A History of Some Communist Activity in America
74As I grew up, there were many things I was never taught. Indeed, there were many things I never thought to question, but just took for granted.
The 40 hour workweek is something that I took for granted. A 5 day workweek is also something that's just... normal (although it's becoming less and less so as more people work two jobs to make ends meet). And no one under age 16 has to work for pay, except under very limited circumstances.
But these very simple parts of working life in America didn't just happen magically. They are the product of brutal struggle by unions, in the face of violent repression.
I'm not sure why, but my teachers never told me about the Ludlow massacre, or the Battle of Blair Mountain. Further evidence of our cultural blindness toward this vital part of our history is the fact that hubpages doesn't have a category for "Labor" or anything of the sort.
Popular revolts against oppression and exploitation have a long history, so I'll just choose an arbitrary starting point.
July 3, 1835:
Children working in silk mills in Paterson, New Jersey went on strike for the right to work only 11 hours a day. Many of the children were Irish immigrants, and this fact was used to stir up anti-immigrant opposition to the strike. The strikes succeeded in bringing the work hour down to 12 hours on weekdays and 9 on Saturday.
February, 1834
Girls and young women who worked an average of 73 hours a week at the textile mills in Lowell, Massachusetts went on strike to protest a 15% reduction in their wages. The girls were attacked for betraying their femininity. This strike failed but in the following years the Lowell Girls, as they were known, took an active role in the struggle for labor rights.
July, 1877
Following the Civil War, the Federal Government gave tremendous land grants and subsidies to the railroad companies (isn't that socialism?). The railroads became an integral part of the US economy, and a major employer.
A variety of economic and political factors led to a severe recession in 1873 that lasted until 1879. Workers faced unemployment and wage cuts.
The resulting tensions came to a head in 1877, when railroad workers went on strike to protest wage cuts. National Guard and Federal troops were called in to break the strike, and the first bloodshed came in Baltimore when the Maryland National Guard fired on a crowd of protesters, killing 10 and wounding 25.
In Pittsburgh, state Militiamen fired on strikers, killing 40 over the course of two days. Violence spread across the country, and federal troops, state Militias, and vigilantes were mobilized to "restore order."
These strikes failed to achieve much, but they laid the groundwork for future labor action, bringing the plight of railroad workers to the public's attention, and causing labor organizers to reorganize and consolidate their strategies. In many ways, the violence of 1877 laid the groundwork for the events in Haymarket Square in 1886.
May 4, 1886
On May 1st, 1886, a long, nationwide campaign for an 8 hour workday came to a head. Somewhere between 300,000 to 500,000 workers across the country went on strike. On May 3rd, a strike ended in bloodshed when police fired on a crowd of striking workers in Chicago, killing at least 2.
The next day, the workers held a large rally at Haymarket square. The rally was peaceful until near the end, when someone threw a bomb at the police line and the police opened fire on the rallying workers. The bomb killed one policeman and wounded several others; the gunfire (from both sides, as some of the workers had brought their own weapons) killed at least eight policemen and four workers, with many more wounded. The police captain said later that the number of workers killed or wounded was "largely in excess of that on the side of the police."
Although no one knew, or ever found out, who had thrown the bomb, the authorities arrested eight union organizers and found them guilty of the murder of the police officer (even though there was no credible evidence linking any of them to the bomb). Seven of the eight were sentenced to hang and the eighth was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
Unfortunately, the strikes of Mayday, and the Haymarket Tragedy, didn't win the eight hour workday. That would come later, though.
As you can see, communists have a long history of pernicious, destructive behavior in America, organizing against such things as child labor and exploitation of workers. Is it any wonder that labor unions have been branded as destroyers of the American way of life?
I'll take a look at some labor activity in the 20th century in the next hub.
CommentsLoading...
I surely hope you are not advocating for communism. Surely you are just using it for shock value.
You are, right? :)
I'm not a union man, but that is not to say I do not value, nor see, the role that unions played in shaping American work practices. Today they've clearly lost their way and I don't believe are all too useful anymore. But certainly without them the American worker might well be defined in a very different way today.
I say it all the time that everything has to have balance in order to work. I think balance in the workplace or in organizing in the workplace is as essential as anything. The reaon the unions are no longer useful is partly because they've lost balance in their ideas, and activities. I agree that company's can take a mile and a half given the opportunity, but unions have been strongarming and crippling company's more than helping them, and as a result, more jobs have been lost in union company's than have been gained, and standards of living have declined for those working union jobs and have increased for those who aren't in a union.
One example is that there are 14 profitable auto plants in the US. Just 14. Not a single one of them is unionized. Not a single one has been considered for closings in the weakest points of the recession.
Says a lot to me.
Thanks for the kind comment, AM Werner. I enjoyed reading your hubs today!
Hi Springboard:
Maybe I am advocating communism.
Or maybe not. Actually as I wrote this I was simply thinking about the way that the terms socialist and communist are hurled like epithets. People have forgotten about the historical realities. Many of the union organizers and members, who fought and died to win child labor laws, the eight hour day, and other rights that we take for granted, were "card carrying communists" (to steal a phrase from old Uncle Joe McCarthy).
This hub was not intended to defend or advocate for communism - but now that you've brought it up, I'm thinking about it. Soviet Russia was not true communism. From Wikipedia (as good a source as any for surface definitions):
"Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Sounds pretty good to me!
The union movement is on the ebb, and so are workers rights.... coincidence? Great hub, William!
Hi! William
Enjoyed yr hub. Any extremism which generates some kind of feudal structure is bad for not just the country, whole world. Past experience shows communism has such strong tendencies. You know in India there are states which have elected communist governments continuously. This is by election and not soviet style. Still result is the same. They made some richest states in India the poorest ones. India itself became quite poor by living with just similar slogans for decades.
I admire Marx for his analysis and good effects he had on capitalism. But your description of Marx's dream like society in which every body is good, reminded me of a joke popular in India.
A communist was trying to convince another guy. So other guy asks him "Ok! If you have two houses, will you give one to me?". The communist says "Yes!". Other guys asks "what about cars, if you have two will you give me one?" reply is "yes". Third question is "what about shirts?" This time communist says "no! I will not give you one".
The guys is surprised "why?" The answer from communist guy is "because I have two shirts!"
You stopped too early.
I hope you are going to continue with this analysis to next era. Any talk of communism in USA can not end without talking about McCarthy era in USA, the other extreme with similar effects.
Just example of one person the great theoretical physicist Prof. Oppenheimer, who was scientific director of Manhattan Project, which built first atomic bomb for USA, shows how much USA must have lost by such extremism and how many people may have suffered for all their life for no reason. Here is one link giving description of such extremism against him.
Excellent hub William.
I recently read the book Revolution in Seattle by Harvey O'Connor which tells of the the struggles in Seattle from 1900 to 1920. What came over very starkly was the sheer violence of reaction from the state, judiciary, and bosses when workers organised to defend themselves.
Socialism and communism evoke such knee-jerk responses from people because for decades they have been indoctrinated into thinking that it is totalitarian, repressive, and anti-democratic. The state capitalist countries like Russia, China and Cuba are wheeled out as examples of the iniquity of socialism, and even the idea of state subsidy for essential services is seen as creeping communism.
But Stalinism is a dictatorial ideology of state capitalism, not socialism. Socialists have always opposed Stalinism despite the unprincipled subservience of the communist parties. Anyone who takes the time to read what Lenin and Trotsky, along with many others, wrote about the soviets will see that Stalinism is a complete travesty of socialism, repressing workers and exploiting them just like any other capitalist power.
It suited the cold war politicians to demonise the ideas of workers' solidarity, collective struggle, and organised opposition to the growth of the power of capital. Instead of the ideologically programmed knee-jerk reaction of hostility to the ideas of socialism we need to think about the principles of a just and fair democratic society.
One of the very best introductions I've ever seen is available online by the now deceased (and much missed) Paul Foot, an outstanding UK socialist journalist called "Why You Should Be A Socialist".
http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot-paul/1977/wys
Excellent hub William and I wish there were many more. I might even move myself to contribute something of my own. Many thanks.
Great hub. I'm certainly not as pro-capitalistic as I once was. There has to be a balance and I don't know if there ever has been. It's just a shame capitalism has evolved to buying everything and everyone as it has. Thanks for a great hub.
I loved this hub. The history of the Lowell girls is fascinating (I live in New England). Your hub was timely, as I hear the same rhetoric as you speak of especially regarding the Health Care reform, for instance. I hear so many people outraged that they will be REQUIRED to buy health insurance (even with help) and how unAmerican that is.
I wonder, as they drive to work each day if they remember the federal laws that protect them, and the car insurance they are required to buy, and the home owners insurance they must buy, etc.
Thanks for the hub and the great pics to go with it!!
It still goes on today. Walmart is a good example. When their bucthers organized a union, they fired all the bucthers and bought pre-packaged meat instead. In Florida high school graduates do not know what a Union is. Oklahoma recently passed right to work legislation which lowers wages and benefits and hurts all working people. Today working people are losing many of the benifits that were won for them by unions and union members. Look at the decrease in workers comp benifits or safty regulation enforcement.
Be careful what you wish for. ;)
But yes, I can certainly agree that much of the way things are today are taken for granted. We have struggles today, but the struggles we have are very different than those who have gone before us.
I really enjoyed your hub BTW since I didn't mention it before. Full of history. Very interesting.
Carolina Muscle - my sentiments exactly! Thanks for dropping by.
Soumyasrajan:
I like your joke. I don't know much about the situation in India or the actions of the communists there so I can't really comment on that. My take is a lot like Bob's, in the comment below yours. We have never really seen true communism, only state control of the economy in the name of communism.
Bob - I think the violence of the repression is pretty extraordinary too. I think we see echoes of that in the rhetoric of today's talk show hosts, calling democratic activists "marxists" and union members "thugs." It's just part of a process of labeling people and obscuring the truth.
Thanks for the link, I've been thinking a lot about socialism lately and I'll definitely check that out. I'd like to see your own hub on this as well!
Thank you Micky and MB! And GNelson - you said it!
Thank you Springboard - glad you enjoyed.
You said, "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life.
Sounds like Utopia to me. I have to admit that I find Americans advocating for Socialism or Marxism shocking. There was a time when we needed the unions but that time is long past. The American experience has survived becase of the Separation of Powers. When power becomes localized into one group or another trouble will soon follow. I enjoyed the history lesson, though!
Thank you for the comment Smireles. You said:
"When power becomes localized into one group or another trouble will soon follow."
I couldn't agree more!
I don't know if I'm so much advocating for communism, as just trying to have a conversation with people about it. What is it, really? Thanks for dropping by - I'll post on some 20th century stuff soon.
Great great hub. I disagree with those who claim that the need for unions has passed. Quite the contrary. Management is well organized, and frequently in illegal collusion with management at other firms in the same area. I distinctly recall a conversation with an HR manager, who told me bluntly that if he had to lay off some workers, but knew he'd need them back, he could simply call the other shops in town that needed those same skills, drop a few names, and those folks would not find work.
Those calls were illegal, but they happened, and nothing in my experience since has lead me to believe that they have stopped happening.
The people who are saying the time for unions is gone remind me of those Wall Streeters who claimed that government oversight of financial derivatives was unnecessary, and the time for legislative restraint on banks was gone. The result is the current economic meltdown.
Real wages in this country are no longer rising largely due, I believe, to lack of unions.
Those unprofitable auto factories were not only paying their laborers a lot more than non-union factories, but were exorbitantly over compensating management too. Take for instance that before the bailout of GM, Toyota's top 31 execs earned an aggregate total of $16 million US, while GM's top guy pulled in over $24 million all by his lonesome self, and the rest of the management was similarly inflated.
The reason unions were able to get such big money from the Big Three was that management was totally unwilling to forego their own perqs and inflated salaries. THAT'S what ruined the US automotive business.
Anyway, KEEP IT UP! This is great stuff.
Dang, GNelson stole my comment. Ha-ha!
Maybe this is why some people, who are aware of this, like to spell Wal-Mart as "Wal-Marx." Nice hub...
Hi! Wiliiam
Lot of interesting points in yr comments and also comments by several others. As far as I know, so far there is no evidence/example of a pure communist rule without tendency to generate feudalistic tendencies. Without any example one can not depend much on it.
But some how people think specially in USA, as if there is some clear wall which divides capitalist and communist ideas. Very few realize that over the years both have got quite mixed up.
People by and large in western world feel that there was relatively peace in cold war era because of some kind of struggle in two sides at the same time some detente.
Way I see it is that there was peace in western world (USA and West Europe) mainly because of a general tendency to create an environment to provide a minimal standard of life (food, shelter, education, basic infra structure of communication roads entertainment etc. ) to family of every working person in the country.
This is much more true in West European countries than USA. But even in USA it is quite a bit true.
Ford opposed unions quite a bit. He may be considered prime example of capitalistic model in USA. But to me he looks to be biggest socialist/communist. He set up standard for better life for workers by reducing working hours from 12 to 8, by paying much higher than others and by creating ifra structure of laons for homes, cars etc.
These ideas in capitalism were certainly inspired by what was started by Karl Marx.
Just to add to my comment, it may create a wrong impression.
While I admire Ford, it is quite true that unions also played quite important role in USA and West Europe to create better minimal life.
Great hub - a breath of fresh air !
People who tweak the arrogant nose of the priviledged & powerfull are much maligned by their propagandists & lackeys but their actions are much admired by the majority who have nothing to lose but their chains.
Vinceremos!
A bit of more recent history:
When Franklin D. Roosevelt was inaugurated, unemployment in the United States was 30 percent, and many people were embracing socialism or communism as a model for our country. On March 7, 1930, John Schmies, Communist Party candidate for mayor of Detroit, led a Ford hunger march from Detroit to Dearborn. After the Wagner Act was passed assuring the right to organize unions and bargain collectively and the steel, auto, electrical and rubber industries were quickly unionized, union leaders such as Walter Reuther cleaned the communists out of the labor movement and proceeded pragmatically to address the needs of union members.
A very well researched hub. The uk is facing an election where a conservative government will wreck the economy and allow mass unemployment.
Thank you for the comments, folks. All I can say is, labor history is fascinating, harrowing, and mostly hidden from us. I plan to write more on this subject in the future.
well written as always :).
for pure democracy, check out New England town halls from the colonial days, I understand (from derivative works) that they were truly votes of whoever showed up and people talked until they were done talking before a vote was taken. Clearly this would be tricky once towns got biggish, and some sort of representation does need to occur (and as soon as there is representation there is a big opportunity for dishonesty, misinterpretation, and graft) ... but anyhow, it has been tried (and unfortunately squashed more or less by later power structures).
Current use, the Sudbury Valley School, where reputedly all students from youngest up, all teachers, and all parents are welcome to show up to the weekly meetings and democratically run the school. They have a lot of material on their website (http://www.sudval.org/); I've only read "Free at Last: the Sudbury Valley School," but it's a great and to some degree awe-inspiring book. (Plus not too long ;). )
Thank you Kirsten. I'll definitely check out the Sudbury school - sounds pretty radical.
A M Werner Level 4 Commenter 2 years ago
William, great hub. All business and all profit leads to abuses of workers, something often missed, and as you pointed out, forgotten, by those who are accustomed to what is now. Call it socialsim, communism or whatever you want - the idea remains which is some re-balancing extreme inequality. Those who don't suffer from inequality champion against change. Peace.