The Threat to the Labor Movement/Section 24
Difference on Policy in S. P.
NORMAN THOMAS, who wants to fill the shoes of Eugene Debs, and is more to the left than the other leaders in practice if not in words, seems to have had some misgivings as to the wisdom of the red-baiting crusade launched by the socialist bureaucracy that has shoved him quietly into the background, to be fumigated since his contact with Communists in the Passaic strike—against the wishes of the high priests of socialism.
Thomas likewise is not enthusiastic over the reactionary allies with which his leaders have made a pact for war on the will to struggle in the trade unions. In the December 25 issue of the New Leader Thomas, after doing obeisance at the shrines of Sigman and Hillquit and repeating the invocation against the Communist devil, utters the following warning:
Nevertheless, no labor unions generally nor socialist labor unionists particularly can afford to fight Communism by witch-hunting, by MAKING LOVE TO REACTION, or by a merely negative policy. In the long run THE BEST WAY TO FIGHT COMMUNISM WILL BE BY SETTING UP STANDARDS OF HONOR, EFFICIENCY AND IDEALISM WHICH WILL GIVE COMMUISTS NO JUST GROUNDS FOR CRITICISM. Above all, it will be necessary for the unions in their sphere and the socialist party in its sphere TO DO BETTER SOME OF THE JOBS—like organizing the unorganized, and defending political prisoners and fighting against imperialism—WHICH THE COMMUNISTS HAVE AT LEAST HAD THE ENERGY TO TRY TO DO. (Emphasis mine.)
We can say to Norman Thomas that we have not the slightest objection to being fought in the way he suggests, but principally because he believes that the present leadership of the trade union movement and the socialist party will some day fight Communism this way is the reason he aids reaction by giving it at times—the present, for instance—a semi-respectable covering which prevents the imperialist lackey uniform being seen by unskilled working-class observers.
Thomas continues:
It is with joy that one turns to Passaic. There the heroic struggle is resulting in victory. The settlements in the Botany Mills and a number of smaller organizations are all that could reasonably be expected from a local strike in the textile industry.
It is a matter of public knowledge that Communists and left wingers organized and led the Passaic strike, built up the relief machinery, fed the strikers, and that left wing union organizers and members still are the backbone of the struggle. But how does Thomas explain that the same Matthew Woll, who denounced the Communists to President Coolidge last November for their activity in the Passaic strike, is now lionized by the socialist party press as a savior of the labor movement?
But these are minor inconsistencies of a socialist policy which is consistent as a whole and which brings them in organizations other than the trade unions into conflict with the class interests of the workers.
In the words of Norman Thomas, the socialist bureaucracy is "making love to reaction." It is a neat phrase, delightfully descriptive and perfectly appropriate.
I am indebted to Norman Thomas for this apt characterization and shall use it hereafter in referring to the socialist leaders, of course giving Thomas credit for it.