Remembering Sophie Gerson
I learned today from a comrade that Sophie Gerson passed away on March 20, 2006 at the age of 96. Sophie was a lifelong Communist activist whose own work was overshadowed by her husband, Simon W. Gerson, the writer, champion of proportional democracy and shoulda been City Councilman from Brooklyn. At Si’s memorial a year earlier, speaker after speaker (including yours truly) paid tribute to his illustrious career as a public Communist and lightning rod for controversy, but only one (not me, perhaps it was Tim Wheeler) took the opportunity to point out that Sophie was notorious–indeed, framed for murder–before Si’s name was ever known.
In early 1929, 19-year-old Sophie Melvin joined striking National Textile Workers Union members at the Loray Mill in Gastonia, NC. The Gastonia strike, one of NTWU’s smallest at the time, was part of a larger southern organizing campaign initiated by the Communist-led Trade Union Unity League. The T.U.U.L. presaged the C.I.O. movement in the 30’s, training many of activists whose work made that mass upsurge possible. The strike was called in January over some of the lowest-paying, most sped up and stretched out working conditions in the entire south.
Sophie organized a children’s support section in the strikers’ tent city and was present on June 7 when a carload of armed police invaded and declared war on the strikers. In the melee, one union organizer was seriously wounded, three police deputies were slightly wounded and the chief of police, O.F. Aderholt, was killed. Seventy-five strikers were arrested for the murder of the police chief and sixteen were eventually indicted. Among these were three women, Vera Buch, Amy Shechter and Sophie Melvin (this was not, notes Philip Foner in his History of the Labor Movement…, young Sophie’s first arrest connected to her union agitation). The three young women became an immediate cause celibre, their hefty bail raised by Communist charities and national speaking tours serving as strike support fundraisers. Public outcry caused local officials to drop the charges against the three young women, who continued their propaganda work in spite of the losing campaign. By September, strikers were returning to work without a union, although the Loray mill had reduced the work week to 50 hours(!). The real value of the strike was that it laid crucial groundwork for New Deal and C.I.O. organizing that was to shortly follow.
Si Gerson was a cub reporter for the Daily Worker when he was assigned to the Gastonia strike, met and fell in love with Sophie. Of course, they married and were a lovely couple. Sophie continued to be a political activist, in addition to being a mother and grandmother, but Si’s work cast a long shadow. It is a shame that while news of Si’s death reached me by notices from comrades in the Socialist Party, colleagues in the Coalition for Free and Open Elections and general e-mail listserve forwards, I had to learn about Sophie’s passing in passing conversation with a comrade, a year and a half after the fact. Sophie Gerson (nee Melvin) is truly an unsung American hero and deserves more of a monument than this little blog post.
Comrades in the Library
The Times has an article on one of my favorite places in the world, the Tamiment Institute archives at NYU, which has recently acquired a huge chunk of the Communist Party USA’s files. The CP should really be applauded for its openness and willingness to view its past truly as history. I have seen some of the neato gems of these files – such as Seeger’s handwritten lyrics to “Turn! Turn! Turn!” – on display while doing my own research at the library.
It was there that I recently found Michael Obermeier’s letter to Jay Rubin. The letter would have provided much-needed pathos to the term paper that I ultimately wrote about the Communists who founded New York’s Hotel Employees union, who were ultimately thrown out early in the Cold War. The letter was meticulously misfiled away with Rubin’s correspondence from the 1970’s (he must have kept the letter close at hand until the end of his tenure). Most of the union’s files are archived at Tamiment, so I’ve spent much time there.
I’ve continued to write about the union in term papers on its organizing strategy, its health care politics and its collective bargaining. I will ultimately flesh out my earlier term paper on the Communist influence and betrayal in Local 6 in my Masters thesis, which I hope to have published (which is why I have hesitated to post that earlier paper on this site).
In the meantime, I gather as much material as I can. I FOIA FBI and INS files, seek out sister unions’ files and living relatives of the main players. The Communist Party’s archives are quite promising for my research, although the most explosive material was likely shipped over to the Soviet Union in the late 1940’s. It exists today at the Library of Congress and at Tamiment as a microfiche reproduction of the source material in Moscow. The files are indexed in Russian, so I will likely need some translation assistance, tovarich.
Goodbye, Socialist Party
Today I resigned from the Socialist Party after eleven years of membership. This decision has been a long time coming. Indeed, it was made some months ago but I had been waiting to sever my remaining fiduciary responsibilities to the party to announce it. I have given the party tremendous amounts of time and energy as an officer, an editor, a speaker, a fundraiser and a campaign manager and it was a formative learning experience for me. Truthfully, I should moved on a long time ago – back when the crippling faction fights first arose about five years ago – but I was biding my time, hoping that all that negative energy would expend itself. I have come to the sorry conclusion that such fruitless bickering will never go away.
I leave a Socialist Party that is irrationally bureaucratic, where misleaders place a premium on formal charges of sedition, investigation committees and e-mails of denunciation over simple and direct phone calls and conversations. I leave a Socialist Party that makes a fetish of running token electoral campaigns, which blinds it to genuine opportunities for a break with the two-party system, like the Nader and Sanders campaigns. I leave a Socialist Party full of snotty little boys who are blind or indifferent to their white, male privilege. And most galling of all, I leave a Socialist Party whose leadership chooses to vomit the kind of anti-union rhetoric one would expect from management consultants and who would rather play at being a union with the IWW than organize strong, militant and democratic unions where the majority of workers are.
My decision to resign will likely disappoint some of the comrades who hope to “take it back.” I say to them and the others, “take it, it’s yours” (apologies to Paul Westerberg). The Socialist Party had a proud history in the early 20th century, but it should have been left in the history books. I dare say that most of the new members “recruited” to the party drifted in on their own because of an attraction to the writings and actions of Eugene Debs, even though the past three quarters of a century have badly dated Debs’ beautiful but simple rhetoric. Why, even now, in the midst of the current split, one of our earnest young National Committee members is pointing to an article from 1911 by Debs to prove that he has the “correct” position on electoral activity. Never mind the fact that Debs lived until 1926 – an era that is politically closer to our own – and that by that time he was advocating building a mass labor party and had endorsed the Trade Union Education League’s policy of boring from within the conservative AFL craft unions (both are policies much closer to what I advocate in this article). The simple fact is that Eugene Debs, and the Socialist Party of America, was from another era and needs to be put in the proper historical context, predating the New Deal, World War II, civil rights struggle, Black Power, feminist movement, environmental movement and globalization among other changes.
When Eugene Debs wrote in 1903 that “the class struggle is colorless,” it was a beautiful rhetorical challenge to the racists in the movement, but 104 years later, to continue, as he did, to say, “we have nothing special to offer the Negro, and we cannot make separate appeals to all the races” is to be blind to the special persecution faced by black Americans and all people of color in the United States and avoids the work we must do to challenge white skin privilege. Yet, too many members of the Socialist Party still agree with Debs’ color-blind politics. Indeed, they were attracted to the party because of it. This historicism also results in a party that is cool to reproductive rights and gender politics and downright hostile to feminist process and gender-balanced committees. It’s a vicious cycle, discouraging women to join and be active, resulting in even more male-centric politics and a greater discouragement to women. Probably 90% of the party is male at this point, which is regrettable (and not only because the possibility of a slutty convention hook-up is sometimes the only thing that makes those meetings tolerable).
The example of the Socialist Party garnering six percent of the vote for President, and electing Congressmen, mayors and legislators across the country is clearly an inspiration for many of the Party’s newer members, but the Socialist Party cannot win elections in 2007 or anytime soon. The laws and finances have changed, making running such campaigns impossible in most areas. Voters have become much more loyal to the two-party system, and non-voters are much more likely to be right-wing as left in this day in age. Please do not mistake this as a call to endorse the Democrats or to avoid politicking openly as Socialists. As I have previously written, being “the Socialist Party” makes running “Socialist” candidates its raison d’etre, and results in unnecessary sectarianism and an aversion to coalition work. It is, indeed, essential to seek out independent alternatives to the two-party system, and there is often a real value to putting the “S” word on the ballot, but not at the expense of missing opportunities like the Green Party movement, Nader candidacies and the opportunities for boring from within the Working Families party. Only a socialist organization that is emphatically not a party can be open to all possibilities.
Finally, considering my life’s work is in the labor movement, it is disappointing how few comrades I can truly count on in the Socialist Party. As an organizer, I deal with vicious anti-union campaigns from the Boss and too many workers who would rather race each other to the bottom for loss of pay and benefits than unite to win more for all. Every day I am reminded of the dire need for a sane, organized left to carry out meaningful educational work on how the Bosses rob us and the power of coming together, like the old IWW and SPA used to do. Instead, we have a SPUSA and IWW that focus on badly out-dated AFL and “pie card” bashing. The more challenging, but more valuable work, would be for comrades to get their hands dirty as organizers and activists in the large trade unions in the AFL-CIO and Change to Win (regardless of their militancy or whether they endorse Democrats or not), organize, win and change the policy. Sadly, the labor movement is so small these days that a few dozen dedicated comrades could have a real impact on on the unions.
I hold out no hope for the Socialist Party because young men with infantile “leftist” politics will forever be streaming into membership in larger numbers than the tiny organization can absorb and educate. Suffering from delusions of grandeur of being in “THE” Socialist Party, their ridiculous posturing and aggressive factionalism seems somehow noble to them, but sadly, by the time they burn themselves out enough to stop for a moment and learn, they are replaced by the next wave of political infants. Granted, one could count me in this company. If you were to give me a flux capacitor and send me back to 1996 to meet 17-year-old Shaun Richman, I’d want to punch that kid in the fucking face. C’est la vie.
I choose to start over with an organization that is consciously smaller. I intend to use the American Socialist Foundation, a small non-profit corporation I set up, to hold conversations with comrades I respect and trust about what the hell is the matter with the left and what hope there can possibly be for a small socialist membership organization to do meaningful work. There is, perhaps, enough seed money to start a magazine or hold a conference. If there is enough consensus, perhaps then a new membership organization will result. “American Socialist Federation” has a certain ring to it. As of this writing, I am inclined to favor a soft-cadre structure centered around local clubs, with a weak national committee and a central political document that is ratified every few years in the interest of maintaining consensus and unity, as a model worth exploring. However, political principles are more important than structure, and any organization that I am apart of must speak to issues of race and gender within a class framework, must strive to build a mass party of the people and must be an active part of the mainstream labor movement. These are, after all, the areas in which I have been most disappointed, programatically, in the Socialist Party USA.
Dr. Robin Hood
Dean Robinson’s “Health Politics and Inequality” class has taken some surprising turns. Jill Quadagno’s book, “One Nation, Uninsured” served as an efficient history of how we got the lousy system of health care that we have, so the questions of how and what kinds of alternatives we ca have were neatly dispensed with.
Basically, the “simplest” and fairest universal system would be to simply expand our already existing Medicare system to cover everyone. That would give us the Canadian “single payer” system (which, coincidentally, is also called Medicare). Of course, to fund the program, the government would have to institute a new payroll tax on employers. For employers who already pay around a quarter of an employee’s salary in insurance premiums, this would essentially replace those premiums and would probably lower their costs and improve their market position, as it would serve to “take health care out of competition” by equalizing their equalizing their costs with those of employers that do not currently provide health insurance for employees (and for whom such a payroll tax would be a new and unwelcome development). Business, being business, would likely seek to take the cost of health care off its ledger and dump it on the public in the form of tax income tax increases – which would naturally be controversial. Yes, polls show that Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for more social services. But, the millions of Americans who already receive health care through their employers do not want to pay for what they already have. This would not be a tax increase, as much as it would be a pay cut. The combination of such anti-business tax agendas with the fact that such a “Medicare For All” solution would necessarily be a frontal assault on the rich private insurance industry creates a powerful coalition of capitalist opposition to universal health care that is built in to the problem. This is to say nothing about the potential to energize the religious right over the issue of public financing of reproductive health services. Clearly, it will take a rock-solid coalition of “the good guys” if we have any chance, and the labor movement must take a leading role in forming such a coalition.
Where Dean’s class has taken an interesting turn is the presentation of Ichiro Kawachi’s research of the effects of inequality on health. The research presented in his book, “The Health of Nations: Why Inequality is Harmful to Your Health,” basically finds that the level of inequality in a given society has a direct relationship with average life expectancy, disease rates and infant mortality. Kawachi controls for income levels, access to health care and a host of other factors one might expect to explain these numbers. Holding all other things equal, a person who lives in a country that has a large gap between the rich and the poor is unhealthier than his direct counterpart in a more equitable country. This is the same for rich people as it is for the poor.
You might expect a socialist to love this report, but I find it troubling. The problem is that wealth redistribution is just so…un-American. In my past life as a teenage mutant ninja socialist, going on speaking tours and doing media interviews for the Socialist Party, I’ve always de-emphasized the Robin Hood aspect of socialism. What’s most important to talk about is, first, what we as working people need and deserve: Meaningful work at good pay; decent, affordable housing; health insurance, vacations and pensions. Second is what’s preventing so many of us from having these things: the capitalist system of production for profit and not for need. I’ve always differentiated between private property and personal property. What we want is to publicly own and control the basic companies and industries, not to share your toothbrush and wife. Taking away mansions and yachts from the rich is not crucial to the functioning of the economy, and would not be the first step of a socialist revolution. But I don’t talk about it because Americans don’t like the idea. They want to believe that anyone can “earn” such ostentatious wealth (as if the Waltons and the Hilton’s “earned” their daddies’ money!). But, if Ichiro Kawachi’s research is correct, those ostentatious displays of wealth are terrible for our health. Watching “MTV Cribs” could literally kill you (and the rich idiot with the air-conditioned display room for his hats).
In many ways this is a moralistic argument for socialism, and I hate those. I’m a materialist, and prefer to focus on jobs, peace and freedom. But, Robin Hood was right, and we need more people like him.