ILL INO I S

ILL INO I SUNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN

PRODUCTION NOTE

University of Illinois atUrbana-Champaign LibraryBrittle Books Project, 2011.

COPYRIGHT NOTIFICATION

In Public Domain.Published 1923-1977 in the U.S.

without printed copyright notice.

This digital copy was made from the printed version heldby the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

It was made in compliance with copyright law.

Prepared for the Brittle Books Project, Main Library,University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

byNorthern Micrographics

Brookhaven BinderyLa Crosse, Wisconsin

2011

Some Problemsof Work inRight-Led Unions

by John Swift

Reprinted fromPOLITICAL AFFAIRSApril-May, 1952

I10 cents1111111i 11

10 cents

~LllllllllllllllllliIIIHIIIIIIIIII11111

Some Problems of Work in Right-Led UnionsBy John Swift

EVERY READER of Political Affairs isaware of the central and decisiveimportance of uniting the ranks oforganized labor for peace and prog-ress. Every reader will likewise agreethat this cannot be accomplishedwithout winning the workers in thepresent Right-wing led unions, forthese constitute the overwhelmingmajority of the organized workingclass.

Yet awareness and agreement,while essential, are not sufficient.Nor is it of any particular value topreach to the labor movement or totry to shame it by declamations andappeals. Such general appeals dolittle good and often considerableharm. For frequently one feelsfrustrated after reading articles thatcall upon labor to rise to the occa-sion, to do thus and so, to breakfrom the war camp, to forge analliance with the Negro people, tostop Red-baiting in its ranks, tobreak from the two-party system,etc. And this feeling of frustrationarises from the knowledge that con-stantly haunts the worker-reader ofthe real state of affairs in the labormovement, of the tremendouslywide gap between what it ought tobe and what it is.

The class-conscious worker seesthe Left-wing and progressive un-ionists exerting their main influenceand leadership over a number ofindependent unions with a totalmembership of something over ahalf-million. He sees these unions,however, physically separated andoften isolated from the main sectionsof the labor movement. He sees thelabor movement as a whole dividedwithin itself and against itself, withthe A. F. of L., C.I.O., and RailroadBrotherhoods led by men who, whilethey are considered labor spokes-men, are less the spokesmen of la-bor and more the spokesmen of BigBusiness in the ranks of labor.

Perplexed by this state of affairs,the class-conscious worker wants tosee the bridge by which the gap be-tween what is and what ought to becan be spanned. Without seeing thisbridge, without being able to treadon it with a degree of confidence, hefeels completely incapable of movingin the direction of concrete laborunity. Often this finds expressioneither in phrasemongering or incynicism towards the working class,both of which feed each other andlead to general passivity.

How are wve going to get this la-

Published by NEW CENTURY PUBLISHERS, 832 Broadway, New York 3, N. Y.June, 1952 ci p209 PRINTED IN U.S.A.

SOME PROBLEMS OF WORK IN RIGHT-LED UNIONS

bor unity so that the labor move-ment can play its progressive role?How are we going to get this laborunity, starting from what actuallyis, from the present relationship offorces within the organized workingclass, from the present level of work-ing-class understanding, and notfrom wishful thinking? How?-thatis the question.

* * *

Before attempting to answer a fewaspects of this question, it would bewell to touch on the historical back-ground of the problem of work inreformist-led trade unions. Obvi-ously, this problem long predatesour recent Party discussions of it.Specifically, the problem has anAmerican as well as an internationalhistory.

Its American history goes back tothe turn of the century when the riseof monopoly capital enabled thebourgeoisie to use its super-profits tobribe the upper stratum of the work-ing class, thereby laying the eco-nomic basis for the victory of Gom-persism in the labor movement. Inanswer to this opportunism an ultra-"Left" tendency arose which ex-pressed itself in a disgust with theofficial labor movement and a with-drawal from it. As early as I912,Comrade Foster, seeing the error ofthis ultra-"Left" policy and realizingthat the organized workers wereonly being abandoned to the merciesof the labor opportunists, fought fora policy of tireless and methodicalwork within the official labor move-

ment. By his leadership and example,he proved that despite the Gom-perses and Greens, it was possibleto achieve important successes forthe workers even within the Right-led A. F. of L. of that day.

In the early years of the worldCommunist movement, a number ofyoung Communist Parties also de-veloped an ultra-"Left" approach tothe then existing Social-Democraticcontrolled labor unions. Seeing noperspective for work within theseunions, the Communists withdrew,leaving them in the main to the op-portunists. As early as 1920, Lenin,in his brilliant polemical booklet,"Left-Wing" Communism: An In-fantile Disorder, severely criticizedthese "Left" Communists, callingthem "foolish," and said that,"Greater stupidity, and greaterdamage . . . cannot be imagined!"(Selected Works, Vol. X, p. 95-)

Since then, many things havechanged. In France and Italy, forexample, it is the Communists whotoday have the closest links with thelabor movement. It is this whichconstitutes their great strength,while it is the Social-Democratswhose influence in the working classis steadily waning. Also, there aretoday no Communists in any part ofthe world who do not wish to belinked with the unions.

In our country, too, changes havetaken place. The Communists dohave greater strength and influencein the labor movement. But theprimary, the most important change


of all that has taken place in thisperiod of time, is that the great bulkof the industrial workers are now or-ganized into trade unions. The labormovement has grown from approx-imately three million members inthe I920's to fourteen million today.

This is not merely a quantitativeaddition, for a quantitative changeof this magnitude must inevitablycarry with it important qualitativeelements. In the first place, the in-dustrial working class has in themain become trade union conscious.As we well know, trade-union con-sciousness remains still within theideological framework of bourgeoisconsciousness-that is, it still acceptsthe capitalist system. But this in noway belittles the significance of thisdevelopment, for trade-union con-ciousness represents an importantstep forward, represents movementand transition, and thereby ap-proaches more closely to the nodalpoint from which the leap to massclass consciousness can take place.

Furthermore, the trade-unionmovement is no longer the privilegeddomain of a relatively small, highlyskilled, labor aristocracy. Today itincludes the great mass of the un-skilled and semi-skilled workers intrustified industry.

Of great significance is the factthat for the first time hundreds ofthousands of Negro workers aremembers of trade unions. This hasadded a quality of militancy and ofNegro-white unity, which, with allits present limitations and shortcom-

ings, represents something new andsomething growing.

Often in our vexations at the rel-ative ideological backwardness ofthe American working class, at itsfailure to break from capitalism, andat the fact that this mighty Gulliverstands hat in hand before the Lilli-putian political pigmies of our day,we tend to overlook and even depre-cate the historic significance of thenew fact: that the bulk of the in-dustrial workers are now membersof class organizations.

Lenin, in 1920, considered it ofextremely great importance that mil-lions of workers in the West, were,as he put it, "for the first timepassing from complete lack of or-ganization to the lowest, most ele-mentary, most simple, and (for thosestill thoroughly imbued with bour-geois-democratic prejudices) mosteasily accessible form of organiza-tion, namely, the trade unions."(Selected Works, Vol. X, p. 94.)

And Stalin understood its specialmeaning for the United States, wherefor historic reasons the workerslagged far behind their Europeanbrothers, not only in general classconsciousness, but even in the moreelementary matter of trade-union or-ganization. When an Americantrade-union delegation interviewedStalin in 1927, he asked: "How doyou account for the small percentageof American workers organized intrade unions?" (Leninism, Vol. I.p. 389.) The delegation had somedifficulty in answering this question,


but since then, the American work-ers themselves have provided theanswer, not in words, but in organ-izational deeds.

The outstanding fact that emergesfrom all this is that, while the labormovement has now grown in sizeand organizational strength so thatit could be a power in the land, ithas not yet become a decisive politi-cal force, because it is still underreformist and Social-Democratic in-fluence and leadership. If it were notfor this fact, the whole situation inour country and the world would bedifferent. For when American labortakes an independent political posi-tion, when it refuses to go alongwith the war policies of monopolycapital, when it starts to fight all-outfor economic security, Negro rightsand civil liberties, then the laststronghold of world imperialismbegins to crumble and the danger ofa new world war will fade from theearth.

That is why the work of winningthe labor movement for these tasksassumes such vital urgency today.

With this historical sketch as back-ground, let us take up a few aspectsof the question of how we are tomove towards labor unity of action,starting not with what we shouldlike to be, but with what actually is.

First, let us ask ourselves: Whatis the reason for our tendency toneglect work in the reactionary-ledtrade unions? Why do we conl-en-trate our primary attention upon

those unions already under progres-sive leadership? One could, ofcourse, answer by saying that a baseof operations is always of great im-portance and should be consolidated.And this would be quite true. Forthere is much that still needs to bedone to make this a firm and solidbase. But then again, a base whichbecomes completely surrounded andhemmed in by the enemy will notlong remain a base. For the very con-cept of a base is that it be a strong-point from which and not merely inwhich to operate.

Another answer could be that lifeis comparatively easier in unionswhere the progressives already havea majority, while it is far more dif-ficult in unions where the Right-wing rules. This, too, is true butcannot explain the tendency underdiscussion. For the whole worldknows that if there is anything thatcharacterizes a Communist, it is hisfearless, self-sacrificing devotion tothe people, his staunchness in theface of the heaviest odds. After all,those who seek the "easier" path inthe ultra-reactionary, witch-hunt-in-fested America of 1952 are not likelyto be Communists. Therefore thisanswer, too, must be discarded; forit is a calumny against the valiantmembers of our Party.

There is another and more basicexplanation for this weakness, andthat is that our work in the reform-ist-led unions frequently suffersfrom a lack of perspective and awrong approach.


Of what does this lack of perspec-tive and false approach consist? Itconsists of the tendency to viewthese Right-led unions rather one-sidedly and statically. We tend tosee only their class collaborationside. In other words, we tend to seethe reformist leadership but not therank and file.

But the class collaboration policiesof the union leadership representonly one side, and this is by no meansthe side that gives the union its basicclass character. For these unions arenot only instruments of class col-laboration. They are first of allvehicles of the working class, themost elementary and basic mass or-ganizations of the class. They are themeans by which the working classdefends itself from the economicencroachments of capital. And thisis true, even where the unions areunder Right-wing leadership.

Hence, every Right-led union hastwo sides to it: its elementary classstruggle origin and nature, and itsclass collaboration policies and lead-ership. These two opposites exist sideby side, interpenetrate each other, andexpress themselves in the contradic-tion between the strivings and needsof the rank and file, on the onehand, and the official policy and aimsof the top leadership, on the other.This contradiction must in time beresolved in the interests of the work-ers and the class struggle, or be re-solved in the opposite way, by thecomplete negation and destructionof the unions. And if there are some

who think that trade unionism canno longer be wiped out in theUnited States, let them heed the voiceof working-class experience whichproves that, especially in periods ofeconomic crisis, the bosses set theirsights on destroying the trade un-ions. That the capitalist class has notgiven up this objective even todaycan be seen by the Taft-Hartley Law,the most onerous and most reac-tionary features of which will beutilized precisely at the momentwhen a mass reserve army of unem-ployed tends to lower labor's bar-gaining position. Also, let us notforget that the pre-Hitler Germanlabor movement was far morepowerful than ours, but still gaveway to a fascist labor front. This isthe logical outcome of class collabo-ration.

The failure to take into accountthe dual features of a Right-ledunion, unavoidably and inevitablymust lead to serious errors in policyand tactical approach. To fail to seethe class collaboration policies andleadership and to see only the classorigin and character of reformist-led unions, is to veer towards grossRight opportunism which results instrengthening the current of classcollaboration and consciously or un-consciously participating in sellingout the workers.

On the other hand, to fail to seethe class character of a union, to seeonly the rotten reformist leaders andnot the rank and file, is to veer to-wards "Left" sectarianism, which


means seeing no perspective forwork in these unions and isolatingourselves from them-even when weare members. And this, too, resultsin strengthening the labor fakers bya conscious or unconscious surrenderto them.

The fact that a Right-led unionstill is a working-class organizationand engages in the class struggle ex-plains the attitude of the rank andfile workers towards their unions,often despite their leadership. Thatis why the workers view these un-ions as their own. That is why theydefend them so vigorously. Evenwhen under corrupt, gangster-riddenleadership, the workers try to distin-guish between the union which theyconsider their own and the leader-ship which is foisted upon them.

Unless this psychology of theworkers is understood, no real head-way can be made in reactionary-ledunions, which means no headway inthe direction of labor's unity ofaction. Instead, a great deal of harmcan be done.

It was Stalin who profoundly andsimply explained the reasons for thisattitude of the workers. Explainingwhat he called the "special featureof the situation in the West," as com-pared with that in old Czarist Rus-sia, Stalin pointed out that in oldRussia the trade unions arose anddeveloped "after the Party wasformed, around the Party, and inamity with the Party." "Trade un-ions," he said, "did not yet exist in

Russia when the Party and its or-ganizations were already leading,not only the political, but also theeconomic struggles of the workingclass--even small and very smallstrikes. This, mainly, accounts forthe exceptional prestige enjoyed byour Party among the workers beforethe February Revolution, as com-pared with the trade unions whichexisted here and there in an em-bryonic state."

"In Western Europe," Stalin con-tinued, "the trade unions developedunder totally different conditions. Inthe first place, the trade unions therewere formed and underwent exten-sive development long before theworking class parties came into exist-ence. Secondly, instead of the tradeunions growing up around the partyof the working class, the parties ofthe working class emerged from theunions. Thirdly, as the field of indus-trial struggle, which is closest to theworking class, was pre-empted, so tospeak, by the trade unions, the politi-cal parties . . . were forced into thebackground."

Sharply criticizing those Commu-nists who failed to grasp this truth,Stalin said: "They do not understandthat, good or bad, the rank-and-fileworker regards the trade unions ashis citadels, his strongholds, whichhelp him to maintain his wages, hisworking day and so forth." And con-cluding on this point, Stalin declared:"He who fails to understand thischaracteristic feature in the mentalityof the average worker in Europe will


understand nothing about the presentposition of the Communist Parties."(J Stalin, Leninism, Vol. I, pp. 158-6o.)

Stalin was speaking of Europe in1925, but how much validity this hasfor America of 1952! There can beno question but that "good or bad,"the workers consider their unions astheir "citadels." Especially is this trueof the workers in the trustified indus-tries, where the older generation stillremembers the pre-union days of in-dustrial serfdom. The union has giventhe workers a feeling of collectivestrength and class dignity. This iseven more true of the Negro workersin trustified industry, who love theirunions with a passion which flowsfrom their status as doubly-exploitedmembers of the working class, fromtheir position as members of an op-pressed people. The union to theNegro worker represents a bridge-head, narrow though it may be, toequality on the job, to Negro andwhite unity, and thus also to hispeople's ultimate freedom. That iswhy up and down the length andbreadth of the land, there is not anindustrial community in which Ne-groes work and have the right tounion membership, where they arenot also among the staunchest, mostmilitant and most progressive fight-ers for their union.

It is this mentality of the workerstoward their unions which explainswhy workers will gripe so muchabout union bureaucracy, thereby of-ten creating the impression that they

are turning away from their union,but when the chips are down, whenthe union is under attack, they willrise overwhelmingly to its defense.

This was most graphically illus-trated around the union-shop issue.Here the bosses thought they reallyhad a question that would confuseand divide the workers. Yet whenthey put it to a test, the capitalists gotthe surprise of their lives. In morethan four years since the Taft-Hartleyslave law was passed, 5,547,478 work-ers cast valid ballots in govern-ment-supervised union-shop elections.These took place in 46,119 differentindustrial shops in every state of theunion. Furthermore, Taft and Hart-ley and their other Big Business Con-gressional cronies, weighted theseelections against the unions by insert-ing a clause in the law making amajority vote for a union-shop insuffi-cient for a union victory. The unionhad to get a majority, not only ofthose who voted, but of all thoseeligible to vote. The results showed5,071,978 workers voted for the unionshop. This was 91.4 percent of thevalid ballots cast. Actually 97.1 per-cent of the elections went on recordfor the union shop!

We can see this same approach ofthe workers to the question of raid-ing. The main success of the raidersoccurred under one of two circum-stances: either when it was possibleto confuse the workers into believingthat the union itself had split downthe middle and that therefore a choicebetween two sides had to be made,


or at the time when the progressive-led unions were not on the ballotbecause they had refused to sign theinfamous Taft-Hartley 9 H clause. Inthis latter case, many workers refusedto take the chance of voting "Nounion," which was the only waythey could have voted against theraiders. They feared, and with con-siderable justification, that a "Nounion" vote could lead exactly tothat, namely-no union. And evenif they opposed raiding, they wantedabove everything else to be sure theywould have a union, for even a "bad"union is better than no union.

Where once a vote was taken, evenif it was very close, the workers asa general rule, slowly but surelydrifted into the union that had wonthe election. Here, too, they often puttheir likes and dislikes aside in orderto guarantee that, come what may,they would have a union in whichthe majority of the workers were atleast organizationally united. Andin nearly all cases where the defeatedunion maintained its own separateorganization and tried to keep theworkers out of the union that hadwon the election, the workers by-passed it, leaving it isolated.

The main exception to this rule hasbeen that of groups of skilled tool-room workers, who have mistakenlyfelt that, by separate craft organiza-tion and because of the shortage ofskilled workers, they could improvetheir bargaining position over thatof the unskilled and semi-skilled pro-duction workers. Also as a general

rule, after a union was once raided,the workers stood by their originalvote, refusing to heed the new sirencall, even when coming from theunion which originally had been thevictim of the raid.

The starting point, therefore, ofany approach to unity of, and unitywith, the workers in the Right-wingled unions, is to accept, and notmerely accept, but to agree with, theirclass approach towards their ownunion. We must be sure that opposi-tion or disagreement with leadershippolicies and practices can never bemade to appear in the eyes of theworkers as opposition to their union,or an attempt to belittle its achieve-ments. Gor the pride which a workerfeels in his union and its accomplish-ments. For the pride which a workerliability. And there is none in theUnited States who can more right-fully share this pride than the Com-munists. For the Communists wereamong the pioneers who helpedbring unionism to the workers in thetrustified industries. It was WilliamZ. Foster, the foremost leader of ourParty, who more than any single in-dividual contributed to the organiza-tion of the unorganized and to thestrategy and tactics of militant tradeunionism.

It is precisely because the laborfakers, the Murrays, Reuthers, Du-binskys, Hutchesons, Rieves, and theothers, know full well the feeling ofthe workers to their unions, that theyconsciously try to distort every inner-union disagreement with their class-


collaboration policies and dictatorialpractices, into the appearance of ananti-union opposition. Note that afterJohn L. Lewis appeared as a guestspeaker before the Ford Local's giantioth Anniversary Celebration lastJune, Walter Reuther sought to evadethe embarrassing but pertinent ques-tions put to him by insinuating thatthe presence of Lewis at the celebra-tion meant that certain Ford localleaders were contemplating takingthe local out of the U.A.W. This ofcourse is preposterous. The dema-gogue Reuther knows full well, how-ever, that he dare not discuss theproposals of the progressives on theirmerits. That is why he must seek tomake these proposals appear as anti-union attacks instead of the pro-union defenses that they really are.*

It is the failure to see the Right-led unions as class organizations, thetendency to confuse the leaders withthe rank-and-file, which explains thefailure or slowness to fight concretelyfor labor unity wherever the classstruggle expresses itself. And it ex-presses itself every day in every shopand in every union. For just as it istrue that people speak in prose longbefore they know what prose is, soworkers, whether in Right-wing or

* This article was written before Reuther'sdictatorial seizure of Local 600. But even afterthis most blatant violation of elementary trade-union democracy, Reuther denies that his actionwas directed against an inter-union opposition.Instead, he tries to pass it off as an emergencyaction to "save" the union from "anti-union"forces.-J. S.

progressive-led unions, participate inthe class struggle long before they areconscious of its existence.

If the principle of labor unity is tohave any meaning at all, therefore,it must find its expression and growout of an even more elementarytrade-union solidarity. When workersare on strike, when they are fightingtheir boss on the picket line, whentheir kitchen pantries are empty,that is when they need help andshould get it, irrespective of theirleadership or the political positionthey may have taken on one or an-other occasion. And the Communistsin the labor movement must be thefirst to teach the workers this simpletruth. It is they who must plant themany tiny acorns of solidarity fromwhich alone can and will arise themighty forest of working-class unity.The adage, that a friend in need is afriend in deed, is still a good oneto remember.

In 1951, thousands of importantstrike struggles were fought out.Most of these were of workers inRight-led unions. How did the pro-gressive workers express their soli-darity ? How did they work to expressthe solidarity and unity of the work-ers, plant to plant, union to union,industry to industry? There were, ofcourse, numerous examples of classsolidarity displayed. But these werestill the exception. Attention, how-ever, should be called to two splen-did examples of such solidarity andunity of action.

The first was the magnificent unity0IO


of action which was welded duringthe strike in the copper mining in-dustry-from Left to Right, includ-ing independent union and A. F. ofL. And while the independent Mine-Mill Union played the leading role,the victory won belongs to all ofthem.

The second was displayed by theindependent Longshore Union head-ed by Harry Bridges. This act ofsolidarity took place under the fol-lowing circumstances. In July, thecontract between the M.E.B.A. (Ma-rine Engineers' Beneficial Associa-tion, C.I.O.), and the Isthmian Line,expired. The company refused to re-new the contract and forced a strike.To break this strike it proceeded tosign up 37 ships with the Brother-hood of Marine Engineers affiliatedwith the A. F. of L. Seafarers Union.The Longshore Union refused tocross the C.I.O. picket lines, andHarry Bridges was quoted as saying:"I've got no love for the C.I.O., butthere's a trade union principle atstake here."

The net effect of this simple act ofsolidarity can be seen by the edi-torial which appeared in the M.E.-B.A. paper. It read: "In these days,when wolves, jackals and hyenasabound in the labor movement and alegitimate strike is a signal for thephonies to strikebreak and scab, anact of honest trade-unionism is some-thing to be appreciated and lauded.... The entire I.L.W.U. from presi-dent Harry Bridges . . .down toevery rank-and-file member has dem-

onstrated its loyalty to trade unionprinciples."

Well said, indeed! It is a sad com-mentary on the moral climate in theAmerican labor movement that actssuch as this are the exception andnot the rule.

Yes, every concrete ounce of laborsolidarity is worth a hundred poundsof general talk about it. The "wolves"and "jackals" which "abound in thelabor movement" have sullied the airwith their foul animal stench of"mine for me and to hell with thenext fellow." This is true to such anextent that now and then even honestprogressive trade-union leaders andworkers begin to think of answeringthe wolves by acting like wolvesthemselves. They begin to think onlyin the narrow terms of "my unionversus your union," and forget theelementary truism that working-classprinciples stand above both individu-als and individual unions, and thateither the workers will learn how tofight together in order to win to-gether, or they will all surely loseseparately.

Labor solidarity and unity must befought for daily, not just on specialoccasions. And never - NEVER -must it be merely an empty gesture,something just for the record. Itmust at all times be the very heartand soul of Communist and progres-sive trade-union work.

When it becomes this, hundredsand even thousands of opportunitieswill be found for applying it in prac-tice. For the problem of solidarity

II


and unity begins in every departmentof every shop, mine and mill. Theproblem of the unity of the Negroand white workers, of the skilled andunskilled, of the men and womenworkers, of the older and newerworkers, of the employed with theunemployed, are all distinct facets ofthe problem of solidarity and unitywhich arise right on the job.

Of greatest importance is the strug-gle for Negro and white unity. Thekey to the problem here is the whiteworker who must learn that hisstake in this unity is just as greatas that of the Negro worker. He mustlearn that this unity cannot be firmlyestablished and cemented unless thewhite worker fights for full equalityfor the Negro worker, first on thejob, but also off the job. And thespecial task of white Communists isnot that of telling Negro workershow much they stand for equality,but of proving this by fighting for itin the ranks of the white workers.

In the many industrial plants wherethe skilled crafts belong to separateunions, this undoubtedly representsa negative factor in terms of plant-wide workers' unity. But it can betransformed into a most importantpositive factor having repercussionsbeyond the single plant itself. This ispossible where the progressive work-ers consciously work to subordinatethe differences arising from differentunion membership, and to elevatethat which these workers have incommon, namely, their common sta-tus as wage workers in one plant.

Different union affiliations need notand should not be an obstacle tojoint action in behalf of joint griev-ances, in contract negotiations, inwage disputes, and in generally pre-senting a common front before theboss.

Even where at first every overtureis met by rebuff, the progressiveworker and the progressive unionmust never cease to work for unitedaction. In those cases where the work-ers of the other union get embroiledin a struggle, even after they haveturned down joint action, it is theduty of progressive workers to cometo their assistance in every possibleway and never to sit back, shrug offthe problem and say "good for them."

It must be understood that, whenyou boil it down to its hard core,the difference between honest pro-gressive trade unionism and class-collaboration unionism is the differ-ence between really defending theinterests of the workers and merelypretending to do so. And this differ-ence will at first become apparent tomost workers, not on so-called bignational and international questions,but on the most immediate and clos-est questions to them, the questionsof bread and butter. Nor can thisdifference be discerned merely inwords. It will have to show itselfin deeds; the simple deeds that everyworker can test on the basis of hisown experience.

Where workers are employed bygiant corporations owning scores ofhuge mines, mills and plants, and

12


where, as is so frequently true, theworkers belong to widely separatedunions, it is of great importance tobegin the fight for joint negotiationsand joint united action at contracttime. The present situation whereevery union tries to outsmart theother, generally leads to a situationin which they all get outsmarted bythe corporation. For even in instanceswhere the workers of a given planthave full confidence in both the willand ability of their own leaders tonegotiate a "good" contract, it logic-ally follows that the greater the de-gree of unity of all the employees ofthis company, the stronger they areand the better their chances of vic-tory.

Here, too, if proposals for unitedaction are defeated on union floors orturned down by the other union, thiscannot be used as a pretext for givingup the struggle for unity. It onlymeans that more work must be donein the ranks of the workers, and theymust at all times know exactly whatthe score is. Above all, let us repeat,the struggle for unity cannot be con-sidered as a gesture or a maneuverto put someone else on the spot. Forthe workers are generally fed up withthe maneuvers of one union againstanother. Often, therefore, even sin-cere proposals are rejected becausethe workers suspect a concealedbooby-trap. How they feel about in-sincerity is best seen in the fact thatthere is no epithet in the workers'rich arsenal of salty language whichhas so much derision and sting to it

as when they call someone "a phony."The present situation in the labor

movement makes it quite obviousthat the movement for unity of actionmust first take form in the ranksof the workers themselves througha united front from below. This istrue because only by moving therank-and-file, only by getting themto grip the hands of their fellowworkers in solidarity, can they con-sciously press for unity of action allalong the line, local with local, unionwith union, culminating in organicunity itself.

But while stressing this as centraland decisive, in fact, in order to bestfacilitate its success, we also mustwarn against a one-sided, mechani-cal over-simplication of this tacticof the united front from below.Such over-simplification arises fromseeing the contradiction between therank-and-file and the labor bureau-crats, but failing to see that theseopposites also form a unity, withoutwhich the Right-wing led unionscould not continue to exist. In otherwords, what we are saying is thatthere is no hard and fast line thatdivides the leadership from theranks.

In the first place, the leaders inorder to remain leaders, dare not for-get the class nature of the union theyhead and constantly must appear tobe the champions of the workers'interests. This means that they en-deavor to conceal their betrayalpolicies, indulge in militant speech-making, now and then denounce the

'3


"heartless avaricious profiteers," andperiodically "lead" strike struggles.And these demagogic talents areneeded by the bourgeoisie, even if attimes it may think that its "boys"are going "too far," for how other-wise could these fakers continue tostay at the head of working classunions?

The other side of this coin is thatthe workers in large numbers alsoget sucked in by this deception. Norshould we idealize the workers. Aslong as their outlook is not influ-enced by the party of socialism, theCommunist Party, so long is it in-evitable that this outlook should tendto become petty, with narrow craftinterests overshadowing general classinterests. We must not forget thatthis is inherent in the very fact thata trade union, although a productof the class struggle, has but a limitedobjective, namely, to improve the lotof the workers under capitalism, notto abolish capitalism. Thus, so longas objective conditions enable the re-formist leaders to "get" some conces-sions, the workers, too, are affectedby class-collaboration ideas, givingcredit for victories to the "bargain-ing" of their negotiators instead ofto their own organized strength.

This actual state of affairs must betaken into account in the strugglefor unity. It means that, while therank-and-file workers are impelledtoward unity of action by their veryclass conditions, even despite theirleaders, they are not yet ready tothink of unity as against their lead-

ers. This means that any approachto unity which smacks of being mo-tivated by anti-leadership considera-tions and which indulges in whole-sale condemnations of leadership,becomes suspect immediately in theminds of the workers as unprin-cipled "power politics."

Therefore the movement of therank-and-file for progressive policiesmust start out as a positive move-ment for something, for a single de-mand stemming from the immediateneeds of the rank-and-file or for aprogram of demands. The fightmust develop, not over individualsin the leadership, but around thedemands and program of the work-ers. Of course, individuals may sym-bolize one side or the other in thisstruggle, but always uppermost mustbe the program. Any failure to pur-sue such a policy can only preventunity on the broadest basis and canonly give to the labor fakers a weap-on with which to combat the rank-and-file movement.

It is for this reason that we believethat a recent heading over a story inan outstanding progressive labormagazine was unfortunate because itwas inaccurate. This heading read:"Anti-Reuther Forces Unite ToFight Lay-Offs, Speed-Up." In ouropinion this heading puts the em-phasis in the wrong place. The rank-and-file movement in auto cuts acrossthe pro- and anti-Reuther lines. Andit must do so to register its maximumeffectiveness. If this movementcomes into collision with Reuther,

I4


as it has and must, this is becauseReuther stands in opposition to thisprogram, and not the other wayaround. The rank-and-file move-ment must not permit the leadershipto shift the issue to "for, or against,Reuther." Unless this is kept inmind, the rank-and-file movementcan be wrecked. If it is kept inmind, the exposure of Reuther whichis so necessary will be concrete andconvincing and not mere name-call-ing.

Another error customarily madeis to assume that because a givenunion leadership is generally reac-tionary, that all of its proposals andactions are likewise reactionary. Werethis the case, things would indeedbe simple. For then these fakerswould be doing a good job of expos-ing themselves. But they are notthat kind.

Things are much more compli-cated. Even reactionary labor lead-ers are forced to take progressivestands on one or another issue andand-file. Then, periodically some offor one or another reason. In the firstplace they must consider the rank-them become frightened that the fas-cist bell may toll for them, too. Instill other instances, their positionmay reflect the special interests ofthat section of the bourgeoisie withwhich they have the closest contact.And lastly, their actions may be im-pelled by inner and inter-unioncareerist politics.

All these must be taken into ac-count in determining tactics. But inso doing it must be rememberedalways that one progressive positiondoes not make a progressive leader,any more than one or a dozen applesmake an apple orchard. If this isremembered it will lessen the ten-dency to re-evaluate labor leadersevery time they make a statement.

Our basic evaluation must rest ona solid foundation. This today is de-termined by the central issue, the is-sue of war or peace. A labor leaderis a progressive to the degree thathe stands for peace, not abstractly,but concretely-that is, for peace andco-existence with the Soviet Union.He is a reactionary to the extent thathe stands for war-that is, supportsthe war drive of U.S. imperialismand its anti-Soviet foreign policy.

No matter how militant a trade-union leader may sound on otherquestions, to the extent that he sup-ports the war drive, he is a reaction-ary. This may not be evident at firstsight but, in the last analysis, theposition one occupies on this centralquestion will determine his positionon most other questions. It will de-termine how far he goes in fightingthe wage freeze, what attitude hetakes toward strikes, with what de-termination he fights for Negrorights, how seriously he approachesthe emasculation of the Bill ofRights, what approach he takes tosuch things as speed-up, taxes, thehigh cost of living, corruption ingovernment, red-baiting, etc.

15


It makes no difference how mili-tantly he sounds off against thephony wage-stabilization and price-control programs (and there is nota labor leader who does not do so),this is all plain hogwash to the ex-tent that he supports the so-called"defense program." For the thornswhich labor reaps are of this tree.And when it comes to a showdownone must either take his stand forhigh war expenditures and a lowerstandard of living, or the other wayaround. This is one fence that can-not be straddled, and those who aretrying to do so ought to be knockedoff by the lance of the workers' ire.

All this is by no means obviousto the millions. Therefore when thereformist leader of a given unionspeaks up for smashing the wagefreeze, it would indeed be foolish totake the floor and call him a hypo-crite. Instead, one should heartilyagree with this need and then pro-ceed to indicate what can and shouldbe done to bring it about. In otherwords, progressive statements orproposals must not be left hangingin air. They must be pinned downto concrete, specific actions. The im-portant thing is not to permit theworkers to be lulled into a falsesense of security by fancy wordsand promises, but to put them intomotion. For only when masses arein motion, only when they are con-sciouslyv heading somewhere, even ifonly short range, can they ascertainwho stands in their way or tries todrag them back.

This means that progressive tradeunionists must not hesitate to sup-port proposals in the interests ofthe workers simply because othershave initiated them. For example,a few months ago, A. J. Hayes,President of the International Asso-ciation of Machinists, A. F. of L.,correctly observed that forty-fourmillion Americans now pay federalincome taxes and that few indeedare the workers that escape them.Hayes went on to observe furtherthat the B.L.S. cost-of-living index,which is the yardstick used by thegovernment to determine the level ofwages, is a "snare and a delusion"because it fails to take income taxesinto account. He proposed a fighton the part of labor to force an in-clusion of taxes in the cost-of-livingindex and a corresponding increasein wages for the workers. Thiswould range from ten to twenty per-cent on an average.

This proposal was immediately at-tacked by the Washington Post andby other big business periodicalswho quoted President Truman's"Economic Report" to the effect thatthe government would consider it un-patriotic "for any group to seek toadjust its income upward, to count-eract the higher taxes which the de-fense program is making necessary,"for this, said Truman, "would tendto relieve that group from its sharein the cost of achieving national se-curity." To which Hayes repliedthat business always has relieved itselfof its tax burden by passing it along

i6


in higher prices to the consumersand that therefore his proposal toshift the workers' tax load to the em-ployers would not be any less pa-triotic, for after all, what is saucefor the goose is sauce for the gander.

Now it is quite evident thatBrother Hayes' proposal is not themost important plank in a progres-sive wage program, for it does notchallenge the phony "national emer-gency" which is the root cause forthe high taxes and high prices. Nordoes it challenge the very right of thegovernment to use this hot-house"emergency" to freeze wages at anylevel.

But it is likewise true that millionsof workers who are not yet con-vinced that the emergency is phonyare nonetheless incensed at the ex-orbitant taxes that are gnawing attheir family incomes and at the cyni-cal refusal of the B.L.S. to considerthis in its cost-of-living tabulations.Therefore the struggle for this par-tial wage demand is important. Amilitant, consistent fight for itwould bring labor into collision withthe war program and the TrumanAdministration as well as with thewar profiteering monopolies.

Just as progressive workers shouldsupport every partial demand whichimproves the lot of the workers, soshould they take pride in whateverpartial victories are won. It is a mis-take to believe that such victories

cannot and are not being won evenin reactionary-led unions. Of course,every such victory has two sides toit: the positive side, that is, the im-provement in the conditions of theworkers; and the negative side, thatis, the illusions that are cultivatedin the minds of the workers that itmay be possible to solve all theirproblems through such partial im-provements and under Right-wingleadership.

Under no circumstances, however,can progressives counter-act this lat-ter negative aspect by adopting anegative attitude either toward thestruggle for partial demands or to-ward the victories won. Nor shouldthey minimize the importance ofthese victories in the eyes of theworkers, for contained within themare the seeds of much greater vic-tories. But such greater victories cancome only if the workers learn themain lesson: the need for militantstruggle, and for united struggle.

Unless such an approach is taken,the progressives will only facilitatethe attempt of the Right-wing lead-ers to hog for themselves the fullcredit for the victory, ignoring thedecisive role of the rank-and-file.Furthermore, such an error wouldonly enable the reactionaries in theunion demagogically to charge theCommunists and progressives withbeing "agin' everything" just becausethey are not in leadership. Frequentlythis charge is made in unions inwhich the Left-wing did at one timehold leading positions. And yet,

'7


whatever gains the Currans andQuills win even today, are more dueto their fear and the fear of thebosses of the influence of the Left-wing among the rank-and-file, thanto their own militancy. For likeBanquo's ghost, it still haunts them,but unlike this ghost, it is far morethan an apparition.

The same careful approach is ne-cessary when the progressives takethe initiative in proposing partial de-mands and actions themselves. Justas a farmer does not raise crops ingeneral, but very particular crops,related to his particular soil, climate,implements, experience and marketdemand, so workers do not supportdemands in general, but particulardemands, best suited to their particu-lar concrete needs. To switch meta-phors, we must always be sure thatthe shoe fits the particular foot andnot some other foot.

This means knowing one's indus-try and trade, knowing the concreteeconomic trends, the human mate-rial that make up the workers inthe industry, their background, levelof understanding and experience,etc. Of course, opportunists do fre-quently try to conceal their opportu-nism with pleas about "exceptionalcircumstances." But while rejectingsuch excuses and all excuses for op-portunism, this does not deny theneed for specific concreteness insteadof general abstractness. In fact, onlya concrete examination of every sit-uation can effectively expose androut opportunism. For great indeed

i8

are the specific opportunistic crimesconcealed in the elephantine body ofgeneralities! And concreteness ismore necessary today than ever, be-cause of the uneven development ofthe workers' experience and under-standing, and because of the specialand peculiar economic situation inwhich conditions of boom and de-pression live side by side.

We know, for example, that theworkers are restive about the highcost-of-living and have shown areadiness to battle militantly for sub-stantial wage increases and againstthe wage freeze. This is certainlytrue in general. In particular, how-ever, it is more true in the war pro-ducing industries, where maximumproduction, full employment and ex-orbitant profits are all factors thatcreate the most favorable conditionsfor a mass break-through on thewage front.

This explains the mood of the steelworkers. And while at the time thisarticle is being written it is not yetcertain as to what will happen in thesteel wage dispute, one thing is cer-tain: the workers in this industryhave the strength, if they use theirstrike weapon, to smash the wagefreeze and to compel the steel baronsto give them a very substantial wageincrease, even more than what theyhave asked for. But the only thingthat prevents such an outstandingvictory and will most likely resultin a much smaller settlement whichties a wage increase to "productiv-ity," that is, to increased speed-up,


is Murray's class collaboration out-look in general and his support tothe war program of monopoly capitalin particular.

This mood for militant wagestruggles also can be seen in whatis shaping up in the oil industry.Here, on November 24-25, an unprec-edented event occurred. Eighteen sep-arate unions, including the C.I.O.,A. F. of L., and a number of inde-pendent unions, gathered in nationalconference and worked out a "jointstrategy to be pursued in currentwage disputes," and "pledged thatno union would settle for less than a25 cents an hour general wage in-crease." Whether this agreement isstrictly adhered to or not remainsto be seen. What is clear, however,is that only the militant fightingmood of the workers has made thisunited front possible.

At the same time, it would bemechanical, for example, to expectthe workers in the textile and hosieryindustries to react to the wage fightin the exact same way. For these in-dustries are suffering from over-pro-duction, and the workers face massunemployment and widespread part-time work. This of course, does notin any way exonerate the Rieves fortheir failure to demand a wage in-crease from the mill owners whenthe wage-reopener came up. For bybowing before the woolen and cottonmagnates, they have since receivedthe kicks asked for-in the form ofarrogant ultimatums demandingwholesale wage-cuts and increased

work-loads, or an abrogation of con-tracts.

But while having nothing but con-tempt for the miserable Rieve andhis other Social-Democrats in lead-ership, one would be light-minded,indeed, not to see the concrete dif-ference between the depression con-ditions in textile and the boom con-ditions in the war producing indus-tries. If Rieve were a real fighterfor the workers and not a lickspittleof the bosses, he would, of course,organize the workers for a militantfight against the war economy whichis lowering living standards andthereby accentuating over-productionand crisis in the consumer goods in-dustries.

In industries such as textile, thefight against unemployment, for ashorter work week without reduc-tion in weekly wage, for $6o a weekunemployment insurance benefits,must be coupled with the fightagainst the high cost-of-living, forwage increases, for organizing theunorganized and for the preserva-tion of the union.

Not even in a single industry likeauto will the same demands receivethe same response. In Detroit whereunemployment has reached propor-tions which have brought soup kitch-ens into existence for the first timesince the '30's, unemployment is, ofcourse, a paramount issue. In otherparts of the industry, where war con-tracts abound, however, there is atight labor market and unemploy-ment does not appear as the princi-

'9


pal issue. Even in Detroit, in aplant such as Ford, the conditionsof the highly skilled tool and dieworkers are quite different from thoseof the foundry workers, and there-fore their demands will likewisevary.

Hence concreteness is essential tocorrect leadership. And this is truenot only on economic issues, but onthe questions of the struggle for Ne-gro rights, for political action, or forpeace.

Let us take the latter. It may notbe possible to get a Right-wing ledlocal union to take a stand in favorof a Big Five Peace Pact. But itmay be possible to get the local toexpress itself in favor of a top levelmeeting of the big powers which theGallup Poll shows 70 percent of theAmerican people want. Such an ini-tial step forward on peace would bevery important. It would begin tochange the atmosphere inside the la-bor movement, making discussionand action on peace a patriotic neces-sity for a labor union.

Difficulties in the way of gettingaffirmative action on one or anotherpeace proposal or issue cannot be usedto excuse the failure to fight forpeace. Difficulties and obstacles arethere to be overcome. If one methodor one proposal does not work, we areduty bound to try others and to keepon trying, until a positive beginningis made from which to move to fur-ther progress. And the same tena-cious approach must be taken to win-ning jobs and upgrading for Negro

workers and to finding the formsof political action that will begin tobreak labor away from the two-partysystem of monopoly capital.

We have stressed the fact thatthere is no insurmountable wall thatseparates the leaders from the ranksand the ranks from the leaders. Afterall, where do the ranks end and theleaders begin? For there are lead-ers and leaders-a top, a middle anda lower stratum of leaders. Whileall these have something in com-mon, that is, they are part of onebureaucracy, they also have their dif-ferences. Those who are closest tothe ranks and most recently fromthe ranks feel more the breath of theclass struggle and pressures from therank-and-file. They therefore formsomething of a transitional bridgefrom the ranks to the top leader-ship.

Hence, just as it is a mistake to seea Right-wing led union one-sidedly,so also is it a mistake to see the lead-ership one-sidedly. As the ranksstruggle and exert pressure, so fis-sures, rifts and even chasms arecreated in the leadership. A closestudy of the leadership of nearly anyRight-wing led local union, no mat-ter how united and solid it may ap-pear from a distance, will show thatit is nevertheless torn by its own in-ner dissensions and differences. Evenif from a subjective point of view,these rifts often appear as unprin-cipled personality clashes and fac-tional struggles, objectively, however,

20


they constitute a distorted reflectionof the basic antagonism in the union-that between its class character andthe needs of its membership andthe class collaboration policies andbureaucratic caste interests of the topleadership.

Thus a concrete study of these dif-ferences is important, and individ-uals should not be lumped togetherfor anything but purposes of generalclassification. It should be under-stood that many honest, progressivefighters and future Communists willcome from the ranks of present-daylocal leaders of Right-wing led un-ions. For in many of these unionsthere are plenty of local leaders who"go along" with official policies be-cause they see no practical effectivealternative program. But they do notlike it.

The same kind of a concrete ap-proach must be taken toward differ-ent unions. It is a mistake to treatall unions and all union leadershipsalike because they all voted for thesame reactionary resolutions at anA. F. of L. or C.I.O. convention. Be-tween such unions there may be greatdifferences which are determined bymany factors such as the nature ofthe industry, the composition of itsworkers, the percentage of skilledworkers, the role of the Negro work-ers, the history and tradition of theworkers, the structure of the unionand its leadership, the composition ofthe leadership and particularly therole and influence of our Party.

There are, then, reactionary-led un-

ions of varied levels and degrees.The leaders of one union are head-ing up the war parade, drumming upwar hysteria, tooting their anti-Com-munist horns, and shrilly vying withthe monopolists for the "honor" ofbeing the most anti-Communist andanti-Soviet. There is, for example,the despicable act of William Greenwho outdid McCarthy by asking forno less than the expulsion of the So-viet Union from the United Nations!

But then there are the less vocifer-ous paraders, the "shamefaced" go-alongers, the men with much"doubts" but little guts, who wouldlike to be out of the parade but atthe same time "in step" with the pow-ers that be.

These differences frequently findtheir expression in the policies ofdifferent unions, on such questionsas the degree of support for the wardrive, whether to conduct a witch-hunt in their own union, how muchrank-and-file expression is to be per-mitted, how militantly to fight eco-nomic grievances, etc. These, too,must be taken into account.

It must be recognized that just asthere are no hard and fast dividinglines in nature and just as there areintermediary forms in both natureand society, so are there bound tobe such gradations and shadings inthe trade union movement. Andthese are of immense importance.The key thing for every Communistand progressive trade unionist to re-member is to evaluate concretelyevery given situation in all its process

21


of motion, with an eye precisely tograsping these elements in the situa-tion which can help the process ofchange in a progressive and forward-moving direction.

To see unions statically is fatal, fornothing in life stands still, neithera Right-wing led union nor a Left-wing led union. If in a Right-wingled trade union there develops a"live and let live" attitude, one whichenables greater freedom of action onthe part of the rank-and-file, onewhich enables Left-wing and Com-munist workers to contribute theirpart to the union and its echelons ofleadership, then this is a step for-ward, a break from the extremeRight-wing position and, therefore,a welcome move to be encouraged.If, however, a progressive led local,such as the Warehouse Local No. 65in New York City, comes forth witha "live and let live" creed towardthe bosses and the warmongers, thenthis represents a dangerous step back-wards, and more than a step.

Obviously also, in unions where theRight-wing has dictatorial power,where the victory of outright Leftand Communist forces in local elec-tions only results in head choppingand charter lifting, the process ofchange at the bottom will be morequantitative at first. It will first findits expression in a greater unity ona department and shop level. It willexpress itself in less rabid control andin an inclusion of more honest ele-ments in the local leadership. It willexpress itself in greater democracy

and militancy and in a greater aware-ness of the needs of the Negro work-ers and their fuller inclusion intoleadership. It will express itself inthe formation of a coalition, at firstloosely formed, including progressiveand Left-wing workers. etc.

The main problem is preciselythat of finding the forms to thistransition, the concrete ways andmeans by which to begin to changethe situation in local by local andunion by union.

To achieve unity of action on thepart of the American labor move-ment, does not require a leap fromcomplete Right-wing to completeLeft-wing leadership. It must beachieved before then. Its requisiteis not ideological unity. What it re-quires first and foremost is a readi-ness to put ideological differencesaside in order to work together inbehalf of a single immediate objec-tive or a number of immediate ob-jectives. Not even labor unity, in thesense of a single trade-union center,requires ideological unity. What itrequires is the agreement that thereis room within one labor movementfor different ideological currents andfor the conflict of views betweenthem. It further requires that no in-dividuals or unions should be ex-cluded from the labor movement be-cause of ideological differences andthat the workers be given the free-domn to choose between conflictingtendencies. And it requires above

22


all, the recognition that despite ideo-logical differences, the unions mustwork together and fight togetheraround a minimum common pro-gram agreed upon.

The initiative shown by theI.L.W.U. and the Mine, Mill andSmelter Union, in the examplespointed out earlier, indicate the deci-sive role which can be played byexisting Left-led unions in the strug-gle for unity of action of all workersaround a common program.

The struggle for unity of actionon the part of workers in Right-led unions would be immeasurablystrengthened if Communist and Left-progressive forces in the Left-led un-ions would see their role as the mostconsistent fighter for unity in theentire trade-union movement.

If these Left-led unions would es-tablish more effective co-ordinationamong themselves and project com-mon programs of action reflectingthe needs of all workers, and com-bine this with a day-to-day strugglefor united action with workers inthe C.I.O. and A. F. of L. on alllevels, a new stage would be reachedin the cause of labor unity.

Toward such labor unity everyCommunist must work with skill,determination and confidence. Onething is certain. The changing objec-tive conditions will more and morefavor the struggle for unity of action

and labor unity. The monopolisticposition of American imperialism inthe post-war capitalist world hasmade it possible for it to continueto bribe a considerable section ofworkers with its immense super-prof-its. Thus the material basis for op-portunism has continued in thiscountry longer than anywhere else.If the workers have thus far gonealong with the armament drive andwar program, even if passively, itwas because of the illusion that mate-rial benefits in the form of full em-ployment and a higher standard ofliving would be derived from it.Now, however, it is beginning todawn on a larger mass of workersthat this very war program is pro-ducing the opposite results-is thecause for high prices and high taxes,for speed-up, for growing unem-ployment and for lower living stand-ards. Even the labor reformists can-not entirely hide this truth. Thusthe material conditions of life willhenceforth and at an increasing pace,help teach the workers the need forclass solidarity and unity at homeand for world labor unity.

But objective conditions, while pri-mary, are not enough. What isneeded is conscious and skillfulstruggle and guidance toward thisend. This must start in the first placewith every Communist worker, in hisshop and in his local union.

23

PAMPHLETS FOR WORKERS

THE STEEL WORKERS AND THE FIGHT FORLABOR'S RIGHTS, by William Z. Foster .......... $.10

DEFEAT THE ANTI-LABOR SMITH BILL!,by W illiam Z . F oster ............................. ..................... 0 5

THE BIG LIE OF WAR "PROSPERITY,"by B ern ard B u rto n ........................................................

NAZI ARMY OR PEACEFUL GERMANY?by A lan M ax ........................................ 05

STAND UP FOR FREEDOM: THE NEGRO PEO-PLE VS. THE SMITH ACT, by Lloyd L. Brown .05

THE SOVIET UNION BUILDS FOR PEACE,by L . P . B eria ................................................................ I

MUST THERE BE WAR? by Joseph Clark ............. 0o

LIFT EVERY VOICE FOR PAUL ROBESON,by Lloyd L. Brown . ....................................... ...... 03

WHITE CHAUVINISM AND THE STRUGGLEFOR PEACE, by Pettis Perry ................................... .Io

NEGRO REPRESENTATION - A STEP TO-WARDS NEGRO FREEDOM, by Pettis Perry ..... .10

GRASP THE WEAPON OF CULTURE!by V . 1. Jerom e ........................................ Io

WOMEN ON GUARD FOR PEACE, by Betty Millard .10o

HOLD HIGH THE TORCH! by Richard O. Boyer .03HOW TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM THE

ATOM BOMB, by Robert Friedman ..................... 03

NEW CENTURY PUBLISHERS832 Broadway, New York 3, N. Y.

This book is a preservation facsimile produced forthe University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.It is made in compliance with copyright law

and produced on acid-free archival60# book weight paper

which meets the requirements ofANSI/NISO Z39.48-1992 (permanence of paper).

Preservation facsimile printing and bindingby

Northern MicrographicsBrookhaven BinderyLa Crosse, Wisconsin

2011

Documents

ILL INO I S