On Piketty

Well, I managed to crack the egg of Piketty's analysis of Capitalism in the 21st century and after doing all the secondary reading I feel that I'm ready to give my take on it.

Piketty says that the primary contradiction in capitalism is the general concept of inequality; the argument being:  "Capitalism produces, at a continuous rate, perpetual inequality."  He rests this conclusion on his quest to understand the "R" of economic exchange.  R represents the "net return on capital" at the end of each year.  Piketty finds that there is a natural tendency for net return to *increase* each year, thereby causing *further* inequality.

To many of us this may seem somewhat obvious.  But there are some important details to note.

1) To Piketty, "capital" and "wealth" are inter-changeable terms.  In his own words, they are "perfectly synonymous."  Now, this presents a major challenge.  Historically "Capital" has referred not to just "wealth"...which has existed in all societies since exchange began....but rather to a social relationship that is endemic *only* of a Capitalist society.  To classical economists like Smith and Marx, and even to radical revolutionary economists like Lenin, "Capital" was a "self-realising value."  In other words, Capital is not Capital unless it *advances* itself from one value to the next (a higher one).

2) Because Piketty focuses on R and the "net return" on Capital, he ignores P, or what is known as "the tendency for the rate of profit to fall (TFRP)".  He explicitly rejects it as a "historical prediction that has proven false."  When he presents his explanation for why it is false, he refers to Marx: "Marx's theory relies on a strict assumption of zero productivity growth over the long-term."  Thus, Piketty concludes, it is not the tendency for the rate of profit to decline that is a contradiction of Capitalism; but rather simply that capitalism perpetuates inequality (R).

These two details are monumental in importance.  They distinguish Piketty from Marxism in a staunch way, even though Piketty claims to be "more pessimistic than Marx....because [his] data shows that there is no economic principal that necessitates a 'crisis'," and thus capitalism could be around indefinitely.

Because of point (1), Piketty does not care about HOW wealth inequality is generated; to him, what is important is that wealth simply creates inequality.  Marx called this approach "vulgar economics" since it observed action but failed to give it causality; it failed to explain how the action was both allowed to occur (the conditions) and what caused it to occur (what sparked the flame).

Because of point (2), Piketty made it clear that he was unfamiliar with Marx's overall theory of realisation and capital.  He even admits in his text:  "I have never managed to really read [Das Kapital]."  Anyone even remotely familiar with Marx's historically-materialist assessment of capitalist production is aware that Marx addressed the expansion of production (which Piketty says Marx didn't) as the counter-weight to P (the tendency for the rate of profit to fall).  In other words, the capitalist system fixes the problem of profit decline by simply expanding its market and its ability to accumulate values.

This is something that I even observed as a general conclusion arrived at by Marx after studying the American Civil War; which then caused Marx to amend his manuscripts that became "Das Kapital" 2 years after the war ended.  Marx concluded that "P" was such a critical component to understanding capitalism...not necessarily because it doomed it to crises....but rather because it necessitated Capitalism's persistent expansion and acquisition of new markets and resources.  Marx arrived at this in the context of the American Civil War by observing the contest between wage-labor in the North and its general desire to expand West, which conflicted with Slavery's desire to expand as well.  Thus, the North was forced to wage an economic, political, and military conflict against the South as a means for ensuring the long-term stability of the wage-labor system.  For more on this, ask and I will provide a copy of the rough draft of my Marx/Civil War article.

To further explain Piketty's confusion with (2) and how its based in his limited assessment of wealth in (1), let's take a general example.

To Piketty, Marx is wrong because of this:  If a company that spends $5 to make an item which it sells for $20, it will eventually run into a "declining rate of profit" as more and more items are produced (eventually exceeding demand).  The value of the product will have to drop below $20, despite the cost of it remaining $5.  By the time the price of the produce reaches a value nearly identical to the cost, such as $6, the investors would pull out all of their money, and simply re-invest elsewhere.  No crisis.  No collapse.  Just the end of one business.

But this is because Piketty fundamentally misunderstands Marx's inclusion of expansion of the market as a means for combating this problem.

If the same company runs into this problem, they themselves begin to offset investment elsewhere.  The company would never allow the price to drop to a dangerously low level without taking steps to expand their market and reduce the cost (two separate operations).

Even Lenin made it clear:  "According to Marx's general law of capitalist production, constant capital in articles of consumption has to increase faster than variable capital and surplus-value in articles of consumption.  The department of social production--which produces means of production--has, consequently, to grow faster than that producing articles of consumption."
(Lenin, "Marx's Theory of Realisation" in "Development of Capitalism in Russia", Collected Works, Vol. 3, Page 54)

Let's take a different, real example from Marxist historian Louis Boudin:

Brown Sr. went into the business of manufacturing shoes with a starting capital of $500, 400 of which was spent to acquire a plant, land, machines, and other forms of *constant capital*.  The remaining 100 he used to buy up labor.  For simplicity, let's assume he hired 10 employees.  Let us further assume that the level of productivity was such that at the end of the week, one of our laborers produced a product of the value of $20.

Under these conditions the value of the product manufactured will be $200, one hundred of which will be "necessary value" (it must be invested back into the worker's salaries) and one hundred of which is "surplus-value".  The ratio of "necessary" to "surplus-value" is the rate of profit, which in this case is 1:1, or 100%.

Brown Sr. does not figure it this way, however.  While he is interested in paying his workers for the cheapest amount, whether by foul means or fair, he is not interested at all in the ratio of profit to necessary investment.  He merely cares that his $500 investment has netted him $100 in profit.

On such profits, the business can thrive.  Let's say he is now resting in peace and his son, Brown Jr., now runs and owns the business.  Jr. upholds the traditions of his father, but now entirely new methods of manufacturing are being used by himself as well as everyone else in the market for making shoes.  This machinery is "labor-saving" in that it increases the productivity of labor so that one man can do by its aid the work of several men.

This machinery, however, is very costly; and its employment requires a large outlaw for raw materials...since a man employs more raw materials in the same proportion as the productivity of labor goes up.  The 'composition' of Jr's Capital--that is, the proportionate shares used as "constant" and "variable" necessary capital--is therefore, different from the composition of his father's Capital.  Brown Jr. employs a capital of $20,000, of this $19,000 is "necessary" value.  Only $1000 is left to pay for labor.  This we will call a higher stage of capitalism, since the process of creating values itself has advanced by a significant amount of technological progress.

Let us look at the rate of profit however.  In the short time span of one generation, we can assume that wages have not changed significantly, except with keeping up to inflation rates.  Let us also assume that the introduction of advanced machinery into the production process allows for both the cheapening of the final product (the shoes) and the value of the product produced has also increased two-fold by demand.

His variable capital amounts to $1000, as said.  But now, to keep up with this advanced production, he employs ten times as many men (100).  If the value of the product produced doubled (to $40, because of demand), AND the production was increased by, say, 20%, the business now produces $4,000 worth of shoes at the end of each week.  As already said, $1000 of this is "NECESSARY" and is invested back into the business.

Now we have a "necessary" value-to-"surplus-value" ratio of 1:3.  The physical amount of profit produced has increased (Piketty's conclusion) to $3000, while the rate at which this profit is realized has reduced by 5%.  So, despite the Brown family become richer over time, which is Piketty's overall analysis, they also have seen the rate of their profit accumulation decline (Marx's conclusion). 

These two acts dance with one another over time.  The limitation on profit return necessitates expansion of production at levels above and beyond the expansion of the production of the product (shoes).  The Brown Family makes more money over time by investing in faster, more advanced production...than they do in investing in more labor.  As such, while there is further centralization of income inequality (Piketty), there is simultaneously a drop in profit generation (Marx) and, because of this, there is a necessity for all market businesses to operate on a consistently expansive enterprise. (Lenin).

----

Piketty clearly did not read Marx very closely, nor did he read subsequent followers of Marxist economics which have confirmed the same mistake made by neoclassical economists over the past 65 years.

One final bit to note, 3)  Piketty considers the accumulation of wealth and inequality *ONLY* in the Core nations of the World-System; specifically the United States and Britain.  Here's one of the biggest theoretical faults ever:  No amount of data, no amount rhetoric or philosophizing, and no amount of support among neoclassical economists will change the reality that the Capitalist world-system is a **WORLD-SYSTEM**.  If one is going to go up against the examinations and thorough studies of capitalism on a general and world-scale, one can not refine their analysis to data that comes solely from one sector (particularly its most advanced).

Overall, I will simply agree with fellow Marxist historians and economists that Piketty's overall contribution to the discussion is the amount of data he has assembled and made public for us to study.  Now it's time for those with a more effective grasp of capitalist dynamics on an international scale to use this data to help explain the direction and progress of capital accumulation in the early stages of the 21st century.

Sorry Piketty; maybe next time finish the readings?

Exploitation: The Roots of the Modern World System

 Abstract:  This short essay was written as a stream of consciousness back while rigorously studying Marx's "Wage Labor and Capital."  This segment was part of Robert Tucker's essential guide to historical materialism.  I tried to mix in Marx's assessment with more contemporary understandings of world-systems.  Enjoy.

----

                It is with no small amount of irony that throughout the 19^th, 20^th, and early 21^st centuries the verbs to exploit and to capitalize on share virtually the same meaning.  The concept of exploitation extends far back before the 19^th century, but following the publications of Karl Marx in the 2^nd and 3^rd quarters of the century, the concept took on a more direct and commonplace meaning.  But just what exactly does exploitation mean?  How are people exploited by a system in which they are both born into and dependent upon?  To what extent does exploitation relate to servitude?  The most essential answer to these questions is also the most basic:  exploitation occurs specifically in one realm of social existence, the workplace.  All other forms of exploitation are in many ways extensions of this specific and rooted antagonism between the employer and the employee.

                In his 1847 lectures on Wage Labor and Capital, Marx presented the “economic relations” that “constitute[d] the material foundation of the present class struggles and national struggles.”[1]  In order to understand these struggles in both their economic (class) and national forms, the formal presentation of the relationship between the antagonistic groups is necessary.  For Marx, these relations expose an internal contradiction between the relationships, which are portrayed as equal due to the exchange of one service (labor) for a value (payment, money, means of subsistence; wage).  In order to try and break down the illusion of equality between the exchange, Marx asks the direct question:  “What are wages?”  In referring to the position of the worker, wages and payments are those paid by an employer (capitalist) “for a particular labour time or for a particular output of labour.”[2]  The employer thus buys labor-power, whereas the laborer sells labor power.  In this way, the exchange is laid out as a transaction, and “labour power” becomes itself a commodity in the same way that any item that is produced and sold is also a commodity.

                Marx’s next question refers to the purpose of this transaction altogether:  Why does the laborer sell his labor?  The answer is given as “in order to live.”  Straightforward as this may seem to the average reader, Marx flips the portrayal on its head by addressing the concept of alienation:  “But the exercise of labour power…is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life.”  The process of selling one’s labor for a wage, or “in order to live”, remains fundamentally attached to the life-activity of the laborer as his “necessary means of subsistence.”[3]  The laborer, thus, remains alienated from his own life-activity because “he does not even reckon labor as part of his life.”  Instead of being seen as a critical element of one’s life, “life begins [for the laborer] where [his work] ceases, at table, in the public house, in bed.”[4]  While the laborer is at work, he is not living; while he is not at work, he thus is living.  This process of alienation removes the result of his actions, the commodities he produces, from his life entirely.  The products he makes at work are consciously removed from his life-activity in the same way that his work is consciously a sacrifice of his life.

                In order to relieve the notion that this form of transaction had occurred throughout history, Marx asserts that labor-power was not historically commodified.  In slavery for example, the power of the laborer is sold as the form of the slave itself.  It is a packaged deal, so-to-speak, in the same way that an ox is used for services by a peasant.  Serfdom as well is a partially-commodified form of labor, where the serf “sells only a part of his labour power” but “does not receive a wage from the owner of the land; rather the owner of the land receives a tribute from [the serf].”[5]  In this way, Marx has attributed commodified labor power as endemic to a specific set of social relations, those being between a capitalist and the possessor of labor power in a capitalist society, the worker.

                The process of commodity production through labor power in capitalism functions “only by co-operating in a certain way” where men “mutually exchange their activities.”  The relations that people enter into become the defining elements of their existence, which “are transformed with the change and development of the material means of production, the productive forces.”  In this way, Marx is able to categorize historical epochs by social relations and the material means of production that subsequently arise from these relations:  “Ancient society, feudal society, [and] bourgeois society.”  These material means of production are “totalities of production relations” which denote distinguishable and temporal “stages of development in the history of mankind.”[6]  Capital however, as a social relation and “bourgeois production relation,” breaks from previous forms by its inclusion of a value for exchange, or “exchange value.”

                Exchange values are a quantifiable “sum of commodities….of social magnitudes.”  In this way Capital differentiates itself from all other forms of commodities due to its dual nature:  it is made up of both utility, in the form of labor, instruments, and raw materials, as well as exchangeability in the form of a quantifiable relation to the totality of all other commodities (money, gold, or the ‘universal exchange equivalent’).  For Marx now, the only thing remaining to do is explain how Capital is produced.

                In the exchange between the worker and the capitalist, “the worker receives means of subsistence” while “the capitalist receives…the productive activity of the worker.”  This difference is critical because the worker “gives to the accumulated labour a greater value than it previously possessed”[7] because the value of the commodity produced includes the value needed to provide the worker (it’s use value) and the stored up-exchange value of the materials on which the laborer works.  The worker however, as we’ve seen, is paid a wage according to his means of subsistence, not to the value of what he has produced.  Whereas the worker receives a consumable commodity (the wage can be used, and then destroyed through consumption of products, food..etc), the capitalist receives an exchangeable commodity, which retains its value through exchange up until it is eventually consumed/destroyed.  

It is in this process directly that the concept of exploitation comes to the front.  The worker is exploited by the capitalist because of the deception of equal exchange in the process of capital production.  How does this deception take place?  Through formal contract.  The worker sells his labor according to an agreed upon wage, which takes place in the workplace.  The worker does this every day of his life up until the point that he ceases to work in the workplace.  The alienation of the workplace from “life-activity” provides the conscious explanation for exploitation, while the exchange relations between the capitalist and the laborer provide the material explanation for exploitation.  In this manner, we can see that the workplace contains the totality of these relations, both in their conscious and material forms.

---

[1] Marx, Wage Labor and Capital in Tucker Collection PDF, p. 244

[2] Ibid, 245

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid, 246

[5] Ibid, 246

[6] Ibid, 248

[7] Ibid, 250

On the Nature of Thought (HM 1.1)

What did Aristotle mean when he asked the question:  What is the correct way to think?

Contrary to what is usually the first concluded answer, Aristotle cared very little about what biases you had in your life that cause you to think one way or the other.  Instead, Aristotle was questioning the method of existence in logic, epistemology, which then carries over into how to think logically about existence.  Aristotle's famous three laws are as follows:

1) The Law of Identity:  Each existence is identical with itself  (A is A)
2) Law of Noncontradiction:  Each existence is not different from itself (A is not non-A)
3) Law of Excluded Middle:  No existence can be both itself and different from itself (Any X is either A or non-A, but not both at once).

It should be clear that the foundation of existence for Aristotle is self-identifying reification (recognition of the self).  This can be credited to his teacher and primary influence, Plato.  His laws make the same point from three different angles: Positively, it says that a thing can only be what it is.  Negatively, it says that a thing cannot be what it is not.  Dichotomously, it says that there are only two alternatives:  A or non-A.

Most of these perspectives we see as general 'truisms', meaning that they are commonly accepted as facts of existence.  They can be summed up by Descartes' "I think therefore I am."  In Descartes' simple sentence he places thought prior to existence.  It is thus only through the identification of the self that the self can claim its existence.

The historical materialist however, points out that these so-called 'truisms' are held chiefly because they are reproduced regularly by society's educational system as the standard way of thinking about existence.  As this note hopes to show, Aristotle's view is not necessarily false...but it is rather oversimplified.

Let us start with what John Somerville used to explain the breakdown in Aristotle's logic, a piece of paper.  According to Aristotelian logic, the paper is paper (A is A); it is not different from paper (A is not non-A); and anything that exists must either be paper or not be paper (and X is either A or non-A, but not both).  However, if we watch the paper's existence over a long period of time we are forced to question whether or not Aristotle was in fact correct.  We know, just by scientific reasoning, that after thousands of years...even if the paper was isolated from interaction....it would be very different from what it is now; in fact it might not even be paper anymore.

The paper would have changed chemically and physically to such an extent that it would literally become something else than it originally was.  As Somerville said, it would "crumble into dust."  The point to get here is that everything is constantly becoming something else, and thus Aristotle's first law is overly simplistic in its assertion about the primacy of something's existence.  For if one were to seriously ask "at what point does the paper cease to be paper and become something else?" the answer would be:  Constantly.  More importantly, the more we examine a particular object, like paper, we are forced to the conclusion that not only are changes always taking place, but that changes are taking place throughout all parts of the object in question.

Scientific examinations helps to explain this further.  Quantum dynamism and contemporary physics tells us that the paper is in fact made up of mostly "empty space" in which a series of billions of particles are spinning and interacting with one another, held together within a electromagnetic field.  As Somerville points out, "the empty space itself must not be thought of as nothingness...but as a field possessed with definite properties.  All these things and events--the billions of highly activated particles, the field that has specific effects on them, the positive and negative forces at work which defines the field, the opposing combinations of units pushing and pulling in different directions....all of this is not something that takes place *ON* the paper.....it **IS** the paper."

The simplification of Aristotle's first law derives from its neglect of the concept of "rate of change."  When the "total rate" of the paper's existence is not too long...say....one minute to 10 years.....the paper is usable as paper and can be further used as paper.  These are only SOME of the factors that are important in understanding the paradoxical but pervasive dynamics whereby each thing is busy changing itself; is in a process of becoming something else 24-hours a day, non-stop.

The historical materialist holds that in a universe such as this, where units are constantly shifting from one state of existence to the next, the basic rules of correct thinking should reflect the basic situation of change.  This is not a method of thinking where the static and changeless take center position in thought while change plays a secondary role.  Rather it is one in which change is the essence and the core of existence, while it is the static "stabilities" that are merely passing and temporary.  "The process whereby each thing is changing its identity is primary, continuous and absolute; it is the identities reached that are secondary, temporary, and relative."

Thus the historical materialist has a new set of laws from which to derive the ontological question of "what is correct thinking?"

1) The Law of Strife, Interpenetration, and Unity of Opposites.  (A is A, and it is also non-A)

The reason each thing is in a constant process of growth and change is that each particular "thing" is made up of opposing forces and different interacting elements.  Simply, these are called "opposites" but the traditional Marxist or Dialectician will refer to them as "antitheses".  These different forces and opposing elements do not exist side by side, "like neighbors each of whom goes his own way without having any vital relationships to the other.  If that were the case, no complex "thing" would be formed that we would be likely to identify with a name, no 'unity' of elements would emerge."  Rather these opposing forces form a tight knit that balances together and "maintains itself as a pattern for a sufficient period of time to be distinguishable" from other "things".  THIS...is what accounts for the fact that every "thing" has a history.

The crude materialist however would reject that such a notion of existence applies to ideas.  Ideas, to the crudely undialectical materialist, represent nothing more than abstracted fantasies of material existence.  To combat this, let us again use Somerville's explanation with reference to "constitutionality":
"There is, indeed, one set of actual facts, one state of affairs that is objectively and absolutely the case in all fields. But there are different and competing theories, conceptions, and laws, all derived from ideas, offered in a continuing effort to explain these facts.

People ordinarily think of ideas as an isolated unit. But quickly it can be realized upon reflection that this unit is made up of different elements, interrelated in a certain way. In fact, the very definition of an idea is a statement of some of the chief elements and types of relationship present. Let us take the following idea of constitutionality as a supposed 'absolute idea.'

Let us use the following definition of constitutionality: the logical compatibility of a law or an action with the provisions of a constitution. We see at once that this idea would not...indeed it could not...exist except as a combination of elements, which are themselves other ideas, or aspects of other ideas.

In other words, if we did not understand the idea of logical compatibility, that of law, and that of a constitution itself, we would not be able to understand the idea of constitutionality...just as..if we could not physically identify hydrogen and oxygen, we would not be able to put them together in a certain proportion in order to produce water. Every idea has a specific ***content*** as an idea, quite apart from the fact that ideas also represent abstractions from material things.

Formal Logic, established by Aristotle, tells us that while we may move from one idea to another, ideas themselves are static...like the primary aspects of reality. This is essentially the same view as that taken of biological species prior to Darwin's work: the species exist side by side, but all are fixed; none grew out of others.

The dialectician thus holds that there is no reason for taking this view in the case of ideas when a view of this kind is taken in one field, it influences and encourages the taking of it in another. In any case, he points to the fact that such ideas as "logical compatibility", "law", and "constitution" undergo radical changes during the course of time; and he maintains that it is better, in a scientific sense, to explain a process of this kind as a growth or evolution than to deal with it as an unexplained transition between unalterable and unconnected absolute static entities."
In short, the first law of thought in historical materialism is a generalization, the point of which is to sum up change as the common basis to every level of existence.

If the first law identifies that everything that exists has a history that can be traced, thus revealing quantitative changes, the second law expressed that history is not only quantitative, but also qualitative.

2) The Law of Transition from Quantity to Quality (A becomes non-A, which then redefines A)

We can understand this law by simply referring to quantitative and qualitative changes in a single thing:  water.  When we increase the temperature of water, within certain limitations, we see a quantitative change.  The water remains water:  but it becomes a hotter liquid; it's particles moving at faster rates.  If however, this quantitative change continues...that is...if the temperature continues to be raised...a transition to a gaseous state occurs and a new qualitative condition emerges.  Steam is not simply water that is hotter than it was before; it has new definite properties that are not possessed by the liquid water.  Likewise, if the temperature is lowered beyond a certain point, another qualitative change takes place, this time into a solid.  Again:  The chemical properties of ice are not merely an "increased" or "decreased" degree in the properties of the liquid water; as a solid....ice contains chemical properties that water does not.

In other words, what this law is saying is that every accumulation of quantitative changes must eventually lead to some qualitative shift.  The old qualities are transformed into new ones.  It is also suggesting that the only means for producing these qualitative changes are shifts in the quantitative changes of the old qualities.  Thus history is not a simple "one-dimensional program" in which late developments can simply be "reduced" to earlier qualitative states.  The new qualitative differences contain within themselves new internal contradictions; new "opposites", new "antitheses", and new "quantitative rates of change".

3) The Law of the Negation of the Negation (A is constantly being redefined)This law requires somewhat of a more lengthy description, which will be found in HM 101.3.  For now, it is best to summarize the first two rules and how the third affects them both.  The first rule highlights that everything has a history.  The second rule emphasizes that this history is based upon a transition in quantitative conditions to qualitative ones.  The third rule, in a basic summation, emphasizes that the history established by Rule (1) and described by Rule (2)...never ends.  History does not stop.  Time does not stop.  Thus the only constant, is change.



Historical Materialism 101.1:  On the Nature of Thought.

By Joshua Morris.   Heavily Influenced by John Somerville's "The Philosophy of Dialectical Materialism"

An Old Paper Written as an Undergrad: Purge of the CIO

         

           After the introduction of the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947, the labor movement took on a radical transformation as large union federations like the CIO were forced to reevaluate their membership and their role as a union supporter.  The Taft-Hartley law was a response to the 1946 general strike, and was passed by a conservative congress not long after the events had winded down.  President Harry Truman attempted to veto the act however, his decision was overturned by the same congress.  Specifically the act mandated that all trade union leaders must sign an oath against communism, which in turn had a radical effect on the way the CIO addressed its members and approached the subject of communism.  In the long term, the act was designed as an anti-communist buffer which would slowly weed out radical sects within the labor movement by forcing union leaders to concede to certain political and social demands.  In the short run it was a well orchestrated charade in the midst of the Red Scare.  We can see the differences in ideological approach during this time by looking at two ideologically opposed newspapers, the Los Angeles Times and the Daily Worker.  The result of the Taft-Hartley law was the violent split of the CIO into right and left wings, each boldly defending their beliefs; and both the Daily Worker and the LA Times succeed in presenting the material for each respective side.  Quickly during the year of 1949 and early 1950, the CIO began to purge its’ left wing.  As we look into how each narrative is constructed about the CIO purges, we see that the LA Times embodies the ideals of middle class Americans who still see Communism as a ‘red menace’, while the Daily Worker promotes the ideologically enforced socialist attitude with emphasis on the might of the working class people.

            The two newspapers used in this analysis have the opposing character needed for such a critical examination of differing ideologies and differing societal goals.  In June of 1949 the Los Angeles Times featured an article explaining how a CIO member, Max Perlow, had officially announced his resignation from the Communist Party however, explicitly states that he did it only to follow the law and avoid persecution.[1]  The LA Times was very open about actions taken which did not actually get rid of communist ideology within the CIO.  Another article by LA Times Editor Joseph Park highlighted this trait by stating that unionism itself is of ‘communist influence’ and that “non-radical Marxists are and can be just as destructive as militant communists.”[2]  These early 1949 articles clearly show the attitudes present in the LA Times’ editorial staff, and the majority of articles which featured a critique on communism or the Communist Party typically labeled the groups collectively as ‘Reds’.

            The Daily Worker portrayed a much different perspective on the CIO purges.  Published by the Communist Party, the Daily Worker embodied the traditions of most Comintern-based political organizations.  Focusing on the lives of workers during this era, the Daily Worker presented the purge as a movement by a specific sect within the CIO, namely its bureaucratic right-wing leadership.[3]  Throughout the purging era, the Worker had continued a special article section titled ‘The Truth About the CIO Unions on Trial’, which attempted to guide the knowledge for working-class individuals searching for idealistic understandings of the ongoing crisis.  Using the excuse that the CIO’s right wing exists merely due to the early support of the left wing and all the workers during the 1940s, the Daily Worker sided with the entire working class; pointing to CIO leader Philip Murray as the instigator and asserting that “it is not the Union who has changed” rather, it was the leadership.[4]  The primary distinction between the two newspapers is thus cause of the purge, guided by opposing interpretations of society’s ultimate goal.  Now we will actually look into specific opposing articles on certain parts of the CIO’s purge.

            Early in February 1949, the LA Times featured an article which set the stage for the next few months, and kept labor-minded individuals clung to headlines.  Entitled, ‘CIO to launch Red Mop-up’, the Times was preparing to highlight the CIO’s purge of its own unions over the next few months.[5]  Clearly indicating its impartiality, the article’s usage of ‘Reds’ made the public aware of which side the Times’ editors were batting for.  Not left out of the loop for long, the Daily Worker responded quickly by calling the purge a “20^th century Uncle Tom”, a hypocrisy orchestrated by the right-wing leaders of the CIO and sanctioned by the United States government.[6]  These two articles were the first to mention the purge, and the differences between their perspectives never varied much over the next 12 months.  Later, in November of the same year, the Times published another article which announced the aspects of the purge itself titled ‘CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge’, and listed the areas of the CIO which it had been investigating.[7]  This article was unique because it hinted at the idea that those unions who end up purged might form a 3^rd labor federation led by the United Electrical Workers, one of the most radical sects within the CIO. 

            In May of 1949, the CIO began its effort to ‘clean’ up the federation by removing the radical sects and unions who supported ‘socialist beliefs’, a term used very vaguely.  The CIO first targeted the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers union.  The LA Times approaches this purge with very little radicalism, stating that the CIO is entitled to “a stronger trade union built on being an important, well respected part of our American democratic system.”[8]  In this way the CIO leadership is tying the ideology of ‘Americanism’ to the principals on Unionism.  Seeing this type of reference in the Times is not abnormal, prior to the late 1950s the newspaper did a lot of effort to tie Americanism into its own ideals.[9]  The Daily Worker, however, approaches the policy as the first use of the Taft-Hartley act by the CIO to enforce “Truman Loyalty.”[10]  Focusing more on the effects felt by workers in this situation, the Daily Worker highlighted how employees and union members were given ten days to consider their options or lose their jobs.[11]  What we see here is a clear distinction between how both news sources approach a given labor study.  The LA Times is short and to the point, explaining the corporate decision to clean up their federation in accord with American idealism; while the Daily Worker expressed directly the effects of this CIO proposition on the workers.  These opposing approaches are what characterize most of the differences between smaller articles on similar subjects at the time.

            By January of 1950 the purges had spread across all the left wings of the CIO, orchestrated by CEO Philip Murray.  Seen as a mid-century ‘Andrew Carniage’, both the CPUSA and the Daily Worker had little faith in Murray’s leadership and never attempted to portray him as an ally of the working class.  The Worker showed Murray as a conservative unionist, one who believed that many of the left wing sectors of the CIO were in league with the Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA).[12]  At the end of January, Murray was pushing the purge to the entire California Charter, whom he felt had allied itself directly with CPUSA.  The Daily Worker explains this as merely a “continuation of the political purge launched by the right wing”[13], and says it was justified by the national CIO’s adoption of new rules aimed specifically at orchestrating a purge of certain ‘undesirables’.[14]  Here the Worker is accusing the CIO’s leadership of corruption, something many workers at the time had considered about their own unions but never really saw it in action.  The LA Times on the other hand, focused its article on the resistance led by the California Charter and, primarily, the United Electrical Workers.  They label the California wing of the CIO explicitly as communist and emphasize workers’ resistance to organized cooperation.[15]  This shows the differences in partisanship to the subject by both sources; while the Daily Worker looks at coercion and internal corruption within the National CIO, the LA Times looks at the resistance by the California CIO and suggests that this resistance is proof of undesired activities.

            Near the end 1949 and the beginning of January 1950, the biggest headlines from both the Times and the Worker were fixated on the development of the strike put forth by the United Mine Workers.  The LA Times had been covering the issue for a few months, but the Daily Workers’ publication of the article ‘Truman Threatens Miners’ really embodied the socialist interpretation of Taft-Hartley injunctions.  Using the federal government and union official John L. Lewis as the leaders of this anti-labor action, the Daily Worker explains the outcome of the strike as a movement demanding proper negotiations between union leaders and management.[16]  Specifically, the Worker states that blame was placed on the union itself by President Truman, rather than on workers.  This is unique because the Worker stated the government, specifically the President, blamed the labor movement itself rather than the unjust feelings of a few mine workers.  The LA Times’ article, published slightly before the Worker’s, frames the UMW’s strike as damaging to both business and social infrastructure.  Mentioning very little about the plight of mine workers during their strike, the LA Times seemed to focus on the societal handicaps caused by strikes rather than address ways to avoid them.[17]  It is quite clear at this point that the Worker shares the attitudes of the working class as a whole, whereas the LA Times shares the perspectives of most average middle-classed Americans.

            After the mining incident, mining executive Howard Young took it upon himself to ask congress for aid in avoiding another large strike.  This article, featured in the LA Times, spoke directly to middle class Americans in a language that avoided working-class grievances.  Placing the strike’s blame directly on “communist infiltration”, Howard Young demands a new, stricter version of the Taft-Hartley Act in order to ensure that no “more” infiltration takes place.[18]  The article also quotes Howard as labeling the entire CIO as “communist dominated”, making it appear as if no level of sanctions will be satisfactory for neither the Union movement nor its leaders.[19]  Remarkably the Worker says nothing about Howard’s statements.  The article by the Times was published in late February, however the Worker says nothing more about the workers’ strike until late June.  However this could mean something even more important, that the Worker was not interested in catering to the words or advice of the business/managerial class.  Something very characteristic of socialist literature, the omitting of certain perspectives aided the newspaper in framing its articles along a specific ideological intent.

            Ultimately the purging of the CIO caused many hardships on both management and the working class.  Management was forced to watch as unions carried out a government-sanctioned ‘clean up’ of their own organizations, while many working class families were uprooted by accusations of radicalism.  The two opposing newspapers, the Daily Worker and the Los Angeles Times, did a good job at providing a two-sided look into specific events during the purge.  What we find after looking at these events is that the Worker is strongly sided with the labor movement and working class individuals; while the LA Times is more ambiguous about its audience but frames its articles in a fashion that most middle class Americans would understand.  Both sources however, do a very good job at trying to display the audience of the other as the main problems instigating the purges.  By looking at both sources though, one can determine for themselves which side of the story fits them while at the same time can learn about their opposing ideology’s interpretations.  Looking at opposing sources is an excellent way to broaden ones understanding of a specific socio-political conflict, and also helps us remember where our history actually comes from.

Bibliography

Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2.

"California CIO Defies Murray Ouster Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January 1950: 8.

"CIO Radio Union Purge Indicated." The Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2.

"CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge." The Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2.

"CIO to Launch Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32.

"CIO Union Officer Quits Communists." The Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32.

"Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32.

Cooper, Ruby. "Big Firm Orders Worker Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949: 1.

 "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2.

"Lewis Orders 100,000 Back to Work." The Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1.

"Murray Revokes Charter of California CIO Council." The Daily Worker 25 January 1950: 1.

Park, Joseph. "Communist Purges May be just Marxian Civil Wars." The Los Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4.

"Truman Threatens Miners." The Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1.

---

[1] "CIO Union Officer Quits Communists." The Los Angeles Times 6 June 1949: 32

[2] Park, Joseph. "Communist Purges May be just Marxian Civil Wars." The Los Angeles Times 29 May 1949: A4

[3] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2

[4] "The Truth about the CIO Unions on Trial." The Daily Worker Thursday January 1950: 2

[5] "CIO to Launch Red 'Mop Up' in LA." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1949: 32

[6] Berry, Abner. "CIO Right-Wingers Spawn a 20th Century Uncle Tom." The Daily Worker March 1949: 2

[7] "CIO to Document Left-Wing Purge." The Los Angeles Times 6 November 1949: 2

[8] "CIO Radio Union Purge Indicated." The Los Angeles Times 2 May 1949: A2

[9] Wikipedia.org

[10] Cooper, Ruby. "Big Firm Orders Worker Purge." The Daily Worker 15 May 1949: 1

[11] Ibid

[12] "Murray Revokes Charter of California CIO Council." The Daily Worker 25 January 1950: 1

[13] Ibid

[14] Ibid

[15] "California CIO Defies Murray Ouster Order." The Los Angeles Times 31 January 1950: 8

[16] "Truman Threatens Miners." The Daily Worker 26 January 1950: 1

[17] "Lewis Orders 100,000 Back to Work." The Los Angeles Times 1 January 1950: 1

[18] "Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32

[19] "Congress Aid Asked Against Labor Reds." The Los Angeles Times 20 February 1950: 32