« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

Class Warfare: American Communists of 1928 Compared to Barack Obama

The other day I linked to a rather silly post at Think Progress by Matthew Yglesias. His point was that Obama is not engaging in class warfare because if you want real class warfare look at the Communist Party of Great Britain in 1928. That was real class warfare. Never mind how similar some of what the CPGB wanted in 1928 is what Obama is calling for now.

But we don’t have to look to the CPGB. We can look to the Communist Party of America 1928. Consider this, for example:

A capitalist writer characterizes the present unemployment as a ‘technological unemployment, not cyclical — an unemployment developing gradually, almost unawares, like creeping paralysis, in the midst of unprecedented prosperity, the byproduct of improved technological efficiency.”

Unemployment is indeed the ‘creeping paralysis’ of capitalist society. It represents the most vicious contradiction of the present economic order. The more machinery, the higher the productivity of labor, the more unemployed. . . .

The present depression is not an ‘accident.’ It has been brought about by prosperity itself. Disproportion between production and consumption, which is a part of the general anarchy of capitalist production, is responsible for cyclical crises. Saturation of the automobile and building construction markets, over-production of oil, the world coal crisis, the migration of the textile industry to the South, the limits of installment buying, the restriction of the farmers’ market, the effects of American export of capital and of the stabilization of Europe, the increased competition with Europe — these are the basic features of the present economic depression. Neither the existence of huge monopolies and trusts nor the “interventions” of the Federal Reserve Bank are able to prevent the occurrence of economic crisis.

[Emphasis in original]

Compare that to this from Ron Suskind’s new book Confidence Men:

“Both [Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers and chair of the Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer] were, in fact, were concerned by something the president had said in a morning briefing: that he thought the high unemployment was due to productivity gains in the economy. Summers and Romer were startled. “What was driving unemployment was clearly deficient aggregate demand,” Romer said, “We wondered where this could have been coming from. We both tried to convince him otherwise. He wouldn’t budge.”

The excerpt is here and found by Ben Domenech in his most excellent Transom.

But, and back to the original point, what about the class warfare? No one does class warfare better than the communists. So consider the American communists’ platform in 1928 instead of the British communists.

What did they want?

  • Unemployment Insurance
  • Immediate emergency help for all workers who have been unemployed two months or more, consisting of eight weeks wages for each worker.
  • Public works. The federal, state, and city governments should devise schemes for improving the roads and bridges of the country, improving the rivers, canals, docks, and harbors, setting up electric power stations, reforestation, land drainage and land reclamation, extension and electrification of railways. On all public works trade union wages and conditions must be guaranteed by law.
  • Immediate abolition of vagrancy laws. Protection of employed workers from arrest on charges of vagrancy.

Oh, but wait, there’s more.

Here’s some more from their platform.

The working class of this country is facing a great crisis. A general offensive of the bosses is being conducted against the workers, an offensive to smash the whole trade-union movement, to lower the standard of living of all workers.

Among other things, the communists called for a “fight for high wages. Strike against wage cuts” and “trade-union methods alone cannot wage a successful fight. Trade-union struggle must be supplemented by political struggle.”

But wait, some lefties will say. The Communist Party also wanted to “destroy company unions.” That’s true. But why? It was not to end unionization, but rather to supplant unionism into the political culture and leadership, something the communists believed would not be possible with corporate unions pre-existing the struggle.

The communist party went on, in 1928, to demand “free medical treatment, medicine, and hospital care for all wage-earners” and “tax-exemption[s] for all working and exploited farmers: as well as a “graduated income tax” that, like the British communists, would seize all income above $25,000 per year in 1928. They also favored a “graduated inheritance and gift taxes on great fortunes.”

Back in 1928, the communists were even calling for the government to end home foreclosures on farms and “a five year moratorium on farm mortgage debts, including debts on chattels” And yes, they also wanted amnesty for illegal aliens through “immediate repeal of all immigration laws. Abolition of all restrictions on immigration.”

For kicks, consider also this bit of the Communist Party of America’s platform:

All tax exemptions on bonds, stocks and securities must be abolished.

stacked up against this

In his speech before Congress last week, he proposed approximately $200 billion in new inter-governmental aid to state and local governments so they could hire teachers, build roads, and so forth. That is roughly the same size as the 2009 stimulus package, which spread approximately $400 billion over two years.

Unlike his 2009 stimulus package, the president this time added a tax plan to cover the costs. It includes placing a limit on one of the biggest tax loopholes: the ability to deduct from one’s income the interest received from investments in state and local bonds. The president wants to limit the deduction to the 28 percent tax rate, instead of the approximately 40 percent marginal rate that well-heeled investors (the folks who generally buy these things) would otherwise pay.

Elsewhere, I discuss the unfortunate impact of Obama’s “tax and spend” plans on the U. S. federal system.
My point here is simpler: state and local governments, not investors, are the primary beneficiaries of the tax deduction loophole. When bonds are fully tax-deductible on federal income tax returns, as most state and municipal bonds now are, investors will accept a lower interest rate on their investment.

So, that was class warfare in 1928. Sounds to me like it is pretty similar to today. Now, this all begs the question — do I think Barack Obama is a communist? No, actually I do not, though I may have fun calling him the “Marxist in Chief.” I don’t think Barack Obama is a communist — just an ivy league socialist. Of course, as Lenin said, socialism is just a phase on the path toward communism.

Barack Obama may not be a communist, but his embrace of communist rhetoric and though from the 1920s on technology causing unemployment and his class warfare rhetoric truly make him the most far left President we have had in this country. It also complicates his re-election.

The model Obama intends to use is the Truman model of running against Congressional Republicans. But Truman gambled that the country was far more a Democrat country than a Republican country and he won. Obama has been gambling throughout his Presidency that the country is a left-leaning country and he has consistently lost as a result. Continuing the gamble will continue his losing streak. The fact is, however much Congress may be hated right now and however much congressional Republicans may be hated, the country is more ideologically on the right than with Barack Obama.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • anjinconsulting

    You are just preaching to the choir my friend. As for your statement that Captain Zero isn’t a communist, well consider that he clearly understands communist strategy and is effectively employing it.

    If it sounds like a duck and it walks like a duck….

  • melbedewy

    Here is the 2011 Election Manifesto of the Communist Party of Canada:

    * Worker’s rights such as full employment, higher minimum wage, shorter work week and ending outsourcing.
    * The creation of a “Bill of Rights for Labour” enacting socialist economic rights.
    * Higher taxes for those with higher incomes; lowering taxes for those of lower incomes.
    * Electoral reform, dissolving the Canadian Senate, enacting MMP, set voting age to 16.
    * Expand public ownership and reverse privatization such as ending P3 programs.
    * Nationalize energy and natural resources and shift emphasis from fossil and nuclear sources to renewable energy.
    * Peace and disarmament, ending involvement in Afghanistan and Libya and withdrawing from NATO and NORAD.
    * Preserve and expand public health care in Canada as well as other social programs and poverty reduction.
    * Environmental reforms and climate change measures.
    * Anti-globalization such as pulling out of the North American Free Trade Agreement.
    * Expanding public housing and banning evictions and foreclosures due to unemployment.
    * Repeal state security legislation like the no-fly list; more public monitoring of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Canadian Security Intelligence Service.
    * Strengthen Aboriginal and French Canadian rights and recognition.
    * Fight gender inequality and expand the rights of women and homosexuals and transsexuals.
    * Expand public education and other youth rights.
    * Racial equality, including immigration reform.
    * Support family and organic farming.

    Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Party_of_Canada#Recent_developments

  • rmspradlin

    The main criticism is that there is no such thing as inequality thus rendering the fact that with greater inequality the shrinkage of the middle class and the lower the economy goes and the deeper in debt we go. What inequality is when the richer get richer and the poorer get poorer when there is a lengthening in the gap between the rich and the poor. ?the income of the wealthiest 5 percent of households grew 801 times that of the income of the poorest 20 percent of households in 1996 to 8.7 times as great by 2006?(Garret 1). How the determine inequality is you take the richest households and divide them into quintiles which means the richest households determines the income limit. Which already creates a gap between the rich and the poor making the middle class useless and making the rich be with the rich and the poor be with the poor. There are flaws with the inequality argument they bases all the quintiles on how much that family makes. The problem with that is most of the richer quintiles were family homes with more than one income and in the poorer quintile it was offer a single income coming from a single person. Another problem is ?income gap is the showing of income distribution at a single point in time but for many households? income changes over time?( garret 3). There are flaws with the gap but the main focus with inequality is if you want to become rich you have to work hard for it and you have to peruse to get rich but if you fall behind and become lazy you will live in the smaller half or the poorer houses.

  • 1stRichard

    Commonalities abound and it is more then communist, you should look at the other side of socialism.

    ?In view of the enormous sacrifices of life and property demanded of a nation by any war, personal enrichment from war must be regarded as a crime against the nation. We demand therefore the ruthless confiscation of all war profits.? Remember the Bush years?

    ?We demand the nationalization of all businesses which have been formed into corporations (trusts).?

    ?We demand profit-sharing in large industrial enterprises.?

    ?We demand the extensive development of insurance for old age.?

    ?We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle class, the immediate communalizing of big department stores, and their lease at a cheap rate to small traders, and that the utmost consideration shall be shown to all small traders in the placing of State and municipal orders.?

    ?We demand a land reform suitable to our national requirements, the passing of a law for the expropriation of land for communal purposes without compensation; the abolition of ground rent, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.?

    You can find more, especially in the involvement with labour unions, ?common interest before self interest? in the program of the NSDAP labour union. Because of this, you may be on the wrong side as the actions presented are less Bolshevik and more National Labour Front.

  • dajeeps

    It assumes that everyone categorized as “poor” in one data sample is also poor in another sample taken a decade later. But, economics is not a zero sum game. There is no proof whatsoever that hard work and increasing skill doesn’t pay off. If it were true, that external factors are the only real things “keeping people down,” then why would libs be so bent on distorting the higher education market? I guess they just can’t link these two opposite sides of the coin and figure out that one of their assumptions is quite wrong.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    when you look hard at the data it crumbles. Economist Don Boudreax has done work on measuring buying power not by dollars but by hours worked, and by that measure the average household, and even the poor have gained a huge amount of buying power in the last 30 years.

    Also a lot of this is statistical slight of hand. One measure of household income completely ignores the fact that households are much smaller than they were forty or fifty years ago. If you count a much much larger percentage of single people as a household then of course they will have less income on average than two working adults. This artifact effects the numbers.

  • lilium

    There have been PC buzz phrases popping up regularly.

    “public and private partnership” and ” crony capitalism”, let’s
    call them what they are…..Fascism. Even the Repubs are pushing
    these misnomers.

    So when government produces a Volt or Michele partners with
    Red Lobster that is by definition Fascism.

  • 1stRichard

    For the worse example of Crony Capitalism look up the Great Leap Forward, drop the reference to the New Deal. More people need to know how bad it could be and that it is the wrong path to step on, by definition – Obama?s Great Leap Forward.

  • http://impudent.edublogs.org/ kyle8

    is practicing a form of economic fascism, and that is not even an exageration.

  • atillathehun

    I fundamentally disagree that anyone can put forth Marxist policies, wordhip at the alter of Frank Marshall Davies, consort with Marxist proffessors, be described by an admitted Marxist aquaintance, as more radical than himself and not be an avowed Marxist. A distinction without a difference in my view. Leninist, communist, Marxist are all incompatible with our Constitutional Republic.

  • riverking

    … so watch that use of the word “Captain” when referring to 0. You’re insulting every one of the millions in the military and the merchant marine who have honorably held that rank. I guess you can spell out zero if you have the time to waste. I generally don’t bother.

  • 1stRichard

    Taking Mussolini as an example of fascism, he opposed a Socialist Party communist revolution. Most notable, Mussolini violently suppressed strikes by the militant trade unions and brutally opposed the economics of workers’ rights. There are other differences but this one is undisputable, it is not fascism.