Archive

Monthly Archives: February 2020

Book Review:

Cash, Wiley, “The Last Ballad.” William Morrow, an imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 2017

Two pages of the book’s afterword, 371-2, reprint everything that is actually known about American labor’s great heroine known usually as Ella May Wiggins. A little more is known about the Gastonia textile strike of 1929. This author uses what is known to weave together a fine piece of historical fiction that certainly satisfies my own high regard for Ella May.

Four of Ella May’s nine children died from pellagra and whooping cough. The one in her womb died with her when she was murdered by strikebreakers. The living children went to an orphanage. The men charged with murder were defended by the mill owners and found innocent.

Ella May’s story is not a happy one, but it is important. Whether she did or didn’t do all the things in this book, historians agree that she stood up for integrating the African American and Caucasian strikers. This was a long time before black/white unity began to pay off in victories for working families. Ella May was a pioneer as well as a martyr.

There are details of her short life, March-1900 to Sept 14-1929, on Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ella_May_Wiggins

The author was born in Gastonia, North Carolina, in the area where the strike and the murders took place. With this book, he won the Southern Book Prize for Literary Fiction and my heartfelt gratitude.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON radio’s “Workers Beat” program every Saturday at 9AM Central Time. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site

Movie Review: “The Last Thing He Wanted,” Directed by Dee Rees, 116 minutes

My moviegoing buddy and I have been trying to find something good about this incomprehensible film. We liked the last frame, where three union logos were displayed. We’re union people. I sort of liked, just for old time sake, “Paladin,” the theme from the old oater, “Have Gun Will Travel” that they played during the credits. They also inserted it, along with “Good Golly Miss Molly” into the actual drama, but I think that was just to make sure that nobody, nowhere, nohow would ever be able to make any sense of this overedited mess.

Even though I had already noted that the movie drew a “D” from the Dallas reviewer, I wanted to go because I thought it would make some kind of statement about President Ronald Reagan’s illegal and immoral “Contra War.” During those days, my moviebuddy and I fought hard against the neoliberals who were murdering Central Americans right and left.

The movie had a promising start. We gathered that the heroine, played by the underrated actress Anne Hathaway, was a journalist interested in exposing Reagan’s dirty dealings. That was in the first 16 minutes. The next 100 minutes didn’t make any sense at all and should have been left out.

The credits, like I said, were OK.

–Gene Lantz

I”m on KNON radio’s “Workers Beat” program every Saturday at 9AM Central Time. If you are curious about what I really think, you could check out my personal web site

Book Review:

Griffith, Barbara S., The Crisis of American Labor: Operation Dixie and the defeat of the CIO. Temple University Press, Philadelphia, 1988. Borrowed from Longview Texas library through Dallas Public Library inter-library loan. Item barcode: 33053002087591

Working families have a giant hole in our own history. Even though virtually every union has an account of its early days, there is almost nothing about the period from 1947 to present. Union leaders might say that they just haven’t gotten around to covering that period, but I think there’s a truer explanation. I think they’re ashamed of it.

Ms Griffith’s book helps fill that hole. It tells how the brave organizers from the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO, before they surrendered to the AFL) tried to unify southern workers along with the industrialized North. It also explains why wages and benefits in the former confederacy continue to lag behind the rest of the nation.

In Spring of 1946, the CIO was less than 11 years old, but they had 4 million members! Their successes had galvanized the rival AFL into industrialized organizing, too. For the first time in American history, organized labor was more than a blip on the body politic. We were a power!

If Operation Dixie had succeeded, Griffiths says, southern workers would today be enjoying a much better standard of living. The civil rights movement would have realized its gains ten years earlier! American labor would have continued to gain membership and power. But it didn’t.

The CIO had overcome the giants of most industries, but they had not organized textile. When unions succeeded in the North, textile owners moved south where they could still get people to work almost as slaves. Griffith, who worked at the Smithsonian, seems to have done most of her research through union correspondence and personal interviews. By way of explaining working conditions in southern textile villages, she offers first hand testimonies. In one of them, a mother complains that her 8-year old daughter was removed from school and forced to go to work in a mill. The mill bosses had switches. The mother is quoted: “The second-hand, the foreman, the loom-fixer or the doffer—anyone they had over the section could whip them.”

The only way to make the union movement truly national was to organize the South. The CIO decided to go into the old Confederacy from Georgia to Texas with a small army of carefully selected organizers. Full of confidence, they gave it the fanciful name “Operation Dixie!”

From the first few months, there were major problems. Post war unions were strong, but so were corporations. Backwardness was a tradition in the South. Union organizers were not always beaten by company goons or corrupt lawmen. Sometimes, they were beaten by mill workers!

Author Barbara Griffiths doesn’t recount the entire history of Operation Dixie from Summer 1946 until it was finally discontinued in 1953. She says it was defeated in the first few months. Page 161: “As a large-scale organizing campaign Operation Dixie died in December 1946 when the organizing staff was cut in half.” Six months into the grand program, it was already a failure!

This is not a happy book. The few bright spots come from successes of the Food & Tobacco Workers and the Packinghouse workers, both left-led unions that were subsequently red-baited and kicked out of the CIO. But Operation Dixie was primarily about textile.

Griffiths correctly places the blame on the textile mill owners. They had almost total economic control over the lives of their subjects as well as the government. Racism was impenetrable. Red baiting was everywhere. In fact, race and red baiting were usually employed together against the CIO.

Were the unions to blame? Griffiths can point to a lot of their problems. They didn’t know the South at all. Most of their organizers didn’t know the textile industry. Anti-communism was already dividing the unions, even though the official witch hunt and expulsion of communists didn’t begin until the next year. But none of these problems had overcome CIO organizing before.

Under the “what if” category of meaningless daydreaming, we might speculate that the CIO might have succeeded if they had understood the period better, if they had done more research, if they had valued internal cohesiveness more, and if they hadn’t taken such a heavy-handed “all or nothing” approach to the entire South. But we’ll never know what might have happened. We only know what did.

The author says that Operation Dixie did not fail primarily because of internal CIO problems. It failed because the entrenched southern textile bosses were stronger than us. It failed because anti-union Republicans won the 1946 elections and began putting the government firmly on the side of the bosses. The CIO organizers were heroic, but it wasn’t enough.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON’s “Workers Beat” radio talk show every Saturday at 9AM Central Time. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site

MY NOTES FROM THE BOOK:

I believe this is a rare book. On Amazon, it cost $70. Including the index, it’s a small book.

She is a historian at Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. She seems to have gathered her information from the correspondence of the unions involved and from original interviews with organizers and various workers. Several interesting quotes from the participants are used to explain what happened.

Intro: CIO was good on race, but not so much on gender, with exception of Food & Tobacco Workers, who had a lot of Black women organizers and a Southern District Director who was the highest-placed woman union officer of that time.

It lasted 1946-1953

Pgxvi:”…a CIO victory in the South might have hastened the civil rights movement by at least a decade.”

//I note that organizers tried to win over religious leaders, but they didn’t start with them as the 1954 civil rights movement did. Also, people had TV in 1954, but not in 1946, consequently a national movement was not as likely.//

Pg27: FTA held a conclave at the Highlander School to discuss the problems they expected with Operation Dixie. It sounds like FTA was the only successful union involved.

Pg27: In 1946, the CIO was up to 4M members. But they were all experienced and trained in the North. A lot of organizing successes had been handed them by government action during the war. Companies were really rich from war profits.

Lots of anti-communism within the CIO. President Murray appointment Bittner to head the operation. Baldanzi was the sparkplug who carried it out. All were anti-communist. There was a deliberate attempt to try to avoid the inevitable red-baiting by keeping the reds out of Operation Dixie.

Pg28: They charged $1 initiation fee, but veterans were free

Pg29: on setting up initial organizing committees “The recruitment of this core group went slowly in Operation Dixie. Some organizers blamed the weather for the slow development of in-plant committees, while others focused on police hostility, the opposition of ministers, the public pronouncements of elected officials, the harshness of company policies that intimidated workers, the graciousness of company policies that made workers grateful, or the Machiavellian nature of companies that were capable of both.” //this seems like a pretty good list of what they were up against in the South//

Pg34: Humbling defeats in textile. Only successes in tobacco

Pg36: some union members were in the KKK

Pg 59: A lot of textile workers were historically intimidated because they had lost a strike in 1934. It was “organized from below” and had 400,000 participants. But they lost! They had also lost a big one in 1929. //that’s the one where Ella Mae Wiggins was murdered//

Pg60: In “Uncle Charley Cannon’s” mill territory, police arrest records were made in triplicate. One for Cannon!

Pg 65: “The president of the Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and Allied Workers of America (FTA), also a left-wing and heavily black union, issued a similar appeal for funds after a black FTA worker in Arkansas, on strike ‘against 55 cents an hour and a 12-hour day,’ was murdered by a strikebreaker in Little Rock. Although having confessed to stabbing the man, the strikebreaker was set free and, in his place, six union members were rushed to trial under charges of ‘attacking’ a strikebreaker. All were black.”

Pg72: The CIO knew that black union members were better unionists than white

Pg76: Race baiting and red baiting were everywhere, often together.

Pg 78:  Organizers felt that they had to organize white first because white workers would never join what they perceived to be a “black union.”

Pg84: Excellent anecdote about Ft Worth Packinghouse Local that refused to carry out CIO’s anti-racist policies. National leaders came down and forced them to do it. Then they stayed around and made sure that a mixed-race slate won the next election! //I can remember some of Roy Evans’ stories concerning Packing House leadership//

Pg92: Paternalism was total in mill villages. One anecdote from a mother tells how her 8-year old daughter was taken out of school to work in the mill. The bosses had switches. “The second-hand, the foreman, the loom-fixer or the doffer—anyone they had over the section could whip them.”

Pg99: In a long list of harassments, she cites a member of the internal organizing committee who could range around his plant. He was reassigned to a stationary position. Exact same thing happened to the Organizer at North American Aviation in Dallas in 1941!

Pg100: Great story of JP Mooney of Mine Mill and Smelter. Beaten, hospitalized, and threatened with death, he signed up “every bloody member of that plant.”

Pg103: “……literally scores of stories of unexpected confrontations with mobs organized by management.”

Pg105: “The CIO was forced to accept a contest on grossly unequal grounds. It never found a way to redress the balance.”

Pg107: Southern churches were a problem. “It’s either Christ or the CIO!”

Pg108: a preacher said on radio, “Luke 3:14 says be content with your wages.”

Pg108: “Militant Truth” was a free newspaper that followed CIO organizing drives around the South.

Pg121: CIO organizers tried to use Ecclesiastes 4:9-10: “Two are better than one because they have good reward for their labor. For if they fall, the one will lift up his fellow: but woe to him that is alone.”

Pg139 “In 1946, the CIO Executive Board included representatives of forty-one internationals.” And their views were diverse

“By the time Operation Dixie was officially launched in May 1946, hairline cracks and fissures in the CIO’s foundation had already become visible.”

Pg140: “To trace Philip Murray’s passage from cooperation with the CIO’s left to hostility and thence to implacable opposition is to trace, first, these national and international pressures, second, their impact on the CIO, and finally, the local ramifications in the South that brought Operation Dixie to a formal end in 1953.”

Steelworker red baiting was underway in 1946. James Carey, CIO national Secretary blasted UE reds.

Election of Nov 1946 was disaster for CIO and Democrats

Pg149: At the Highlander meeting, the FTA decided to work hard to organize within Operation Dixie, but they were afraid that the CIO was stacking it against the left. “The FTA’s fears of the CIO’s use of jurisdictional assignment as a weapon for defeating left-wing unions were well founded, however. By 1947, the CIO was assigning tobacco workers to the United Transport Service Employees’ Association. Such events constituted a form of ‘raiding’ by administrative action. Actual raiding followed soon afterward…”

Pg150: Mid-year 1947, CIO President Murray instructed the Exec to throw out the communists. “The center-left coalition was dead and the isolation of the left was complete.”

Pg152: Baldanzi called for expulsions at the 1947 Convention in Boston

Pg154: CIO and AFL raiding destroyed the FTA union at RJ Reynolds, which remained non-union

Pg155: crisis internal fighting in Ft Worth United Packinghouse Workers Union

Pg 157: AFL had always practiced “sweetheart” contracts to employers who wanted to avoid the CIO. They had done it from the K of L to present, she says.

Pg 157: Americans for Democratic Action established as liberal anti-communism, but wasn’t very effective. She doesn’t mention Hubert Humphrey.

Pg 160: Murray excoriating communists. “in such a manner, the CIO fought its way back into the mainstream of the Democratic Party. Unfortunately for labor, that mainstream represented an accommodation to corporate America that severely circumscribed labor’s influence on national policy. The price of respectability was high.”

Pg 161: “As a large-scale organizing campaign Operation Dixie died in December 1946 when the organizing staff was cut in half.”  UAW quit in 1948.

Pg172: ‘No quick fix can be suggested that might have changed the outcome of Operation Dixie.”

Pg176: concluding paragraph: “Operation Dixie happened at the moment of labor’s apogee when hopes were still lofty but when resources had begun to shrink and the corporate opposition had armed itself for a massive counterattack. All the tensions implicit in such a pivotal historical turning point surfaced in Operation Dixie. The legacy has been a bitter one, for within the ranks of the trade union movement, there were no winners, only losers. For American labor, Operation Dixie was, quite simply, a moment of high tragedy from which it has yet to fully recover.”

I saw the “State of the Union” message yesterday. It brought mendacity and braggadocio to new lows. I checked out some of the on-line responses today. The best ones were good reasoning; the worst had no reason but ridicule.

The Alliance for Retired Americans gave a measured response to the issues most important to retirees. ARA response: https://retiredamericans.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/2020-SOTU-Fact-Check-UPDATE.pdf?link_id=0&can_id=4323d125406e51f8a379e93227bf8d59&source=email-setting-president-trumps-record-straight&email_referrer=email_717673&email_subject=setting-president-trumps-record-straight. On every retiree issue, they point out, Mr Trump lied.

I also watched Bernie Sanders give his response to an audience of Caucasian supporters in New Hampshire. It was brilliant. Here are a couple of quotes, “We are now experiencing more income inequality than at any time in the last 100 years. Today 3 Americans own more wealth than the bottom half of America. 500,000 are homeless…. Billionaires now pay a lower effective tax rate than ordinary working people.”

Sanders took up Trump’s major points in order but, instead of looking at them from the billionaire point of view, he considered what they actually meant for working families. It was like reversing a telescope. Every result was a refutation of the “State of the Union” speech.

Sanders, to his immense credit, went much further. He marveled aloud that any president, in 2020, could make a long public speech without mentioning the climate catastrophe.

Anybody For Peace?

Mr Sanders did not talk about foreign policy. I was hoping he would oppose what Mr Trump had said when he bragged about trying to overthrow the government of Venezuela. But he didn’t.

And by the way, I noticed that Mrs Pelosi only clapped a few times during Mr Trump’s exposition, but she was certainly clapping when Trump said that the United States was heading a coalition to overthrow Venzuela! I would have liked to think that somebody on “our side” of the 2020 elections was against imperialism.

Ed Sills of the Texas AFL-CIO expressed outrage at Mr Trump’s obvious intention to privatize schools. He wrote, “Last night, President Trump made vouchers a centerpiece of his State of the Union address and slammed public schools as ‘failing government schools.’ The sight of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi ripping up her copy of Trump’s speech as he concluded is a great metaphor for how we feel about private school vouchers.”

Doing it Wrong

Should Pelosi have ripped up the speech? There are minor arguments about it today, but I want to point out a much more important issue because I also watched late-night comedian Stephen Coulbert’s report on the “State of the Union” speech.

Coulbert mimicked and ridiculed Mr Trump. His studio audience seemed to like it, but I didn’t. It is one thing to disagree with reactionary ideas and reactionary people, but it is another thing altogether to ridicule them. The crippling polarity in America today is largely because of fundamental disagreements and class interests, but there is no value in making it worse by ridiculing Trump and his millions of misguided working class supporters.

Whether we like it or not, we have to have them. We have to win them over no matter how hard it is nor how long it takes.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON’s “Workers Beat” radio talk show at 9AM Central Time every Saturday. They podcast them on knon.org. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site

I support Bernie Sanders for President. I downloaded the BERN app, I send money, and I’ll certainly vote for him. Bernie Sanders has personally advanced American political thinking more than anybody in history since, at least, Eugene Victor Debs.

I don’t think he will be elected President, though. Even if he did, I don’t think he could implement his progressive program. Even if he got elected and carried both houses of Congress, he couldn’t.

I also support Our Revolution and the rest of the Bernie movement. Bernie himself says that the movement is more important than he. Bernie never claimed that he could implement all his progressive ideas by getting elected. He says it would take a gigantic mass movement, and it would.

Those who think they are going to get Bernie elected and that he is going to solve America’s problems are ignoring the class nature of American society and everything we have learned about class struggle.

Changing America is not just a question of getting people to start voting, or even about getting people to be smarter about their voting. Changing America is a matter of overcoming the people who run America now. Before those people would relinquish power, they would maneuver the election system into uselessness. They have already weakened democracy considerably. If they thought it was necessary, they would try to cancel elections. If they thought it was necessary, they would try to cancel democracy altogether. Don’t forget, it’s been done!

The ruling rich have to be confronted and overcome. That’s how change will come to America. It’s the only possible way.

Who Can Do It?

The only class of people who can successfully fight the bosses is their employees. We have shown, in battle after battle, that organized workers can defeat powerful corporations. Informing and organizing America’s workers is the way to success.

How?

The Bernie campaign is certainly an asset. People are learning a lot from Bernie, and we are also learning a lot about Bernie’s unscrupulous enemies. At least one major union has come over to the Bernie side already, and more will follow. Giving the Bernie movement a chance to recognize labor’s leadership is a great step in the right direction.

Let’s keep building the progressive movement and, as much as we can, show it that the working class must take the lead.

Electing Bernie sounds easy. Informing and organizing America’s working class sounds difficult. But it’s the only thing that will work.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON’s “Workers Beat” radio talk show every Saturday at 9AM Central Time. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site. Contact me.

All democrats want unity. Bernie Sanders and his supporters want to beat Trump, but they want to do it by unifying around a progressive program. I can’t understand why anybody would surrender that vision before the primaries.

The Democratic Party’s final decisions on candidates for 2020 is at hand. Bernice Sanders is quoted in a recent AP News story: “Let me say this so there’s no misunderstanding,” he told a rally in Indianola, Iowa. “If we do not win, we will support the winner and I know that every other candidate will do the same.”

But the article by Will Weissert  is headlined, “Sanders calls for unity, but his supporters have other ideas.” Bernie endorsed Mrs Clinton after he lost the 2016 primary, but a lot of his young supporters stayed home on voting day. They just don’t trust or care for the Democratic Party as it is and has been.

Something similar happened in the Republican Party in 2016. Many Republicans declared that they would never support Mr Trump if he got the nomination. Today, they slavishly support everything he does. They unified despite their objections. They chose power over all other considerations.

Almost all of my friends today advocate for that kind of unity in the Democratic Party. Only by unifying, they say, can they defeat Trump and incipient American fascism. I would go so far as to say that they all agree on that.

But unity around what? Does ‘unity” mean accepting the old “lesser evil” corporate capitalism of the Democratic Party? For many of my friends, that is exactly what they mean. They mean “vote for Biden in the primaries” because he is “moderate” enough to “capture the middle.” They argue that he is “the only way to beat Trump.” The logic is inescapable, but don’t forget that they said the exact same thing about Mrs Clinton in 2016.

If Mr Weissert’s article has predictive power, the young and progressive voters currently pushing Mr Sanders into the top ranks of candidates may not transfer their allegiance to Mr Biden after the primaries. One has to add another very important argument that must be dealt with: if Sanders supporters feel that the Democrats cheat to defeat Bernie, they will be less likely to support the Democratic candidate.

Are the primaries fair?

Did the Democrats cheat in 2016? Certainly they stacked the deck with super delegates committed to Mrs Clinton long before the primaries started. Certainly, Mrs Clinton was given an advanced look at the questions in at least one of the debates against Bernie Sanders. Everybody knows both of those things, and Sanders supporters were not forgiving in 2016. If they suspect chicanery, they won’t be forgiving in 2020, either. And in fact, they already do. If you get news from the main independent Bernie group, Our Revolution, you have already seen headlines charging that the establishment Democrats are out to defeat Bernie Sanders through underhanded tricks. They might as well extend the charge of cheating to cover other progressive candidates.

United, the Democrats will certainly defeat Mr Trump and blunt the drive to fascist America. But progressive voters want that unity around a progressive program, not around the old business-as-usual corporate liberalism of the Democratic Party as practiced for decades and espoused today by Biden and most of the candidates.

Taken one at a time, Bernie Sanders’ programs are popular with voters. They sincerely want better education, better protection of the environment, more democracy, better health care, and improved possibilities for working and retired Americans. That’s the program that they want to unite around.

Will the Bernie Movement Grow?

Sanders’ age adds another dimension to the situation. His supporters are willing to vote for him even though he is the oldest candidate in the field and one of the oldest to ever run. But they must also feel that 2020 will be his last campaign. He had a heart attack during this one. Sanders has never claimed that he, personally, could change America, but that the movement he is building can. I’m one of the people that subscribes to that idea. But would the movement continue if Bernie loses in the 2020 primaries? It would to a large extent, but it wouldn’t have the dynamism that it draws from Sanders’ presidential campaign.

Sanders and his supporters want to beat Trump, but they prefer to do it by unifying around a progressive program. I can’t understand why anybody would surrender that vision before the primaries are over.

–Gene Lantz

I’m on KNON’s “Workers Beat” radio talk show at 9 AM Central Time every Saturday. If you are curious about what I really think, check out my personal web site