lives by gathering plants that grow naturally and hunting for game. The group moves about, following the food supply. Decision making can take many forms, but group consensus and acknowledgment of age and experience are common themes in many of the societies studied. Food production and distribution are done collectively, although there is often division of labor based on age or sex. Sometimes referred to as "primitive communism".

ideology - A set of beliefs dealing with basic issues such as how people should treat each other or how the world works; a philosophy.

imperialism - A political-economic system based on the domination of one nation or community of people by another so that the dominant group can exploit or take advantage of the oppressed group; the system of an empire and its colonies or conquered lands. Ancient empires included Rome and Byzantium. In the era of capitalism, imperialism often means economic and political domination without formal colony status, such as the relationship of the US to much of Latin America; Japan to much of Pacific Asia; or Russia to the former Soviet Republics.

intellectuals - Class societies have generally separated "mental" from "manual" work, although obviously no physical labor is without a mental component. The term intellectual refers to people who make their living performing mostly or entirely mental labor. Examples include architects, teachers and writers. Under capitalism, most of these people belong to one of two economic classes. Some, who can only make a living working for wages (most teachers, for example) are working class. Others, can be self-employed (e.g., doctors) and are in a different class (called the petit bourgeoisie).

industrial growth rates - The percent increase in the industrial portion of an economy over a specified period of time. The industrial portion is that part of an economy which deals with manufacturing, mining, power generation, transportation and related fields, that is, the entire economy minus agriculture and services.

industrialization - The process of building up the "means of production," that is, the factories, mines, railroads, electricity production and so forth, all the capital assets needed to produce finished products.

labor discipline - Rules and regulations applied to workers in the workplace. This usually implies regulation by, or at least in the interests of, someone besides the workers themselves, i.e., bosses.

`land to the tiller' - This slogan was used by the Bolsheviks to describe their program of land reform in the Russian revolution. Large estates were seized from the gentry and the land was distributed to the landless or land-poor peasants (farmers). These poor farmers had been working the land before the revolution but they had to turn over most of what they produced in rent or taxes prior to the land reform.

left - When used as a political term, left refers to the more egalitarian, pro-communist or anti-capitalist position in a controversy. Related terms are leftist and left-wing.

market capitalism - See under capitalism.

masses - The most numerous class or classes in a society, making up the bulk of the population. In the US this would mean the working class. In China in 1949 this meant the peasants (probably over 80% of the people) and the urban working class (maybe 10%).

middle class - A loosely applied term with a variety of meanings. Used in a Marxist or communist analysis of classes it refers to the group, making up about 15-20% of the population which is neither capitalist nor worker. These people may be managers who organize the exploitation of workers on behalf of some capitalist, or they may function independently, owning and operating their own means of production. Examples include a shop owner who works in the shop waiting on customers, a farmer who owns and works his own land, or a person who "owns" certain skills, like an architect. Used in the capitalist press, "middle class" is anybody in between an unemployeed homeless person and a multi-millionaire. In other words, in capitalist popular sociology, there is no such thing as a the working class and the scientific meaning of class is eliminated by calling everyone "middle class".

nationalism - The political ideology which says the "nation" is the most important thing. This outlook says that class membership is unimportant (or doesn't exist), so that a person should be on the same side as you if they are your nationality, even though that person may be your boss and exploit you every day. According to nationalism, workers of different national or ethnic groups are natural enemies.

Nazi - The fascist political party which ruled Germany from 1933 to 1945. Nazi is short for the German name of the party (Nazional Sozialistiche Deutche Arbeiters Partei, NSDAP). The leader of the party was Adolf Hitler. The party's ideology was extreme nationalism, blaming all problems of the German masses on other ethnic and national groups, notably Jews and Slavs (Russians, Poles, etc.) The Nazi army defeated French, British, Czech, Polish and other armies before they invaded the Soviet Union in World War II. They were turned back and eventually crushed by the Soviet Red Army, which took Berlin, the Nazi capital, in May, 1945.

party or Party - A political grouping generally representing the interests of one class in society which organizes members of that class (and others if it can) to pursue goals which are in that class's interest. When written with a capital "P" it refers to a particular party. When we write about a party leading class struggle on behalf of the working class today, we often write "the Party," meaning Progressive Labor Party.

peasant - A subsistence farmer, that is, a person who farms a small plot of land by hand or with draft animals and lives on the food he or she produces. Most peasant farmers must pay part of their crop to others, such as landlords, tax collectors, banks, etc. The term peasant implies a system of farming in which most of the land farmed is in small plots which are farmed by a family. This is different from most farming in the world today, which involves large tracts of land worked by farm laborers who own little or no land or farm implements of their own and who must therefore sell their labor to wealthy land owners to survive. That part of society made up of peasants is called the peasantry.

People's Commune - The name of the large cooperative farms organized out of smaller coops in rural China in the late 1950s. A typical commune was made up of several villages (tens of thousands of people) who farmed on a large scale using a system of work points to assign a share of the crop to each family. Communes also ran small industries (e.g., brick kilns, cement factories, electric generating plants), organized education, housing, health care, etc.

petit bougeoisie - The class of people who own a small amount of capital and make their living working that capital themselves. E.g., owner of a print shop who owns the equipment and runs the machines personally. As a class the petit bourgeoisie fall between the capitalists (also known as bourgeoisie) who own capital but hire others to work it for their profit, and the working class, who own no capital and must sell their labor to capitalists in order to survive.

Petrograd - The 1914-1924 name for a city in northwestern Russia, also known by its English name, St. Petersburg. It was the capital of the Russian empire from 1712-1917. It was the center of the Bolshevik revolution in 1917 and was renamed Leningrad after the Bolshevik party's leader from 1924 until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

PLP - Progressive Labor Party, the revolutionary party organized in New York in 1965 by communists, many of whom had constituted the left within the old Communist Party of the United States of America, CPUSA. After the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its US affiliate, the CPUSA, abandoned the cause of revolution, PLP was formed to pick up the fight for workers' power.

pre-history - See recorded history

primitive communism - The name sometimes used to describe simple hunter gatherer societies in which the economic life of the group (collecting and hunting food) was done in a collective fashion.

reactionary - One who favors returning to older political or social forms; an extreme conservative. The term implies return to a more exploitative, hierarchical system.

recorded history - Human history since the development of written language (the past 5,000 years or so). Most of human history (sometimes called "pre-history" or "prehistoric times") was not recorded, since it occurred between the time human beings evolved as a species (around 250,000 years ago) and when writing was first developed, about 3,000 BC.

Red Army - A communist army, under the leadership of a communist party. The Soviet Red Army is given credit for destroying at least 80% of Hitler's Nazi army, even by capitalist historians. The other major communist army was the Chinese People's Army (or Red Army) which drove the Japanese fascists out of China and defeated the Chinese Nationalist Army in the mid- to late-1940s.

revolutionary party - A political party which advocates violent overthrow of the government to place a different class in power.

revolution - The complete, generally violent, overthrow of a government.

right - When this word is used to mean one side in a political struggle or controversy, it indicates the more conservative, hierarchical, exploitative, anti-communist or pro-capitalist position. See also reactionary. Related terms are right-wing, rightist.

Russia - A large country spanning eastern Europe and all of nothern Asia with a population roughly equal to the United States. From the 1700s until 1917 it was an empire ruled by a king (called the Czar). In 1917, after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, the Russian empire was converted into the first socialist country, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics or USSR (see Soviet Union). The largest of the 15 constituent republics of the USSR, with three quarters of the land and over half the population, was the Russian Republic. After the transition from state capitalism to market capitalism in the USSR in the late 1980s followed by the official dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Russian Republic renamed itself Russia again.

Russian revolution - Another name for the Bolskevik revolution of 1917, in which the working class took power in Russia and set up a socialist society.

Shanghai - Large port city on the eastern coast of China. It has been a leading industrial and trade center for over a century. Many of the most radical changes seen in any Chinese city during the Cultural Revolution occurred in Shanghai.

socialism - A political-economic system in which the working class holds political power through its party and all are guaranteed jobs. The pay for different jobs varies, based on how socially useful that particular work is. This was the system established after the revolutions in Russia (1917) and China (1949).

soviet - The Russian word for the workers' councils established in every factory and army unit in Russia leading up the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. Representatives of the soviets met in congresses. The socialist government set up in Russia was based on these soviets, with the highest policy-making organ being the Supreme Soviet, a body of several hundred representatives of geographic areas. The word "soviet" is also used as an adjective to describe anything related to the USSR (Soviet Union).

Soviet Union - The commonly used name for the country created by the Bolshevik revolution in 1917, properly, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, or USSR. The country was formally dissolved into component republics in 1991. The political-economic system of the USSR was socialist from 1917 until the mid-1950s; from then until its dissolution in 1991, a system of state capitalism prevailed until the 1980s when forms of market capitalism began to be introduced. (See also Russia.)

Stalingrad - The name given to an industrial city on the Volga river in south central Russia during the 1930s and 40s (now Volgagrad). The Battle of Stalingrad in World War II was one of the turning points of the war. The Nazi army fought their way into the city but could never take more than half of Stalingrad. The Nazis's final offensive was stopped in mid-October, 1942, and a counter-offensive by the Red Army the next month resulted in the capture and killing of over half a million Nazi soldiers and a dozen of their generals. The Nazis were in retreat from the Red Army for the next two and a half years, right up until the capture of the German capital, Berlin, in 1945.

state capitalism - See capitalism.

state monopoly capitalism - See capitalism

supply system - The system for distribution of goods and services used in the height of the People's Commune movement in China by which members of a commune received food, medical care, and other things they required according to need, without regard to money or money equivalents (work points). How much and what parts of a commune's economy came under the supply system depended on the decision of the commune members. In some, as much as 85% of the commune's economy was under the supply system. This system approaches communist economic relations.

technocrat - A derogatory term derived from "technician" plus "bureaucrat." It means a technical specialist of some sort who exerts control over other people to advance his or her own position socially or economically. The theory of socialist economic development which places a primary emphasis on technological refinement (as more important than workers' control over social decisions) leads to placing more power in the hands of technical experts and managers who are no longer accountable to the masses, i.e., technocrats. (See also Cultural Revolution.)

USSR - Abbreviation for the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. See Soviet Union.

work points - Cooperative farms and other collective production units in China often used work points in place of money to assign a portion of the total output of the group (e.g., the fall grain harvest) to a worker or a family of workers.

worker - When used politically, this word means a member of the working class, whether or not employed at the moment. It does not refer to the self-employed (actually or potentially). See under class.

working class - The political-economic class of people who survive by selling their work for wages. This class makes up the vast majority of the population of the world.

workers' councils - See soviet.

World War I - The first worldwide war between the various imperialist powers, running from 1914 to 1918. The underlying conflict had to do with competition for control of economic spheres of influence.

World War II - The second war involving most of the largest countries of the world, running from 1939 until 1945. The Axis powers (Nazi Germany, Italy and Japan), all fascist countries, fought against "the Allies," principally the Soviet Union, Britain and the US. About 35-60 million people died as a result of this war, the largest losses being in the Soviet Union where 18-20 million people were killed, half of them civilians. The capitalist Allies (US and Britain) let their socialist ally, the USSR, bear the brunt of Hitler's army, as reflected by the loss of life. US and Britain together lost about 655,000 people, mostly soldiers, a two-country total amounting to only one thirtieth of the soviet losses. After the war, US influence as an imperialist power was greatly enhanced, since it suffered no battles on its shores and US loss of life was relatively light.

Return to list

Return to Home Page

DEFEND ANTI-RACIST TEACHERS!

In January, 1999, the racist Board of Education removed Moises Bernal from Chicago Vocational Career Academy. He had been teaching there since the fall of 1997. A year later, Carol Caref, was pulled out of her teaching assignment at the same school. Bernal and Caref are revolutionary communists and members of Progressive Labor Party.

The Board of Education is trying to fire them for political reasons. Bernal took students to a rally against police brutality. Caref took students to a demonstration against the KKK. They should be applauded-- not fired!

WHAT IS RACIST SCHOOL REFORM?

The plan to overhaul the public schools was hatched about ten years ago, when then-President Bush convened a meeting with the heads of Ford, GM, IBM, and others. US bosses are facing stiffer competition from other capitalist powers in Europe and Asia. The world is more unstable, with new wars popping up almost daily.

In order to meet this intensifying rivalry, both in the factories and on the battlefield, the bosses need a new generation of loyal, highly productive, low-paid workers, who will kill and die to keep the economic "boom" alive. That’s what’s behind Daley and Vallas’ racist "School Reform."

In 1997, seven predominately black schools were "reconstituted." All the teachers were fired and had to re-interview to get their jobs back. Many veteran teachers lost their jobs or were bumped to other schools. In January 1999, 137 were terminated.

The Board was sending a fascist message: "Do what you are told or else. Get higher test scores or you will be reconstituted. Use Zero Tolerance to get rid of ‘problem’ students."

Since 1997, 42,255 K-8 students, and 33,887 high school students have been suspended. Only one percent was suspended for weapons: only three percent for drugs.

In this same period, 1,537 students have been expelled; 1,128 are black, only 69 are white. Black students are 54 percent of the student body, but 72 percent of all expulsions. This system is racist to the core. (All figures from Chicago Public Schools, End of Year Reports to Illinois State Board of Education)

At the same time, teachers are forced to teach to the invalid and racist measure of standardized tests. The Amendatory Act made it illegal for teachers to strike. Health plan options were reduced, and teachers were forced to pay for part of the cost.

The union leadership formally signed on as a partner to this fascist scheme. CTU president Tom Reece confessed, "If one partner had been uncooperative, we never would have been able to come this far. The key to [our] success…has been the willingness of the union, the superintendent and the mayor to work as full partners."

"Restructuring" is now called "reengineering," but it’s the same old garbage. Clinton, who wiped out welfare, put 100,000 more killer cops on the streets, doubled the Border Patrol and the prison population, has used the Chicago schools as "the model for the rest of the country."

RED TEACHERS FIGHT BACK!

As you can see, the two PLP members facing termination are just a small fraction of the number of students and teachers thrown out of school. The racist Board knows they are hated by those they rule over, and even two communists is too many for them to tolerate.

Communist teachers tell their students, "Fight to Learn, Learn to Fight!" Bernal and Caref have been good teachers, in and out of the classroom. They have been caring and committed to their students and have encouraged them to become active fighters for a world without racism and poverty, borders or oil wars. For the bosses to succeed in winning our youth to fascist ideas, they must get rid of communists. They attack us because they fear you!

ORGANIZE!

We can build a movement that can take on the Board and the city bosses. We can turn their racist attacks against them. Ultimately, the only lasting victory will be when the working class, led by PLP, seizes power from the bosses with communist revolution.

Only when we have a system that produces for the needs of the international working class, instead of the profits of the billionaires, will we be able to fully realize the true potential of our beautiful youth.

What can you do to help?

Contribute generously to the Caref-Bernal Legal Defense Fund

Join the Caref-Bernal Defense Committee

Invite Caref or Bernal to your church, group, school, PTA, LSC, block club, etc. to build support for their case.

Participate in Demonstrations protesting these firings

Distribute Challenge and other PLP literature

Page 4 of 9

THE GREAT FLINT SIT-DOWN STRIKE AGAINST GM 1936-37

Don’t Vote, REVOLT! A PLP pamphlet 9.29.04

ELECTION IS BATTLE OVER TACTICS AND TAXES;
BOTH PARTIES' GRAND STRATEGY IS U.S. WORLD DOMINATION

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PROTEST BUSH BUT DEMOCRATS ARE NO LESSER EVIL

Democrats’ War Crimes

Rock Capitalism

Fight for Communism; we have a world to win!

Voting - The Big Con

A Progressive Labor Party Pamphlet

Voting - The Big Con

Democracy - Heads they win, tails we lose!

Who's really in charge?

Why do capitalists hold elections?

Elections push the illusion that
Capitalism can be reformed.

Democratic party - not the lesser of two evils, just evil

Black and latin politicians serve bosses, not workers

Unions and reformists push voting snake oil

Elections are battleground for bosses

Fascist Dictatorship is born from the womb of capitalist democracy

All capitalist parties lead to war

The revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party, the only party the workers need

We Need a Workers Dictatorship - Communism

We will organize society with communist collective centralism

Build PLP and Fight For Communist Revolution

Don't vote! Organize for communist revolution! Join PLP!

Communism Will Make Life Better: Learning from the 20th Century's Socialist Revolutions

This pamphlet is only a short introduction to a new world.

FIGHT RACIST SCHOOL REFORM!

THE GREAT FLINT SIT-DOWN STRIKE AGAINST GM 1936-37

Don’t Vote, REVOLT! A PLP pamphlet 9.29.04

ELECTION IS BATTLE OVER TACTICS AND TAXES; BOTH PARTIES' GRAND STRATEGY IS U.S. WORLD DOMINATION

HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS PROTEST BUSH BUT DEMOCRATS ARE NO LESSER EVIL

Democrats’ War Crimes

Rock Capitalism

Fight for Communism; we have a world to win!

Voting - The Big Con

A Progressive Labor Party Pamphlet

Voting - The Big Con

Democracy - Heads they win, tails we lose!

Who's really in charge?

Why do capitalists hold elections?

Elections push the illusion thatCapitalism can be reformed.

Democratic party - not the lesser of two evils, just evil

Black and latin politicians serve bosses, not workers

Unions and reformists push voting snake oil

Elections are battleground for bosses

Fascist Dictatorship is born from the womb of capitalist democracy

All capitalist parties lead to war

The revolutionary communist Progressive Labor Party, the only party the workers need

We Need a Workers Dictatorship - Communism

We will organize society with communist collective centralism

Build PLP and Fight For Communist Revolution

Don't vote! Organize for communist revolution! Join PLP!

Communism Will Make Life Better: Learning from the 20th Century's Socialist Revolutions

This pamphlet is only a short introduction to a new world.

FIGHT RACIST SCHOOL REFORM!

ELECTION IS BATTLE OVER TACTICS AND TAXES;
BOTH PARTIES' GRAND STRATEGY IS U.S. WORLD DOMINATION

Elections push the illusion that
Capitalism can be reformed.