End, but how? The bastards aren't gonna give way, and good luck convincing the Feds to step in, which means we'll have a repeat of Pullman all over again.
Crimson Banners Fly: The Rise of the American Left
- Thread starter PyroTheFox
- Start date
- Status
tukaram bhakt
Banned
Great update, great setup for what the future brings
Men and women of the United States eagerly awaited the new year, a step out of the darkness of war and into an era of de-escalation. The fighting had come to an anticlimactic close after four tumultuous years, setting the stage for what appeared to be renewed prosperity. Once again, as was the case in the Spanish-American and Philippines wars, the United States emerged unambiguously victorious. Seeing as this particular conflict was, at least for the U.S., a brawl over economic hegemony, spheres of influence, and freedom of overseas trade, financial speculators assured the public that a glorious, newfound Pax Americana was waiting just beyond the horizon. A secure and orderly economy, one unimpaired by arbitrary blockades and international restrictions, was precisely what President Roosevelt pledged. Nevertheless, instead of bringing about unprecedented growth and riches to the children of the empire, 1918 brought about uncertainly the likes of which had not been seen for decades.
Virtually all industries in the United States enjoyed splendiferous profits during the Great War. Some owners doubled or tripled their workforces, and in times of heightened demand it was hardly a tough decision to cede minor concessions to an increasingly class-conscious working class. They sprinkled in more wages here, dripped in limited recognition of their unions elsewhere, but never once indicated that these wonderous benefits were limited time offers. Yet, that was the plan. Quite literally on Armistice Day at peace's declaration, calculative and conniving robber barons made a collective decision to rein in working conditions they viewed as expensive and superfluous. It was an infamous choice that robbed millions of exhausted Americans of their hard-earned pay and eight-hour work weeks (claimed as luxuries), but the verdict was most certainly inevitable given the lack of federal protections or owner integrity.Benjamin McIntyre, The Workers' Struggle: The Birth of a Columbian International, 2018
Shackled by a combination of swell-sounding, albeit temporary concessions by factory managers, a lack of interest or initiative, and accusations of disloyalty in the face of war, the labor movement was somewhat paralyzed. Underlying tensions which had been totally unearthed in the labor conflicts of the early 1900s found mixed results, but as a whole the unionized section of the American working class was dramatically expanding and empathy with both skilled and unskilled workers stretched far and wide. Organizers discovered a loosening of these shackles upon Armistice. The U.S. economy ground to a halt with news of the sudden drop in demand, thus dissipating, overnight, quotas for steel, coal, iron, and munitions. January and February saw the country rattled by soaring inflation, and with it a sudden leap in the urgency for higher wages. Workers now teetered on the brink of poverty. However, from the perspective of Eastern American Steel Corporation President Elbert H. Gary, the company required significant downsizing to remain solvent.
Eastern American issued its call in conjunction with Dallas Steel Corporation and Western Steel. The entire metalworker’s industry plotted gradual, weekly layoffs to accommodate for the ongoing postwar recession, in addition to a steady rollback of wage hikes and a quiet prohibition on trade union meetings. The latter measure was not written in any formalized company statute, per se, but their continuous denial of assembly permits and under-the-table arrangements with meeting hall property owners clearly indicated an orchestrated effort - Not to mention, the stealthy employment of private agencies (SA or Pinkertons) to intercede in organizing efforts. Union representatives requested an open floor to negotiate, but to no avail. Newly appointed Labor Secretary William J. MacDonald (P-MI), a proponent of moderate arbitration, referred to Gray's measures as "dutiful and fair," and therefore did not opt to intervene.
It is important to note that steelworkers chiefly belonged to one of two labor unions. The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers, a conservative AFL-affiliate, held a majority stake. Its bureaucratic leaders, all shaped in the mold of the inoffensive Samuel Gompers, were on splendid terms with the steel corporations. The AA led calls for a peaceful settlement with assistance by the federal government, even after MacDonald made his disinterest clear. Secondarily had been the Sons of Vulcan, a splinter of the AA formed at the time of the McKees Rocks strike in 1909. SV members were predominantly based in the Western states, and a sizable portion were second-wave European immigrants. Following the conclusion of that railcar manufacturing strike, the SV cemented its separation from the AFL and voted unanimously to join with the IWW. Syndicalist William Z. Foster, head of the Sons of Vulcan, was less so interested in toying with the whims of an uncaring Labor Department.
Abiding by the results of a strike referendum, one passed decisively at an IWW-sponsored national steelworkers conference, the Sons of Vulcan declared its intent to engage in a work stoppage if its demands were not met. Elbert Gary and fellow cohorts did not respond. AA leaders clamped down on their own workers under instruction from Gompers himself, insinuating expulsion should any of their members join in the radical motion to strike. The AFL simply could not afford to drown one its greatest weapons. A massive loss threatened the very existence of the Amalgamated Association, just as the Pullman Strike functionally ended the American Railway Union. "[The AFL] tried it all," remarked labor historian Henry Mavis Kyer, "from threats to coercion and blackmail. Gompers prepared to name all strikers Bolsheviks. Nothing was out of bounds."
SV Steelworkers, once the union's deadline passed, abided by the referendum. Beginning May 1st, 1918, International Workers' Day, over a fourth of the entire steel industry shut down. From the massive plants in Pittsburgh and Philadelphia to the swathes of mills in Pueblo, Colorado, work stoppages suddenly plagued the country. Impressed by the actions of their fellow metalworkers, desperate to take command of the situation, and perhaps encouraged by the might of the IWW thus far, workers belonging to the AA stunningly joined with the call to strike in an act of flagrant disobedience. Gompers and the AFL had lost control of their own members and incidentally handed their rival union a tremendous win. With about three-quarters of the industry dead quiet by May 4th, the promise of Pax America seemed a quaint memory.
Part 7: Chapter XXV - Page 165
That is what I want to urge upon the working class; to become so organized on the economic field that they can take and hold the industries in which they are employed. Can you conceive of such a thing? Is it possible? What are the forces that prevent you from doing so? You have all the industries in your own hands at the present time. There is this justification for political action, and that is, to control the forces of the capitalists that they use against us; to be in a position to control the power of government so as to make the work of the army ineffective, so as to abolish totally the secret service and the force of detectives. That is the reason that you want the power of government. I know, too, that when the workers are brought together in a great organization they are not going to cease to vote. That is when the workers will begin to vote, to vote for directors to operate the industries in which they are all employed. So the general strike is a fighting weapon as well as a constructive force. It can be used, and should be used, equally as forcefully by the Socialist as by the Industrial Worker.
Bill Haywood, The General Strike Speech Excerpt, 1918
The IWW, despite being the target of incessant harassment by vigilante groups and laws criminalizing the union's positions, possessed adequate resources to provide national coordination for the upsurge of activity in the steel industry. Having maintained and expanded its presence and popular notoriety, beginning in 1907 with the victory of the UMWA, then bolstered significantly by the success of the WCIUL-led Shirtwaist Strike, the union likewise grew its base of support among Midwestern and Western industrial workers. Farmers, miners, machinists, and dozens of other industries knew the IWW well. Regardless of the state-led mudslinging campaign, the Industrial Workers could not be effectively painted as a foreign-sponsored entity, nor as an out-of-touch, un-American institution. By 1918, the IWW was viewed alongside the AFL as the face of the American labor movement.
A contingent of IWW organizers in Pittsburgh premiered a renewed tactic in the wake of a resituated USIC. Union agitators worked to spread counterpropaganda, an active attempt to thwart the federal government's narrative. Bill Haywood and others in the Greater Pittsburgh Region of Western Pennsylvania put their ears to the ground. They looked to hinder both USIC misinformation efforts as well as that of company managers hoping to demoralize strikers with strikebreakers. Haywood's speeches struck at the heart of the issue, commonly motioning to class solidarity in place of mindless patriotism and superficial divisions. He stressed the ideals of a socialist mode of production, contrasting the status quo, an undemocratic workplace structure, with collective cooperation and universal liberation. He particularly enjoyed incorporating personalized stories from other labor conflicts, such as his experience in Wales during a coal miner's strike.
Three weeks into the Steel Strike, the Sons of Vulcan held firm. Foster refused to blink, as did Elbert Gary. Strikers committed to the SV's stance on nonviolence, muzzling opportunities by state governors to call in their respective national guardsmen. Mass arrests took place under relatively peaceful circumstances, but even then, Socialist Party officeholders pledged to defend the rights of the striking workers when brought to trial. Tales of police cracking down on picket lines and strikers being dragged from their homes did not serve to instill even a droplet of fear. Public opinion, by historical accounts, stayed with the steelworkers and against the robber barons. Amid these troubles and in an overnight meeting with fellow board members, USIC Chairman Palmer was horrified to learn of a new development underway. A strike had broken out. Not in a steel mill, but rather at a Northwest shipyard.
On May 22nd, roughly 40,000 Seattle shipbuilding workers declared a work stoppage. Shipyard owners, in response to pleas to raise wages in accordance with inflation, announced their willingness to increase the pay of skilled workers alone (otherwise, an across-the-board wage cut would manifest), thus prompting a strike. Just thereafter, the U.S. Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation sent a telegram to the shipbuilding owners stating their intention to withdraw contracts if the company were to increase wages. This notice found its way to the Metal Trades Council. Seeing as the state no longer thought it necessary to hide its favor with employers, members of the Seattle Central Labor Council called on the city workers to join in a general strike. Workers granted unanimous support.
Inspired by the Bolsheviks in Russia and supported by the IWW and local Socialist officials, the people of Seattle formed a novel, impromptu people's government. Named the General Strike Committee, this counter-government, organized by workers in various trades, sought to provide essential services to all city residents. The collective body established its own method of food distribution, maintained hospitals, retained the service of firemen, and employed its own "Veteran's Guard," a substitute for police made up of recently returned war veterans. About 50% of the striking locals openly affiliated with the IWW, but the Industrial Workers were nonetheless depicted as the drivers of the general strike. Haywood, Flynn, Charles Moyer, and the de facto upper echelon of the union vehemently insisted that the Seattle strike was not miraculously generated by the IWW, but rather it was a spontaneous, instinctual event conducted by Seattleites. These statements failed to prevent newspapers in Olympia, Portland, and Milwaukee from crediting/discrediting the union when various trade unionists in their cities joined in the call for a general strike.
Seattle's General Strike was not expected to outlast the afternoon. Instead, it lasted through the end of May and into June. Upwards of 15 towns and cities engaged in collective work stoppages by June 10th, the steel mills remained closed, and news rapidly spread concerning plans of labor strikes in Lawrence and Boston, Massachusetts. The economy of the United States was swiftly slowing to an absolute halt. Meanwhile, the Roosevelt Administration, apparently seeking to frighten the strikers into submission without resorting to total war, released a response denouncing the ”menace” of industrial unionism. Their response restated a select assortment of the president’s own words during the Movement for Peace, like his cogent accusation that left-wing activists represented, ”the worst foes of liberty and democracy,” and redirected the ire toward supposed nefarious elements in the American Labor Movement. Use of the injunction had been outlawed but forcibly recalling the tide of public opinion was still possible, and the administration furthermore vowed to fully prosecute antagonizing forces. Most importantly, President Roosevelt, then-managing the nation's diplomatic affairs in Vienna, submitted speedy approval of a stark administrative rollback. Per the Labor Department, as authorized by the president, all federal protections for unions, union organizers, and participants in labor strikes that had been established during the war were thenceforth rescinded.
The most likely way I see this going is with many left-moderates saying to themselves "we stuck by Teddy through the war, we stood with him against the strikers, and he just spat in all our faces," especially when his administration uses their new freedom to crack down indiscriminately on instruments of organized labor across the board - with AFL affiliates being pulled into wildcat strikes, I doubt the USIC will treat reformist unions with kid gloves. Some left moderates will just wring their hands or try and rein his administration in, but others will jump over to supporting the strikers, even if it's only out of seeing the way the political winds are blowing. If there's a crackdown that spills over into hurting members of respectable society, we could see the protest movement snowball out from just organized labor, into more and more groups that politicians can't just demonize and minimize. If pastors across the nation are sending around collection plates for strikers, if small business owners are calling on their representatives to say that America must surely be able to do something for its hardworking men so the country can return to peace and prosperity, then the administration would need to eventually cave.
But hey, maybe the administration is spoiling for a fight, and it's time for accelerationism! If the turn in public sympathy, against the government and towards the strikers, is matched with a growth of strike management organizations, various self-directed citizens bodies for providing parallel government instead of respecting the corrupt system, then maybe the feds will see it as a fundamental threat to the state - since it's a direct threat to the power of the existing federal institutions. Federal law enforcement won't be able to operate easily where it doesn't have the consent of local law enforcement, and if their authority is eroded enough, they might resort to measures that instigate a constitutional scrap with recalcitrant states. Not to mention, of course, that all these escalating measures would only erode sympathy and trust, and if strike organizations manage to keep the peace, maintain essential services, keep people fed (or even keep local small shops open, depending), and in general keep the middle classes from clamoring too hard for escalating intervention, then they might come out of it with lasting control of local governance in various places, and probably be very well placed for the upcoming elections. And yeah, I don't really see the case yet for a successful revolution - it could be a partial one, with success cases that can demonstrate an effective governmental model for America, such that when the next crisis hits, more and more people can turn to it and make it work, enough that when institutional resistance takes the inevitable military form, the socialist coalition will be strong enough to win without a widespread, years-long bloodletting, I would hope.
But hey, maybe the administration is spoiling for a fight, and it's time for accelerationism! If the turn in public sympathy, against the government and towards the strikers, is matched with a growth of strike management organizations, various self-directed citizens bodies for providing parallel government instead of respecting the corrupt system, then maybe the feds will see it as a fundamental threat to the state - since it's a direct threat to the power of the existing federal institutions. Federal law enforcement won't be able to operate easily where it doesn't have the consent of local law enforcement, and if their authority is eroded enough, they might resort to measures that instigate a constitutional scrap with recalcitrant states. Not to mention, of course, that all these escalating measures would only erode sympathy and trust, and if strike organizations manage to keep the peace, maintain essential services, keep people fed (or even keep local small shops open, depending), and in general keep the middle classes from clamoring too hard for escalating intervention, then they might come out of it with lasting control of local governance in various places, and probably be very well placed for the upcoming elections. And yeah, I don't really see the case yet for a successful revolution - it could be a partial one, with success cases that can demonstrate an effective governmental model for America, such that when the next crisis hits, more and more people can turn to it and make it work, enough that when institutional resistance takes the inevitable military form, the socialist coalition will be strong enough to win without a widespread, years-long bloodletting, I would hope.
Yeah, I suspect with America distracted, that's the end of any possible major foreign intervention in the Russian civil war, and probably a sad end to the Czechoslovak legion. Germany already has its gains to consolidate (and can't really ship troops across the world to vladivostok easily), America has its own reds to suppress and still has an insurgency to deal with in Ontario, and the entente is crushed.
Perhaps the Japanese intervention will see more tacit support, with them being the only nation willing to send substantial forces against the reds? I still don't think Japan could win in any meaningful way, but they could at least make Siberia much bloodier and cause even more political strife back home. But if they aren't presented with the opportunity to have allies in the theater they might not take the first step that then spiraled out OTL into a deployment of 70,000 soldiers and 50,000 settlers.
Plus imagine how the Spanish Flu will go in TTL. I'm curious to see how Teddy will handle it compared to Wilson
It won't be called the Spanish Flu. Depending on which origin Pyro chooses, it might be the American Flu.
- Status