Goldman Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. IV No. 30, 27 July 1940, p. 4.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghanfor ETOL.
In attempting to explain the miserable debacle of the French army the reactionary press in America points to the People’s Front regime under Blum as the factor mainly responsible. Over and over again the editorials of that press attempt to show that the decrease of production during the period of the Blum regime placed France at a tremendous disadvantage in comparison with Germany as far as the production of armaments is concerned.
The increase in wages and the reduction in the number of hours of work under the Peoples Front, are, according to the capitalist press, the main factors that led to the defeat of the French army.
Naturally the capitalists and their apologists have a definite purpose in mind in their insistence that responsibility for the defeat of France be placed at the door of the Peoples Front regime. If the social gains acquired by the French workers during that regime are responsible for the defeat, then it follows that the American workers should be willing in this moment of danger to American capitalism to surrender whatever social gains they have made recently.
The Wagner Act, the Wages and Hours Law, the Walsh-Healy act must be wiped off the statute books or at least modified to an extent that they will not interfere with national defense. Higher wages and shorter hours will lead the working class right into the clutches of Hitler. So runs the refrain of those who begrudge the slightest gain made by the working class.
Quite in keeping with the patriotism of the employing class there has, as yet, not appeared any demand for capital to sacrifice or even to limit its profits. On the contrary the writing, into one of the acts of Congress, of a provision for the limitation of profits to a bare eight percent was the signal for strenuous objections on the ground that such a limitation would injure the cause of national defense. How? Because it would take away the incentive for the owners of industry to produce the maximum possible.
But why should a reduction in wages not take away the incentive of the workers to produce? That’s different. The workers’ incentive must be patriotism and if that is not sufficient, hunger is also an incentive and a little (or a lot) of force can be exerted as an additional incentive. One standard for the capitalists and another for the working class is perfectly logical for a government representing the interests of the capitalist class.
It is quite true that the Popular Front of the Socialists, Communists and Radical Socialists (just plain libels, representing the big capitalists) is responsible for the plight of the French workers at the present moment. Not because it made concessions to the workers by raising wages and shortening hours; but because it acted as a brake upon the movement of the masses towards taking over complete power in France.
When in 1936 the French workers seized the factories it was as clear as daylight that the social revolution was on the order of the day. The workers were ready, willing and anxious to go ahead and complete the job of doing away with the rule of the 200 families. With any kind of leadership an almost bloodless revolution could have been consummated.
This was not to be however. The Socialist party tied as it was to the capitalist order, was unwilling and unable to lead. The Communist party tied to the foreign policy of Stalin (who at that time looked to the democratic imperialists for salvation against Hitler), could not possibly furnish the necessary leadership. And ’both of these parties were united with the Radical Socialists openly devoted to the interests of the capitalist class. That party was led by Daladier who later took the initiative in smashing the Communist party.
The capitalists at that time were more than willing to sign the Matignon agreement granting the 40 hour week and a raise in wages. They were more than willing to lose a little in order to consolidate their forces for the inevitable counter attack.
Knaves and fools pointed to the “victory” of the workers as evidence that the Popular Front could stop fascism.
But the counter attack was not long in coming. Under the leadership of Daladier, the darling of the Popular Frontists, the gains were all taken away. The reactionary forces became bolder and ever bolder. The war and the defeat enabled them to take complete control.
What a different story we would have if the French workers had not followed the leadership of the Popular Front. A workers’ revolution in France would have meant a workers’ revolution in Spain followed inevitably by a revolutionary movement of the German workers. The policies of the Popular Front enabled France to gain power in Spain and enabled Hitler to conquer France.
Both from the point of view of the capitalists and of the working class the Popular Front bears the main responsibility for the victory of Hitler. From the point of view of the capitalists it meant the necessity of operating under the disadvantage of a 40 hour week as compared with the sixty hour week of the German workers. Production undoubtedly was interfered with from the capitalist point of view.
The American capitalists are heeding that lesson. They want to fight Hitler with his methods.
The American workers must also learn the lesson of France. For us the Popular Front is to blame not because it gained concessions but because it used those concessions as a means to stop the further advance of the workers. The Popular Front was the first step in saving capitalism and the victory of fascism was the second step.
The lesson for the American workers is clear: Get all the concessions you can but do not stop there. Go on to complete victory by organizing a workers’ government.
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 23 May 2020