BY JAMES P. CANNON
Below we print excerpts from The History of American
Trotskyism: 1928-38, by James P. Cannon. The book is written
by a leading participant in the decade-long effort to
establish the Socialist Workers Party. In "The Great
Minneapolis Strikes" Cannon relates some of the experiences
of socialist workers who were members of the Minneapolis
Teamsters 1934 strike. Copyright (c) 1995 by Pathfinder
Press. Reprinted by permission.
All modern strikes require political direction. The strikes of that period brought the government, its agencies, and its institutions into the very center of every situation. A strike leader without some conception of a political line was very much out of date already by 1934. The old-fashioned trade union movement, which used to deal with the bosses without governmental interference, belongs in the museum. The modern labor movement must be politically directed because it is confronted by the government at every turn. Our people were prepared for that since they were political people, inspired by political conceptions. The policy of the class struggle guided our comrades; they couldn't be deceived and outmaneuvered, as so many strike leaders of that period were, by this mechanism of sabotage and destruction known as the National Labor Board and all its auxiliary setups. They put no reliance whatever in Roosevelt's Labor Board; they weren't fooled by any idea that Roosevelt, the liberal "friend of labor" president, was going to help the truck drivers in Minneapolis win a few cents more an hour. They weren't deluded even by the fact that there was at that time in Minnesota a Farmer-Labor Governor, presumed to be on the side of the workers.
Our people didn't believe in anybody or anything but the policy of the class struggle and the ability of the workers to prevail by their mass strength and solidarity. Consequently, they expected from the start that the union would have to fight for its right to exist; that the bosses would not yield any recognition to the union, would not yield any increase of wages or reduction of the scandalous hours without some pressure being brought to bear. Therefore they prepared everything from the point of view of class war. They knew that power, not diplomacy, would decide the issue. Bluffs don't work in fundamental things, only in incidental ones. In such things as the conflict of class interests one must be prepared to fight....
The third contribution of Trotskyism to the Minneapolis strike-the most interesting and perhaps the most decisive-was that we met the government mediators on their own ground. I tell you, one of the most pathetic things observable in that period was to see how in one strike after another the workers were outmaneuvered and cut to pieces, and their strike broken by the "friends of labor" in the guise of federal mediators.
These slick rascals would come in, take advantage of the ignorance and inexperience and political inadequacy of local leaders, and assure them that they were there as friends. Their assignment was to "settle the trouble" by extorting concessions from the weaker side. Inexperienced and politically unschooled strike leaders were their prey. They had a routine, a formula to catch the unwary. "I am not asking you to give any concession to the bosses, but give me a concession so that I can help you." Then, after something had been given away through gullibility: "I tried to get a corresponding concession from the bosses but they refused. I think you had better make more concessions: public sentiment is turning against you." And then pressure and threats: "Roosevelt will issue a statement." Or, "We will feel obligated to publish something in the papers against you if you aren't more reasonable and responsible." Then get the poor greenhorns into conference rooms, keep them there hours and hours on end, and terrorize them. This was the common routine these cynical scoundrels employed.
They came into Minneapolis all greased up for another standard performance. We were sitting there waiting for them. We said, "Come on. You want to negotiate, do you? All right. That is fine." Of course our comrades put it in the more diplomatic language of the negotiations "protocol," but that was the gist of our attitude. Well, they never negotiated two cents out of the Trotskyist leaders of Local 574. They got a dose of negotiations and diplomacy which they are still gagging from. We wore out three of them before the strike was finally settled.
A favorite trick of the confidence men known as federal mediators in those days was to assemble green strike leaders in a room, play upon their vanity, and induce them to commit themselves to some kind of compromise which they were not authorized to make. The federal mediators would convince the strike leaders that they were "big shots" who must take a "responsible" attitude. The mediators knew that concessions yielded by leaders in negotiations can very rarely be recalled. No matter how much the workers may oppose it, the fact that the leaders have already committed themselves in public compromises the position of the union and creates demoralization in the ranks.
This routine cut many a strike to pieces in that period. It didn't work in Minneapolis. Our people weren't "big shots" in the negotiations at all. They made it clear that their authority was extremely limited, that they were in fact the more moderate and reasonable wing of the union, and that if they took a step out of line they would be replaced on the negotiations committee by other types. This was quite a poser for the strike-butchers who had come to Minneapolis with their knives out for unsuspecting sheep. Every once in a while Grant Dunne would be added to the Committee. He would just sit in a corner saying nothing, but scowling every time there was any talk of concessions. The strike was a hard and bitter fight but we had plenty of fun in planning the sessions of the union negotiations committee with the mediators. We despised them and all their wily articles and tricks, and their hypocritical pretenses of good fellowship and friendship for the strikers. They were nothing but the agents of the government in Washington, which in turn is the agent of the employing class as a whole. That was perfectly clear to a Marxist, and we took it as rather an insult for them to assume that we could be taken in by the methods they employed with novices. They tried it though. Apparently they didn't know any other methods. But they didn't make an inch of headway until they got down to cases, put pressure on the bosses, and made concessions to the union. The collective political experience of our movement was very useful in dealing with the federal mediators. Unlike stupid sectarians, we didn't ignore them. Sometimes we would initiate discussions. But we didn't let them use us, and we didn't trust them for one moment. Our general strategy in the strike was to fight it out, not give anything away to anybody, to hold on and fight it out. That was Trotskyist contribution number four. It may appear to be a very simple and obvious prescription, but that is not the case. It was not obvious to the great majority of strike leaders of the time.