Huey P. Long [Archive]

Rousedruminations

17th September 2010, 10:14

A short description of Huey P. Long

Huey Pierce Long, Jr. (August 30, 1893 – September 10, 1935), nicknamed The Kingfish, served as the 40th Governor of Louisiana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Louisiana) from 1928–1932 and as a U.S. Senator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate) from 1932 to 1935. A Democrat, he was noted for his radical populist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism) policies. Though a backer of Franklin D. Roosevelt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt) in the 1932 presidential election, Long split with Roosevelt in June 1933 and allegedly planned to mount his own presidential bid for 1936.
Long created the Share Our Wealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Share_Our_Wealth) program in 1934 with the motto "Every Man a King (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Every_Man_a_King)", proposing new wealth redistribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_redistribution) measures in the form of a net asset tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_tax) on corporations and individuals to curb the poverty and hopelessness endemic nationwide during the Great Depression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Depression_in_the_United_States). To stimulate the economy, Long advocated federal spending on public works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_works), schools and colleges, and old age pensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_age_pensions). He was an ardent critic of the Federal Reserve System (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve_System)'s policies. Charismatic and immensely popular for his programs and willingness to take forceful action, Long was accused by his opponents of dictatorial tendencies for his near-total control of the state government.
At the height of his popularity, Long was shot on September 8, 1935, at the Louisiana State Capitol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_State_Capitol) in Baton Rouge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baton_Rouge,_Louisiana). He died two days later at the age of 42. His last words were reportedly, "God, don't let me die, I have so much left to do."[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long#cite_note-0)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huey_Long

Huey P Long "Share the Wealth"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMi7fBA6e4( there are more videos of him on youtube -self navigate if necessary)

Kingfish A Story of Huey P. Long HBO 1995

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJwUf7acxA8 --> Part 1 of 10.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmCgPPbSPxY&feature=related ---> Part 5 of 10 ( I like this one ! )

Your thoughts, views and opinions on him !

thanks.

Red Commissar

20th September 2010, 03:14

The reason why Huey Long came about is the failure of a true left movement to organize and maintain influence in the United States. SPA was hurt by the Palmer Raids/Red Scare and the divisions that came about during and after WW I, and CPUSA by similar issues. Or even a social-democratic type movement to come about with political power as Europe had.

Huey Long made a campaign that appealed to the vast segments of the US population that were not in the small upper strata of the ruling class. He was though opposed to socialism and felt it ran contrary to America's principles.

Some tended to look on him with some hope, particularly those who were disillusioned with how the New Deal didn't go far enough, but Huey Long also got support from fascist types like Father Coughlin and Gerald L.K. Smith. Just displays how the sort of populism that Huey Long was a part of could court favor from anyone.

Huey Long's threat to the Democrats was more that he was a danger of cutting in to their base in the South and impacting election results, which would spell problems in passing their legislation.

Some entries on Marxists.org which concern Huey Long-

http://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/swabeck/1935/05/coughlong.htm

Revolutionists also face the necessity of turning their attention in all seriousness to Long and Coughlin. We cannot be concerned merely with their personal attributes and their demagoguery. More than that is needed, for they represent a specific phenomenon of the epoch of capitalist decline and decay. They have become originators of movements of a specific kind, corresponding tothe conditions created by the appearance of certain elements of capitalist decay in the United States. What is the role of these movements represented by Long and Coughlin? What constitutes their class basis? In which direction are they headed? Do they represent Leftward movements – that is, Leftward of the traditional capitalist parties – or are they Fascist movements, actual or potential? These are some of the most important questions that will have to be answered. It is quite possible to speak of both the Share-the-Wealth Clubs of Huey Long and the National Union for Social Justice of Father Coughlin in similar terms because in so far as their role, their class basis and their general direction are concerned, they have much in common. However, both are today still in the making and it is hardly possible to make a final analysis regarding their prospects and perspectives. It is therefore necessary at the present time to limit ourselves to a preliminary examination of their general background, their main trend and more particularly of the historical setting out of which they have emerged.

It would be false to set out with a preconceived notion that for reasons of certain similarity in demagoguery with the early Nazi movement, or for reasons of the distinct pro-capitalist and anti-revolutionary utterances of both Long and Coughlin, or because of their large middle class following, that they are Fascists or their organizations the beginnings of a Fascist movement in the United States. To the ruling bourgeoisie they unquestionably appear as dangerous radicals. It may be assumed with equal certainty that their present large radio following sees in them a hope of a radical remedying of what they call the social injustices and the economic maladjustments. And it is well to remember that the class struggle does create “circumstances and relationships that enable a grotesque mediocrity to strut about in a hero’s garb”. Under special distress the quack appears as the healer for the; despairing. Economic distress helps to provide an audience also for the political quack.

...

Huey Long’s program can be summed up in his proclamations for the redistribution of wealth. He proposes to reduce the big fortunes by a capital levy tax to a point where no one person may own more than from three to four million dollars and have a yearly income of not more than one million dollars. The surplus is to be distributed so that every family may have at least $5,000. From his paper calculations he already sees $165,000,000,000 available to be thus distributed with something to spare for a college education for all youth, for old age pensions, for reduction of the hours of labor to do away with unemployment and to guarantee a minimum yearly earning of $5,000 per family. The agricultural problem he proposes to take care of in the manner specified by the Bible. It is all very grandiose.

Father Coughlin is more careful in his paper calculations of wealth. He distinguishes between money in its accepted currency form and pen-and-ink-plus-check-book money. Among the planks in his platform he emphasizes: Liberty of conscience and liberty of education; a just and living wage for all citizens willing and able to work – whatever that means. He proposes nationalization – that is, government ownership – of banking, credit and currency, power, light, oil and natural gas and the “God-given” natural resources. He stands for: Private ownership of all other property, in the sense of “upholding the right to private property, yet controlling it for the public good”. Abolition of tax-exempt bonds, broadening of the base of taxation founded upon the ownership of wealth and the capacity to pay, together with alleviation of taxation. He asserts the rights of labor to organize in unions and insists it is the duty of the government to protect these organizations against the vested interests of wealth. In his radio addresses he adds that strikes and lockouts are absolutely unnecessary, which would strongly suggest that by his demand for government “protection” of unions, he means an actual form of state control, including compulsory arbitration. His program is quite vague and contradictory but this allows him to play on feelings and emotions and to appeal to all classes. It is particularly noteworthy that this self-styled champion of the common people maintains intimate contacts with Wall Street bankers in the promotion of inflationary schemes under the innocuous title of monetary reforms which have already netted him handsome profits in margin speculations in silver. But his bourgeois patriotism cannot be questioned. He broadcasts: “Let us build ten thousand airplanes to guard our coasts ... to keep America safe for Americans.”

“I believe in capitalism,” exclaims Huey Long, “but you cannot stimulate it unless there is buying power. You’ve got to have a foundation under the house and that is a more even distribution of wealth.” Yes, there could hardly be any doubt as to where the Louisiana Kingfish stands politically. He knows the power of the catch-phrase: “Share-the-Wealth”; but when he began in his own state and imposed a five cent a gallon tax on gasoline, there followed some conferences between Long and President Hilton of Louisiana Standard Oil and after that the Legislature was summoned in a special session and rebated four to the five cents. On the other hand, in his own state, where he rules supreme, he has made no move to ratify the child labor amendment, or to enact old age pensions, or minimum wages, or unemployment insurance. Thus the demand to “Share-the-Wealth” is not meant to include everybody. Moreover, from his labor record the following facts stand out. The courts and the civil authorities of his state were used to break the strike of the longshoremen and to defeat the efforts of the textile workers’ union to end conditions of virtual peonage in the Lane Cotton Mills. Huey Long is a staunch supporter of Governor Talmadge of Georgia who declared martial law during the national textile strike and put the strikers wholesale into concentration camps.

With the world war American capitalism extended its economic structure to a world-wide base and became an integral part of the system of world capitalism. But its highly advanced technological development and the enormous overproduction of capital in the means of production serving for the exploitation of labor, subordinated it more directly to the destructive influence of the decay of the world capitalist system. The crisis struck here with greater swiftness and force and became more deep-going than elsewhere And yet, while European countries have experienced revolutionary situations and Fascism, in the United States we have moved on a “normal” plane toward greater state intervention to strengthen monopoly capital. In the make-up of the large mass of the population there is no lack of ready material for explosive actions or dynamic mass movements. We need remind ourselves in this respect on the one hand only of the various essentially middle class and reactionary lynch mobs and vigilante bands. On the other hand we have seen the American working class, not yet conscious of its class role, but displaying in brilliant fashion its rebellious calibre and militant qualities in powerful strikes. But the actually revolutionary forces still lack development. We do not even have a mass social reform movement of the kind known in Europe for decades. Is it likely that such a movement in its specific social democratic form will become a decisive factor in the United States ? Hardly. The accelerated contradictions of capitalism and the swiftly developing class antagonisms unfolding in a condition of retarded consciousness are much more likely to produce a special American phenomena of hybrid social reform movements. In the United States the capitalist equilibrium is not upset but it has been shaken by the crisis and the contradictions of the present economic reorganization. Elements of capitalist decay have produced their special American conditions and the movements holding out various illusory panaceas are thrust forward and thrive on the existing uncertainty and social insecurity. It seems that the Huey Long and Father Coughlin movements are destined to become the most important phenomena of this kind. Both of these representatives are playing with the idea of a third party formation – a third capitalist party with a perverted social reform program. Both appear to be its loudest and most spectacular spokesmen.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1977/inflation/ch06.htm

The sudden changes in welfare policy led to serious flare-ups among the unemployed and to attempts, with the aid of the left-wing political organizations, to form a nationally coordinated movement that could act as a pressure group in Congress and influence events in the interests of the unemployed. But their lobbying activities were of little avail. More disturbing in the eyes of Roosevelt and the “progressive” wing of the Democratic Party was the spreading of competitive “fascist” tendencies, as exemplified by the rise and growing power of Huey Long in Louisiana, who took some of the wind out of Roosevelt’s sails by a more consistent demagoguery, which did not hesitate to promise a thorough distribution of wealth that would make “every man a king.” All kinds of schemes for resolving the economic crisis were advanced, such as the so-called Townsend Plan, or Old-Age Pension Program, and Upton Sinclair’s “End Poverty in California” plan, which was to give the workers some access to the means of production and distribute the wealth more evenly. These movements intensified a divisive ideological split within the Democratic Party and drove its “conservative” wing to the Republicans in opposition to the New Deal. To keep the party intact and to retain its leadership, Roosevelt tried to balance the contrary interests by means of comprmises, which either advanced or retarded the New Deal. The frictions in the Democratic Party reflected those within the nation as a whole and explain the increasingly visible partisanship as well as opposition with respect to the New Deal measures.