The Daily Worker Newspaper, September 15, 1934, Page 4

TEKNIK Page Four DAILY WORKER, NEW YORK, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 1934 " LESSONS OF THE RECENT STRIKE STRUGGLES IN THE U.S. A. [ Resolution adopted by the meeting of the Central Committee of the Communist Party, September 5-6] Introduction The strike wave which began early in 1934, the first period of which was examined by the Eighth National Convention, has since that time risen to new heights. The strike movement not only grew in number of strikers, militancy and duration of strikes, but also qualitatively entered a higher stage with the emergence on a nation- wide scale of a general strike movement. This general strike movement came to the verge of realization in Toledo, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, Seattle. It was realized in San Francisco in a four-day General Strike of solidarity with the Pacific Coast marine workers strug- gle of twelve weeks involving the overwhelming mass of all workers in the San Francisco Bay region. At the same time the strike movement further penetrated the deep south and the basic industries. At the present moment a great movement for the nation-wide industrial strike of textile workers has forced their A. F. of L. leaders to submit for the moment to the fighting deter- mination of the rank and file and issue a general strike call, which has brought on strike a half-million workers in the greatest single strike in American history. These struggles, and especially the San Francisco General Strike, mark a new high point in the development of the Ameri- can working class and are of historic significance. Espe- cially on the Pacific Coast, the fury of the bourgeo: reveals also the intensity of war preparations, and the capitalists’ determination to smash all mass trade unions at the main bases of war preparations. The lessons of these struggles are of first importance for the develop- ment of the entire revolutionary movement. The history of these battles must be thoroughly studied and their lessons assimilated by the entire revolutionary movement and the whole working class. Every nucleus, every frac- tion, and every Committee must begin by discussing this Resolution. | I ain Characteristics of Recent Strikes This growing strike movement which is the answer of the workers to the sharpened attack of the capitalists is characterized by the fol- following main features: (a) these strikes are in one form or another directed not only against the capitalists in the various industries around the questions of wages, hours, conditions of labor, the right of organizations, etc., but they also are more and more directed against the new deal policies and the N. R. A. codes and the arbitra- tion features in particular; (b) these strikes, consisting primarily of workers organized in the A. F. of L, unions and especially those who became recently organized, took place through the efforts of the rank and file of the A. F. of L. who either forced the leaders to “sanction” these strikes or struck over the heads of these leaders; (c) the national and local government resorted to increas- ing use of violence against the workers on strike, practically in every strike the National Guard was called out, in general growing fascist and semi-fascist methods of suppressing strikes were used by the government supplemented by fascist organi- zations and armed thugs, resulting in most of these strikes in the killing and wounding of strikers, intimidation of the foreign- born workers, etc.; (d) above all as already indicated these strikes are characterized by a marked increase in mass solidarity already taking the form of the development of general strikes as the answer of the workers to the increasing attacks of the capitalists and the Suppression of the struggles of the workers by the capitalist govern- ment; (e) a very important feature of all these strikes is the ability of a minority of organized workers on strike to involve the mass of the unorganized workers and the unemployed, who furnish almost no strikebreakers (these come from declassed petty-bourgeois or crimi- nal elements), but on the contrary give active support and assistance. An important factor in the organization and preparations of the strike struggles has been the greater ability of the Party to mobilize the masses in defense of their interests (San Francisco, Milwaukee, etc.). ie The Strike Struggles and the Role of the A. F. of L. Bureaucrats The experience of the workers in the first wave of strikes also Jed to growing realization of increasing sections of workers that the A. F, of L. bureaucrats were allied with the employers and the gov- ernment against them, The workers in increasing cases entered the strike struggles over the heads of the leaders, although in most cases the bureaucrats, sensing the danger that they will become isolated, pretended to lead the strikes of the workers for the purpose of assist- ing the bosses in defeating the workers. In increasing cases it was only with the aid of Socialist misleaders (Milwaukee), the renegade groups (Lovestoneites among the needle workers; Trotzkyites in Minne- apolis), Musteites in Toledo and sham opposition (committee of ten in the steel industry), etc., were the top bureaucrats of the A. F. of L, able to maintain their influence over the workers. The leaders of the S. P., who first supported the A. F. of L. bureaucrats, “no strike” Policy, as the strikes developed openly allied themselves in each in- stance with the A. F. of L. leaders and supported their strike-breaking Policies. This policy of the S, P. was again approved at the recent S. P. convention controlled by the Thomas group of “militants.” The convention rejected even the proposals for the mildest criticism of the A. F. of L. bureaucrats. Only where the work of the Communists and genuine left wing elements in the A. F. of L. unions was seri- ously undertaken and organized (San Francisco, marine strike, recent painters’ strike, etc.) were the A. F. of L. bureaucrats isolated. The overwhelming majority of the strikers in recent months were work- ers organized in the A. F. of L. unions, clearly showing that the A. F, of L. workers are more and more accepting the Policies of the Party and the revolutionary trade union movement. This develop- ment makes more urgent than ever the development of systematized work in the A. F. of L. unions.and emphasize the correctness of the decisions of the Party convention to carry on struggle against all attempts to underestimate or weaken the work in the A. F. of L, unions (Zack), Growing Solidarity and Movement for General Strikes Among all the features of the recent strikes which were already noted by the last Party convention, the growing mass solidarity of the workers has seen the greatest development. This is, of course, clear trom the fact that during this period there took place the first general Strike since the Seattle General Strike of 1919 and the fact that this was by far the largest and most important general strike ever con- ducted by the workers of the U.S. This tendency was already ex- pressed in Toledo, where the masses of the city came to the assistance of the striking workers and where the overwhelming majority of the orgenized workers had voted for a general strike. This same develop- ment was seen in the May strike of the Minneapolis truckmen, in the Milwaukee carmen’s strike, etc. If these struggles did not, as in Frisco, lead to general strike, this was not because the workers were not ready. It was because the bureaucrats were still ale to fore- Stall it. The Frisco/general strike was able to be developed to a large extent because of the movement for gencral strike in the Toledo and Minneapolis strikes. € These movements and actions of mass solidarity, taking the form of mass support, protest actions, demonstrations and finally in the San Francsico general strike, were the development in the minds of the workers and given consciousness by the correct analysis and slogans by the Party as to the next step in the answering by the workers of the furious and violent suppressions of the strike struggles by the capitalist government. The whole complex of circumstances that formed the background of the recent strike struggles (N. R. A, Tole of the A. F. of L. bureaucrats, terror, etc.) inevitably lead the masses to the realization that only through bringing up their own 4 4 Te yes can they successfully battle for their demands and their The movement for a general strike was also the response of workers to the bringing of troops, shooting down of the workers, prohibition of picketing, the ht of assemblage, etc, The work- ers began to understand that in these struggles conducted by one groups of workers the demands and the interests of the whole class are involved. Thus, out of the beginning of economic struggles around demands common to all workers (wages, hours, the right to organize) and against the increasing violence of the government on the side of the employers grew mighty class battles which though not always recognized by all workers became transformed into a combination of political and economic struggles directed against the whole system of capitalist exploitation and suppression, Il. Some Lessons from the West Coast Marine Strike To understand the development of the strike struggles from the economic struggle to the mass class battles such as the Frisco General Strike, it is necessary to draw the lessons of the organization and leadership of the West Coast marine strike, especially in the San Francisco port. Already in July, 1932, under the leadership and guidance of the Party, there began the formation of the nucleus of the great struggle in the San Francisco port. Out of these first mings which took the form of the publication of a longshore letin there grew in the middle of 1933 a local of the I. L, A. in which the militant elements played a decisive role. Such a development did take place in other industries, but the second step was lacking. Here the workers organized with militant leadership, faced with the refusal of the I. L. A. leadership to take up the fight for theif interests, took the initiative and in February, 1934, organized a West Coast Con- ference of all I. L. A. locals at which a program of struggle was mapped out in which the workers were forewarned against arbitration as a scheme to defeat them. It was this foresight and exposure of the N. R. A. that made possible later the defeat of the workers’ enemies. Though the Roosevelt government came to the assistance of the shipowners and was able to postpone the strike in April, because of the militant leadership of the I. L. A. local in Frisco, the workers defeated the Ryan-Lewis attempt to defeat them through arbitration and struck on May 9th, and by May llth tied up every port on the West Coast. Role of the Joint Strike Committee and the Marine Workers Industrial Union The M. W. I. U., which because of the situation in the West Coast limited its organization among the unorganized seamen and which had already in the last years demonstrated its capacity to suc- cessfully lead the struggles of the employed and unemployed seamen (Munson line, Boston coal boats, Baltimore unemployed struggles, etc.), from the beginning raised among the seamen joint strike action with the longshoremen, thus defeating the old A. F. of L. policy which in 1921 and 1923 led to the defeat respectively of the strikes of the longshoremen and seamen by division in their ranks. This effort of the M. W.I.U. was successful from the beginning and led to the tieing up of every ship on the West Coast and many ships in other ports, including foreign ships. The I. S. U. officials (A. F. of L. seamen’s union) only on May 19th, when confronted with the mass strike of seamen, sanctioned the strike by the I. S. U. THIS UNITY OF THE SEAMEN AND LONGSHOREMEN, INVOLVING ALL MARITIME UNIONS, WHICH TOOK THE FORM OF A PACT THAT NEITHER GROUP RETURN TO WORK WITHOUT THE OTHER, AND THE BUILDING OF A JOINT STRIKE COMMITTEE OF SEAMEN, LONGSHOREMEN, ETC., WAS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ELEMENTS THAT MADE POSSIBLE THE LONG BATTLE OF THE MARINE WORKERS AND FINALLY PREVENTED THE SHIPOWNERS FROM COMPLETELY DEFEATING THE WORK- ERS OR SMASHING THEIR ORGANIZATION, EVEN AFTER THE A. F. of L, BUREAUCRATS STABBED THE GENERAL STRIKE IN THE BACK. This action of the M. W. I. U. further demonstrated not only that the M, W. I. U. is a force among the seamen but in general the possibilities and the role that the T. U. U. L, unions can play in the development and leadership of the struggles of the workers through the application of the united front policy. The defeat of the A. F. of L. bureaucrat’s policy to divide the strikers who were in A. F. of L. unions from those in other unions and the unorganized, the ability of the strike committee under the leadership of the left wing to unite all strikers made possible the solid strike for three months, Another important feature of the marine struggle was the appeal of the strikers to the teamsters and the response of the teamsters which already on May 14th resulted in a decision by the teamsters not to haul any scab-loaded cargo, A further feature of the correct leader- ship of the marine strike which made impossible the division of the workers was the taking up in time of the demands of the Negro workers among the longshoremen, who hitherto had been discriminated against both by the shipowners and the A. F. of L. bureaucrats. All these correct strike tactics could be carried through only be- cause the strike of the marine workers was in the hands of the rank and file and their trusted leaders. This was made possible by the left wing elements placing the interests of the workers to the foreground, not capitulating before any legalistic illusions, Although the District Board of the I. L. A, claimed the sole leadership of the strike, the workers elected their own rank and file strike committee and this strike committee began to organize the strike (picketing, relief, etc.) so that in practice the workers looked to the rank and file strike com- mittee as the organizer and leader of the strike. The power to make agreements, however, still remained in the hands of the bureaucrats. But after the attempts of Ryan to betray the strike, the strike com- mittee was able to realize the slogan “all power to the rank and file strike committee,” with the full support of all the strikers, It was these correct policies on the basis of which the movement was organized from the beginning, how the strike was organized and led, that made possible the defeat of all attempts to break the strike, In this way the strikers defeated Ryan, McGrady, the National Long- shore Board, etc. That this was not possible in Toledo and Min- neapolis, for example, was of course due to the fact that in these strikes the workers themselves had not taken over the leadership of the strike and the strike remained in the hands of the A. F. of L. bureaucrats and their allies (Muste, Trotzkyists, etc.). Il. The Development of the San Francisco General Strike When the employers and the government, confronted with the solid front of the workers which they could not disintegrate from the inside because the bosses agents, the A. F. of L. bureaucrats, were isolated, decided to bread the deadlock through force and violence and issued the slogan “Open up the ports at all costs,” which meant of course through force and violence, the Communist Party already issued the slogan of “General Strike.” When the open violence of the government and the bosses resulted in the killing of a number of strikers and the practical creation of martial law, this slogan was rec- ognized, not only by the striking marine workers, but by the MAJORITY OF ALL workers, as the slogan which corresponds to their understanding of the next step in the strike. Economic Struggles Develop Into Political Class Battles In the San Francisco General Strike (as in the othér strikes dealt with) we have a classical example of the Communist thesis that, in the present period of capitalist decline, a stubborn struggle for even the smallest immediate demands for the workers inevitably develops into general class battles. Beginning in a typical economic struggle over wages and working conditions of longshoremen, there took place, step by step, a concentration of class forces in support of one and the other side which soon aligned practically the entire population into two hostile camps: capitalist class against the working class, and all intermediate elements towards support of one or the other. It became the well-defined class struggle, a test of strength between the two basic class forces. The economic struggle was transformed into @ political struggle of the first magnitude. The working class under- stood that it it allowed the concentration of capitalist forces to defeat the marine workers, this meant a defeat for the entire working class, general wage cuts, speed-up and worsening of conditions, the smash- ing of all unions; the capitalist class knew that if the marine workers should win their demands this would launch a general forward movement of the entire working class which would defeat the capitalist program for their way out of the crisis, a program based upon restoring profits by reducing the general standard of living of the masses.: It was the capitalist class which, in panic before the rising giant of class action of the workers, hysterically cried out that this strike, which they could have settled very quickly at any time by the simple expedient of granting the workers’ demands, was actually a revolutionary up- rising organized by the Communist Party to overthrow the whole capitalist system. Of course, this strike did not have revolution as its objective, but only the immediate demands of the workers. The unity of the workers, however, raised before the employers the spectre of working class power, of the potentiality of revolution. On the side of the workers their experience was leading them step by step to more serious challenge of the capitalist class, teaching them the neces- sity of extending the struggle for power, bringing them face to face with the state power as the guardian of capitalist profits and the force driving down the workers’ standards; at the same time it was giving them a new understanding of their own power, of their ability to shake the very basis of capitalist rule. In this sense, the strike was truly the greatest revolutionary event in American labor history. The A. F. of L. bureaucrats were, of course, from the beginning Opposed to the General Strike. William Green was already busy or- ganizing against the General Strike (telegram to Seattle, etc.) while the San Francisco labor bureaucrats were carrying on a vicious campaign against all those who advocated the general strike, were busy work- ing against the development of a national marine strike, did every- thing to weaken the West Coast strike. And if these leaders later “sanctioned” the General Strike, it was with the expressed purpose not only to escape the isolation, which they already suffered among the marine workers, among the rest of the workers, but also as Ryan stated not merely to break the general strike, but also to oust the left wing leadership in the San Francisco marine strike as a prelude to breaking the strike of the marine workers. THE EFFORTS TO BREAK THE GENERAL STRIKE DID NOT DEVELOP WITH THESE LEADERS IN THE COURSE OF THE GENERAL STRIKE, It was planned be- fore the strike which they could not stop began. It was therefore not because the San Francisco labor bureau- crats were less reactionary than those of Toledo that the General Strike was developed. Nor was it due to any fundamental differences in the level of development of the workers. THE MAIN REASON WAS THAT THE UNITED AND MILITANT STAND OF THE MARINE STRIKERS, MADE POSSIBLE BECAUSE OF THE RANK AND FILE LEADERSHIP, UNITED THE WHOLE WORKING CLASS OF SAN FRANCISCO BEHIND THEM AND INSPIRED THEM WITH THE SAME SPIRIT OF UNITY AND STRUGGLE THAT PER- MEATED THE STRIKING MARINE WORKERS. THE A. F. OF L. BUREAUCRATS WERE UNABLE OPENLY TO DEFEAT THIS SPIRIT AMONGST THE WORKERS OF SAN FRANCISCO. This furnishes a great lesson to all Communists and militants in their work within the A. F. of L. unions and among the masses generally. IV. How the Historic General Strike W: Broken The General Strike was not defeated in the first place because the open forces of the employers were stronger than those of the workers. It was defeated because of the fact that the agents of the enemy class stood at the head of the General Strike. All enemies of the workers immediately cried out that the General Strike could not be victorious. This was said not only by the employers and the govern- ment, but also by the A. F. of L. bureaucrats and the leaders of the Socialist Party. They tried to prove this on the basis of experiences in other countries. They wished through the defeat of the San Fran- cisco General Strike to discredit the General Strike as a weapon of the class struggle. BUT IN THIS CASE THE WHOLE RECORD OF THE A. F. OF L, BUREAUCRACY AND THEIR OPEN STATEMENTS DURING AND AFTER THE STRIKE EXPOSE THEM AS THE STRIKEBREAKERS. Without the aid of the A. F. of L. bureau- crats the employers and the government could not break the strike. It is, of course, true that without the aid of the government terror the A. F. of L. bureaucrats could not carry through their treacherous Policies, BUT IT 18 ALSO TRUE THAT WITHOUT THE. TREACH- ERY OF THE A. F. OF L. BUREAUCRATS THE GOVERNMENT AND THE EMPLOYERS COULD NOT HAVE CARRIED THROUGH THEIR FASCIST TERROR AGAINST THE WORKERS. ‘The Democratic Roosevelt government must be exposed as one of the organizers of the terror campaign carried through jointly by the Republican Governor Merriam, Mayor Rossi, and the federal gov- ernment. It was McGrady and the N. L. B. that prepared the ground for the terror. It was the Labor Department headed by Madam Perkins, the Roo:2velt liberal, that organized the intimidation of the foreign born workers. And it was Roosevelt's N. R. A. head, Johnson, who openly provoked and called for the organization of violence against the strikers and the Communist Party. We must expose those liberal circles who with the aim of maintaining the Roosevelt illusions among the masses try to separate the responsibility of Gov- ernor Merriam, Mayor Rossi and the ruling cliques on the West Coast from that of the Roosevelt government. The main weakness of the General Strike from the beginning was that it was allowed to be headed by those A. F. of L, leaders who from the beginning opposed it. THIS WAS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE PARTY'S WORK IN THE A. F. OF L. UNIONS IN SAN FRAN- CISCO WAS STILL EXTREMELY WEAK, ESPECIALLY AMONG SUCH WORKERS AS THE TEAMSTERS AND THE PRINTERS, ELECTRICIANS, ETC. It was also due partly because there was not @ sufficient activity in the A, F. of L. locals to expose the A. F, of L. leadership and to call for the election to the General Strike Committee of those workers who were in favor of the general strike, Thus we see that the element which gave solidarity, unity and strength to the marine strike and which made possible the development of the General Strike, namely the rank and file leadership, was not achieved in the General Strike and thus inevitably doomed it to defeat unless the workers could quickly take the leadership out of the hands of the bureaucrats in the course of the general strike, The bureaucrats suc- ceeded in breaking the general strike before such a development be- came possible. The Party at the decisive moment when the bureau- crats stood isolated and the workers were rallying for the general strike, in the first meeting at which the General Strike leadership was elected a struggle against the misleaders and saboteurs was not developed. It allowed them through this course to place themselves at the head of the General Strike and overcome their isolation by feigning support for the General Strike. How did the bureaucrats proceed to break the general strike? In the first day they sent back the municipal transportation workers. They refused to call out the decisive public utility workers. They issued Permits indiscriminately, thus giving away one of the most powerful Weapons of the workers. They refuséd to organize the workers defense organizations, to maintain discipline and ehforce the workers deci- sions. The leaders of the printers’ unions entered into an agreement the last days before the general strike with the employers,and did not call out the printers. Thus while the workers press was suppressed by the fascist bands and the armed government forces, the bosses were able to every hour pour out poison against the strikers, creating confusion as to the situation, were able to win the support of vacil- lating elements and among the middle class strata of the Population, The Hearst press especially played a vile and viscious role, It is clear that had the strike leadership been in the hands of the workers it would have been possible by calling out the printers to stop the whole bosses’ press, through the workers press tell the workers the truth, and win allies for the strike among the other strata of the Population. Food could have been rationed so that the strikers and their supporters would be assured that they will not go hungry. Transport would be controlled and regularized only for the purpose of strengthening the strike. The workers defense would have prevented the terror against the workers and their organizations. Only under such conditions could victory be won. This was the program of the Communists, while the A. F. of L. bureaucrats did all possible to dis- organize and defeat the General Strike. The bourgeoisie and its agents carried on a campaign that the Bencral strike could not be victorious because it aimed at insurrection and that a general strike for purely economic demands could not be victorious. The Party correctly stated that the immediate aims of this strike were not to win power, but to win the immediate economic de- mands of the workers as well as the withdrawal of the troops, the withdrawal of all decrees against the freedom of the strikers to picket, etc. But even among the Communists in the marine strike and in the general strike there was insufficient clarity as to the demands of the general strike, and this helped in the weakening of the general strike by the bureaucrats. The workers felt what they were fighting for in general, but this was not formulated concretely. It should have been made clear to the strikers and to all masses that the general strike was called for the purpose of protesting the shooting of the workers, and had for its demands the withdrawal of all armed forces, and the prohibition of the rights of the strikers, picketing, meetings, the right of organization, etc. in order to enable the marine workers to win their demands, at the same time encouraging the workers in the various industries to continue the strike for their own demands. The ruling class charged that the Communists in this strike were out to make a “revolution.” The Communist Party in the Words of Karl Marx “disdains to conceal its aims” and never hides from the workers and from the capitalists that it is fighting for the overthrow of capitalism. But the Communist Party is not an adventurist Party that thinks that it can make a revolution without winning over for its revolutionary program the masses of the workers, The Commu. nist Party bases itself on the teaching of Marx, Lenin and Stalin as to what conditions there must be in the country for the overthrow of the rule of the capitalists. This, too, the Party openly teaches the masses. And certainly such conditions did not exist in San Fraticisco and the Communist Party did not tell the workers that they “can take power” in the city of San Francisco. The Communists, however, are fully aware of the fact that out of every struggle the workers can gain experience that will teach them the correctness of its revolutidnary Policies and tactics and win their confidence and support. This \our Party also attempted to do in San Francisco. This great struggle, which was betrayed by the A. F. of L. bus reaucrats did not, however, bring the results to the employers which they hoped for. They wished, through the defeat of this strike, to let loose the open shop, not alone on the West Coast, but throughout the country. They wished to smash the unions of the marine workers, They wished to initiate a new wage attack. They wished to isolate the radical leaders in the maritime unions. In this they did not succeed, thanks to the correct policy of organized retreat carried through by the marine workers’ strike committee which the Communists advo- cated in order to defeat the aims of the employers. Thus, even this strike has brought not only great lessons to the workers throughout the country and the San Francisco workers, especially, but also re- sulted in some material gains for the workers and the solidification of their organization, The employers were compelled to deal with both the unions of the longshoremen and especially the seamen, which they had no intention to do BEFORE the general strike. The correct tactics of an organized retreat, basing itself on the fighting spirit of the marine workers, was thus able to maintain the unity of the workers, who forced consideration of their demands, taking back of all strikers with practically no discrimination, the maintenance and consolidation of the marine unions under strong influence of the left-wing forces, the growth of the authority of the militant marine workers’ leaders. The hope of the capitalists that with the breaking of the general strike they could arrest the growing strike movement throughout the country has also not been fulfilled. This is one of the basic reasons why Green and the A. F. of L. Council have anew declared their un- holy war on the Communists, because they know that the Communists are organizing the workers to resist the sharpened attack now being undertaken by the capitalists and the Roosevelt. government against the workers. The San Francisco general strike is Now being followed by new mass strikes of the Mellon plants, aluminum workers, the knit goods workers, the re-strike in Minneapolis, because the workers became aware of the betrayal by the leaders of the strike among whom are the Trotzkyists, the strike of the N. Y. painters, where, for the first time the Zausner machine is being challenged by the rank and file, beginnings of strikes in the stockyards, the continuation of the strike of the metal miners, smeltermen and mechanics in Butte, Ana- conda and Great Falls, etc. The best proof that the San Francisco General Strike is not the end but the beginning of a widespread strike wave as forecast by the Party is already proven by the General Strike of all textile workers, embracing approximately a million workers—the largest strike in an industry in the history of the country. Without oe it will be followed by gigantic strikes of stecl, auto, and other workers, The Anti-Red Campaign of Terror ‘The terror campaign and the San Francisco General Strike, which quickly extended throughout the State of California and since has broadened throughout the entire nation, requires special study because of the far-reaching character it has taken on. Who initiated, organ- ized, and led this campaign? Who was participating in it? It must be registered first of all that the signal for the terror was given by General Hugh Johnson, who, the night before the raids, delivered speeches and Bernley and Hollywood Bowl, in which he declared that the Communists had gained control of the trade unions and were Planning a revolution as the result of the strike; he called upon all patriotic citizens to join together to “exterminate them like rats.” General Johnson was declared in the newspapers to be speaking as the personal representative of President Roosevelt, It is clear that the Roosevelt regime placed itself at the heat of and accepts full responsibility for all of the fascist outrages that followed. General Johnson was ably seconded by the “liberal” Secretary of Labor, Madame Perkins, who simultaneously announced a campaign of de- portation of all foreign-born workers handed over to her by the local vigilantes and police. The Republican Party, locally, in the State, and nationally, has organized a serious competition with the Democratia Party as to which should have the most “credit” for the fascist terror. Upton Sinclair, recent Socialist and now progressive Democrat running for Governor of California, seized the opportunity, not to protest against the fascist terror, but to denounce the Communist Party and disclaim the slightest connection with the hunted “reds,” blaming them for the terror. The New Leader, organ of the Socialist Party right wing, denounced the Communists as being responsible for the breaking of the strike and provoking the fascist terror. Event the “militant” So- cialist leader, Norman Thomas, while mildly disapproving of the terror, gave his blessings to the betrayal of the strike with the declaration that “The General Strike was soon called off by Labor itself.” General Johnson’s command to the A. F. of L. officials that they shall ex- terminate the Communists like rats found a quick response from Wil- liam Green of the A. F. of L. Executive Council, who denounced the strike and who publicly proclaimed a campaign of expulsions against all militant elements in trade unions. This campaign has already re- sulted in the expulsion of whole locai organizations, notably Local 499 of the Painters Union of New York. The campaign has been taken up by the American League, the fraternal societies of the Elks and the Eagles, etc., as well as by all the professional red-baiting societies throughout the country. The capitalist press throughout the country, with Hearst at the head, is carrying on the most vicious incitation to fascist violence against all reds, which means all militant workers’ leaders. The growing list of criminal syndicalist cases reflects the terror as applied by the courts, while dozens of reports come in every day, showing a mounting wave of fascist criminal assaults against revolutionary workers. In Oregon the campaign takes such form as the publication of lists of all signers of the Communist election peti+ tions and the inciting of fascist violence of the signers unless they publicly repudiate their signatures, A leader of the American Legion Convention in California climaxed this hysteria by proposing a con- centration camp in the wilds of Alaska for all reds, a proposal which was widely publicized throughout the country. The terror used to break the San Francisco General Strike has thus been spread over the whole country and served as an enormous stimulus to the whole tendency toward fascism inaugurated by Roosevelt’s New Deal. V. Some Weaknesses of the Communist Lead ership in the West Coast Strikes The outstanding shortcoming in the whole development of the marine s:rike on the West Coast was the inability to develop the strikes of the marine workers in other ports (Atlantic and Gulf) and to coordinate the strikes that did take place (Gulf) with that of the West Coast. This was to a certain extent due to the underestimation of the marine strike on the West Coast by the Party as a whole and especially the marine districts. Another weakness was the slow= ness in mobilizing support for the strike among the workers generally throughout the country. The comrades responsible for the leadership of the Party in San Francisco expressed their main weakness in a slowness and even hes- itation in the taking up the exposure of Ryan and Company, in the weakness in answering the red-baiting campaign of the capitalists and the A. F. of L. bureaucrats, in the insufficient bringing forward of the Party and building it among the strikers. These weaknesses re- flect a tendency which believes that the development of unity of action on the part of the workers is possible by weakening the fight against the A. F. of L. bureaucrats who in every phase and stage of the strike were actively engaged in strikebreaking. A further weakness was the inability to co-ordinate the strike in the various ports on the Pacific Coast, where the two Party Districts worked on the whole without adequate contacts. One of the major weaknesses of the fraction of the M. W. lL. & ee ae (Continued on Page 5) | \ X t f |