Skip to main content

How the corporate elite started to eliminate the Left and the power of the US working class right after the end of WWII


Richard Wolff brilliantly explains the economics behind the great US anti-leftist purge (McCarthyism) after 1945:

At the end of WWII - late 1940s into the 50s - something remarkable happened politically in the United States. And it was in many ways surprising. Suddenly, a group of people in the United States who had been celebrated as heroes, became instead - almost overnight – demons. From being leaders they became traitors.

Communists - members of the American Communist Party, Socialists - members of the two socialist parties at that time, and active leaders of the labor movement - the big organizing drives of the CIO in the 1930s and 40s, had brought millions of Americans who had never been in unions before, into the unions. They joined the unions because they thought it would be a safe way to make it through the Great Depression of the 1930s. At least safer than not being in a union.

And together, the Communists, the Socialists and the Unionists, really struggled to develop a good situation for the mass of the American working people - the lower two-thirds at least of the US population. And in the depths of a depression when those folks were really suffering, a kind of coalition emerged.

The coalition of Communists, Socialists and Unionists was strong enough to basically pressure the then President Franklin Roosevelt, during the 1930s, to institute for basic programs that helped average Americans in a way no previous administration had dared to do.

First, the creation of the Social Security system to give 65-year or older Americans a check every month for the rest of their lives. To help survivors, to help people injured early in life and disabled, to take care of our friends and neighbors, our family members who needed it. In the midst of a depression, when people were suffering, the government stepped in - not only helping, of course, the older folks 65 and over who got that monthly check, a lifesaver - but also helping their children, who therefore didn't have to help them the way they would have otherwise had to, because the government was lending a hand.

As soon as the Social Security system was set, the government did another thing. It created the unemployment compensation system. We never had that before, just like we never had a Social Security system before. And this was done in the depths of a depression when there were millions and millions of unemployed people who suddenly got a lifeline.

Third, they passed the first Minimum Wage Act in American history, saying that we all people who work a decent minimum. And it's unethical and immoral and unnecessary to deny that to them.

And finally, the biggest program. The decision of Franklin Roosevelt's government to say that they would hire millions of unemployed people. Roosevelt said, ‘if the private sector - private capitalists don't hire people, we will’. And the government did. And it used unemployed people to make many of those national parks out west that Americans love. To do some of the first conservation work in American history. To give artists of all kinds a job bringing artistic activity to the mass of the American people in a way that had never been done before, and by the way, has never been done since.

Unemployed people got a good job, doing something useful. And they got paid properly, so they could make their mortgage payments. The mass of people were helped because millions had joined unions and had become interested in, and listened to Socialists and Communists who said people deserve that. And an economic system that didn't provide it maybe wasn't justified.

And where did the money come from in the 1930s, in the depths of a depression, when the government didn't have money? How could it pay for Social Security, unemployment compensation and hiring 15 million unemployed people and paying them? The answer was that Roosevelt taxed corporations and the rich. And that's how he paid for it.

And the result for him, as a politician, was that he was reelected three times across the 1930s. He was the most popular president in the history of the United States because he was the one who went after corporations and the rich to help average people. But he didn't do it because of him. If you look at his entire political history before he became president, he was no radical, he was no left-winger. He was a conventional rich kid, went to school in the right universities of Harvard and Yale etc etc. He was pushed from below, the coalition of Communists, Socialists and Unionists.

So, when WWII was over in 1945, and when in the same year President Roosevelt died in his fourth term, the business community that was enraged that they had to pay those taxes to help average people, went to work. And they understood the problem wasn't defeating a Democrat and bringing in a Republican. They knew very well that Roosevelt didn't do this because he thought it was a good idea. They understood he had been pressured from below - by that coalition of Unionists, Socialists and Communists to do what he did. So, they understood that to roll it back, to break it down, and to make sure that will never happen again, they had to destroy that coalition.

And the way you do that, the way you destroy any coalition, is you look for, and focus first on the weakest link among the groups that are making up the coalition. And they determined in 1945 that the weak link are the Communists, the Communist Party. So, the Communist Party and its activists - who had been leaders of the unionization movement in many industries, who had been leaders in the struggle against fascism in Germany, in Italy, in Japan - became, overnight, not leaders, not heroes, but demons. They were converted into agents of a foreign power, the Soviet Union.

Kind of remarkable, if you remember that in the previous 4 or 5 years, from 1940 to 1945, the United States and the Soviet Union were allies in a war against fascism in Germany, Italy and Japan. That soldiers from Russia and America worked together with the same objectives in a coordinated struggle. They were our friends, our allies, our supporters. Suddenly, they had been turned into arch enemies.

And so, in the aftermath of WWII, after the death of Roosevelt, we had in America a political purge, really of the kind you rarely see in the world, and like nothing else in American history.

The government, big business and conservatives everywhere went on a tear to arrest Communists. Many were to deport - many of them back to countries they had left sometimes 40 years earlier. To demonize them as evil agents of a foreign power, not leaders of an effort that had succeeded in giving average Americans the benefit of government programs the likes of which had never happened before in American history, and never happened again since then either.

The McCarthy period entered American history - named after a senator from Wisconsin who took the lead holding hearings in Washington, finding a communist in this Bureau, a communist in that office. And remember, the Communists that were there - some of them - had been heroes years earlier. Army veterans, leaders of Union efforts and so on. Made no difference, they were now evil.

And when the Communist Party was destroyed and evil demonized they went after the two socialist parties, telling Americans basically that Socialism is the same as Communism. They just spell it differently. And when they were done, they went after the labor movement, and they have done a good job. In 1945, labor unions represented a third of American workers. Today, they represent a tenth of American workers. Communist Party destroyed. Socialist parties destroyed. Labor movement reduced to a pale shadow of what it once was.

This chaotic destruction of the Left in America traumatized the American people, or at least that half or more of it that's open to critical thinking about capitalism. The kinds of people who face an uncertain job, a job with no benefits, insufficient wages to lead a decent life and who say ‘that has to change’. And who are willing to support, vote for, work with, demonstrate with people who want and demand change.

Those people had gotten that change in the 1930s, but now they watched, as all the leaders that they had followed and had been successful with, were demonized, jailed, denounced in public, deported, made to appear as though they were there some total of all evil.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

CIA had an agent at a newspaper in every world capital at least since 1977

Joel Whitney is a co-founder of the magazine Guernica, a magazine of global arts and politics, and has written for many publications, including the New York Times and Wall Street Journal. His book Finks: How the C.I.A. Tricked the World's Best Writers describes how the CIA contributed funds to numerous respected magazines during the Cold War, including the Paris Review, to subtly promote anti-communist views. In their conversation, Whitney tells Robert Scheer about the ties the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom had with literary magazines. He talks about the CIA's attempt during the Cold War to have at least one agent in every major news organization in order to get stories killed if they were too critical or get them to run if they were favorable to the agency. And they discuss the overstatement of the immediate risks and dangers of communist regimes during the Cold War, which, initially, led many people to support the Vietnam War.
globinfo freexchange
James Jesus Angleton wa…

Former Pentagon official confirms: Trump prepares for war with Iran

globinfo freexchange
Right after Trump's sudden announcement that he will withdraw the US forces from Syria, we had some mixed reactions. Some liberals reacted angrily, but most of the reactions from the liberal machine were rather moderate, or at least not as intensive as someone would normally expect.
On the other hand, Trump's supporters and all those who had enough of the pro-war neoliberal establishment, felt a kind of vindication, as it appeared that Trump would eventually keep its promise for an 'anti-interventionist' policy.
But the blog wrote immediately a 'not so fast' article to explain that most of the Americans and all those who are tired of the US endless wars, should not rush to celebrate. We estimated that Trump's move is probably a sign that he is going to re-organize troops and go after the big target called Iran.
Indeed, shortly after the move, Trump, suddenly again, announced that he will also pullout troops from Afghanistan.
And then, about…

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 10 – How Margaret Thatcher systematically destroyed the British industry along with the trade unions
While there were many elements out of which consent for a neoliberal turn could be constructed, the Thatcher phenomenon would surely not have arisen, let alone succeeded, if it had not been for the serious crisis of capital accumulation during the 1970s. Stagflation was hurting everyone. In 1975 inflation surged to 26 per cent and unemployment topped one million. The nationalized industries were draining resources from the Treasury.
This set up a confrontation between the state and the unions. In 1972, and then again in 1974, the British miners (a nationalized industry) went on strike for the first time since 1926.
The miners had always been in the forefront of British labour struggles. Their wages were not keeping pace with accelerating inflation, and the public sympathized. The Conservative government, in the midst of power …

It’s the US imperialism that has been defeated in Syria, but it’s now gathering forces to go after Iran

globinfo freexchange
And all of a sudden, the US president Donald Trump decided to withdraw the US troops from Syria, declaring victory over ISIS.
No one, of course, understood why the ISIS was suddenly defeated now. So this must be a typical excuse by the American leadership to withdraw forces from a battlefield that it is no longer 'profitable' and affordable.
Comparing with other, relatively recent cases, in which even the liberal establishment was calling Trump to bomb Syria, the reactions from the US political status were rather moderate. We would expect the media pundits and the corporate puppets of the US political scene to fire back against Trump with much more anger. It didn't happen.
We will have to wait of course because the unpredictable Donnie may change his mind in the blink of an eye. And then, we will have to make a completely different discussion. Yet, if it's true, and the US troops will, indeed, leave Syria, it would be one of these very rare cases that …

The desperate efforts of the Western neoliberal establishment to build a new propaganda machine

globinfo freexchange
The UK government and other Western governments and the US in recent years have had increasing difficulties persuading enough of their populations as to the legitimacy of the foreign policies that they have been pursuing.
And at the same time, Western countries have been going through a period of political crisis and economic crisis.
Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, further explains:
I think a lot of this drive is as much about trying to shore up shaky official narratives and trying to shore up political systems in a situation of political crisis, as it is actually about countering Russian propaganda.
I would suspect that that's a little bit of an excuse here to really what's going on of problems much closer to home.
This is not just to do to UK, this is Europe-wide. And there are also indications from the documents that they are intending to start to have some kind of impact within the United…

Confirmed: Germany builds its own imperialist empire

globinfo freexchange
Almost two years ago we identified Germany's efforts to develop its military in the context of its ambition to build its own sphere of influence.
As we wrote, Brexit will give the chance to Germany to increase influence due to the change of power balance, especially now that France appears weak - crawling behind Berlin's austerity, sado-monetarism and neoliberal destruction. These conditions (created in the Greek experiment), are necessary to Germany in order to retain a model in favor of its surpluses. These could become the solid ground upon which Germany could build a strong, modern military machine.
Therefore, Merkel knows that the economic domination is not adequate for a country to become a major power. It is also important to have a strong military presence in its “sphere of influence”, or, its financial/debt colonies, if you prefer. The German military presence in Lithuania is a first step towards this direction as the Baltic countries have already be…

The difference between Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn and what the US elections won't allow you to decide

globinfo freexchange
A country that has been completely taken over by the banking mafia and the corporate power will never allow people to decide on the most important issue: the abolition of the dominant system that works against them.
Professor Richard Wolff explains:
Because of Bernie Sanders, particularly, we now have the word Socialism floating around, but typically it's about, more or less, really among Democrats. Like Mr. Sanders is ambiguously an independent but he's also a Democrat.
So, the ‘Socialists’ seemed to be the Democrats who want to do more for people. Social welfare, social supports, state supports, versus those who don't want to do quite so much - the centrist Democrats, like Clinton and Obama.
But the real question is a program of change. Socialism is a change of system it goes away from capitalism to do something else. It would be interesting if we could have an election ‘do we want that?’, ‘would we like a different system?’.
There are countries doing t…

WikiLeaks disturbing and hopeful findings on Tulsi Gabbard's path to progressiveness

The definite detachment from the Clintonian machine
globinfo freexchange
Searching the Podesta emails inside WikiLeaks we found a rather disturbing fact about Tulsi Gabbard who recently announced that she will run for the 2020 US presidency. Iraq War Veteran, Jon Soltz, chairman at VoteVets at the time, sent an email on Aug. 2012 to Hillary Clinton top lobbyist, John Podesta, in order to thank him for his contribution to Gabbard's campaign in Hawaii.
Soltz wrote (emphasis added):
This morning, we are one step closer to making history. In Hawaii, VoteVets PAC-endorsed Iraq veteran Tulsi Gabbard has won her primary, in a stunning come-from-behind victory. If she wins in November, she along with Tammy Duckworth (who we also feel very good about), would be the first female combat veteran ever elected to Congress in United States history! This is happening because of you. Your tens of thousands of dollars in donations for Tulsi's campaign, through VoteVets PAC, allowed her to run a fir…

The IMF is dismantling Argentina all over again

Part 1
In September, Argentine president Mauricio Macri accepted the 2018 Atlantic Council’s Global Citizen Award. In attendance were many of world’s neoliberal power players and policy makers, among them International Monetary Fund (IMF) Managing Director Christine Lagarde.
Facing the crowd, Macri gleefully admitted that “with Christine, I have to confess we started a great relationship some months ago,” referring to a series of loan agreements with the IMF amounting to $57.1 billion dollars. “I expect that this is going to work very well, and we will end up with the whole country crushing on Christine,” he continued.
This dynamic of chasing an improved image with the world’s big banks and the dominant economies in the West is emblematic of Macri’s priority to secure a relationship with the IMF and improve the country’s image with global financial institutions. But it comes at a devastating cost for the majority of the population who will suffer from neoliberal policy prescriptions of…

How neoliberalism manufactured consent to secure its unlimited power

From David Harvey's A Brief History of Neoliberalism
Part 11 – The Reagan/Thatcher neoliberal legacy: a bizarre form of a sinister political doctrine from which it would be difficult one to escape
But Thatcher had to fight the battle on other fronts. A noble rearguard action against neoliberal policies was mounted in many a municipality –– Sheffield, the Greater London Council (which Thatcher had to abolish in order to achieve her broader goals in the 1980s), and Liverpool (where half the local councillors had to be gaoled) formed active centres of resistance in which the ideals of a new municipal socialism (incorporating many of the new social movements in the London case) were both pursued and acted upon until they were finally crushed in the mid-1980s.
She began by savagely cutting back central government funding to the municipalities, but several of them responded simply by raising property taxes, forcing her to legislate against their right to do so. Denigrating the progressive…