OLITICAL AFFAIRS «+ -sesicecerose
the theory and practice of Marxism-Leninism
EDITORIAL BOARD MAX WEISS, Editor; V. J. JEROME, Associate Editor ALEXANDER BITTELMAN, HENRY WINSTON
DLUME XXVI, NO. 4 Contents APRIL, 1947
ican Democracy Must Not Commit Suicide Eugene Dennis 291 Cablegram to Secretary of State Marshall Eugene Dennis 293
ganic Unity: Next Point on Labor’s Agenda John Williamson 295 he British Empire Communist Conference William Z. Foster 302
People Fight Back for Rent and Housing Lillian Gates 316
ple’s Democracy: The Way to the Peaceful Development of Poland Wladyslaw Gomulka 328
he Connecticut Story Joe Roberts 336 oward a People’s Tax Program Donald Freeman 346
he Development of the New German Trade Union Movement Paul Merker 359
urrent Economic Trends Labor Research Association 368
Reviews:
Hitler’s 3 K’s for Woman—An American Rehash Elizabeth Gurley Flynn 376
Negro History Misinterpreted Alpheus Hunton 381
d as second class matter January 4, 1945, at the Post Office at New York, N. Y., under Act of March 3, 1879. POLITICAL AFFAIRS is published monthly by New Century Pub- rs, Inc., at 832 Broadway, New York 3, N. Y., to whom subscriptions, payments and spondence should be sent. Subscription rate: $2.50 a year; $1.25 for six months; foreign Canada, $3.00 a year. Single copies 25 cents.
IN THE U.S.A, ~<a
NEW PUBLICATIONS
WORKERS, DEFEND YOUR UNIONI, by William Z. Foster_$ .0) IS COMMUNISM UN-AMERICAN?, by Eugene Dennis. ;
WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT COMMUNISTS —WHO THEY ARE—WHAT THE BELIEVE IN— Wenn weer Coane! FoR.
WHAT DO COMMUNISTS REALLY WANT?.......
FRANCO SPAIN—MENACE TO WORLD PEACE, ste Mil- ton Wolff .
TAX RELIEF FOR WHOM—THE NEEDY OR THE GREEDY? OO ELEN TE.
THE COMMUNIST POSITION ON THE NEGRO QUES- SI til ceineesndieiecitshiiniincenseiipacsnnihahhaedacanaliitielit
HOLD THAT RENT CEILING!, by Louise Mitchell...
WOMAN'S PLACE—IN THE FIGHT FOR A BETTER WORLD, by Elizabeth Gurley Flynn
HOW'S YOUR HEALTH?—THE FIGHT FOR A NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAM, by Robert Friedman...
THE COMMUNIST PARTY AND YOU, by Betty Gannett... .I(
WHAT PRICE PHILIPPINE INDEPENDENCE, by George
TTI a: ssiiieciassindeasiasadiitaiaiiaehnmisincmniiibessiieadeiiaialatiall .|0 ENEMIES OF THE PEACE: PROFILE OF THE "HATE- RUSSIA" GANG, by Sender Garlin. |
NEW CENTURY PUBLISHERS + 832 Broadway, New York 3, N. Y.
A S1
Tue A especial of Labx In askis reaction
It is | before | push tt Therefc call for G.O.P.
In th organiz munist sections Germat today i1
We . the bes country showed nationa forefrot aims fo
Becat current arrogan peace o what tl
To d movem
AMERICAN DEMOCRACY MUST NOT COMMIT SUICIDE
A STATEMENT ISSUED TO THE PRESS ON MARCH 11, 1947
$ 0!
By EUGENE DENNIS
03
Tue AMERICAN PEOPLE, the followers of the late President Roosevelt and especially the labor movement were shocked at the demand of Secretary OIF of Labor Lewis B. Schwellenbach that the Communist Party be outlawed. In asking this, Secretary Schwellenbach openly joined forces with the ultra- reactionary G.O.P. and its Parnell-Thomas-Rankin Un-American Committee.
It is significant that Schwellenbach’s un-American declaration was made : before the G.O.P.-dominated House Labor Committee, which is trying to 03 push through legislation designed to cripple and destroy the trade unions. ““{ Therefore it was not accidental that the Secretary of Labor coupled his call for repressive action against the: Communist Party with endorsing the G.O.P. proposal to amend the Wagner Act.
* In this connection, all Americans, especially all trade unionists and their 03§ organizations, should remember that in every country in which the Com- munist Party was outlawed the free trade unions and the liberties of all sections of the common people were also suppressed. This was so in Hitler 05 Germany, in fascist-militarist Japan and in Italy under Mussolini. It is so today in Franco Spain and fascist Greece.
We American Communists, for nearly three decades, have worked in the best interests of the American people, in the best traditions of our country, as the staunchest fighters for democracy, progress and peace. We IQ showed in exemplary fashion our patriotism and devotion to our country’s national interest in the great war against fascism. And today we are in the forefront of the struggle to curb the trusts and realize fully the anti-fascist .10} aims for which the peoples fought the war!
° = en
Because of this, the Wall Street trusts and cartelists are engineering the current anti-labor and anti-Communist attacks, so that they can, with greater arrogance, carry on their offensive against the American people and the peace of the world. They are trying to do to our people and to all countries what the German fascists did under Hitler.
To defend their own liberties and the Bill of Rights, the labor and people’s movements of our great country must speak out and act. In their own inter-
291
292 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
ests, they must defeat the anti-Communist conspiracy of the G.O.P. and th trusts, in which Mr. Schwellenbach and Attorney-General Clark collabora
The pro-fascist demand for the illegalization of the Communist Party « be defeated by the aroused and united action of labor and the people. ki 1947 is not 1933, when Hitler came to power. The American people ha learned something about Hitler’s anti-Communist technique in the fires ; the anti-Axis war.
Insofar as the Democratic Party and the Truman administration are co cerned, they seem to have forgotten what happened to them in the 194 elections, when they tried to compete with the G.O.P. reactionaries in Reb baiting. They seem to have forgotten what happened in the Presidentid elections of 1920 when the Democrats did the bidding of the reactionay open-shoppers of that day by organizing Red scares and Palmer raids.
While the Truman administration may be prepared to commit politic suicide by joining with the Hoovers and Tafts in abridging the democrat rights of labor and the Communists—the supporters of F.D.R.’s policiegDear Mr the mass of the American people, are not.
But time grows short. Every American who cherishes democracy mu
now actively defend it. Every democrat and progressive must protest and defeat any and all efforts to violate the Constitution and Bill of Rig
directed against the Communist Party or the trade unions.
Democracy, like peace, is indivisible. It must be defended for labor anipton. the Communists if it is to be preserved for all the people. I wish
CABLEGRAM | TO SECRETARY OF STATE MARSHALL
By EUGENE DENNIS
The following cablegram was sent on March 16 to Secretary of State MGeorge C. Marshall by Eugene Dennis, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the United States of America:
on. George C. Marshall, Secretary of State, U.S.A., /o United States Embassy, oscow, U.S.S.R.
Dear Mr. Secretary:
I have read with deep interest the definition of democracy which you presented in behalf of the American government to the Council of Foreign
@Ministers on March 14. Whatever one may think about applying those democratic rights to all tiersons in Germany, I believe those rights must be guaranteed for the merican people, regardless of race, national origin, creed or political affili- jption.
I wish to call to your attention that Representative J. Parnell Thomas, hairman of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, announced on March 15 that his Committee will open hearings March 24 on HR 1884, HR 2122 and other bills designed to abridge the constitutional rights of ommunists and to outlaw the American Communist Party.
The proposed legislation which will be considered by the above-mentioned House Committee hearings, would deny the right, enunciated by you, of freely constituted political parties” to participate “in a free and competitive ection system.”
It would also nullify “the uniformly effective guarantee of freedom of ess and radio,” in all parts of the United States.
Among those who will testify at the House Committee hearings, starting arch 24, as announced by Representative Thomas, will be Secretary of bor Lewis B. Schwellenbach. Mr. Schwellenbach has recommended that ongress shall pass legislation banning the Communist Party and barring t from participating in federal elections.
293
294 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Legislation is also pending both in the House Committee on Un-Ameri Activities and the House and Senate Labor Committees abridging the “ formly effective guarantee of the rights of free trade unions” in all pan of the United States.
Included in this legislation is the proposal that patriotic American citizey who are Communists, or who are suspected of being Communists, shall barred from employment in government and industry, membership in tra unions and denied the right to hold elective office in trade unions. This, tog is in violation of your statement that: “To us a society is not free if ly abiding citizens live in fear of being denied the right to-work or deprive of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”
I therefore respectfully urge that you authorize the State. Departmen representatives in Washington to submit as testimony before the Hous Committee hearings, scheduled to open March 24, your definition of 4 mocracy.
I also respectfully suggest that you recommend to the Congress that ti
democratic principles which you outlined in your statement shall be a plicable to all Americans, including trade unionists, Communists, the Neg people and the foreign-born. I have special reference to the five basic pri ciples you mentioned:
First, an “effective guarantee of civil rights... .’
Second, a “uniformly effective guarantee of the rights of political parties... Freely constituted political parties should be insured the right to participat
in a free and competitive election system, win adherents, and obtain jug,
representation.” Third, a “uniformly effective guarantee of the rights of free trade unions... The rights of free and autonomous trade unions to carry on the custom
trade union activities in accordance with the wishes of their members shoul.
be clearly established.”
Fourth, a “uniformly effective guarantee of freedom of press and radio...
Fifth, an “effective guarantee of freedom of movement for persons.”
I respectfully submit, that the presentation of these views by the Stat Department to the Congress will help every American citizen preserve fo himself those “constitutional guarantees of his basic rights and liberties, of which you speak.
Respectfully,
EUGENE DENNIS,
General Secretary, Communist Pa
de unic Wall |
By JOHN WILLIAMSON
HE ANTI-LABOR ROMAN HOLIDAY now clebrated in both Houses of Con- ess and in many state legislatures ounds off monopoly capital’s drive
» weaken the trade unions, both
10. and A. F. of L. The well- ganized Red-baiting activities with- n the labor movement also reflect
“this general offensive of the trusts Peainst the people, accelerated since "pe Republican victory last Novem-
. The action of the Supreme
*“Bourt against the coal miners, if left
nchallenged, would nullify the Nor- LaGuardia anti-injunction act.
he Republican Party, supported by
erties,
tionary Democrats, is out to de- vy not only the Left-led unions, just the C.1.O. unions, but all ade unions, including the A. F. of Wall Street aims to crush labor, ot only in order to protect its profits h the impending crisis, but also to move the trade-union backbone of iti-fascist opposition to its world- ominating imperialist plan. This we is stimulating united labor ac- against anti-union legislation
and toward organic unity, even on the part of some reactionary A. F. of L. leaders, who are impelled, for their own reasons, to this course.
OPENING MOVES
Until today the trade union move- ment has had illusions about the Re- publican Party, the Supreme Court, and a Presidential veto of anti-labor laws. Such spokesmen of Big Busi- ness as the Kiplinger Letter kindled hope by declaring that this Congress would not be reactionary but con- servative; that it would not destroy most of the New Deal measures but would “tinker” around with, and “trim,” a few. Today the trade unions know the kind of “tinkering around” that Senators Taft, Ball, Smith and company are engaged in.
To meet and defeat these attacks President Murray of the CLO. months ago proposed united action of all labor—C.1.0., A. F. of L., and the railroad brotherhoods. After months of delay the A. F. of L. an- swered, recognizing the seriousness of the anti-labor threat and propos- ing, not joint action, but organic unity of the trade union movement. Additional letters have been ex- changed and committees have been appointed, while the threats multi- plied and while individual as well as united actions of C.I.O. and A. F. of L. against anti-labor legislation took place in over 50 cities of Amer- ica. Participation of masses of work- ers from both A. F. of L. and C.LO. were hindered by such notions in
295
296
both organizations as “the trade unions must ride out the storm” and “this is not the time for mass demon- strations that will only antagonize the Congressmen.”
Some skeptics explain the A. F. of L. proposal as exclusively a maneu- ver to stop the militant, united front, rank-and-file action which they fear. Others feel such overtures may be di- rected to the reactionary forces in the C.1L.O. leadership—the Careys, Mc- Donalds, Rieves, Altmans, etc.—for joint Red-baiting and for a deal against the Left and against the pro- gressive leadership of Murray.
These explanations are too simple. They ignore the great social forces at work and the consequent contra- dictions that can be utilized for pro- gressive purposes. The problem can- not be conceived in terms of Left and Communist forces on one side, with all others on the side of reac- tion. Even though some leaders har- bor such ideas, the subjective aims of such “little minds” can be—and have been—swept aside by the big new problems, setting in motion mass forces of labor and the people. Such a movement invariably breaks the boundaries set for it originally, just as the C.LO. in its life history has transcended the early aims of its chief founders (in 1935 John L. Lewis, whose past had not been pro- gressive, played an objectively pro- gressive role in leading the newly- organized C.I.O.). At such a mo- ment we can overlook the subjective intentions of many reactionaries, see- ing them impelled to defend their
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
positions and organizations mortal attack. There are consery tive forces in the A. F. of L.
tive Council who fear mass actig discourage their own rank and fk hope for a deal with reaction, still—for reasons of their own—favg organic unity. The common actioy encompasses many different force and different motivations.
epublica Clearly
strous, <
union mi
ARGUMENTS TO BE . p CONSIDERED wr
Within the ranks of labor there ii considerable discussion, pro and con as to the possibility of realizing orf ganic unity of the trade union moveginfluence ment. Few people challenge the basiqunions a advisability of such unity. Some argtion and skeptical as to its realization. Others raise for consideration possible da} The gers, such as the following:
1. Organic unity would result in aeimulate great over-all strengthening of rea-fuon wou tionary top trade union leadership, fment of
On the basis of a static situation there is no doubt that this would ke a serious danger. However, a merge under present-day conditions anijie hastened precisely because of great threat of reaction to the exfi istence of the trade union movementy As reg could only have a progressive impacifan part in general, as well as in the tradeforne 11 union movement itself. Such a united#ewis di
would bring about new realignmenspeses, in response to such issues, especially Rep if the rank-and-file members exer Fe
ORGANIC UNITY: ON LABOR’S AGENDA 297
ised their initiative to press for adop- members of his own union in subse- jon of progressive policies and ac- quent elections. New York State A. ivities. F. of L. leaders had the same experi- a 2. Organic unity might result in ence in 1946. There is, of course, forts by some leaders to tie such a no guarantee that these leaders have mited trade union movement to the learned anything from these discov- publican party in 1948. eries, just as there is no guarantee Clearly such a move would be dis- that they may not try to do in the strous, and everything should be future what they did in the past. But done to defeat any such effort. How- if this were the objective motivating ver, the path of a merged trade them, they would undoubtedly pre- union movement under the condi- fer the status quo rather than a tions previously described, and _ united trade union movement which chieved as a result of a struggle, would multiply the forces opposing would move in a progressive direc- any dragooning of labor into the mion—and not toward being a tail camp of the G.OP. o the Republican party kite. This 3. Organic unity would undoubt- ould be hastened by the progressive edly result in a program less satis- influence of the previous C.LLO. factory to the general interests of la- idunions as well as by the interven- bor and the nation than the main dition and pressure of the rank and _ policy resolutions adopted by the wile generally. C1.O. convention. The exact role of such a united It is quite possible that, in the ini- rade union movement in helping to tial stages, some resolutions on cer- imulate independent political ac- tain questions would not be as ad- ‘Rion would depend upon the develop- vanced as some present-day aspects ip. ment of a broad educational move- of C.I.O. policy. With the same ap- ment in the communities and within proach, however, it is clear that they he local unions for the organizing would all be far in advance of the if local and state movements for in- present A. F. of L. convention poli- lependent political action. However, cies. Otherwise, organic unity would his is essentially true today of even never be realized. In life, the reali- progressive C.1.O. zation of a merged trade union move- As regards 1948 and the Republi- ment as a result of a serious struggle fan party, the following should be against certain forces within the re in mind. In 1940 John L. trade union leadership; the parallel wis discovered that the great bulk struggle against the attacks by reac-~ i the American trade union move-_ tion inside and outside of Congress ment, despite its ideological weak- on labor; the general impact of esses, could not be dragged into achieving organic unity on the po- Republican party. He discov- litical life of the country; and the exerfred the same thing regarding the release of a new spirit and conse-
298
quent upsurge by the rank-and-file members of all trade unions—would lay the foundation for settling satis- factorily the question of program and the struggle to attain it.
While these and any other serious arguments against organic unity
must be examined and discussed, those projected so far are not valid.
JOINT ACTION IS PATH TO ORGANIC UNITY ,
The urgent need of the hour is recognition that joint action by the Cl1.0. and the A. F. of L. on all levels against anti-labor legislation is a life and death matter to preserve the great trade union movement of 14 million members; the realization of joint action ts simultaneously the path to organic unity of the trade union movement. Neither is it con- tradictory to say that entering nego- tiations for organic unity in a seri- ous and responsible manner will im- mediately promote and_ realize united action of the C.1.0. and A. F. of L. during such negotiations.
Toward this end the numerous varied local activities against anti- labor legislation should be chan- nelized into statewide and, especially, nationwide activities. They should be raised to new and higher levels of demonstrative actions, including job actions wherever possible. Espe- cially important to combat the anti- union propaganda of the trusts, which has made headway in confus- ing some workers even in C.1.O. unions, is the need for all unions to fight for a satisfactory settlement of
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
the grievances that many times allowed to pile up unsolved from signing of one contract to the ne Our Party has consistently p jected the slogan of a united k movement, and during the last f months Comrade Foster again anfiis the pre again took the initiative in awakemiyith its : ing the entire trade union mov ment with his clarion call “United Labor Action—or Else.” ; this juncture (written before ty C.1.O. Executive Board meeting) @ An org is to be hoped that the C.I.O., whilfmovemen still reiterating the continued urgenqgmembers of united labor action, will expregphe railr itself as ready to meet with the A. Mave onl of L. to begin discussions on organmphe affair unity. day. Thi: Organic unity of the trade uniogically in movement at this moment is in thgorganizec
ORGAI
the average worker. Division becam@
a necessity because the reactionary
craft leadership of the A. F. of L, i the press fulfilling their classical role as labog/abc lieutenants of imperialism, continusgixir pol to cling to their refusal to organiaget the p the workers of the basic industriegutload t Under the stimulus of these workengeconomic activized in part by the consistengmon pec activities of the Trade Union Unitgwlidate League unions in some of the basigeganize industries, as well as by the newgvould developments on a world scale, trive of section of the A. F. of L. togeaering leadership in 1935 gave guidanogerganic | to the organization of the workeie A. F of the basic industries. This activi
gave expression to the sentiments og
ORGANIC UNITY: ON LABOR’S AGENDA
tndreds of thousands of these work- Stimulated by.the uninhibited w forces of leadership that came io the fore, and with the active sup- rt of all Left forces—in the first lace the Communists—it resulted in the present-day progressive C.1.O. tiwith its six million members.
POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF ORGANIC UNITY
An organically united trade union iMmovement, with nearly 14 million members (and more, if it included
railroad brotherhoods), could ave only a. progressive impact on
ganmihe affairs of labor and the nation to-
day. This is true generally and speci-
iofically in relation to the members of organized labor itself.
& Let us examine its effects in broad eneral outline as regards the prob- kms confronting labor and the na- gion.
q 1. It would immediately challenge
imthe present-day attacks against the
bor movement by the trusts and
“@ieir political stooges. It would up- imget the plans of monopoly capital to
isgunload the burdens of the coming economic crisis on labor and the com-
mon people. It would serve to con- dlidate all labor, including the un- igeganized, into a powerful force that would challenge the reactionary drive of monopoly capital. The mere tatering into serious negotiations for
dgthe A. F. of L. would in itself serve ice upon reaction in Congress labor was determined to fight,
299 and it could thus act as a lever to help defeat the planned anti-labor legislation. In general it would help the labor movement leave its present defensive position and move over on to the offensive against the trusts and reaction.
2. By virtue of uniting the main bodies of labor, a great stimulus would be given to rallying the allies of labor against the forces of reaction. A united labor movement would serve as a stimulus to activize and or- ganize all the democratic, anti-fascist people’s forces of America into a great coalition against Wall Street and its program of building a new American empire.
3. An organically united
labor
‘movement could inimediately throw
all capitalist political camps into great consternation as far as perspec- tives for the 1948 elections are cgn- cerned. On the basis of labor’s ex- periences with a Republican Con- gress in alliance with poll-tax Demo- crats, as well as with a compromis- ing, capitulating Truman adminis- tration, a united trade union move- ment would be a tremendous force for independent political action by all those committed to the F.D.R. program of Big Three unity, collabo- ration with the Soviet Union and the Roosevelt Economic Bill of Rights.
4- For all these reasons such a united trade union movement would be a decisive power for influencing our country to follow a policy of durable peace by making U. S.-Soviet collaboration the cornerstone of our foreign policy.
300
In its more limited and specific trade union sense an organically united trade union movement could have the following equally positive effects:
1. It would make possible a tre- mendous increase in the membership of organized labor. Instead of two organizing drives, with the corre- sponding losses due to useless, juris- dictional struggles, there could be a united organizing drive in the South. The unorganized millions in the white collar, agricultural, distribu- tive and servicing industries would be greatly stimulated to join such a united trade union movement.
2. The mass impact of the achieve- ment of organic unity would loosen all present bonds and relationships among trade union members and leaders in many industries and stim- ulate people to find new bearings, new allies, all on the basis of a new and different program.
3. It would open the doors to the 7 million A. F. of L. members who have tended to be shut off from the 6 million C.I.O. members by an arti- ficial “Chinese Wall” these past years. We have always maintained that there are few differences in the think- ing, feelings and aims of the aver- age A. F. of L. or C.1.O. member. The fraternization, the exchange of experiences, the immediate pooling of rank-and-file strength and ideas would be a tremendous force for progress. This would find its imme- diate organized expression within central labor councils, industry coun- cils and state bodies.
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Merely to outline the positive fe tures of an organically united trad union movement is to make d matically clear that its achievemen| is in the interest of the America working class and the trade uniog movement. Clearly it is not going to be achieved easily. It will tak a struggle to realize it. But if it is in the interest of the working class then it is correct to fight for its realizs tion, understanding that major stakes are involved for the workers today and in the future. All other consid: erations of a subjective nature (with whom will one have to associate; what are the motives of some people; what will happen to this or that post; etc.) must be placed to one side. The central determining consideration is that this unification will advance the immediate and more permanent aims of the working class. Everything ele must be subordinated to this.
POSSIBLE BASIS FOR ORGANIC UNITY
Organic labor unity clearly is : most serious matter. To be effective, as previously outlined, makes espe cially necessary a minimum agree: ment on certain basic conditions. The A. F. of L. letter to the C.LO. fortunately left out all the previous drivel about “returning to the hous of labor,” thus making it possible to negotiate between equals. Organic unity of A. F. of L. and C.LO. un doubtedly will be discussed on the basis of a program that includes the following:
1. All A. F. of to the n¢ eration, | leaving | leadersh: question jurisdict 2. An dustrial unions | 3 Ne gard to election 4. Aff eration Trade 5. Pr former leading Federat of any
6. Fu tional © cratic 1 their ¢ own le
7. C of any commi tion.
ve fea 1 trad ed vemen rericay union
goin om 9
I take it is in ss then ealiz stakes today consid: (with ociate: eople; t Post; e. The tion is ce the t aims ig else
ris a ective, espe: agree- itions. C.LO. *vioUs house ble to ‘ganic ). un- n the *s the
1. All International Unions of the A. F. of L. and the C.LO. to affiliate tothe newly-established United Fed- eration, as they are today constituted, kaving intact their present structure, ladership and membership. All uestions of subsequent merger and jurisdiction to be negotiated later.
2. An absolute guarantee of the in- dustrial union structure of those unions so constituted.
3. No racial discrimination in re- gard to acceptance of membership or election to leadership.
4. Afhliation of such a United Fed- eration to the World Federation of Trade Unions.
5. Proportionate representation of
former C.I.O. representatives on the -
leading committee of the United Federation, with no discrimination of any kind.
6. Full autonomy to each Interna- tional and guarantees of the demo- cratic rights of its members to adopt their own program and elect their own leaders.
7. Guarantees against expulsions of any International by the leading committee of such a United Federa- tion.
ORGANIC UNITY: ON LABOR’S AGENDA
301
TO REALIZE ORGANIC UNITY OF TRADE UNIONS REQUIRES A STRUGGLE
Communists recognize that it is not enough merely to be in favor of or- ganic unity. We believe it should be fought for. It will demand more ef- fective united front activities of the members and local unions within specific areas or industries while gen- eral negotiations are being con- ducted. The entire labor movement must reject and defeat the employ- ers’ efforts to divide the trade unions by Red-baiting. Above all it de- mands a hundred times greater ac- tivization of the rank-and-file of all trade unions, the development of lo- cal machinery to involve the mem- bership and greater democratization of the trade union movement.
We know that the interests of the American working class demand or- ganic unity of the trade union move- ment. While it is possible of achieve- ment now, it will not be attained easily. Nevertheless, irrespective of the date of its realization—efforts to achieve organic unity now can only have a positive effect inside and out- side the trade union movement.
THE BRITISH EMPIRE
COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
By WILLIAM Z. FOSTER
In tonpon, from February 26 to March 4, the Communist Parties of the British Empire met to con- sider the vast problems confronting their many peoples. Present were 28 delegates, coming from 12 countries, from all over the far-flung Empire, from Australia, Cyprus, Canada, In- dia, Malaya, Palestine, Ceylon, South Africa, Burma, North Ireland and Great Britain.
The conference was held in the well-known Beaver Hall, headquar- ters of the Hudson Bay Company, and the prevailing frigid weather, with the delegates wearing their over- coats, was reminiscent of the fur trapping business of this celebrated corporation. Within a few blocks of the Hall are the Mansion House, the Bank of England and many other in- stitutions famous in Empire history. And close by is the heavily bombed area surrounding St. Paul’s Cathe-
dral.
302
THE CRISIS OF THE BRITISH EMPIRE
The British Empire comprises (with mandated countries) almost 600 million people, about one-fourth of the population of the world. Of these great masses only about 70 mil- lions (in Great Britain and the four Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa) are self-governing. The rest are in Brit. ish-dominated colonies and man- dated territories. The great Empire, the biggest ever built by man, holds vast possessions in all the continents of the earth. And the proud boast of the British imperialists has long been that the sun never sets on this tremendous political system stretch- ing, as it does, around the world.
For over two hundred years Great Britain raled the world. Its imperial- ist traders and conquerors seized ter- ritories here and there pretty much as they saw fit; its industrialists led the industrial revolution and made Brit- ain “the workshop of the world”; its Navy dominated the seven seas and bade defiance to all rivals. The British imperialists believed they were indeed firmly established as the world’s rulers for ages to come.
But now this great Empire is in deep crisis. Economic and political forces are now at work that are tear- ing away its very foundations. The purpose of the Empire Conference was to analyze this crisis and to indi- cate ways for the many peoples of the Empire to avoid even greater hard- ships than they are now enduring
and te
nomic not th up a ¢ nist or gram | many tunity lems genera the fir the B: presse people Alre the Br tinct | to: ris larly ¢ Japan. pire a the va movec Work ther b crisis lief in the B lapse. The pire | major conne are: | itself; Britai grow Great (d) 1 Britai bloc; tion
and to work toward a livable eco- nomic and political system. It was not the aim of the Conference to set up a definite Empire-wide Commu- nist organization and a detailed pro-
prises lmost
ourth @ gram of action, but rather to give the |. Of @ many Communist parties an oppor- ) mil. § tunity to talk over the complex prob-
four § lems facing them and to indicate ralia, | general principles of policy. It was ) are | the first conference in the history of Brit | the Brtish Empire in which the op- man- § pressed millions of enslaved colonial apire, | peoples were truly represented.
holds Already, at the turn of the century, nents § the British Empire was showing dis- boast | tinct signs of losing its supremacy long § to-rising imperialist rivals, particu- this | larly Germany, the United States and etch. | Japan. World War I dealt the Em: Id. pire a heavy blow. Between the wars Sreat | the vaunted British never-setting sun erial. | moved steadily toward sundown, and 1 ter- | World War II gave the Empire a fur- chas § ther blow, leaving it in such a state of i the | crisis as to create a widespread be- Brit- | lief in Great Britain and abroad that rld”; | the British Empire is about to col- seas | lapse.
The The crisis now afflicting the Em- they J pire is very complex. At least five sthe | major phases of this crisis, all inter- | connected, may be indicated. These is in | are: (a) the crisis in Great Britain tical § itself; (b) the crisis between Great tear- § Britain and her colonies; (c) the The § growing contradictions between ence § Great Britain and the Dominions; indi- § (d) the critical situation for Great ‘the § Britain within the Anglo-American ard- | bloc; and (e) the unfavorable posi- ring | ton of Great Britain in relation to
THE BRITISH EMPIRE.COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
393
the rest of the world. Let us con- sider each of these phases separately, always bearing in mind their inter- connection.
ECONOMIC DIFFICULTIES IN GREAT BRITAIN
As a result of the many contradic- tions between the home country and its colonies and dominions, as well as with its imperialist rivals (which we shall discuss later), Great Britain finds itself, together with its Empire as a whole, in deep crisis. This crisis expresses itself in the home country, especially in an economic sense. Great Britain’s industries have be- come debilitated and obsolescent; so much so that today a British worker produces, on the average, about one- third as much per man-hour as an American worker. British industry obviously stands in most urgent need of rehabilitation, since in its present state it is quite incapable of com- peting with American industry on the world market. The serious weak- ness of British industry was graphi- cally illustrated by the partial col- lapse during the recent severe cold spell in Britain when, because of primitive methods in mining and transport, the heavy snow storms and bitterly cold weather created a coal shortage that shut down one-fourth of British industry, threw British cit- ies into a blackout and deprived homes, factories, offices, trains, etc., of heat. The coal crisis actually, for a while, jeopardized the existence of the Labor government.
304
What makes the weakness of Brit- ain’s industries all the more appar- ent and intense, is the country’s ur- gent need to double its efforts in or- der to keep up living standards, to repair the terrific damage from war- time bombing, to improve the acute housing situation, to rebuild Britain's decimated merchant fleet, to over- come the profound shortage of con- sumers’ goods and to provide indis- pensable exports. To add to these difficulties, there is an acute man- power shortage. A major factor con- tributing to this shortage is Britain’s aggressive foreign policy which keeps large bodies of British troops in vari- ous parts of the world and ties up large numbers of workers in Eng- land to feed, clothe and arm these im- perialist armies.
Britain’s economic troubles are in- tensified by a disastrous lack of capi- tal. During the war Britain lost one- third of her national wealth. She also spent half of her international invest- ments, rolled up a gigantic national debt and is operating at a yearly defi- cit of £400 million. Great Britain, which for many decades was the world’s big money lender, has now become a debtor nation. She is heav- ily in debt to India, Canada and the United States. After World War I she had to repudiate her war loans from the United States, and there is not the slightest possibility that she can pay the debts she has contracted during World War II.
The recent American loan of 4 billion dollars was supposed to pro- vide the means to make real head-
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
way in modernizing British industry, but this hope is proving a vain one, Already, nearly half of the loan js gone, from the effect of price rises in the United States and of purchases of consumer goods for the current needs of the British people. Almost nothing has been done to rehabilj- tate the sadly run-down industries, R. Palme Dutt, the British Commu. nist Party’s well-known expert on Empire and world affairs, who mad the main report at this Empire Con. ference, thus summed up the general causes leading to Great Britain's present serious plight:
This crisis of the Empire is centered in the heart of the Empire, in Britain. The traditional economic, social and political situation in Britain has been built upon the world monopoly which British capitalism was able to establish in the nineteenth century, the domina- tion and exploitation of one-quarter of the globe, and the drawing of over. seas tribute. By the eve of the war one- half of Britain’s imports were no longer paid for by exports of goods. This system led to neglect of development of Britain’s basic industries, which los their former primacy to newer capitalist rivals, especially Germany and _ the United States. The whole situation was already weakening and leading to con- ditions of chronic crisis in the years before the war. British capitalism was declining in the world market, com- pelled to introduce a closed system of tariffs and Empire preference to main- tain its grip of Empire markets, and a deficit in the balance of payment had begun to appear. The effects of the war have brought this serious economic situation to a menace of catastrophe,
which is Britain h
is not ak longer a _ de! ments ri only te America desperat to maint strategic the wor! power 3 construc
In Gi ards are tioned | of livin easily ¢ cially f uries.” cents)
shilling possibi rations a Con: in this the A spent
ards v cent.
amon ate fu creases econo! which paraly enfeet
THE CO
At
which is now universally recognized. Britain has lost its overseas investments, is not able to export capital, and is no longer a creditor, but a debtor country. The deficit on the balances of pay- ments runs into colossal figures and is only temporarily concealed by the American and Canadian loans. The desperate effort under these conditions
to maintain imperialist domination and mmu- @ strategic influences over one-quarter of “rt on § the world, is overstraining British man- ‘made | power and resources and crippling re- » Con. | “onstruction at home. eneral In Great Britain mass living stand- 1tain’s § ards are low; nearly everything is ra-
tioned and price-controlled. The cost ntered § of living is high (the rich, of course, sritain. f easily evade these restrictions). Espe- and § cially prohibitive are the small “lux- s been f uries.” Peaches cost 2 shillings (40 which cents) apiece, and grapes sell at 10 tablish hilli d. Th ‘mina, | Mullings a pound. There are grave oan possibilities of further reductions in - over. f Tations. Mr. Oliver Lyttleton, M.P., r one. 42 Conservative, making political hay longer ‘2 this situation, recently stated that
This ¥ he American loan would soon be
ent of | spent and that British living stand- h lost § ards would drop by another 40 per pitalist Gcent. There is much uneasiness J the J among the people as to the immedi- m was ate future. This uncertainty is in- © com Fcreased by the growing fear of an years f economic crisis in the United States n was B which, if at all severe, would have a fos, paralyzing effect on Britain’s already main. qweebled industries. and a + had § THE CRISIS IN GREAT BRITAIN’S ~ war | COLONIAL SYSTEM ai A major phase of the crisis of the
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
395
British Empire is the already tense and rapidly worsening relations be- tween Great Britain and her colonies and mandated territories. “All Asia is in revolt,” said G. Adhikari, well- known Communist of India, in his booklet, ‘Resurgent India. He points out that the whole colonial and semi- colonial world in the Middle and Far East is seething with national libera- tion struggles: India, Burma, Ceylon, Malaya, Egypt, Palestine—all British holdings—are blazing with revolt. The Dutch Empire in the Far East, which is a satellite of Great Britain, is also deeply affected, through the Indonesian Republic, by the vast up- surge of the colonial peoples. French Indo-China is likewise in the throes of revolt. The Communist parties are important forces in these mass movements fighting for freedom. The causes of this tremendous struggle for freedom, perhaps the greatest in human history, are mani- fold. For one thing, all these colo- nies were heavily depleted economi- cally during the war. Their econo- mies were thrown into confusion, and their peoples fell victims to a plague of profiteers and black-mar- keteers. Now that the war is over, their peoples face inflationary high prices, greatly increased taxation and a sharp growth of repressive meas- ures from the imperialist powers. These difficulties are stoking the fires of revolt. : Another basic cause of the present general colonial upsurge is the tre- mendous loss of prestige suffered by the white imperialists — British,
306
French and Dutch — during the course of the war. The colonial peo- ples saw the armed forces of the “in- vincible” European oppressors col- lapse and flee in the face of the Japa- nese offensive. They saw Burma eas- ily overrun, and Singapore and Hong Kong fall like rotten fruit. They saw the erstwhile all-powerful British Navy, practically helpless, virtually abandon the whole Pacific. These events gave a tremendous im- petus everywhere to the colonial na- tional liberation movements.
Another major factor contributing to the present situation is the disap- pointment felt by the oppressed peo- ples in the Middle and Far East at the failure of the Labor government to put an end to the outrageous col- onial system of Great Britain. At the Empire Conference delegate after delegate told the bitter story of how the hopes of the colonial peoples in their respective countries had soared when the workers of Great Britain put the Labor government in power and, in 1945, how these same peoples were disillusioned and angered by Bevin’s continuance of the old Tory colonial slave policy.
The general result has been the present unprecedented mass libera- tion struggles in the colonial coun- tries. These struggles are straining the British Empire at its very founda- tions. In particular, the resolute fight of the Indian people is threatening to topple the whole British colonial system.
R. Palme Dutt, at the Empire Con- ference, evaluated the colonial crisis
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
as follows:
Already after the first world wa British imperialism emerged weakened and faced widespread colonial revo which resulted in varying forms ¢ constitutional compromise, such as th cession of Dominion status with pari tion, to Ireland, the cession of formd independence with military occupation to Egypt, and constitutional reforms in India. But in the new world situation, after the defeat of fascism, the crisis ¢ British imperialism is enormously ip tensified. . . . The colonial peoples ar in full revolt.
The upheavals in the colonies and mandated territories are having far reaching negative effects on the home economy of Great Britain. They are also sharpening the Empire crisis in every other direction. They are, is addition, drastically undermining Great Britain’s strength and prestige as a leading world imperialist power.
BRITAIN AND HER DOMINION RIVALS
Another dart in the neck of the be devilled British Empire is the grow- ing rivalry, economic and political, between Great Britain and her four Dominions, particularly Canada and Australia. These countries, as Tim Buck of Canada, the reporter on Do minion problems at the Empire Con- férence, pointed out, are no longer mere dependents on Great Britain but are independent lands:
The British Dominions, which but a
few yes upon dl come, a a0, states.
Canada, which
domina' chies, 2 aims ai and th with t capitalis
Thes hesitati as wel dence « they ta her on see fit. Lauren ternal . ada we its [ the tion or “tend to Can: tion Ww the de’ zation.
Poin tude ¢ ions tc Harry Comm stated :
Non« nett, Canada ber, th Britain
ld wa -akened | reve rms ¢ 1 as thd h parti | fo ma “upation orms in ituation, crisis of usly in. ples ar
ies an ng far e home rey are risis in are, in mining prestige power,
the be- grow. litical, t four la and s Tim yn Do e Con-
longer Britain
1 but a
few years back were still dependent upon the United Kingdom, have be- come, as Engels foretold fifty-five years ago, politically independent capitalist gates. Two of them, Australia and Canada, have developed to the stage in which their national economies are dominated by finance capitalist oligar- chies, and the domestic and foreign aims and policies of the monopolists and their governments are stamped with the characteristics of finance capitalist imperialism.
These ambitious Dominions un- hesitatingly declare their economic, as well as their political, indepen- dence of the mother country. Nor do they talk at competing openly with her on the world market when they see fit. Tim Buck said that Louis St: Laurent, Canadian Minister for Ex- ternal Affairs, recently declared Can- ada would oppose “any ‘freezing’ of its [the Empire’s] forms of organiza- tion or supra-national authority,” or “‘tendency’ to become an obstacle to Canada’s relationship and coopera- tion with other governments, or to the development of a world organi- zation.”
Pointing up this competitive atti- tude economically, of the Domin- ions toward the United Kingdom, Harry Pollitt, general secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, sated :
None of us can forget that Mr. Ben- nett, the former Prime Minister of Canada, said in London last Novem- ber, that if there exist any in Great Britain who believe that Canada and
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
397
Australia were not going to enter into competition with the Motherland in relation to shipbuilding and heavy engineering, they were being deluded.
The Dominions are no less inde- pendent and aggressive in their for- eign policies. Said Tim Buck:
The role of the Dominions in the shaping of world policy has changed greatly and is still changing. The period and the conditions in which the Dominion Governments were content to influence events solely, or in the main, by influencing the opinion of the Imperial Government is already far in the background. The Dominion gov- ernments now seek to exert their own direct influence upon world policy in pursuit of their own aims which .. . do not always coincide with those of the British Government.
The Dominions, particularly Can- ada and Australia, are tending to fall into the orbit of the more power- ful American imperialism. Also, like the mother country, this is in the role of junior partners and on terms that often injure British interests as such. On this point Tim Buck remarked:
The turn of the Dominions’ monop- olists and their governments toward junior partnership with the United States is in fact part of a re-grouping of world finance-capitalist interests, with United States imperialism as its center and spearpoint in place of the British Isles.
The Dominions, it is true, still ac- tively suport the Empire, since it
308
gives them a good bargaining in- strument with which to secure better terms from the ruthless United States monopolists. Nevertheless, their gen- eral lines of competitive economic policy and of independent political action definitely tend to undermine the world position of Great Britain. The latter’s weakening hold on her Dominions is-an important part of the general crisis of the British Em- pire.
GREAT BRITAIN, JUNIOR PARTNER OF THE UNITED STATES
Great Britain has been so com- pletely outstripped by the United States in the fight for world lead- ership that her role of second fiddle in the Anglo-American bloc is now taken for granted even in Empire circles. In many parts of the world, in Argentina, Spain, the Middle East, the Far East and in various British
Dominions and colonies, British im- perialism is putting up a stubborn _ story vividly: IN 1848 Great Britain USA. & Ireland Population (in millions) 28 22 Coal production (million tons) . 50 6 Iron smelting (million tons) 2 0.6 Cotton consumption (million tons) 0.32 0.1 IN 1900 Great Britain USA. Population (in millions) ...... 41 76 Coal production (million tons) 225 241 Iron smelting (million tons) ..... ; 9 14 Cotton consumption (million tons) 1.5 0.4
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
battle against the encroachments of American imperialism, and this an. tagonism always threatens Anglo. American relations. However, over. riding interests lead the two grea imperialist groups to make common cause against the rising world forces of democracy and for joint world domination. And-in their joint a. tivities the United States, because of its superior economic strength, holds the whip-hand.
In a recent article, Eugene Varga, the noted Soviet economist, whik warning sharply that the weaknes of Britain must not be exaggerated nor the significance of the Anglo American antagonisms underest- mated, paints a picture. of declining British imperialism being forced into second place by rising American im perialism in the spheres of industry, finance, military strength and world political influence. Among many facts, he presents the following three tables, which tell the basic economic
R. Pa Empire ing to s tween t tems:
At th represen power i damage profited is two-f tion, It seas fro in the atom be and air globe. world tained jingo b domina unconc¢ “Am ing anc ish in thrown known pansior the Bi prize,” while Great | world time d British
ents of IN his an. Anglo Population (in millions without Eire)
ause of 1, holds
Varga,
while -akness verated Anglo- deresti- clining ed into ‘an im- dustry,
world
many x three nomic
USA.
22
0.6 0.1
Coal production (million tons) Steel production (million tons) Electric power (billions of KW)
R. Palme Dutt in his report to the Empire Conference had the follow- ing to say regarding the relations be- tween the two great imperialist sys- tems:
At the present time the United States represents the strongest imperialist power in the world. Untouched by war fbnse: it alone among the powers has proited from the war. Its production is two-fifths of capitalist world produc- tion. It has taken over command of the
in the air, as well as monopoly of the atom bomb. Its strategic’ military, naval and air bases extend over the entire globe. The aims of expansion and world domination which are enter- tained by the ruling militarists and jingo big business Republican sections dominating its policies, are open and unconcealed.
“American imperialism is advanc- ing and expanding,” said Dutt. “Brit- ih imperialism is declining and thrown on the defensive. It is well known that the aims of American ex- pansion extend to the absorption of the British Empire as the richest prize.” American imperialist policy, while utilizing the alliance with Great Britain to facilitate its drive for world domination, is at the same time directed toward weakening the British Empire and toward removing
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
sas from Britain and holds superiority
399
1946 Great Britain U.S.A. 46 130 232 352 10.5 29 31 116
it as a dangerous obstacle to the ex- pansion of American imperialism. All of this the British big business men and government leaders realize, but with their imperialist line they are unable to circumvent it. In this connection Dutt further remarked:
The British imperialists are well aware of the menace of American de- signs to their interests. But they are also aware of their economic depend- ence on the United States, expressed in the American loan, and of their stra- tegic inferiority and dependence on the United States. They know they can only hope strategically to maintain the Empire by the aid of the United States, even though they know equally well that the price of that aid means the continuous cession of the Empire to penetration and domination by the United States.
In short, in the realm of U. S- British relations in the Anglo-Ameri- can bloc the general crisis of the Brit- ish Empire expresses itself by a growing retreat—a surrender of one position after another to American imperialism. The present result of this fact is that the British Empire, for all its vast territory and its stub- . born resistance to the advances of its great American rival, is definitely the lesser and diminishing factor in the Anglo-American bloc.
310
BRITAIN AND THE WORLD CRISIS IN IMPERIALISM
The crisis in the British Empire is further accentuated by the deep difficulties in which imperialism in general finds itself following World War II. Dutt, in his brilliant report to the Empire Conference, listed these difficulties of imperialism un- der five heads (which I have greatly condensed), as follows, especially as regards the situation of Britain:
1. Imperialism has been weakened by the downfall of Germany, Japan and Italy, and by the rise in strength and influence of the Soviet Union and the new democracies in Europe.
2. The establishment of the United Nations, despite its many present de- fects and weaknesses, reflects a new world balance of forces which in many respects is disadvantageous to * the imperialist powers.
3. The increased world influence and leading role of the Soviet Union is of especial significance for the co- lonial peoples.
4. The increased strength of the working class, democratic and pro- gressive forces in all countries, in- cluding the imperialist countries, powerfully assists the liberation movement of the colonial peoples.
5. Most important of all for the fu- ture of colonial liberation is the ris- ing upsurge of the colonial peoples themselves.
These increased obstacles for world imperialism are having the specific result of intensifying all the contra-
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
dictions within the British Empire and of sharpening every aspect of the general Empire crisis.
American imperialism, upon the close of the war, undertook to break through all these obstacles and to ¢ tablish its world control by launching a great diplomatic offensive. Its idea was by this offensive to set up it domination immediately. To this; end, it made full use of diplomatic pressure, the political use of foreign loans and food reserves and the men- ace of war with the atom bomb. ls general plan was to smash the resis. ance of the Soviet Union; break up; the democratic forces in eastern Eu rope; take over Germany, Italy and Japan as satellites; establish control over the weakened countries of west- ern Europe; beat down the flames of colonial revolt; fasten tighter the American grip upon Latin America; }; and, last but not least, undermine the §; position of the British Empire. Great Britain went along with this grandi- ose scheme for the immediate reali- zation of world domination by the Anglo-American bloc, in which it is playing the role of the minor part- ner.
But things have not gone as well as these imperialist plotters had ex- pected. The peoples of the world, just escaped from the international menace of fascism at such a heavy cost, are in no mood tamely to put on the yoke of Wall Street. Resist- ance has been much greater than an- ticipated by the imperialists in the case of the U.S.S.R., the peoples of colonial Asia and Africa, democratic
[ts idea Up its ‘o this omatic foreign e men- nb. Its - resist- sak up rn Ev ly and -ontrol E west. mes of *r the nerica; ne the Great rrandi- - reali- ry the ich it r part-
s well id ex- world, tional heavy O put Resist- in an- n the les of cratic
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
Europe and Latin America. In Great Britain, too, there has been strong pular resistance to the wild im- perialist drive of the Anglo-American bloc. This world resistance has defi- sitely slowed down the progress of the imperialists. But it has not yet sopped them. In particular, it has not stopped the United States, which js now weaving imperialist plots in all corners of the world—in China, the Middle East, Latin America, Europe and even the North and South Poles—in its ruthless drive for power. In this general connection American reactionaries are widely propogating the idea that war
against the Soviet Union is inevi- table. The rabid postwar imperialist cam-
paign of the Anglo-American bloc has still further worsened the situa- tion of the British Empire. By strain- ing weakened British resources, it has intensified the crisis in Great Britain itself; it has prevented Brit- ain from establishing valuable eco- nomic relations with the U.S.S.R. and democratic Europe; it has inflamed the colonial revolts all over the Far East; it has weakened still further Britain’s bonds with her Dominions; and, above all, it has made Great Britain more dependent upon the United States economically and po- itically. Britain’s attempt to keep mperialist pace with the United Sates, even in its accepted role of jior partner of American impe- falism, has deepened and intensified ihe crisis in its Empire in every re- pect.
31
THE IMPERIALIST POLICY OF THE LABOR GOVERNMENT
The policies of the Labor govern- ment, both foreign and domestic, despite the wishes of Attlee, Bevin, et al, are not alleviating, but are in- tensifying the crisis in which the Em- pire now finds itself. So far as the situation in Britain proper is con- cerned, the government’s timid ap- proach to nationalization and eco- nomic planning and its solicitous care that the financial interests and managerial positions of the capital- ists shall be protected, in no sense constitute the drastic course neces- sary to lift British industry out of its present serious condition.
Nor does the Labor government's attitude toward the Dominions, which is a continuation of Tory pol- icy, improve the situation in the sphere of the crisis. Likewise, as re- gards the Anglo-American bloc, the Labor government is going right along with that alignment and all its imperialist adventures under Ameri- can leadership. Bevin’s policy in this respect is hardly to be distinguished from Churchill’s. The general result of the Labor government's Anglo- American bloc policy is to drive a wedge between Britain and the US.S.R. and the new European democracies and thus to make Brit- ain more and more dependent upon the United States with all the nega- tive economic and political conse- quences that this entails, including the danger of a new world war.
Labor government policy is no less
312
disastrous in its effects upon the rela- tions between Great Britain and the colonies. The Social-Democratic lead- ers loudly proclaim that they are liquidating imperialism and have the objective of liberating the colonies. But the plain facts are that the im- perial-minded heads of the Labor government are using every device to hang on to the colonies, especially India, and their methods, although heavily buttered with liberal -dema- gogy, do not differ basically from those of their predecessors in power, the Tories.
Conference delegates from all over the Empire told harrowing stories of violent efforts on the part of the British authorities, with their age-old British policy of divide and conquer, to break up the national unity of various colonial peoples and to hang on to what they can of the colonies and mandated territories. The Em- pire Conference declaration, in which the work of the Conference was summarized, thus emphatically repudiated the present general im- perialist policies of the Labor govern- ment:
We condemn the continued occupa- tion of Greece, the subjugation of Cyprus and Malta, the holding down of Palestine, the bolstering up of reac- tionary feudal puppet regimes of Iraq and Trans-Jordan, the retention of British troops in Egypt, the categorical refusal to recognize the national inde- pendence of India and Burma, the denial of a democratic constitution for Malaya, and the maintenance and use of British troops in those countries to
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
suppress their freedom movements, and the military aid given by British im perialism to crush the liberation strug gle of the peoples of Indonesia and Vie Nam.
Mr. Winston Churchill, in a f mous wartime remark, stated that he had not been elevated to the head of the government in order to pre. side over the dissolution of the Brit ish Empire. But it is precisely the policies long carried out by Churchill and his fellow-Tories, and now being so actively applied by the Labor gov. ernment, that are resulting in the disintegrating tendencies so striking. ly evident within the British Em. pire. One of the ironies of history is that although the Social-Democratic leaders of the Labor government are busily trying to save the Empire’s co- lonial possessions if they can, their efforts, which are clearly in line with Tory policy, are much deprecated by the ultra-reactionary Mr. Churchill Characteristically, he said recently that the Labor government is “cast ing away our Empire.”
THE GENERAL PROGRAM OF THE EMPIRE CONFERENCE
The Empire Conference adopted a set of demands that would drasti- cally change the government's policy toward the Empire. So far as Brit- ain itself is concerned, there was an implicit acceptance of the line of policy adopted at the Congress of the Communist Party of Great Brit- ain which was held on the eve of the Empire Conference. The major fea-
tures ¢ come situatic main, the < planne sion O of hea of the cfs, ar ent C natior ment ments So cernet for t with Unite Angl ence full : politi and of E dem: coun but State crati it d dom unit
labo
tures of this line, designed to over- come the present serious industrial situation in Britain, consisted, in the main, of the following major steps: the development of a_ national planned economy, the rapid exten- sion of nationalization into the area of heavy industry, the improvement
oa of the living standards of the work- e Bri. cts and the replacement of the pres- cly they cat capitalist-minded personnel in urchill nationalized industry and _govern- ’ being mental departments with reliable ele- or gov. ments. a in the 5° far as the Dominions are con- riking. cerned, the Empire Conference called ) Em for their close working together tory s4 With Great Britain within the ocratic] United Nations. Regarding the nt ref Anglo-American bloc, the Confer- -e’s co. ence called for its dissolution and for their full collaboration economically and © with | Politically, between Great Britain ted by | and the planned-economy countries irchill, | Of Europe. The Conference did not cently | demand an economic bloc of these “cay. | countries against the United States, but it did propose that the United States be required to work demo- \F cratically with other lands and that E it desist from attempts at world domination. It demanded Big Three lopted unity and genuine international col- drasti- | laboration. policy! The main business of the Empire ; Brit- | Conference had to do with the colo- ‘as anf nies, and it was on this matter that ne of f it developed the most thorough pro- sss of § gram. Briefly summarized, the Con- Brit-f ference called for the immediate, un- of the f qualified independence of India, Bur- r fea} ma and Ceylon. It demanded the
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
313
evacuation of Egypt, Palestine, Iraq and Trans-Jordan, and it opposed Britain’s attempt to dominate the Arab countries. It insisted on the right of self-determination for Malta and Cyprus. It also demanded the establishment of full civil rights in the African and other colonies of the Empire, with “full support of these peoples in their aspirations for free- dom and the right of self-determina- tion.”
The Conference sharply signalized and condemned the developing war danger:
A great responsibility rests upon the working class and peoples of the Empire countries in the struggle be- tween the forces of reaction fomenting a new world war and the forces for peace and progress. The imperialist policies continued by the British Labor government are a betrayal of its elec- tion pledges. Aided and abetted by the Dominion governments, it is stimulat- ing and encouraging the warmonger- ing elements everywhere.
The Conference linked up the struggles of the workers and op- pressed peoples throughout the Em- pire. The policy declaration said:
The fight for the peace of the world, the advance of the subject peoples to independence, the struggle of the workers for Socialism, are all part of a common fight. The alliance of the freedom movements of the subject peoples and the working-class move- ment is vital for the victory of the aims
of both.
314 The declaration further stated:
The British Communist Party has a special responsibility in association with those forces of the labor movement now struggling for a complete change in the Labor government’s foreign, colonial and Empire policy. The Com- munist parties of the Dominions also have special responsibilities along similar lines, particularly in Australia and New Zealand where Labor govern- ments are in power.
THE PERSPECTIVE FOR THE EMPIRE ;
The capitalist world is now greatly alarmed at the serious situation ex- isting within the British Empire. New York is almost as much worried about it as London is. The capital- ists understand that the breakup of the British Empire would shake the capitalist system of the world. Mr. Sydney Gampell, a British econo- mist writing in the New York Times of February 25, says that “Britain’s economic difficulties are in reality a world crisis.” And the headline writ- ten to the same article, shouted that “World Chaos Seen If British Col- lapse.” Mr. Gampell sums up Great Britain’s plight in these significant words: “Britain, whose national ex- istence depends on exports, at pres- ent is not producing a cent’s worth of exports.”
American imperialists, who are bent on achieving world domination, do not want to see the Empire fall to pieces. They want to weaken
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Britain, so that she will no longer be a dangerous rival to them; but they are afraid that if the Empire breaks up many of the pieces will go to the democratic Left. The prospect of the dissolution of the British Em pire is indeed one to make capitalis hearts everywhere quake.
Of course, as Varga warns, we must not overestimate the severity of the present Empire crisis. The British Empire is still tough. Even during this war, which did so much to accentuate the crisis, the Empire managed to extend its swollen land mass substantially. Nevertheless, the Empire is in real difficulty, as we have seen, and its troubles increase daily. A British Empire without In- dia, and India is almost surely on the way out, would be a very different, and weaker, Empire indeed. Such an Empire, if it continued along present imperialist lines, could be only a weak satellite of the United States.
At the Empire Conference no little attention was given to the question of the perspectives of the Empire. The consensus of opinion seemed to be: (1) that the colonies must be freed in the interests of all sections of the Empire; (2) when the colo- nies are freed, they may find it proft- able to develop collaboration with what is left of the Empire; (3) if not, the home country and the Domin- ions would find it advantageous to cooperate together, especially in view of the menace of American imperial- ism. In the main report, R. Palme Dutt expressed the Empire perspec- tive as follows:
rospect sh Em.
Apitalist
ns, we severity
rcrease rut In- on the ferent, uch an resent mnily a States. 0 little lestion mpire. red to ist be ctions
colo- profit-
with if not, omin- us to view yerial- Palme rspec-
There is no antagonism between the interests of British working people and the interests of the colonial peoples. On the contrary, we are fighting in Britain for such changes in the policy and personnel of the government as would guarantee a change from the present imperialist exploitation of the
THE BRITISH EMPIRE COMMUNIST CONFERENCE
315
colonial peoples and lead to a real friendship between the free and equal peoples. On such a basis, the continued association of the British people with the peoples now in the British Empire, if they desire it, can be to our mutual
benefit.
THE PEOPLE HGHT BACK FOR RENT AND HOUSING
By LILLIAN GATES
FIvE MONTHS HAVE ELAPSED since the November elections, when the Re- publicans and Tory Democrats loudly proclaimed that the Ameri- can people had voted for a “new era”, an end to New Dealism and a “re- turn” to “unrestricted free enter- prise.” Only a few days after Elec- tion Day President Truman took this as his cue to lift all price controls except those on rice, sugar, and rent and warned that “an adjustment in rents may be necessary.”
The contention that the people voted for “unrestricted free enter- prise” was not true, but it has served as a convenient excuse for the on- slaught against labor and further at- tacks on the living standards of the people. That contention is now be- ing exploded, in dramatic fashion, in the developing struggles of the people against rent increases and on related problems. Despite the power- ful lobby of the real estate interests Republicans and Democrats alike have discovered that killing rent con- trol is not as easy as it promised to
316
be in the first flush of the “new era,” Eager as they are to grant the wishes of the real estate interests for rent increases and the end of rent control, neither the Republican nor the Democratic leadership wishes to be held responsible for such an act.
THE POLITICAL LINE-UP
Of course, differences between the Democrats and the Republicans due to their maneuverings for political position are no safeguard for the maintenance of effective rent con trol. With the exception of a hand- ful of Senators such as Wagner, Mur- ray, Taylor, and some members of the House of Representatives, Con- gress is basically united on the elimi- nation of rent control. It has already been seriously hampered and under- mined. For one thing, there is the refusal by Congress of sufficient funds to O.P.A. for the proper en- forcement of rent control after April 30. Another serious dent in the rent control machinery is the new “hard: ship” ruling announced by Major General Fleming in February, under which landlords will find it easier than ever (and it was never too diffi- cult) to secure rent increases.
Congress is expected to act on a rent control law in April. The Sen- ate Committee on Banking and Cur- rency, which has jurisdiction over rent control legislation, has been seriously divided on this issue. The chairman, Senator Tobey (Republi- can, N. H.), is reported to be against a general rent increase (although he, too, is concerned about “genuine
hardsh with S a flat
real throug to the came t and o! delica' his p happe when bie” ¢ classif decon Rent Boar¢ trolle woul cases. revea His | trol sudd peop der spon Tl was per cert: lead V Sen duc wot are. inte con
W era,” Wishes or rent ‘ontrol, mr the to be
hardship” cases among landlords), with Senator Hawkes and Buck for 1 flat increase and for ending any ral rent control enforcement through the device of leaving it “up to the courts.” Senator Taft finally
ct. came to the rescue of the Republicans and offered them a way out of their delicate’ political dilemma. Under his plan, the same thing would en the J} happen to rent control that happened 1s due f when he master-minded the “zom- litical FF pie” O.P.A. bill: Certain areas and or the § classifications of buildings could be - Com § decontrolled at the discretion of a hand- § Rent Adjustment and Decontrol Mur. F Board, new housing would be decon- ers of § trolled, and further adjustments Con- § would be made in landlord “hardship elimi- f cases.” The very name “decontrol” ready f reveals what Taft really has in mind. inder- | His plan amounts to killing rent con- is the f trol by gradual means rather than icient | sudden, the aim being to prevent the rt en- § people from knowing that the mur- April § der is taking place or who was re- rent § sponsible for it. hard: The Truman administration which Major {| was fully prepared to grant a ten inder f per cent increase earlier in the year, -asiet § certainly has not led and will not difi- | lead the fight to save rent control. Without administration support, on a § Senators. Wagner and Murray intro- Sen- | duced a rent control bill which Cur- J would continue controls as they now over § are. Labor and all those genuinely been f interested in maintenance of rent The } controls are supporting the bill. ubli- Governor Dewey has tried to make uinst political capital of the fact that New rhe, | York State was the first state in the uineé § Union with a rent control law. This
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
317
maneuver has become more difficult in the face of the threats to federal control. The New York State rent control law has several basic defects: it sets no definite “freeze” date for rent ceilings in the state; it has no apparatus for enforcement and prac- tically no funds. The Republicans refused to amend the law to over- come these defects.
State rent control bills are being considered in at least eleven states. The drive is on to model other rent control laws after the _ inef- fective New York statute. Virginia has adopted a rent control law, pro- viding for a 15 per cent increase, should federal rent control be lifted or amended to allow an over-all in- crease.
All this means that the fight to keep rents from going the way of all commodities will be a bitter one, against a gigantic array of financial interests and their tools in Congress and the state legislatures.
The fight on the national front, and in the state, for maintenance of rent control must be continued and accelerated.
PEOPLE’S LINE-UP
The fight has begun to take shape in a growing number of cities and to involve all the basic elements of the democratic coalition. Both the A. F. of L. and the C.LO. are on record for retention of control intact. It was especially the last-minute interven- tion of Philip Murray, added to the
mass protests, which forced Presi-
318
dent Truman to cancel the “mysteri- ous” ten per cent rent increase order after it was all set for public release.
Further proof of the scope of the movement is the formation of the National Fair Rent Committee, with former New York Mayor LaGuardia as chairman, and including Henry A. Wallace, Chester Bowles, Gover- nor James E. Folsom of Alabama, Secretary-Treasurer James B. Carey of the C.1.O. and Charles Bolte, of the American Veterans Committee. All major veterans’ organizations, with the exception of the national leadership of the American Legion, are opposed to rent increases. (The Legion’s Housing Committee is dominated by big real estate men.) The Negro people’s organizations— the Urban League, the N.A.A.CLP., the National Negro Congress—are opposed to rent increases, as are such groups as the National Council of Jewish Women and the American Jewish Congress.
Of the greatest importance is the rebirth and upsurge of a grass-roots tenants’ movement, broader than any previous ones, and based on organi- zation of the individual tenants of apartment houses. In New York City at least 85 consumers’ and ten- ants’ councils exist. Attached to them are hundreds of organized houses with a potential membership of tens of thousands.
“HAD ENOUGH” There are three main reasons for
the firmer opposition to an increase in rents which is now taking form.
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
One is that rent is such a major por. tion of the income of the family and affects so many families. At least 25 per cent of the average family’s in. come goes for rent, the percentage being higher for Negro families, Fifty per cent of the families in the United States are tenants. (The fig- ure is 84 per cent in New York City, and it is also high in other large cities.) Another reason is that the housing shortage is so acute and progress made in meeting it so in significant that glib talk about the “law of supply and demand” is un- convincing. Many people still re- member what happened after World War I, when rents went up 300 per cent in some cities and evictions took place on a mass scale.
The third reason, and perhaps the most important in its political impli- cations, is the experience of the peo ple during the last five months, since the abolition of price control. The price of food has risen more than 50 per cent since O.P.A. controls were removed on June 30, 1946. Pork is at an all-time high, and prices of other meats are rising. Bread is go ing up. Fish, butter, milk and vege- tables continue to sell for record prices. There has been no appreci- able fall in the prices of other com- modities. Thus, while some sections of the population were confused dur- ing the election campaign by the Re- publican cry of “Had Enough,” and by their story that price control was responsible for high prices, since then the consequences of uncon- trolled economy is rapidly dispelling such confusions.
It ha:
of price attitude
A. F. o ment « needed the pur and to worker: basis ni the Re Enougi fensive robber)
PROP/ REA
The tons of lobby tional Boards Apartr sociati other lobby radio main other war-b« has b that 1 pressic and r ing sk to ove the b lack « that 1
is ab
witht tate.”
It has been the continued rising of prices that brought about the firm attitude of the C.I.O. and forced the A. F. of L. to oppose the abandon- ment of rent control. Action is needed to prevent further inroads on the purchasing power of the people and to increase the income of the workers to meet higher costs. The basis now exists for hurling back at the Republicans their cry of “Had Enough” and for organizing the of- fensive of the people against the robbery of the trusts.
PROPAGANDA OF THE REAL ESTATE LOBBY
The picture as it is painted by the
tons of propaganda of the real estate .
lobby is quite different. The Na- tional Association of Real Estate Boards, the National Association of Apartment Owners, the National As- sociation of Home Builders and other members of the real estate lobby have flooded the country with radio and press propaganda. Their main argument is that while every other industry has profited in the war-boom times, “only real estate has been penalized.” They insist that rent ceilings exist as of “de- pression levels.” And, finally, more and more seeking to use the hous- ing shortage as the lever with which to overthrow rent control, they place the blame on rent control for the lack of housing. They state bluntly that until and unless a// rent control is abolished, “private investors will withhold their money from real es- tate.”
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
319
All these arguments are easily proved to be false. Profits for real estate are at an all-time high. An official O.P.A. report, based on a survey of 26 cities, showed that land- lords of large houses in 1945 in- creased their net operating income 25 per cent above 1939, while land- lords of small houses (less than five units) had an increase of 43 per cent, in both cases after expenses were paid. This prosperity is based main- ly on hundred per cent occupancy, though decline and elimination of services were contributing factors. (Even with rent control, over 900,000 “hardship” increases were allowed: cases in which the landlord claimed to make an insufficient profit.) Rent ceilings were not established as of 1939 (“depression” level), but in most cities at 1942 and 1943 levels when vacancies were at a premium.
It may be true that the rate of profit of real estate does not equal that attained by some of the big cor- porations through their war orders or through speculation with food- stuffs. The argument of the real es- tate industry boils down to this: that they did not get as big a share of the “take” from the American people as some of the other industries did. Yet an increase from $597,000,000 in 1939 to $1,180,000,000 for landlords in 1944 (not the peak year, either) can hardly justify their claim of “confiscation.”
Where do the small home-owners fit into this picture? The real estate group and their powerful financial backers try to domi- nate and control civic associations,
320
and to inveigle the small home owner into a common front against labor. This presents a danger to the democratic coalition in this coun- try, which must develop a program for, and an alertness to, the issues of concern to the small home-owner. This group is an important part of the population, especially in small towns and in cities where large sec- tions of the working class own or are buying their homes.
Home purchases have increased tremendously during the war years. Many veterans have been forced to buy homes at prices they cannot afford. This situation has called forth a warning from Commissioner John F. Fahey of the Federal Home Loan Bank of a “mortgage panic,” which will result in billion dollar losses to millions of people as well as a wave of foreclosures and evic- tions, when the economic crisis comes.
The possibilities of forms of tax exemption which will decrease the tax burden on the small home-owner while not benefitting big real estate should be explored in every city and state. A program for better city ser- vices (such as garbage removal and street improvements); against taxes like sales, cigarette and gasoline taxes that fall on the lower income groups; for greater income tax exemptions for lower-income groups; and for lower fares and public utility rates— these are some of the objectives that can gain the support of the small home-owner, and even the small landlord, and help win them for the common struggle against Big Busi-
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
the real « trols was councils with ref jevanct Pendle They als nent hot ness of
ness. Higher rents for small land. lords cannot be a basis for unity, since tenants cannot pay higher rents regardless of the size of the land- lord’s holding. In times of crisis more far-reaching and drastic pro posals will have to be put forward for small home-owners, such as a
moratorium on foreclosures and re y mg financing at lower interest rates, wwe THE PEOPLE'S STRUGGLE — FOR RENT CONTROL This 1 is 1 x! The outcome of this struggle will ae not be determined solely, or even § o¢ the | fundamentally, on the legislative experien front. As Eugene Dennis said in § ater th his speech at the December 35, } Greater 1946 meeting of the National Com- J Council mittee: number F. of L The legislative fight for rent controls § the ren can succeed only if it is accompanied § The tra by the mass organization of tens and support thousands of tenants in the cities, ona — . th neighborhood and block basis. “nem with th This is what is happening in New aT te York “City, with the help of the } Leacue Communist Party, the American La fy, | bor Party, the trade unions, and § 44 other people’s organizations. A tre- J 54: .:4, mendous field for tenant organiza- ativity tion exists in New York City. In "racked Manhattan 98 per cent of all resi J ny dents are tenants; in the Bronx 92 Of per cent; in Brooklyn 81 per cent; growth and in Queens 64 per cent. The basis J 3}. Uy, for such a movement had been laid, J Tyan to some degree, in the activity of con- ff },. 6 sumers’ councils organized and led § of ten, almost completely by women. When
the real estate drive to end rent con- trols was begun in November, these councils began to canvass homes with rent control petitions, discuss grievances and set up committees to handle them and fight evictions. They also began to organize perma- nent house committees. The readi- ness of the people to respond was shown in one vivid example in Wil- liamsburg, where some 2,000 people gathered at a few hours’ notice to protest an eviction.
This movement promises to be far more extensive in character than any
will Fin the past. This is due to the growth aa of the labor movement and to the ive
experience of the people during and after the last economic crisis. The
3% § Greater New York Industrial Union.
™ F Council of the C.1.O. and a large number of individual C.I.O. and A. F. of L. locals have been active in rols } the rent and housing movement.
The trade unions urgently need the ~ support of tenants’ organizations,
since their ewn members are faced with the problems of rent increases, vil evictions and related problems. The the old slogan of the United Tenants
League, “Be a Trade Unionist in
a Your Home,” needs to be revived me and used as a guide to action for the a individual trade union member. Such in § “tity will also build closer unity x between the trade unionist and his community. ‘a Of special significance are the ats F growth and outstanding activities of Ss the United Harlem Consumers’ and "> | Tenants’ League. This organization ed has fought on every conceivable kind
of tenants’ problem, preventing evic-
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
321
tions and securing action from the city itself. Such an organization fills a great need in Harlem and is be- coming the foundation of a militant people’s movement. In one block alone over a thousand violations (de- fective wiring, garbage and so on) were found to exist. In an already overcrowded area additional conges- tion today makes housing in Harlem absolutely intolerable.
The basis on which houses are or- ganized varies. In many houses ten- ants unite simply on the basis of op- position to rent increases. This is es- pecially true in middle-class areas, where there are fewer building-law violations and inadequacies in serv- ices to tenants. In others tenants themselves come to the local council; asking for aid on such problems as heat, defective wiring and evictions.
In cities other than New York, Chicago, and possibly a few others with large apartment buildings, ten- ants’ councils based on _neighbor- hoods are more feasible than house organization. Tenants in small homes and small apartment buildings are subject to intimidation and pressure from landlords, and in many in- stances are afraid to face their land- lords directly because of their small- ness as a house group.
While building a grass-roots or- ganization of their own, tenants should make every effort to get sup- port from other community groups of every kind. Special attention should be made to involve all vet- erans’ organizations; in some cases. formation of special councils of vet- erans’ groups may be desirable.
322
Tenants’ organization is not new, nor are militant rent struggles. Some of our Party leaders today, and other leaders of the labor and progressive movement, took an active part in the mass rent strikes and kindred activi- ties after World War I and in the early ‘thirties. The present move- ment is as yet in its earliest stage. It must and will reach a higher level, because the only guarantee against rent increases is the “collective bar- gaining” power of the tenants, re- inforced when necessary by mass re- fusal to pay increases. In the course of these struggles, the tenants, who embrace every political group and re- ligious creed, will come increasingly to know who their friends are and to draw political conclusions.
Communists are an integral part of the tenants’ movement. Our aim is to assist this movement in every way to meet the needs of the ten- ants. The key to victory is unity of all tenants, regardless of political affiliation. It is natural that differ- ences of opinion on tactics, and on other issues not directly related to housing: and rents, should exist in a movement embracing so many dif- ferent groups. Communists express their opinions as to the correct tac- tics, but always abide by the demo- cratic will of the majority, and work for maintaining unity around a pro- gram in the interests of the people. The Trostskyites and others are be- coming increasingly active among tenants. They seek to split their ranks by raising demands unsuitable to the level of the movement or which are ill-timed. In combating
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
their divisive tactics, Communists must be careful not to spread illy sions that tenants can win security by relying only on rent control. The people must, and will, take action to prevent rent increases and evictions from being put into effect.
THE FIGHT FOR HOUSING
- The fight against rent control and for the solution of tenants’ grievances is closely linked with the fight for new and decent housing. The ten. ant’s movement is injecting new energy and fighting spirit into the housing movement. There are two basic facts which must be grasped for an understanding of the mas potentialities of the fight for housing.
First: The present aggravated housing crisis is going to continue to exist for some years. By this is meant more than the fact that the housing crisis has existed ever since the ris of capitalism and will continue to exist as long as we have capitalism. We mean the housing crisis in its present form—with millions of vet erans and other families doubled up, and a continued lack of vacancies. The outbreak of an economic crisis can only intensify the housing prob- lems of the working class and lower middle class, since it would increase doubling-up and evictions.
To establish clearly the extent of the housing crisis: The C.LO. esti- mates the immediate housing need as at least five million units (includ- ing specifically 2,900,000 veterans liv- ing doubled up and another 1,200,000 non-farm families who are also dov-
bled up 16,000,0 within cludes r farm he which s The structiol try was (in 192 minimu mum p imum being a Wilson scrappit and cot manent structed Only built in cluding huts. buildin; The 1 the cris Secor and cai vated hh The Estate | is due sabotag which structul check N.A.LR. that, r control will ni which | familie
The
>urity
On to tions
| and ances t for ten. new > the two asped mass ising. vated ue to reant using rise le to lism. Nn its "vet. 1 up, ncies, crisis prob- ower rease
nt of
esti- need clud- s liv- 0,000 dou-
bled up). The total need is for at least 16,000,000 new low-cost housing units within the next ten years (this in- cludes replacement of farm and non- farm homes not fit to be lived in and which should be replaced).
The highest annual rate of con- struction ever achieved in our coun- try was not quite one million units (in 1925). Even to meet the present minimum need would require maxi- mum production for five years. Max- imum production, however, is not being achieved. With the ousting of Wilson Wyatt and the subsequent scrapping of his program of priorities and controls, only 453,800 new per- manent housing units were con- structed in 1946.
Only 9,015 new housing units were
built in New York City in 1946, in-’
cluding such makeshifts as Quonset huts. Not a single new apartment building was completed.
The reason for this failure to meet the crisis forms the second basic fact.
Second: Private industry will not and cannot solve the present aggra- vated housing shortage.
The National Association of Real Estate Boards claims that the trouble is due to rent control. And there is sabotage on the part of big real estate, which prefers to build commercial structures, race tracks, etc., with no check on profits. But what the N.A.R.E.B. does not care to admit is that, regardless of the fate of rent control, private industry cannot and will not build housing at a price which the vast majority of American families can afford to pay.
The average gross monthly rental
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
323
that veterans can afford is $46; for one-fourth of them the maximum is less than $40 (U.S. Bureau of Cen- sus). Similar figures apply to non- veteran families. Yet of 305,000 home units authorized for rental at the end of October, 1946, only one-third rented for less than $50. Only 1,100 units out of a total of 37,360 units to be constructed in 1946 and 1947 in New York City were for rental at less than $60 a month. Individual homes are selling typically for $10,000 to $11,000. The upkeep on such homes is calculated to be at least $90 to $100 a month. And private build- ers have announced that they cannot build apartment building in the New York City area for less than $36 per room!
In view of the generally recog- nized inability of private building interests to construct apartment houses or homes at rents or costs within the range of the average fam- ily, a big drive is underway to pro- mote the idea that the solution is large-scale construction of projects by big insurance companies, etc.
This idea is being posed, more and more, against that of low-rent hous- ing built by the government. It is the pet scheme of New York State Hous- ing Commissioner Stichman and is being pushed aggressively in other states as well. Such construction, when undertaken by “limited divi- dend corporations” which get the benefit of tax exemptions for a long period of years, is cheaper than con- struction of apartment houses by in- dividual builders. But it can never do more than offer a partial, and
324
limited, solution. Rents usually range from $50 to $75 monthly. And even in this category, there is a drive to increase the rents already permitted by law.
Furthermore, the total number of such apartments which will be com- pleted in New York City by Metro- politan Life Insurance Company and New York Life Insurance Company in 1947 will not exceed 15,000 units. Even if that number were doubled or trebled, it would not fill the need, and families which must pay rents under $50 are excluded. Another danger is racial discrimination, as is illustrated by the disgraceful action in allowing the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company to build Stuy- vesant Town, from which Negroes are barred.
Building costs are at an all-time high, and will remain so until an economic crisis is upon us. This is not due to the so-called “high labor costs” (which, at most, account for a minor fraction of building costs). It is due to the monopoly control over basic building materials (fabri- cated steel, plasters, plumbing, ce- ment, plate glass, etc.); to high in- terest charges; and to the notorious anarchy of production obtaining in this industry. Both materials and fi- nancing are tightly controlled, and there is no such thing as “free com- petition” in either field.
The conclusion is inescapable and must be brought home to the people with great impact. Only large-scale intervention by the government will alleviate the housing crisis.
The Truman administration has
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
failed miserably. Instead of pressing for more action on housing and granting funds for a real program, i scrapped even the Wilson Wyat emergency program. The result was a boom in commercial and high rental construction and an inflation of construction costs. While the ad ministration fights for eleven billion dollars for military expenditures, i allows the federal housing program to reach the lowest ebb in years.
The chief national measure which has had the support of labor, all ma. jor housing groups and large sex. tions of the veterans is the Wagner. Ellender-Taft Bill. It was passed in the Senate last year and subsequently was buried in the House. It has now been reintroduced by its original sponsors. Although the bill needs certain strengthening amendment, it can serve as the focal point of the fight for housing. Its passage would be a considerable victory for the peo ple. It calls for the construction o fifteen million new homes in the next ten years, and it offers some thing te the small home-owner, farm as well as urban, and the low-rent and middle-income groups.
Can the Wagner-Ellender-Taft Bill be passed? No one should have any illusions that Senator Taft’s sponsor- ship means that he will fight for the measure. He seeks only to use the bill as a vote-getting device. Some sct- tions of the bourgeoisie, such as the New York Times, speak in favor o low-rent housing. But Big Business in the United States today, especially that section directly interested in real estate, will fight against any conces-
sions V at its C a noto the for organi: Ellend public: of free The ner-Ell is mac a dem the bi any W solutio upholc point. of the vides must group: and tk can a Those these | thems Yet spite t Cong ment, vetera was sl a par literal Dewe $135,0 bond “deal’ decisi tivity Lobb: a wit tions.
ressing z and ram, it Wyatt lt was high flation he ad. billion res, it gram rs, which I] ma- C St: agner- ed in ently ; Now iginal needs nents, of the vould pe on of 2 the some. farm y-rent
t Bill ¢ an) SOF: wr the ¢ bill set: s the or of siness cially ) real nces-
sions whatsoever with all the power at its command. Herbert U. Nelson, a notorious lobbyist, has announced the formation of a “front of fourteen organizations” to defeat the Wagner- Ellender-Taft Bill and “to hold Re- publicans to their professed defense of free enterprise.”
The false contention that the Wag- ner-Ellender-Taft Bill is “socialistic” is made by the Real Estate lobby as a demagogic design to bring about the bill’s defeat. The bill is not in any way a socialist approach to the solution of the housing question. It upholds private enterprise at every point. In fact, the chief weakness of the bill is that it specifically pro- vides that a “gap” of 20 per cent must be left between the income groups the government is to house and the lowest income groups which can afford decent private housing. Those whose income falls between these two groups are left to shift for themselves.
Yet notwithstanding this, and de- spite the grip of reaction on the 8oth Congress, a mighty people’s move- ment, spearheaded by labor and the veterans, can force concessions. This was shown in New York State, when a partial victory on housing was literally blasted from Governor Dewey. He finally had to approve $135,000,000 for a low-rent housing bond issue. This took the form of a “deal” with Mayor O’Dwyer. But the decisive factor was the militant ac- tivity of the Rent and Housing Lobby, coupled with support from a wide group of people’s organiza- tions.
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
325
In addition to pressure on Con- gress housing programs for city and state governments can and should be fought for. Both in Los Angeles and New York City movements are gathering momentum to get the City administrations to build apartment houses.
Veterans are especially concerned with the housing issue. And veter- ans’ groups are becoming increasingly active in the fight on this issue. This development is to be welcomed and encouraged, but the progressive forces must be on guard against the ten- dency to leave the fight for housing to the veterans alone. Furthermore, all efforts to pose the veterans’ bonus against housing, and vice versa, must be fought. Veterans need both, and there can be ample funds for both if unnecessary military expenditures and “pork-barrel” highways are elim- inated from budgets.
An important aspect of ihe fight for housing is the need to break down the ghetto walls imprisoning the Negro people. This fight cannot be conducted by the Negro. people alone. The initiative must be taken in those communities from which Negroes are excluded. A_ basic issue of national significance has arisen in New York State. The “re- strictive covenant” has been upheld by a lower court. If this decision is upheld by the higher courts, it will aggravate segregation of the Negro people and discrimination against other minority groups. Broad forces are moving into the fight, including such groups as the N.A.A.C.P., the American Jewish Congress and the
326
Emergency Committee on Rents and Housing. The Communist Party, in keeping with its program of equality for the Negro people in every sphere, must support and help to develop further the fight against the restric- tive covenant.
Red-baiting, chief weapon of reac- tion today, is being used against the people’s housing movement as well. Governor Dewey made this his ma- jor technique in attempting to ‘dis- credit and isolate the Rent and Hous- ing Lobby in Albany. The Governor over-reached himself. With the A.L.P. leading the fight through its Labor Senator, the Democrats as a body refused to take part in any legislative action in protest against the barring of the Lobby from the Capitol. A great many religious and civic leaders criticized Dewey both for his dictatorial action and for his do-nothing policy on housing. One of the most important statements came from Dr. Robert W. Searle, Protestant church leader of national repute. He said: “Accusation of Communist-inspired rebellion on the part of marchers at Albany last week was just the dragging in of the familiar red herring to cover up fail- ure to act on housing.”
In making this statement, Dr. Searle correctly recognized the aim of Red-baiting and its dangers to all who wish to advance the needs of the people. Yet he himself fell into the trap by adding that “the Assem- bly, in refusing to act on the housing bond issue, played into the hands of the Communists, who prefer that there be no housing solution but
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
chaos more favorable to their plans.”
What is our stand on housing? We have proposed a national pro. gram of three million housing units a year for the next five years witha guarantee against discrimination. Our state organizations have specific programs based on the needs of their own areas. We are proud of ow record in the fight for housing. Our members have been part of the fight for housing throughout the nation and helped to initiate many indi- vidual campaigns. Far from being worried that the housing problem will be solved, our main concern is that reaction will succeed in further worsening the living conditions and standards of the people through its continued sabotage of an effective housing program.
It is true that our Marxist theory holds that the housing crisis cannot be fully eliminated in a capitalist society. Only in a socialist America will there be a decent home for every American—with no fear of rent increases or evictions. Our under- standing of this basic concept does not weaken our support for all measures which will obtain housing results for the people now. We be- lieve it makes us even more consistent and determined fighters for immedi- ate housing needs, and enables us to make a special contribution to the fight. We know the extent of the opposition, and the high degree of mobilization of the people which must be achieved to overcome it.
It is also true that many people are joining the Communist Party be- cause of its activities on rent control
and hou ist theo: lems ex We wel ranks. I greater mines | the mov
ACTIO!
Reten leviatiot ple by merit t and pre affect n ries in t and in s safegua
ans,” ing? pro- units ith a tion. ecific their
our Our fight ation indi- eing slem Nis ther and 1 its
and housing and because our Marx- ist theory explains why these prob- lems exist and how to solve them. We welcome these additions to our ranks. It is our belief that a stronger greater unity of the people, under- mines Red-baiting and strengthens the movement for housing.
ACTION NOW IS IMPERATIVE
Retention of rent control and al- leviation of the hardships of the peo- ple by forcing action on housing merit the full support of all labor and progressive forces. These issues affect millions of Americans. Victo- ries in the fight against rent increases and in securing housing will not only
safeguard the living standards of the
THE FIGHT FOR RENT AND HOUSING
327
people from further deterioration, but. give added impetus to the over- all fight for peace, security and de- mocracy. For this reason, the fight for rent control and housing must not be viewed as separate and apart from the major objectives of the labor-democratic coalition, but as a major aspect of these objectives.
The next few weeks will be de- cisive. Pressure must be directed at Congress as never before.
Organization of tenants must be stepped up.
Even greater unity of all progres- sive forces must be established to de- feat the offensive of the powerful real estate lobby, and to launch the people’s counter-offensive on this important front.
PEOPLE'S DEMOCRACY: THE WAY 10 THE PEACEFUL DEVELOPMENT OF POLAND:
By WLADYSLAW GOMULKA
AN AGREEMENT ON unity of action and cooperation concluded between the Polish Socialist Party [P.P.S.] and the Polish Workers’ Party [P.P.R.] must be included among political events of great weight and importance. . .
Under the existing alignment of political forces in Poland unity of ac- tion of the workers’ parties and a united front of the working class constitute a basic condition for the firm establishment of all the social and political achievements so far at- tained. On the basis of unity of ac- tion of both workers’ parties, with close cooperation with other demo- cratic parties, the Polish Workers’ Party established the conception of the Polish way of development to- ward socialism. This conception is significant because it does not include the necessity of a violent, revolution- ary political upheaval in the develop- ment of Poland and eliminates the necessity of a dictatorship of the pro- letariat as a form of government in the most difficult period of transi- tion. On the basis of realistic views we have established the possibility
* From Glos Ludu (People’s Voice), Warsaw, No. 330. Excerpts from an address delivered at a ax ee - oe, activists of the a and the
P.S. arsaw, November 29, 1946. The i . the Vice-Premier of Poland and general secretary of the Polish Workers’ Party.
of development toward _ socialism through the system of people democracy in which the bloc of dem ocratic parties exercises the power of government. This conception, calcu. lating on a peaceful, evolutionan development, would have been diff. cult to conceive without the pre supposition of close cooperation of both our parties and of a worker. peasant alliance.
WE ARE NOT AIMING AT THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
Some people repeat constantly that the Polish Workers’ Party is aiming at the dictatorship of the pro letariat and wants to establish social ism in Poland by following the same road as the Soviet Union. It is not necessary to establish that those who make such assertions do so not only because they do not understand Marxism at all, not only because they do not know how to draw conclu- sions from the differences between historical epochs and concrete histori- cal situations, but because, above all, they want to falsify historical facts and to make it easier for themselves to wage a struggle against our party.
Because this problem has so far
328
not be public of its the un ties, I it from
which
DIFFI WA POL
Firs tentiot ily pes paths Union
The cial a were | lution ful w:
The Soviet perioc letari< is no avoid
Th ing tl velop the g is in Dele; the | tions form coun’ func! ernir deme
Ne
lE
°
alism ople’s dem. yer of calcu. onary
diff.
pre. mn of orker.
HE
‘antl ty is > pro- ocial- same $ not who only stand they nclu- ween stori- e all, facts elves arty. > far
not been discussed extensively in public by our party and because of its importance for strengthening the unity of action of both our par- ties, I consider it advisable to clarify it from the point of view of the party which I represent.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE WAYS OF DEVELOPMENT OF POLAND AND RUSSIA
First, I should like to call your at- tention to three basic differences, eas- ily perceived by all, which mark the paths of development of the Soviet Union and Poland.
The first difference is that the so- cial and political changes in Russia were effected through a violent revo- lution and in our country in a peace- ful way.
The second difference is that the Soviet Union had to go through the period of the dictatorship of the pro- letariat, while in our country there is no such period; and it can be avoided.
The third difference characteriz- ing the variation in the ways of de- velopment of both countries is that the government in the Soviet Union is in the hands of the Councils of Delegates, or Soviets, which combine the legislative and executive func- tions and constitute the socialist form of government, whereas in our country the legislative and executive functions are separated and the gov- ernment is based on a parliamentary democracy.
Nothing would be more false than
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY IN POLAND
329
a belief that these differences origi- nated from the subjective will of in- dividual people in Poland and in the Soviet Union or resulted from the political line of parties functioning in Poland and the Soviet Union. The internal disposition of class forces existing during the Russian Revo- lution and during the period of the taking over of the government of Po- land by the democratic camp de- cided the differences in the ways of development of Poland and Russia.
Why was it necessary to have a violent revolution in Russia to over- throw the czarist government and to effect social and political changes?
Two causes made the revolution necessary: first, oppression by the czarist government; second, the power of world capitalism, or, to put it differently, the weakness of world democracy.
Lenin said that the power of the czarist government rested on a well- organized and strong class of land- lords, on an even better organized and strong class of Russian capital- ists teamed with foreign capital, and on a strong state apparatus and in- grained czarist traditions. These were the three “whales” that could not have been defeated in a peaceful way. It was necessary to defeat them through revolution.
Besides these three internal ele- ments, which gave the czarist gov- ernment its power to oppress, there was also an external element in the form of the power of capitalist states which supported the czarist govern- ment in its struggle with the revolu-
330
tion. Moreover, in 1917 world capi- tal was, in an ideological and govern- mental sense, much stronger than at the end of the Second World War when the democratic forces were coming to the fore.
All these elements, which in 1917 constituted the strength of the Rus- sian czarist government and could have been broken only by a violent revolution, were in a different posi- tion in Poland in 1944. The working class and the toiling masses of Po- land did not have to use violent means to overthrow the landlords and big capitalists; for these forces were weak, politically compromised and isolated. That is why it was possible to remove them in a different way.
REACTION IN POLAND IS WEAKER THAN IT WAS IN RUSSIA
The weakness of the Polish land- lords and capitalists at the moment when the democratic camp was tak- ing over the government was due to the fact that they did not have the state apparatus needed for the strug- gle with the democratic forces. It is true that, in defense of these classes, various reactionary and fas- cist groups came forward; but they did not have enough strength to overcome the strength of the demo- cratic camp. The main and basic armed strength of the Polish capital- ists, landlords and reaction in gen- eral—Anders’ army—was outside the country and unable to do much in defense of their interests.
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
Therefore, the primary cause which permitted the peaceful overthrow of reaction in Poland was the complete shattering of the state apparatus in Poland as a result of the September catastrophe and the utter illusoriness of the apparatus of the London dele. gates in Poland.
At the moment of the liberation of Poland, state power was simply lying on the street. It was picked up by democracy, which proved itself stronger than reaction.
Besides this primary cause there were also others. A very large part of reaction compromised itself in the eyes of the nation as a result of the September disaster of Poland and the anti-Soviet policy of the emigré gov- ernments. Many reactionaries fled from Poland with the Germans or later, in order to organize and pre- pare their forces abroad for the strug- gle with the democratic forces inside the country. All this also had an influence in weakening reaction and made possible a peaceful transforma- tion of our social and political con- ditions.
Another factor which facilitated our taking over power was the inert- ness of foreign capital in Poland. German capital could not act as a force at all; for, as a result of its de- feat, it was eliminated; and the whole nation was inflamed, with hatred to- ward the Germans. Foreign capital of other origin was actually taken over by the Germans, and that also paralyzed its power and prevented it from playing any independent role.
REAC ARN GER
Mor under Hitler: viet A and in
strugg forces.
Fin: tained strugg action the oc ors to trend ever, ¥ with favors over | liberat thing be libs reacti gle w action to sta word strug; The : gle f misec natio! of th
Na and a the 1 expul who the s
eratic
which
Ww of
plete us in mber riness dele.
ation mply
itself
here part 1 the * the 1 the gov- fled Sor pre- rug: side
an and
REACTION WAS AGAINST ARMED STRUGGLE WITH GERMANY
Moreover, all reactionary elements, under the influence of the disaster of Hitlerism and the victories of the So- viet Army, were imbued with fright and incapable of waging an effective struggle against the democratic forces.
Finally, the democratic camp at- tained power on the wave of the struggle for national liberation. Re- action subordinated the struggle with the occupation forces to its endeav- ors to gain power in the country. The trend of war developments, how- ever, was not unfolding in accordance with its interests, was not creating favorable perspectives for it to take over power at the moment of the liberation of the country; for every- thing indicated that Poland would be liberated by the Red Army. Hence, reaction was opposed to armed strug- gle with Germany. And while re- action’s chief watchword was a call to stand ready with arms, the watch- word of democracy was an armed struggle with the occupation forces. The stand of reaction on the strug- gle for national liberation compro- mised it in the eyes of the Polish nation and in the democratic opinion of the world.
No one had greater opportunities and a greater moral right to take over the reins of government after the expulsion of the Germans than those who had thrown all their strength on the scale of struggle for national lib- eration.
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY IN POLAND
THIS BLOODSHED WAS NEEDED BY REACTION
Reaction rested its claims to pow- er on the provisions of the “Sanacja” (Pilsudskyite) Constitution and on the so-called continuity and legality of governments of Poland. But when the development of events con- vinced it that a concrete struggle for the liberation of the country was of greater weight and importance in the formation of the state of affairs in Poland than a title of legal inheri- tance of power from “Sanacja,” when the P.K.W.N. (Polish Committee of National Liberation) was formed and took into its hands the reins of gov- ernment in Poland for further or- ganization and direction of the strug- gle for national liberation, then reac- tion decided on a desperate, mad and simultaneously criminal step from the viewpoint of involving aimless shedding of the nation’s blood. It called the Warsaw uprising at a time when it was known in advance that the Germans would drown it in a sea of blood. But this particular bloodshed was needed by reaction in order to conceal with it its former stand on the struggle for national liberation and to use it later as a pre- text to take over the reins of govern- ment. However, it was too late. The government was already in the hands of a united democratic camp.
All these circumstances contributed to the creation of a historical oppor- tunity which made it possible to re- move reaction from power in.a peace- ful way and to introduce great social reforms by the democratic forces
332 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
without bloodshed, without a revo- lution and civil war. The Russian masses did not have such a historical opportunity at the moment when they were reaching for power. That is why the revolution to overthrow the czarist government was unavoid- able. But in our country it was pos- sible to overthrow reaction in a peaceful way.
IN THE SOVIET UNION THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT WAS INDISPENSABLE
Due to the same alignment of class forces which resulted in the October Revolution in Russia, the necessity arose for the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat in or- der to assure the victory of the revo- lution. In the face of the counter- revolution of the landlords, the capi- talists and the right generally in city and village, which was supported by armed intervention on the part of the capitalist states, the Soviet Union had to proceed on the road of the dicta- torship of the proletariat.
The dictatorship of the proletariat was born in a situation of war and horrible hunger, in a situation when the revolution, threatened with de- feat, had to crush absolutely the sabotage in supplying foodstuffs for the army, for the working class and for all people who worked in the cities. Revolutionary Russia, fighting against domestic and foreign counter- revolution in order to retain power, simultaneously had to fight the im-
perialist invaders in order to defend her lands from conquest.
Because the domestic counter-reyo. lution allied itself with foreign in. terventionists, the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a form of state power, was the greatest guarantor of the de. fense of the country, of the retention of power and of the repulsion of the imperialist invaders.
The problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat, in the situation then existing, amounted to the fol- lowing: whether the October Revo. lution would destroy the counter. revolution regardless of the means to be used; or whether, in case of hesitation, it would itself be strangled and destroyed by the counter-revolu- tion. If there had been no dictator. ship of the proletariat in Russia, if the October Revolution, after achiev- ing power, had permitted, under the then existing disposition of forces, a parliamentary way of deciding the problems of social reconstruction, it would have been crushed by the land- lords and capitalists, who would then have established their own dictator- ship and would have exacted a ter- rible revenge for the attempt to de- prive them of their power and for- tunes. ...
IN POLAND WE CAN AVOID THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT
We proceed on the basis that, un- der Polish conditions, the dictator- ship of the proletariat, as the form of government, can be avoided. We
base sider: a powe basic tion the | W the | tion. mitt ods | O took erati occu ize | R ideo part orgs to ( mas nati the Int racy by 1 clas the unr acti wat was anc 2 194 ove Ru fou tro
efend
evo. N in- f the ower, e de. Ntion
f the
rship ation fol- Levo- nter- eans e of gled volu- ator- a, if niev- the rces, - the n, it and- hen \tor- ter-
tor-
1E
base ourselves on the following con- siderations:
1. Polish democracy also attained power during a war, but there is a basic difference between our situa- tion and the situation in Russia after the October Revolution.
We took power without applying the force of revolution against reac- tion. The weakness of reaction per- mitted us to apply democratic meth- ods of exercising power.
Our strength lay in this, that we took power under the slogan of lib- erating our country from German occupation and we were able to real- ize it.
Reaction was unable to utilize its ideological influence in the greater part of the nation, it was unable to organize the masses for a struggle to overthrow our power; for the masses shared our opinion that the nation’s main objective was to fight the Germans, to liberate the country. In this struggle the power of democ- racy and of the government created by it was strengthened.
The dictatorship of the working class, the class which was and is at the head of the democratic camp, was unnecessary; for the resistance of re- action did not overflow into a wide wave of counter-revolution. Reaction was unable to organize such resist- ance.
2. In taking over power in July, 1944, we had the certainty of victory over Germany. The working class in Russia, on attaining power in 1917, found itself faced with the catas- trophe of war and with the threat
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY IN POLAND 333
of the rape of its country by world imperialism with which domestic reaction was allied.
3. When taking over power, we were confronted only with a boycott by world reaction, which at first did not recognize our democratic gov- ernment in reborn Poland. How- ever, the ‘struggle in our case was limited to suppressing the activities of the diversionary groups of Polish reaction. This was due to the growth of strength of world democracy as a result of the defeat of fascism dur- ing the war. This strength is far greater than it was at the moment of the overthrow of Russian czarism. World reaction cannot organize more extensive assistance to Polish reaction; for the disposition of po- litical forces in its own countries does not permit it to do so.
We are witnessing the growth of democratic strength in the French nation after the Second World War. We also see the development in Eng- land, where the nation declared it- self against reaction in the elections, giving the majority of the votes to the Labor Party and expressing in this way its democratic tendencies. Simi- larly in other countries, in Czecho- slovakia, Yugoslavia, Rumania and Italy, the strength of the democratic forces is everywhere growing.
This power of world democracy is strengthening our democracy, for it is not permitting world reaction to extend such help to Polish reaction as the landlords and capitalists in czarist Russia received during the
334 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
first years of the socialist revolu- tion.
We should remember that the working class in Russia, when it took power, was confronted with armed intervention by fourteen capitalist states which wanted to strangle the October Revolution.
4. When taking over power we were also confronted with great eco- nomic difficulties, which we still feel to this day. But our difficulties,- our shortages of supplies are so much smaller and we can overcome them so much easier, among other things because the Soviet Union is extend- ing help to us, while revolutionary Russia had to rely exclusively on her- self. On the one hand the capitalist states tried to separate her with a barbed-wire fence of isolation from the rest of the world, while the in- ternal counter-revolution organized sabotage and brought the terrible dis- aster of hunger upon the workers and upon the cities in general.
5. There is furthermore the fact that the Soviet Union was able to erect a powerful industry only at the cost of tremendous hardships im- posed on society and that, in close connection with the industrialization of the country, she was faced with the problem of the collectivization of agriculture.
We, however, find ourselves in a far better situation. Independently of the possibilities of receiving for- eign credits for the reconstruction and development of our industry, we can effect that purpose with lesser hardship on our people. This is
made possible by the fact that the ac. tual productive potential of our in. dustry, proportionate to our popula. tion, is far greater than the produc. tive potential of Russia before the realization of its Five-Year Plans, Similarly, there is not the slightest need for us to follow the Soviet pat- tern of agricultural economy. We have rejected collectivization, since in Polish conditions it would be harm- ful in the economic and political sense. ...
This position of ours results from the character of the social and politi- cal system of Poland. Our democ- racy and the social system which we are building and establishing have no historical precedent. And our experiences till now show that the results are good.
Ours is not a country with a typical capitalist system; for our’ basic branches of industrial production, the banks and transportation have been nationalized.
Ours is not a country with a social- ist system; for the non-socialized sector of production occupies a very important place in our national econ- omy. We have recognized the neces- sity and usefulness of individual in- itiative and non-socialized forms of production in a definite segment of industrial production; we have re- jected completely the collectivization of agriculture. We have, however, created conditions permitting us to regulate the non-socialized segment of industrial production in accord- ance with the needs of the entire national economy.
Ou lar to isting those liame
Ou rathe’ demc such need time to na dustr cies very dem
coun big least gove our | sible O
to S
cial
viet
¢ ac r in- Pula.
duc.
the lans, htest pat- We -e in arm- tical
rom sliti- noc- we ave our
the
ical asic ion, ave
Our type of democracy is not simi- lar to the traditional democracies ex- isting in other countries, even in those which are governed by a par- liamentary socialist majority.
Our people’s democracy differs, or rather is distinguished from, the democracies existing in the West by such facts as that our democracy needed only a very short period of time to expropriate the landlords and to nationalize big and middle-size in- dustry, while the western democra- cies are approaching social reforms very timidly. Therefore, under the democratic systems of the western countries, the actual rulers are the big capitalists and bankers, or at least they have the deciding role in governing the country, while under our democratic system this is impos- sible.
Our democracy is also not similar to Soviet democracy, just as our so- cial system is not similar to the So- viet system.
PEOPLE’S DEMOCRACY IN POLAND 335
In the Soviet Union, which has solved the problem of class antagon- ism, there exists only one party—the Communist Party—while in our country several democratic parties operate legally.
Polish democracy is exercising pow- er through a multi-party parliamen- tary system. The Polish National Council serves today as a temporary form of that system; tomorrow the form will be the Parliament, chosen in general elections. Soviet democ- racy realizes national power through Soviets, and its parliamentary system is based on principles different from ours.
Our democracy has many elements of socialist democracy and also many elements of liberal-bourgeois democ- racy, just as our economic system has many features of socialist and capitalist economy. Our type of democracy and our social system we have designated “People’s Democ- racy.”
THE CONNECTICUT STORY
By JOE ROBERTS
THE Newspapers throughout the country have devoted considerable attention in the last few months to the secession movement in the Inter- national Union of Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers in Connecticut, and to the expulsion of the twenty-seven union members from the Bridge- port General Electric local of the United Electrical, Radio and Ma- chine Workers of America.
The press accounts have presented a picture purporting to show that, in the case of the I.U.M.M.S.W., the overwhelming majority of the work- ers in Connecticut’s Brass Valley fol- low the leadership of John J. Driscoll in his fight against the “corrupt” and “Communist” leadership of their In- ternational and support the move to secede from the C.L.O. In the case of the Bridgeport G.E. local, the pub- lished accounts gave the impression that the local’s new administration, elected last December, is merely carrying out the mandate of the membership to expel Communists and “fellow-travelers” from the lo- cal.
Briefly, these are the facts. Since
1942 a small group in Connecticut, led by Driscoll, has conducted a fight against the leadership of the 1.U.M.M.S.W., using the slogans of “anti-Communist,” “anti-Robinson” and “anti-International.” This group of officers rode high, wide and hand- some, establishing a machine which would have been the envy of Tam- many Hall in its heyday. Neither the membership nor the International was allowed to participate in the shaping and execution of union pol- icy.
The result of this group’s Red-bait- ing was the failure to organize the thousands of brass workers who are not yet in the union. It resulted in the lowering of the morale of the union members to a point where lo- cals could not meet for months due to the absence of a quorum. Griev- ance procedure began to break down or was not observed at all, resulting in a virtual wage cut for many work- ers. The climax was reached a few months ago when this group refused to admit the president and the vice- president of their International to a wage conference in Waterbury, Con- necticut, called by the International Office on the basis of a convention decision. Following this action, the group turned to open secession.
In the case of the G.E. local an attempt was made by the present of- ficers, Berescik and Julianelle, to put through a referendum on the ques tion: “Would you allow a Commu- nist to be an officer of the union?” This proposal was defeated by the lo- cal membership on a number of oc-
336
casiol these mem were ers” Amo mem of tk tiona of th local Th in tl disru who: been to 0 weal whe The very UE wert stag with The whe suec the the Big AN V
this the
tan
V+} ter
ticut, fight
the ns of son
Toup and- hich [am- r the onal
the
bait- - the ) are d in the e lo due riev- own ting ork- few used vice-
Yon- onal tion
the
an - of- put ues- mu- 5»
lo-
casions. Following their election, these officers proceeded to expel 27 members on the ground that they were Communists or “fellow-travel- ers” and threatened to expel more. Among those expelled are charter members and the foremost builders of this union. When the Interna- tional intervened to protect the rights of these members, the officers of the local declared for secession.
The significance of these events lies in the fact that in Connecticut the disruptive forces within the C.LO., whose main weapon in the past has been Red-baiting, have passed over to open secession or the use of the weapon of expulsion in those unions where they have gained control. These tactics were adopted at the very moment when both the U.E.R.M.W.A. and 1.U.M.M.S.W. were approaching a very important stage in their wage negotiations with the Connecticut corporations. They were adopted at the moment when C.I.O. President Murray is- sued his appeal for labor to unite in the life-and-death struggle against the anti-labor legislative program of Big Business.
AN UNHOLY ALLIANCE
What are the forces involved in this conspiracy to weaken and smash the C.I.O. in Connecticut?
1. In the position of first impor- tance must be placed the powerful monopoly corporations which, since V-J] Day, have been engaged in at- tempts to break the unions in the
THE CONNECTICUT STORY 337
brass firms and G.E., which were built up in Connecticut during the war years. Today, these corpora- tions carry on a two-front war against labor. They combine their legisla- tive war in Washington and Hart- ford with the secession and expul- sion movements inside the unions where they can make use of their fifth column.
2. The Catholic hierarchy, the A.C.T.U. and the Knights of Colum- bus have occupied front-line posi- tions in the secession movement, as- suming open leadership in this anti- union drive.
3. The Republican Party, which in Fairfield County has a Republican club consisting of G.E. employees, is a component part of the expulsion and secession movement. Ken Brad- ley, the National Committeeman from Connecticut of the Republican Party, is known to be working with this club and was very much in evi- dence in the courtroom at the in- junction proceedings trial of the G.E. local.
4. The Carey-Block “Committee for Democratic Action” has local leaders going up and down the state to mobilize suport for the secession- ists.
5- The leadership of the C.LO. shipyard workers union has placed an organizer named Carter at the disposal of the secessionists in the state. His role is to allay the suspicion of the workers in the brass plants who are opposed to withdrawing from the C.I.0., by promising them a charter from his union.
338 POLITICAL AFFAIRS COMPANY COLLUSION
The people leading the movement for secession and expulsion are re- paying G.E. and the brass compa- nies for the help they are getting in their fight against the “Communists.” Their statements and pronounce- ments echo the publications and speeches made by the company offi- cials. In a half-page advertisement published in the Bridgeport press during the last local union elections, the G.E. group leading the expulsion movement stated its program on wages as follows:
What then do we offer when put into office? We will get more money, of course. There is a sensible approach to our economic problems. They can be solved permanently. Real _profit- sharing plans, whereby all who work for a living will share generously of their employer’s profit, and satisfactory cost-of-living adjustments to meet fluc- tuating living costs are two practical means of solving our present wage problems within the framework of our capitalistic structure.
This was a repetition, word for word, of excerpts from a speech made by Clare Boothe Luce who in the last local election campaign injected herself into the G.E. situation.
Today, the General Electric Com- pany is paying for the services ren- dered by these officers by inserting full-page advertisements in the Bridgeport press in which it says: “General Electric wants no part of this squabble. This is strictly an in-
tra-union fight, and it’s up to the union people themselves to settle it.” Having said that, G.E. quotes a state. ment made by Smith, the U.E.R.M, W.A. International representative: “*The action on the part of a small group within General Electric, Bridgeport, is a company union- inspired scheme to substitute a com. pany union for the U.E-C.L.O.’” Following this quotation G.E.’s ad- vertisement proceeds to display the company’s strict “impartiality” by stating: “What a down-right false. hood! What a deliberate and cun- ning attempt on the part of Mr. Smith to cloud the real issue of communism in unions. . . . Just where does Mr. Smith stand on this all-important issue?”
The same company interference on the side of the union splitters is very much in evidence as regards the brass workers. For example, the leaders of the secession movement in Bridgeport opposed the national health plan of the I.U.M.M.S.W. and industry-wide bargaining. In this they merely echoed the position of Herman W. Steinkraus, the presi- dent of the Bridgeport Brass Com- pany who in a speech to the U. §. Chamber of Commerce last year spoke against class-struggle unions and expounded his special brand of unionism—company unionism. In this speech Mr. Steinkraus cited a leaflet distributed by the Communist Party in Bridgeport as evidence that workers in his plant are being sub jected to anti-monopoly education and that the U. S. Chamber of Com-
merc work capit
RED:
WI and use © lishec the | trodu baitir clear tacks derm of th they mere nists trave mere ty as conte attem ologi not | unior monc this falsif both practi
In brous natio: cal w const: mem| brou; the
court
» the e it.” state. R.M. tive: mall ctric, 1ion- com- Or ; ad- - the
ralse- cun- Mr. e of Just this
¢ on very the the at in onal and this n of resi- om- 1. year ions d of
In da inist that sub- tion om-
merce must do more to win the workers ideologically for monopoly capitalism.
RED-BAITING
While the leaders in the secession and expulsion drive have made full use of the Red-baiting material pub- lished on a mass scale nationally in the last two months,, they have in- troduced their own brand of Red- baiting. It is becoming increasingly clear that the content of their at- tacks is not merely designed to un- dermine the prestige and influence of the union leaders against whom they are fighting. Their fight is not merely against individual Commu- nists and what they term “fellaw- travelers.” Their attacks are not merely against the Communist Par- ty as an organization. The basic content of their Red-baiting is the attempt to convince the workers ide- ologically to place their confidence, not in their own class and trade- union organizations, but rather in monopoly capitalism. To accomplish this they resort to distortion and falsification of Marxism-Leninism, both as a science and as realized in practice in the Soviet Union.
In the injunction proceedings brought by the U.E.R.M.W.A. Inter- national against the officers of the lo- cal who violated the International’s constitution by expelling the 27 union members, the deposed officers brought a cross-complaint against the International. In the official court document which was reprinted
THE CONNECTICUT STORY 339
in the Bridgeport Telegram on Feb- ruary 19 these officers said:
Communism is a complete philoso- phy of life whose aim is to create con- fusion, disorder and chaos and to take over by violent means the duly consti- tuted democratic and constitutional gov- ernment of this country. .. .
The object of Communism, namely a Communistic dictatorship, does not, will not and cannot bring about a gov- ernment by working men, but only a self-perpetuating, autocratic, dictatorial minority who would completely domi- nate all workingmen and members of trade unions.
We are not attempting here to answer these charges for the U.E.R.M.W.A,, which most certainly can and does speak for itself. But inasmuch as there is a direct charge involved that the Communist Par- ty’s aim is the violent overthrow of the American constitutional govern- ment, we have only to quote a para- graph of the Constitution of the Communist Party to disprove that:
Adherence to or participation in the activities of any clique, group or circle, faction or party, which conspires or acts to subvert, undermine, weaken or over- throw any or all institutions of Ameri- can democracy, whereby the majority of the American people can maintain their right to determine their destinies in any degree, shall be punished by immediate expulsion. . . .
Furthermore, even the United States Supreme Court, in its deci- sion on June 21, 1943, in the Schneid-
340 erman case, dismissed as unsubstan- tiated the allegation of the then U'S. Attorney General, Francis J. Biddle, that the Communist Party advocates or practices force and violence.
As to the second charge, namely, that the object of Communism is a “Communistic dictatorship” which would dominate all workingmen and members of trade unions, we need only refer to the official reports of the C.L.O. delegations which re- cently visited the Soviet Union and spoke in glowing terms of the role of the Soviet trade unions.
To implement their Red-baiting attacks, the leaders of the secession and expulsion movements are mak- ing full use of the reactionary Cath- olic hierarchy. Thus they bring Reverend Edward Lodge Curran from Brooklyn to speak in Water- bury on “Americanism vs. Commu- nism.” Numerous Catholic workers have reported that they have been visited by their local priests and warned, upon the threat of excom- munication, not to support their unions.
The local press opens its columns for such gems as the one appearing in the Sunday Post by Rev. Raymond P. Shea, Director of the Bridgeport Chapter Diocesan Labor Institute, who in a violent appeal to the work- ers to fight against their C.1.O. Inter- nationals had the following to say:
You would have no say about the education of your children under Com- munism. The state would do that. In fact, the state would tell you when you
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
could have children—then, and at no other time. Make no mistake about it this is Communism.
This charge flies in the face of reality and can be peddled only with the hope that the American worker; are ignoramuses. On this matter the Dean of Canterbury, Hewlet Johnson, in his book, The Secret oj Soviet Strength, said:
. . . great stress is laid, in season and out, on the value of the family.
The economic home, where the wife does the drudgery and is financially de. pendent on her husband has gone. The family has been the gainer. Soviet women have leisure to mingle in social and political activities and share the wider interests of their children, mak- ing the home the centre of skilled and purposeful life.
THE ROLE OF THE COMMUNIST PARTY
The Communist Party, despite the oft-repeated lies to that effect, does not interfere in the affairs of trade unions. Messrs. Driscoll and Bere- scik cannot point to a single instance where our Party “dictated” to the workers in the brass plants or G.E. how they should run their union af fairs or whom they should support in their union elections. On_ the other hand, we have witnessed flag- rant interference on the part of the trusts and the Association of Cathe lic Trade Unionists. We have al- ready cited G.E.’s full page adver- tisement in which, under the slogan
at no ut it,
ce of
with irkers rater wlett ret of
n and
> wife ly de. . The Soviet social e the mak- killed
e the does trade Bere- tance » the GE. n af- Dport
the flag- f the atho- e al- dver-
ogan
of “non-interference,” it proceeds to tell the G.E. workers that the main issue for their union is not wages but Communism. We have also referred to the speech by Mr. Steinkraus in which he criticized the preamble of the I.U.M.M.S.W.’s constitution be- cause it based itself on class struggle, and we have indicated the meaning of the speech by Father Curran.
On the other hand, the Commu- nist Party, as the political party of the working class, is most certainly concerned with the political activity of the workers, Our aim is to stim- ulate political activity of the work- ers in the struggle to curb the power of the monopolies. Our leaflets, press, mass meetings, etc., are always di- rected toward the education and-or- ganization of workers for this strug- gle.
The Communist Party in Con- necticut has never denied the fact that there is a functioning Party branch in the Bridgeport General Electric plant or that members of the Communist Party are employed in the brass companies and are members of the 1.U.M.MS.W. The violent campaign against the Party pictures the Communists in General Electric as subversive elements op- erating secretly. In actual fact, the
.members of this branch openly dis-
tributed Party leaflets, sold Party literature, and obtained new readers for the Daily Worker and the Work- er. Only a month prior to the expul- sion of the 27 union members, the G.E. Party branch officially and publicly sponsored a mass meeting
THE CONNECTICUT STORY
341
with Councilman Peter V. Cacchione as the speaker. At this meeting two of the active union members, Jo- sephine Willard and Frank Faze- kas, participated in the speaking program.
Josephine Willard was the candi- date of the Communist Party of Bridgeport for State Representative in the last campaign. It was in the course of this campaign that the workers in her department attended a meeting in which she explained what the Communist Party stands for, the difference between her role as their steward in the union and her activities as a Communist in politi- cal life. The workers who attended that meeting did not regard her union work and Party work as in- compatible, even though most did not fully understand or agree with communism. They returned her as section chairman, thus placing her on the executive board of the local, by a six-to-one vote, despite the fact that she carried the brunt of the at- tacks by the Red-baiting clique in the union.
When the union splitters refused to seat her on the local executive board in spite of the overwhelming vote, the workers of her department went on the radio, fighting every inch of the way, notwithstanding threats and intimidations, for her to be seated on the executive board. The case of Josephine Willard should give the lie to those who demagogically state that “We don’t have objection to Communists as long as they will work openly.” “Stand up and be
342 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
counted” is their demagogic slogan. But the workers and liberals who are mistakenly taken in by this slo- gan can draw an object lesson from the instance just cited. The agents of Big Business in the labor movement are not concerned with the man- ner in which Communists function. Their main concern is to root out any criticism and opposition to their policies by making Communism syn- onymous with subversion, then pro- ceeding to silence, not only the Com- munists, but everyone fighting for a change in the status quo.
The facts of the Willard case should also set the record straight for Robert M. LaFollette, Jr., who in his article in Collier’s (issue of February 8, 1946), “Turn the Light
on Communism,” stated:
In Bridgeport, Connecticut, Miss Josephine Willard ran for state repre- sentative on the Communist ticket in the state elections on November 5th. Miss Willard was editor of the union paper and the publicity director for Lo- cal 203 of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America. In the subsequent uprising against Com- munists in Local 203, the paper was discontinued and Miss Willard lost her job.”
Ex-Senator LaFollette states that Josephine Willard lost her job in the union following the elections of No- vember 5. By inference he seeks to create the impression that whenever union leaders identify themselves with the Communist Party the work- ers repudiate them. The actual fact
is that the union paper was discon- tinued by a handful of disrupters who forced through a motion to that effect at one of the local meetings. However, the support she enjoyed from the workers is the talk of the labor movement in Bridgeport.
THE FIGHT AGAINST OPPORTUNISM
The Communist Party of Con- necticut has a great responsibility in this period. Having no interests separate and apart from the workers and their trade unions, we Commv- nists can make a great contribution toward helping overcome the critical situation facing the workers. It was in line with this that we published an advertisement in the Connecticut newspapers exposing Red-baiting and calling attention to the anti-labor attacks of the big corporations against all labor and the need for unity in the fight against these attempts to shackle labor. In a leaflet issued to the workers of Connecticut we warned them of the danger of the Thomas-Parnell Un-American Com- mittee injecting itself into the Con- necticut situation. In this leaflet we stated:
The House Un-American Commit- tee has invited a few so-called labor leaders from Bridgeport to go to Wash- ington to expose the “Red Menace.” The door is now open for the people of Bridgeport and of Connecticut to really see what the score is. Despite the fact that the C.I.O. at its national conven-
tion denounced the House Un-American
Com! “labo have Com! Alt inclu: Wen the 1: demr And has b lines and ‘ recor out.
In must and crop We. nist | com: unio: tiviti the \ of th our» out.
Fo woul Party enga cour: temp on o to W that meth mun and all ¢]
ist n
2on- ility rests kers mu- tion tical was hed icut ting tbor inst y in ; to 1 to we the om- on- we
mit- abor ash- The > of -ally fact
ven- rican
Committee as an enemy of labor, these “labor leaders,” Berescik and Julianelle, have accepted the invitation of this Committee to testify.
Almost every outstanding American including the late President Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, Henry Wallace, and the late Cardinal Mundelein have con- demned the Un-American Committee. And to top it all this Committee which has been grabbing all front-page head- lines with the whipped-up “Eisler” case and “spy-scares” consists of men whose record in Congress is anti-labor through- out.
In making our contribution, we must guard and fight against Right and Leftist opportunism which is cropping up in our day-to-day work. We must reject such Right-opportu- nist tendencies as expressed by some comrades who say that this is a trade union fight and that Communist ac- tivities at this moment will confuse the workers and play into the hands of the Red-baiters. Hence, they say, our Party ought to sit this struggle out.
For us to follow such a policy would be harmful, not only to our Party, but particularly to the unions engaged in the struggle. In the course of this article we have at- tempted to show that the main weap- on of the secessionists in their fight to weaken the C.LO. is Red-baiting, that their method ‘is the Hitler method of seeking to discredit Com- munism in the eyes of the workers and then labeling as “Communists” all those opposed to their secession- ist moves. It would be a disservice
THE CONNECTICUT STORY 343
to the workers and their unions if the only exposition of Communism and what the Communist Party stands for were given to them by the Currans and Sheas, the Un-Ameri- can Committee and the capitalist press. Certainly the unions, while fighting Red-baiting and while de- fending themselves from the seces- sionists, will not and cannot perform the task which can be performed only by the Communist Party. We must equally reject Leftist op- portunism, expressed in tendencies to soft-pedal the struggles on the im- mediate issues and to concentrate primarily on “education for social- ism.” To follow such a policy would be a betrayal of the workers’ strug- gles and would mean the isolation of our Party and its degeneration into a sect such as the Socialist La- bor Party. As a political party of the working class we are concerned with every struggle of the workers for their immediate needs. It is in the process of participating with the workers in these struggles that we shall be in the best position to raise the level of their class consciousness. This does not mean that we do not carry on a consistent campaign of education for socialism. But this education will not be effective if we separate ourselves from the imme- diate struggles of the workers or drag in socialism, in a sectarian way, “by the hair.” Accordingly, in this light, after exposing in our leaflet the record of the House Un-Ameri- can Committee and the fact that its main stock-in-trade is Red-baiting,
344 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
we proceed to show why Commu- nists are slandered:
Communists working in shops have always tried to help build unions, im- prove working conditions, secure higher wages. We defy the enemies of labor to name a single instance where a Com- munist worked against his fellow work- ers or against his union.
But what else do Communists be- lieve in? We believe that here in the U.S.A, there are enough resources, brains, and manpower to produce a de- cent standard of living for every man, woman, and child. We believe that the working people should own the mines and factories and these should be used to produce for the people, not to make more profits for the greedy monopo- lists. What's so terrible about that? Only the monopolists are terrified at any idea that may give the people a little more and the trusts a little less. While we Communists are fighting every day along with all workers to improve our conditions we say that the only final an- swer to crises, mass lay-offs, unemploy- ment, and insecurity is ownership of the means of production by the peo- ple—Socialism.
CONCLUSION
Whatever the outcome of the Con- necticut story will be, one thing is already clear. The movement to se- cede from the C.1.O. and to develop a witch-hunt and expulsion drive in the trade unions has already resulted in weakening the labor movement in Connecticut. It is no accident
that very little activity was developed by the C.1.O. here against the anti-
labor legislation in Washington a well as in Hartford. The two unions involved in the struggle are the back. bone of the C.I.O. in this state. Whik Driscoll and his group in_ the IU.M.MS.W. and the so-called Committee for Democratic Action of the Carey-Block group in the U.E.R.M.W.A. are busy seceding and expelling, and while the loyal CLO. members are rallying behind their International unions against these splitters, the big corporations in the state are behaving like jackals ready to leap at the prostrated body of the workers who are denied union protection. Already the secession movement has given the enemies of labor great aid in achieving one of the major objectives they hope to accomplish by their anti-labor legis- lation, that of breaking down indus- try-wide bargaining and leaving the workers in the individual plants at the mercy of the corporations who are united through the N.A.M. and the U. S. Chamber of Commerce. G.E. has already served notice that in its national negotiations the Bridgeport plant will not be in- cluded. The brass companies are fol- lowing the same policy of excluding the Connecticut plants from their national wage negotiations. The se- cessionists not only accept this policy; they are attempting to spread it out- side of G.E. and the brass compa- nies. The Bridgeport local of the Singer Sewing Machine Company workers, whose president is the New England leader of the Carey-Block “Committee for Democratic Action,”
fous It v exec thre two that bein
nect
not cee’ tem for tice whi and sue mu the or
cliq
thr the the
as to |
MN as nions back. Vhile
the -alled ction . the x and >.1.0. their these 1 the ready ly of inion SSiON es of 1e of e to legis- idus- x the ts at who and erce. that
the » ine > fol- ding their ie se- dlicy; out- mpa-
the pany New lock
oe 10N,
fought against a national contract. It was only the majority vote of the executive board membership of the three Singer Sewing Machine locals, two of them outside of Connecticut, that reversed this policy for the time being.
The danger to which the Con- necticut trade union movement has been exposed by the secessionists is not merely a local one. If they suc- ceed in Connecticut, they will at- tempt to branch out. It is high time for the workers to sit up, take no- tice and act in defense of policies which will strengthen the unions and weaken the monopolies. The is- sue is not Communism vs. anti-Com- munism. The issue is: Shall the C.LO. continue to grow based on the principles which made it great. or shall a small, company-inspired clique, using the false issue of Com- munism, be permitted to carry through policies that will weaken the C.LO. and with it the future of the labor movement.
The resignation of Reid Robinson as President of the I.U.M.M.S.W.,
to remove himself as an issue in the
THE CONNECTICUT STORY 345
union, proves that he puts the wel- fare of his union above his personal feelings and interests. On the other hand, it exposes John J. Driscoll as a union-buster, who places his own in- terests above those of the C.LO. When Driscoll and Company em- barked on their policy of open seces- sion, their main argument was their opposition to the leadership of Rob- inson. On the day of Robinson’s resignation Driscoll stated that the resignation did not change anything and that the fight for secession would go on.
The fight against the secessionists in Connecticut is a fight against company union stooges. The attempt of the secessionist leaders to move into the A. F. of L. or another C.1.O. union will not help the movement for trade union unity, so vitally necessary today in the struggle against Big Business. On the con- trary, by their actions the secession- ists are deliberately creating condi- tions for civil war in the ranks of labor. The splitters must be de- feated!
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S TAX PROGRAM
By DONALD FREEMAN
Tue vrive of monopoly capital to enrich itself at the expense of the impoverished masses is nowhere more clearly apparent than in the regressive changes taking place in tax laws—federal, state and city. Prior to World War II, in 1939, the federal income tax law provided that an individual be given an ex- emption of $1,500 if single, $2,500 if married, and $400 for each depen- dent. Thereafter, the tax rates began at four per cent. The following table illustrates the operation of the federal income tax law in 1939, in the case of a married man with two children:
Adjusted Gross Income* Tax® $ 3,300 $ 0 5,000 30 7,500 120 10,000 300 1,000,000 678,056
* Adjusted gross income is gross income less expenses incurred in making or earning that income. Thus, a salesman may earn $7,500 in a year, but his expenses may $1,000 so that his adjusted gross income would be $6,500. Similarly, a steel worker may earn $3,000 in a year but his union dues may be $30 a year so that his adjusted gross income would be $2,970.
** In these computations allowance has been made for deductable expenses in the amount of 10 per cent of adjusted gross income or $500 whichever is less.
346
With the advent of war in Europe, the arming of the US. and the sub- sequent declaration of war by the US., costs of government increased from g billion dollars in 1939 to over 100 billion dollars in 1944. Federal taxes likewise increased from 5.2 bil- lion dollars in 1939 to 43.1 billion dollars in 1944. A substantial part of the increase was provided by taxes on the income of individuals. The fol- lowing table illustrates the operation of the federal tax law in 1944 and 1945 in the case of a married man with two children (the same law was applicable to both years):
Adjusted Gross Income Tax $ 500 $ o 1,000 I2 2,500 105 5,000 624 72500 1,295 10,000 2,080 1,000,000 885,542
During the war ability to pay was flagrantly disregarded. Income taxes were exacted from persons who were forced to reduce their living stand- ards below the minimum required for health and decency. For 1946, with the fighting phase of the war over, the federal income tax law was revised.
Under the revision for 1946 a small measure of relief was given to tax- payers in the lowest income groups. But the forces of reaction—monopoly capital and the Democratic-Republi- can coalition in Congress—had al-
jectia zatio acros joinit tion | 1946, with
Gre
I,
W trenc a dis chasi perm late capit
In Unit arm expe! of e7 gove cents and tural
In
post Van
, e compu adjust disreg:
ope, sub-
the ised wer eral bil- lion t of 5 on fol- tion and nan was
Was Xes ere nd- red 46, var vas
all
ps. oly bli-
al-
ready destroyed the principle of tax- ation in accordance with ability to pay. And they were now determined to take another step backward.
They forced through, over the ob- jections of all the progressive organi- zations in America, a § per cent cut across-the-board. The table in the ad- joining column illustrates the opera- tion of the federal income tax law in 1946, in the case of a married man with two children:
Adjusted 1945 Tax 1945 Gross Income Take Home* $ 2,500 § 105 $ 2,395
5,000 624 4,376 7,500 1,295 6,205 10,000 2,080 7,920 1,000,000 885,542 114,458
While these soak -the-poor tax trends constantly rob the masses of a disproportionate share of their pur- chasing power, at the same time they permit the monopolists to accumu- late billions of dollars in additional capital.
In 1939, despite the fact that the United States had already begun to arm in preparation for war, military expenditures amounted to 16 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government. At the same time 34 cents was spent for social welfare and 17 cents was spent for agricul- tural programs.
In 1947-48, however, the second postwar year, at a time when the Vandenbergs, Dulles and Baruchs
* Take home, for purposes of this discussion, computed by deducting federal income taxes from
adjusted gross income. All other deductions are disregarded.
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S TAX PROGRAM
$
Adjusted Gross Income Tax
$ 2,000 $ 0 2,500 50 5,000 480 73500 1,045 10,000 1,719 1,000,000 838,418
The truly regressive nature of the changes which were placed into ef- fect in 1946 are best illustrated ky the following table:
% Increase
1946 Tax 1946 $ Increase in Take Take Home in Take Home Home 50 $ 2450 $ 55 270 480 4,520 144 376 1,045 6,455 250 4% 1,719 8,281 361 5% 838,418 161,582 47,124 41%
are trying to convince the rest of the world, as well as the people of the United States, that we have only peaceful intentions, the budget rec- ommendations of the President pro- vide that 30 cents of every dollar to be spent by the federal government shall be for military purposes. At the same time only a little over four cents is provided for social welfare and a little less than four cents is provided for agricultural programs. Throughout the 1946 election cam- paign, as a result of which the Re- publican Party won a majority of the seats in both houses of Congress, the election promise most often re- peated provided for a reduction in income taxes. Moreover, the promise specified a 20 per cent cut across-the- board. Since all federal tax laws must originate in the House of Representa-
348
tives, the very first bill introduced in the House, H. R. 1, by Representative Harold Knutson, Republican of Minnesota, and Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Commit- tee, embodies all that the Republi- cans promised. The bill provides a 20 per cent cut across-the-board on all taxable incomes below $300,000 and a 10.5 per cent cut across-the-board on all taxable incomes above $300,- 000. ;
On the same day Representative
Recognizing the dangerous effect which the enactment of the Knutson Bill might have on the living stand- ards of tthe workers and farmers of America and on the continued ex- istence of small property owners and independent businessmen as a class, the Communist Party, and other lib- eral labor, farmer, consumer, profes- sional and business organizations voiced angry opposition. Fearing that the Ways and Means Commit- tee would be swamped with protests which could not be ignored, Repre- sentative Knutson announced that no public hearings would be held. This brought down on the Com- mittee an angry storm which caused
POLITICAL AFFAIRS
% Increase % Increase Take Home Take Home in Take Home in Adjusted under 1946 under Knutson Take Home under Engel Take Hom Gross Income Law Bill enter Bautien Bill oy Engel 1 1 $ 2,500 $ 2,450 $ 2,460 0.4% $ 2,500 2.07% 5,000 4,520 4,616 2.1 70 4,719 4-47 7,500 6,455 6,664 3.2% 6,702 3.8% 10,000 8,281 8,625 4.2% 8,566 3.4% 100,000 38,112 50,490 32.5% 38,939 1.3% 00,000 66,732 113,386 69.9% 6 1.3% 3 73 353 9-9; 7:597 3/0 1,000,000 161,582 272,337 68.5% 162,447 0.5%
Albert J. Engel, Republican of Michi. gan, not a member of the Ways and Means Committee, introduced H. R. 62, which provides for doubling per sonal exemptions for single and married persons. The progressive character of the Engel Bill and the regressive character of the Knutson Bill are best illustrated by the fol- lowing tables. The tax computations are for a married couple with two
children:
them to reverse their decision and announce that open hearings would be held at a date not yet specified. Credit for this reversal should go especially to the Committee for Pro- gressive Taxation which includes the National Farmers’ Union, the Na- tional Association of Consumers, the C.1.0., the National Lawyers’ Guild, the Consumers’ Union of the United States, the League of Women Shop- pers and the Progressive Citizens of America.
The National Committee of the Communist Party, at its plenary meeting in New York, December 3-5, 1946 included in .its legislative program the adoption of a people’s
ressive id the utson 1e fol. ‘ations h two
Increase in ce Home er Engel Bill 0% of
Wal ae w
VW Ww & cob Ss
ak 3X
1 and vould sified, d go - Pro- =s the
Na- s, the suild, nited Shop-
ns of
F the nary mber ative
»ple’s
tax program to protect labor, farm- ers, small property owners, profes- sionals and independent business- men. The purpose of such a program js to unite into a coalition all the people suffering under the yoke of monopoly capital; to insure that the people and the corporations will be taxed in accordance with their ability to pay; and, at the same time, to insure that there will be ample funds available for constantly increasing appropriations for social and public services. It is such a tax program which is herein outlined.
Federal Individual Income Taxes
In 1939 a married worker with two children, earning $50 a week or $2,600 a year, paid no federal income taxes because, as explained above, his personal exemptions totalled $3,300 a year. In 1946 this same worker, as- suming that he was among the more fortunate group who received pay increases approximating the cost of living increases, would have earned 75 a week or $3,900 a year. Despite the fact that all his 1946 income and more was needed to maintain his 1939 standard of living, he was re- quired to pay $283 in federal income tax. The reactionary cdalition in Congress now proposes to reduce his income tax bill to $226.40. This will increase his net take-home pay by $1.09 a week or by 1.5 per cent.
On the other hand, let us con-
sider a capitalist who reports a “net taxable” income of $1,000,000 a year.
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S TAX PROGRAM 349
Remember first that this may well correspond to a gross income of double or triple that amount, since the millionaire can take advantage of numerous “exclusions” and “de- ductions” not available to those in the low and middle income groups. These will be discussed in detail later. On his net taxable income of $1,000,000 the 1946 federal income tax was $838,418. The Congressional reactionaries propose to reduce his income tax bill to $727,663. This will increase his net income after taxes by $2,129.90 a week or by 68.5 per cent.
In 1939 individuals earning less than $5,000 a year paid less than 10 per cent of the individual income taxes collected by our government. In 1942, the last year for which of- ficial reports are available, individ- uals earning less than $5,000 a year paid almost 50 per cent of total fed- eral individual income taxes. In 1946 it is estimated that individuals earn- ing less than $5,000 a year paid 57 per cent of total federal individual income taxes.
The cost of living in the U. S. has risen constantly so that authoritative studies declare that an industrial worker must earn over $3,500 a year to maintain a family of four in a state of health and decency, accord- ing to minimum standards, and with- out provision for savings, vacations or emergencies. In a country such as ours, in which there exists an abun- dance of wealth, everyone should be permitted to earn tax free an amount
350 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
sufficient to keep him and his family in a state of health and decency and to provide them with vacations, sav- ings and reserves with which to meet emergencies.
For these reasons personal income tax exemptions must be increased so that a single individual will be able to earn tax free approximately $2,000, a married couple approximately $3,500 and for each dependent ap- proximately $750 more. In other words, a family of four should be able to earn approximately $5,000 without having to pay any income taxes. There are two methods of pro- viding for such an exemption from tax. The first method, and the one with which we are most familiar, consists of deducting the amount of the income to be exempted from ad-
justed gross income and computing the tax on the balance. This is a re. gressive method, however, because it allows persons in the higher income tax brackets a greater deduction than those in the lower brackets. Thus a person in a 75 per cent income tax bracket would save three times as much tax as a person in a 25 per cent income tax bracket. The second method consists of following a flat tax credit computed on a basis which will be fair to all. A reasonable credit would be $200 for each person in the family unit. That means $200 for a single individual, $400 for a married couple, and $200 for each dependent. Since the second method is more pro- gressive, as illustrated in the follow- ing table, it is preferable and should be adopted:
Tax with
Tax with Amount benefit of Amount ot benefit of of actual of exemption actual
Adjusted Tax without exemptions for exemption for family exemption gross income benefit of family of 4 under first of four under exemptions computed by method computed by second first method * second method * method $ 2,500 $ 275 $ oO $ 275 $ Oo $275 5,000 750 oO 7 750 o 750 7,500 1,525 275 1,250 725 800 10,000 2,600 750 1,850 1,800 800 100,000 81,650 77,150 4,500 79,850 800 300,000 271,650 266,900 4,750 270,850 800 1,000,000 936,650 931,900 4,750 935,850 800
In addition to revising personal exemptions the tax rates in the low- est two brackets of taxable income
* Tax is computed at the rates set forth in detail above.
should be reduced, while all other tax rates should be increased, as in the following table:
On
over over over over over over over over ove! ovel
rec
put wit
Gre
ers
uting a re use it come than hus a e tax eS as cent cond a flat vhich ‘redit n the for a rried dent. pro- llow-
ould
unt of ual iption er ond
thod
ther is in
On The First $2,000
over $2,000 but over $4,000 but over $6,000 but over $8,000 but over $10,000 but over $12,000 but over $14,000 but over $16,000 but
not over $4,000 not over $6,000 not over $8,000 not over $10,000 not over $12,000 not over $14,000 not over $16,000 not over $25,000
Individual Income Tax Rates Applicable to all adjusted gross income.
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S TAX PROGRAM
10% $200 plus 15% $500 plus 25% $1,000 plus 35% $1,700 plus 45% $2,600 plus 55% $3,700 plus 65% $5,000 plus 75% $6,500 plus 85%
of all over $2,000 of all over $4,000 of all over $6,000 of all over $8,000 of all over $10,000 of all over $12,000 of all over $14,000 of all over $16,000
over $25,000 but not over $100,000 over $100,000
The progressive nature of these recommendations is best illustrated by the following table. The tax com- putations are for a married couple with two children:
$14,150 plus 90% of all over $25,000 $81,650 plus 95% of all over $100,000
groups from sudden fluctuations in their incomes brought on by “boom- and-bust” cycles, what is necessary is a two-year carry-forward and carry- back of all unused exemption credits. Under this plan a worker who has
Rae sme T. r Be been unemployed for a year will not i) nc ‘ - . ° ° ° - eee ” axe-Feome have immediately to begin paying $ 2,500 $ oO $ 2,500 P income taxes when he again becomes 5,000 o 5,000 7,500 725 6,750 employed. Corporations and all busi- > > 10,000 1,800 8,200 nesses have already been extended 100,000 79,850 20,150 this privilege. Human rights to a 100,000 79,850 20,150 constant income are surely of no 300,000 270,850 29,150 lesser importance than property 1,000,000 935,850 64,150 rights. The operation of this plan is illustrated in the following two In order to protect workers, farm- _ tables: ers and others in the lower income CARRY-FORWARD Income Year Without Tax without Carry-forward Adjusted Adjusted Adjustments Adjustments Adjustment Income Taxes 1947 $7,500 $725 $—2,500 $5,000 0 1948 5,000 ty) te) 5,000 re) 1949 2,500 +-2,500 5,000 0
Oo $725
Total Taxes
352 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
CARRY-BACK Income - Year Without Tax without Carry-back Adjusted Adjusted Adjustments Adjustments Adjustment Income Taxes 1950 $1,000 $ o $+- 4,000 $5,000 0 1951 4,000 - 0 + 1,000 5,000 i) 1952 10,000 1,800 —5,000 5,000 0 Total Taxes $1,800 0
‘Lhe present tax law contains so many loopholes that there has sprung up a whole new industry of tax con- sultants, accountants and attorneys devoted to the task of reducing net taxable income for monopolists both individual and corporate. Unfortu- nately the tax laws are riddled with loopholes so that the more “expert” the advice retained, the more loop- holes can be found through which to squeeze income which should be taxed. It is possible without violating any laws to make millions of dollars a year and not pay a single penny in income taxes. Just a few of the many loopholes that serve either to de- crease or eliminate income taxes on the wealthy are:
1. Investment in state or city bonds or certain U. S. government bonds, the interest on which is tax free. Ironically enough, the interest on government savings bonds which are for sale to small investors only is not tax free.
2. Deducting costs of maintain- ing country estates by merely calling them farms. If a worker goes to a summer camp once a year for a week’s well-earned rest, he cannot make any deduction on his income tax return. Nor can the small busi- nessman take any deduction for a
trip to the seashore. But the capitalist who owns an elaborate country ¢s- tate where he spends his leisure and entertains his friends can treat the estate as a “farm” and deduct the cost of operation as a “business loss,”
3. Purchasing expensive pensions. A corporation can pay into a pension fund large sums of money so that its officers can retire with fantastic life pensions, and neither the corporation nor the executive pays any income tax on the amount paid for the pen- sion. On the other hand, when an employer deducts 1 per cent from the wages of a worker to buy that worker a life pension after the age of 65 which can hardly exceed $15 a week, the worker must pay income taxes on the 1 per cent as if it had been paid to him.
4- Making partially taxable spec- ulation profits. A capitalist can earn millions of dollars in speculation profits either by stock market trans actions or by speculation in commod- ities; and, if he holds the stocks or commodities for six months, the maximum tax rate applicable to his profits is 25 per cent. Contrast this with the worker, farmer, professional man or businessman who must pay a maximum rate of 28.5 per cent when his taxable income exceeds $6,000.
5: husb. by ai conti wife
retur taxec way
adva few ( zona Loui Okl: (Sta
is CO
The endc are | then cont the | exen tribt duct “con
hole trate follc
essai
fron by ¥
as f: ness sour
3 all ¢ if th
coo O oO Be af
vitalist ry es e and it the t the loss.” sions. ‘nsion lat its ic life ration 1come : pen- nm an from + that e age $15 a come t had
spec- earn lation trans- mod- ks or , the ‘o his t this sional pay a when 0.
5. Filing of separate returns by husbands and wives. A capitalist can, by any number of legal maneuvers, contrive to split his income with his wife and thus file two separate tax returns, neither one of which will be taxed at the highest rates. The only way a worker can obtain this type of advantage is by living in one of the few community property states—Ari- zona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Louisiana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas, Washington (State)—-in which half of all income is considered as the wife’s.
6. Setting up family foundations. There are a great number of heavily endowed family foundations which are controlled by the family setting them up and which make little or no contribution to society. Not only is the profit made by these foundations exempt from taxation but the “con- tributions” made to them are de- ductible on the tax returns of the “contributors.”
There are innumerable other loop- holes, but these will serve to illus- trate the necessity for reform. The following changes are therefore nec- essary :
1. Full taxation of all income from securities regardless of when or by whom issued.
2. Disallowance of all losses on operation of spurious businesses, such as farms, yachts, etc., unless the busi- ness normally provides the sole source of income for the taxpayer.
3. Taxation of the beneficiary on all contributions to a pension fund as if the contribution were made to him
TOWARD A PEOPLE’S TAX PROGRAM 353
as part of his regular compensation.
4. Full taxation of capital gains in the same manner as other income.
5. Require husbands and wives to file joint returns in all cases.
6. Since it has already been pro- posed that personal exemptions be liberalized, and since monopolists by means of their foundations and con- tributions have gained control. of our educational and other institutions, no deductions should be allowed for contributions of any type.
Federal Corporation Taxes
In the federal income tax on cor- porations more than in any other instance we run headlong into the power of monopoly capital in Amer- ica.
During the prewar years 1936- 1939, American corporations had average net profits after income taxes of 3.9 billion dollars a year. During the war years 1942-1945, when they were crying against the high taxes, when they were complaining of hav- ing to renegotiate their contracts with the government, while American labor was sweating long hours for wages which were frozen by govern- ment order, these same corporations increased their average profits from 3.9 billions to 9.5 billion dollars a year, after taxes. For 1946, the first full postwar year, their profits after taxes were 12 billion dollars.
During 1940-1945 American cor- porations made 53.5 billion dollars in profits after taxes. Out of these astro- nomical profits they paid their stock-
354 POLITICAL AFFAIRS
holders 25.9 billion dollars in divi- derids and kept 27.6 billion dollars in undistributed profits. This tre- mendous accumulation of funds in the hands of a reiatively few large corporations serves a dual purpose. First, since less than one per cent of the stockholders in the U. S. receive more than 60 per cent of all divi- dends, this failure of the corporations to pay dividends enabled these large stockholders te escape payment of the high taxes they would have had to pay on the dividends. And second, this tremendous accumulation of funds strengthened the hold of mo- nopoly capital on the life-line of American business. It has enabled large corporations to gobble up smaller competitors at a rate un- dreamed of in American history and thus to strengthen monopoly control. It has enabled these large corpora- tions to set aside enormous amounts of money to fight labor, to break strikes and to scuttle progressive leg- islation, as they scuttled O.P.A.
As early as 1944, although the peo- ple of the country were still solidly behind President Roosevelt, Con- gress was already dominated by a reactionary Democratic - Republican coalition so that the infamous 1944 Revenue Act was passed over the President’s veto. President Roosevelt, in his veto message, said:
It is not a tax bill but a tax relief bill providing relief not for the needy but for the greedy. The bill is replete with provisions which not only afford indefensible special privileges to favored
groups but set dangerous precedents for the future.
The 1944 Revenue Act provided, among other things, that corporations shall be given a refund amounting to 10 per cent of their excess profits tax payments. Not only were the laws (which were designed to take away from corporations the excessive prof- its due to the war) so poorly drawn that most corporations could escape payment of their just shares, but Con- gress in 1944 gave them a refund of over three billion dollars on what they had actually paid. There were other provisions such as carry-backs, accelerated amortization and recom- putation of base periods; but these are quite complicated and an ex planation of them would require ex- tensive elaboration. Suffice it to say that these changes now cost the workers, farmers, professionals, small businessmen and other low and mid- dle income taxpayers of America many billions of dollars.
These were some of the provisions which had to be made to “help” mo- nopoly capital “readjust” itself from a wartime profit rate of 9.5 billion dollars a year to a peacetime profit rate of 12 billion dollars in 10946. Contrast this situation with the plight of the workers who took cuts in pay, had to move elsewhere to find employment or housing and have to pay tremendously inflated _ living costs. Not only has there not been a single proposal to give them a tax refund but they are continuing to be taxed at rates which cut into their living standards.
nof lief 194 cess tax inc
Tru was amc not
for
still draf was had wor imp whi prof that
On | Over over Over Over Over Over
3 in ¢ distr form be ar tax ©
4 nhatec a twe
cedents
vided, rations ting to ts tax > laws - away > prot- drawn escape t Con- ind of what - were backs, ‘ecom- these n ex ire ex- tO say t the small | mid- nerica
isions ” mo- from yillion profit 1946. the < cuts o find ive to living een a a tax to be their
To complete the picture, the mo- nopolists came back for more “re- lief" in 1945. The Revenue Act of 1945 completely eliminated the ex- cess profits tax and set a maximum tax rate of 38 per cent on corporation incomes.
On September 30, 1945 President Truman announced that the war was over for purposes of accelerating amortization of war facilities. He did not announce that the war was over for hundreds