Latest news with #CongressofIndustrialOrganizations
Scoop
19-05-2025
- Business
- Scoop
Trump Is Trying To Reverse The New Deal
After the end of World War II, the U.S. employer class—the capitalists—faced overlapping threats, both domestic and foreign. On the domestic side, a coalition of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), two socialist parties, and a communist party had grown large and powerful during the 1930s Great Depression. Together, they pushed hard and successfully for domestic policies collectively known as the New Deal. These policies included the establishment of the Social Security system, the unemployment compensation system, the nation's first minimum wage, and a federal jobs program that employed millions. Along with several other programs, the New Deal represented a leftward shift of state priorities. For the employer class, worse than those spending shifts were the corresponding changes in federal revenue sources. Sharply raised taxes on (and borrowing from) corporations and the rich funded the New Deal's massive program for the employees. This reallocated the nation's income and wealth from the top to the middle and bottom. As against the dominant trickle-down economic policies that were in place before and soon after it, the New Deal represented an experiment in trickle-up economic policies. Once World War II was over, the employer class wanted nothing more than to undo the New Deal, and to bring back trickle-down polices. A second domestic problem threatened the U.S. economy after 1945: the risk of backsliding into depression. Five years of huge wartime deficit finance finally lifted the U.S. economy out of the 1930s depression. When 1945 put demobilization of troops and redeployment of resources to peacetime production on the agenda, it also provoked fears of a reversion to depression. Leading U.S. politicians and academics, more or less influenced by Keynes's work, looked urgently to government interventions to prevent that. The U.S. employer class also perceived foreign threats. Chief among these was the USSR, the wartime ally of the United States. In service to the U.S. employer class, President Harry S. Truman (1945-1953) transformed perceptions about the USSR from a close wartime ally into a fearsome enemy bent on 'overthrowing the U.S. by force and violence.' Despite having suffered enormous wartime destruction, the USSR was quickly rebranded by U.S. mainstream politicians, media, business, and academic leaders as an extreme danger. Communists and their 'fellow travelers' were notoriously purged by what has ever since been called McCarthyism. Western European leaders also feared and turned against the USSR as Europe's eastern countries became the USSR's postwar socialist allies. These countries also became closer to the USSR as it supported and assisted successful revolutions against an already weakened European colonialism. At the same time, Europe's employer classes acutely feared their domestic communist parties that were by then strongly entrenched in their anti-Nazi resistance movements and organized labor movements. The 1930s depression strengthened them all (as it had in the United States). In Europe, labor movements, communist and socialist parties, and many of their supporters mobilized, trained, equipped, funded, and coordinated several anti-fascist resistances. By 1945, that resistance work led to the immense popularity of these parties and movements. Western European employers in each country feared the economic demands their domestic socialists, communists, and labor unions would make. Those demands would be backed by their workers' domestic political power and gain more support due to the USSR's geopolitical proximity. These conditions in the United States and Western Europe resulted in a shared commitment by their capitalist classes, leading to an alliance, which would embrace U.S. dominance—defined as 'free-world leadership'—in military matters and in mobilizing resources internationally against the USSR (NATO, IMF, and World Bank). The employer class in each of these countries focused their resources, along with those of their governments, to purge communists, socialists, labor militants, and their supporters as thoroughly as conditions allowed. The actions ranged from imprisonment and deportation to loss of jobs, income, and social influence. The alliance's central theme was to declare and wage a Cold War against both the USSR and its 'agents' inside the United States and European countries. The purges inside the United States included the executions of Ethel and Julius Rosenberg as Soviet spies. Those actions also entailed loudly favoring (and secret CIA funding) many of Europe's 'pro-Western' politicians and parties, media outlets, and student groups. The U.S.-European alliance added Canada and Japan to their bloc. The U.S. dollar and its global position lubricated everything this alliance was and did. The central ideological and political problem for the U.S. employer class after 1945 was how to accomplish the undoing of the New Deal and the United States' wartime alliance with the USSR. The solution it found was a well-coordinated, well-funded campaign featuring cohesive arguments articulated by institutions that could saturate global public opinion. Nothing less than a total turnaround in public opinion and policy would rescue U.S. capitalism from what its employer class saw as an existential crisis. There lie certain similarities with what Trump faced when he took office in 2025. In both cases, the employer class felt deeply threatened, especially due to the escalation of the political and economic dangers. Today, that class worries about crippling social divisions and tensions. The deepening inequalities of the distributions of income, wealth, and political influence have caused the promised American dream to be out of reach for the majority, which has angered them. The employer class also fears the deepening indebtedness of its government, its corporate sector, and the majority of households amid the worrisome decline of the nation's geopolitical position. China's growth over recent decades positions it as the first serious global economic competitor of the United States in a century (the USSR was too small an economy to ever achieve this status). Among the many consequences of China's growth, the fading global position of the U.S. dollar ranks high. As in the case of Truman taking power in 1945, Trump's second term is also defined by heavy cumulated pressures prioritizing breaking from dangerous and declining situations. The U.S. employer class's solution in 1945 was to destroy the domestic left and transform the USSR from ally to enemy. Trump's solution for the employer class is similarly to try to destroy the left but to transform Russia from an enemy to an ally. Despite important differences in time and global conditions—the United States left in 1945 was far more radical than it became later and is now—the similarities here are suggestive. In 1945, employers commenced undoing the New Deal. They eventually succeeded, but only partly. They managed an upward redistributive state, but they had to accept the shift to a regulatory state. Today, Trump seeks to complete burying the New Deal legacy by going further and undoing the regulatory state. The class politics of Trump carry forward the actions of his predecessors across the last century. The details, not the goals, vary with the circumstances. The transition from the USSR to Russia facilitated Trump's changed policy stance toward the country. The decline of the United States' organized labor movement over the last 70 years facilitated Trump's electoral appeal to the employee class. On the other hand, China's continuing rise as an economic competitor reinforces the employer class's worries about its status and security. More deeply, what disturbs the U.S. employer class now is the intertwined decline of the U.S. empire and the U.S. capitalism's global position. After 1945, the employer class reasserted its social dominance. It refocused the federal government on the twin tasks of purging supporters of the New Deal from the government, unions, and other social institutions and demonizing and containing the USSR as the evil global enemy. Anti-communism became the main ideological weapon to achieve this. The purge demanded that all those who supported the deal not only denounce communism but also show sympathy to such dogmas as 'state interference in the economy' is inefficient, wasteful, and inferior to what private 'free' enterprises could and would achieve. Communists, socialists, unionists, liberals, Democrats, and others associated with the New Deal got purged as believers in bureaucracy, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. At best, they were seen as agents of Moscow's crusades against democracy and individual liberty. Putting domestic communists first among its targets let the employer class link the domestic purge quickly and seamlessly with the Cold War struggles against the USSR. These actions against communists at home while waging the Cold War abroad aimed to defeat two evils at the same time. Over the last 80 years, the employer class, directly and through its power over governments, undertook a massive program of ideological change. It made the struggle between more versus less government intervention in the 'private enterprise economy' and 'the free market' an important issue in economics and public policy. Professional economists debated between Keynesianism and neoclassicism. Moderate politicians rallied around slogans that defined the struggle as being between 'meeting people's needs' versus suffering a 'authoritarian bureaucracy.' Extremist politicians called the state evil (often using communist, socialist, liberal, Democrat, and even terrorist as synonyms). The global 'free market' established after 1945 enabled the United States, which became dominant after the wartime destruction of all potential economic rivals (Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Russia, and Italy), to sustain that position through NATO on the one hand and demonizing the USSR on the other. Fighting communism abroad justified sustaining that dominance. Fighting communism at home justified destroying the New Deal coalition and thereby undoing the policy. Cold War leaders in the United States, representing both major political parties, carried out these policies consistently. The Heritage Foundation's 2025 report updates and expands them into a plan that Trump's regime is largely following. That plan targets what little remains of the New Deal: removing 'regulatory' state apparatuses. Trump's regime also accepts implicitly what it denies explicitly: that the U.S. empire and U.S. capitalism are in decline. Tariffs are the magic bullet to reverse all that and fast. Above all, they are implemented with the hope that they will return manufacturing to the United States. (This was promised by each of the presidents this century, but none of them delivered on it.) The tariffs might, at best, slow the decline, but their political, economic, and ideological costs and the retaliations by many nations will make the magic bullet fail. Much the same happened to many empires earlier that failed to stop their decline with their magic bullets. Tariffs will likely function much like the proposal of 'taking back' the Panama Canal or Greenland and loudly squeezing symbolic gains from Canada and Mexico. These plans are aggressive disguises and over-advertised offsets for the painful reality of the declining empire and economy. It is worth remembering that in all empires, when their rise inevitably turns into decline, those who accumulated the greatest wealth and power use these resources to retain their position. They thereby offload the costs of decline onto the middle and lower classes. The latter suffer more and face the consequences first. Trump's first budget proposals starkly exhibit this offloading. For most empires, such offloading proves socially divisive and ends very badly. Recent national election results in Canada and Australia suggest that those classes are beginning to grasp the Trump regime's larger goals and have voted against politicians seen to be insufficiently opposed to them. Some polls in the United States point in similar directions. Europe's leaders are worried too. Most of them have been long and deeply complicit with the United States' goals and methods. Voters may punish them for failure to resist the repeated anti-European policies and attitudes flowing from the Trump regime. European leaders risk voters finding them guilty by association. So many break away from Trump by exaggerating support for Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine and demonizing Russia. The roots of resistance expand and deepen. Author Bio: Richard D. Wolff is professor of economics emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, and a visiting professor in the Graduate Program in International Affairs of the New School University, in New York. Wolff's weekly show, 'Economic Update,' is syndicated by more than 100 radio stations and goes to millions via several TV networks and YouTube. His most recent book with Democracy at Work is Understanding Capitalism (2024), which responds to requests from readers of his earlier books: Understanding Socialism and Understanding Marxism.
Boston Globe
05-04-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Thousands protest Trump administration, Elon Musk in Boston
Related : 'It's time for everybody to get up from the kitchen table and say 'Hands off,'' she said. 'Hands off our government, hands off our constitution.' Advertisement Demonstrators waved signs and chanted during 'Hands Off,' an anti-Trump/Musk rally. Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff A growing momentum of anti-Trump and anti-Musk sentiment spurred Saturday's protest, making Boston's turnout the largest in the city since Trump's inauguration in January. Unlike Trump's first term when public outcry hit a fever pitch, protests this time around have been fewer, smaller, and calmer — until recently. On Saturday, over 10,000 people, amid American, Ukrainian, and trans pride flags, flowed from Boston Common to City Hall Plaza. The sound of drums echoed through the air. Despite chilly April temperatures, more than 10,000 people attended the rally with many coming from places outside the city. They flocked from Framingham, Franklin, Gloucester, Plymouth, and beyond, with homemade signs and umbrellas, prepared for a rainy afternoon. Advertisement Asked what brought her out, Laurie Irwin shouted, 'Outrage.' 'Who is going to work if everybody is fired from the government?' Irwin asked. Related : The attendees were students and teachers, union leaders and laborers, first-time protesters and veteran marchers. At least one person was costumed as George Washington, another was recovering from recent knee surgery. They brought their youngsters in backpacks and strollers. Some brought their pets. 'Tax the rich,' they chanted. Reminiscent of the protest era of the 1960s, the sound of musicians strumming the folk anthem, 'This Land Is Your Land,' wafted through the air. Dave Creme and Courtney Hachey, of Waltham, came with their two children ― Rory, 9 and Teagan, 7. Creme held Teagan on his shoulders, who held a sign that said, 'Fund our schools so I can learn.' Teagan had made the sign at home. Demonstrators gathered at Market Square in Portsmouth, N.H., on Saturday. Steven Porter 'There is so much going on that you can feel helpless,' said Hachey, who works with children with autism. 'It was also an opportunity for my children to learn to speak not just for themselves, but for others.' Labor organizations turned out in force. Leaders from the Massachusetts American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and American Federation of Teachers Massachusetts took the stage. 'I'm here to say an immigrant is not the one taking jobs from people, a billionaire is,' said Chrissy Lynch, president of Massachusetts AFL-CIO. Beth Lev, an organizer for the Massachusetts 'Hands Off' rally, said this was one of thousands of demonstrations happening in all 50 states and six countries, Canada, Mexico, England, France, Germany, and Portugal. Saturday was predicted to be the largest single day of protest since Trump took office. The biggest rally was expected to happen on Washington's National Mall. Trump was not scheduled in the nation's capitol but rather at his Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. Advertisement Massachusetts Senator Edward J. Markey joined in the march down Tremont Street. 'I believe it's the people who lead, it's the people who tell Washington what's [happening],' the senator said. At City Hall Plaza, Markey was the first of several official speakers. The finale, an acoustic set from Boston's beloved Irish punk band, the Dropkick Murphy's, came amid a downpour. Ken Casey and Dropkick Murphys energized demonstrators during 'Hands Off,' an anti-Trump/Musk, rally at City Hall Plaza. Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff Markey was greeted with energetic applause, whistles and chants of 'Markey!' 'This is the energy we need and Boston is going to ignite that energy across the nation,' Markey said. 'We aren't going to take it anymore.' Markey also urged the crowd to come together to accomplish three essential things: block Trump in the courts, get out and vote, and ' stand up like Senator Cory Booker.' Boston Mayor Michelle Wu was emphatic in her denunciation of the Trump administration. She led the crowd in a 'Hands off Boston' chant. 'This is about the world we want our children to grow up in,' Wu said. 'This is our city and you will never break us.' Boston mayoral hopeful Josh Kraft also joined the downtown march. 'I'm out here with all these people standing up to Donald Trump, the Trump administration, Elon Musk, DOGE,' Kraft told the Globe. In Providence, about 8,000 people marched from Hope High School to Kennedy Plaza in downtown. Wearing a hot pink pussy hat, Joyce Ward, denounced a proposed $510 million in funding cuts to Brown University as 'ill-advised' and 'retribution.' Related : 'He's saying he's going after these colleges because of antisemitism. It's not true. It's just more gangster government,' said Ward, 71, of Providence. Advertisement Rhode Island state Representative Karen Alzate, who 'The economy is for us. And we're here to tell this administration that you will not continue to tax our money to use it for your game,' Alzate said. 'You will not continue to deport my family, my friends, my neighbors.' In Portsmouth, N.H., Paul L. Gilbert protested outside of a Tesla dealership showroom. His handheld sign said, 'I didn't vote for Musk!' 'Only Congress can dictate where funds are spent and not spent, and he's overridden that,' Gilbert said, as passing motorists on US Route 1 honked their horns in support. 'It's just frustrating that the Republicans don't seem to be challenging that.' Undeterred by rain in Concord, N.H., Heidi Preuss, a 64-year-old retiree, brought her 8-year-old Great Dane, Leila, along for the protest. Both sported homemade signs. Preuss said she's stressed out about the current state of the nation, from drops in the stock market to Trump's immigration policies. 'Disappearing people off the street is just insane,' she said. 'It is absolutely the most un-American thing. It's the things that make us American that are being attacked.' Retired veteran and first-time protester, Ken Cowan, of Wilmot, N.H., said, 'I didn't fight for our country for this.' Cowan, 67, called Trump's presidency 'a coup in progress.' 'I think if we can all stand up and voice our opinions, he can't take over this country,' Cowan added. Advertisement Tonya Alanez can be reached at
