A Controversy in the WSP
A man named Lou Fein applied for membership that March. Although in general agreement with WSP principles, he stated a few things differently. He said, for one thing, that when the socialist revolution occurs, it will not be a victory for the working class — because at that point, there
will no longer be a working class, socialism being a classless society. Anne Rab, Secretary of the Local, understood his point: “The revolution,” she agreed, “will be accomplished by a vast majority of socialists, among whom will be capitalists. And if you must picture it as a pitched battle, the opposition will be a minority of dolts, among whom will be workers. It will not be class that divides the ranks, but ideas. Because of the overwhelming numerical strength of the working class, my guess is that they will constitute the majority in both factions.”
A second point on which Fein criticized the party’s Principles was in their insistence that the only way socialism can be achieved is through political action. “It is quite possible,” he said, “that the WSP might be outlawed as a political party in the future. That would mean, by the ordinary definition of the term, that political activity had ceased. So what! The job of the WSP would not change at all; that job being to make socialists. Education for socialism goes on with or without an organization in the form of a political party.”
A third issue had to do with trade unions. On his application for membership, he wrote: “The socialist movement has one function only; to make socialists. If a union provides a suitable place to spread socialism, let’s use it, but I think that a socialist organization should not concern itself with trade unionism, but should concern itself with being hostile to present trade unions as active supporters of capitalism.”
In later discussion, Anne Rab agreed with this and added further, “I see that a trend of capitalism generally is toward better working conditions and higher standards of living. Why? For one thing, capitalist production itself no longer requires the more obvious and ruthless methods once employed so generally; and also, the organization of workers into unions is a factor. I would never deny the important role of the second, but we shouldn’t minimize the first.”
The problem was that many WSP comrades in the Thirties and Forties were active unionists: Ralph Roberts and “Chubi” Kligman were both organizers for the International Ladies’ Garment Workers Union (ILGWU); Frank Marquart worked as Educational Director for different United Auto Workers’ locals; many other comrades were very involved in their unions. Anne was accused by George Gloss, speaking for the NAC, of failing to recognize “that we are a working-class organization ourselves, and that we are part of the working class. This fact, in itself, compels the socialist movement to support the struggles of our fellow workers to the extent that we do.”
During discussion, Lou Fein, Anne Rab, Henry Muse, and many other comrades and strong sympathizers expressed the idea that “the organization of socialists into a political party for the abolition of classes does not represent the interests of the workers as a class. Socialists are united by a common bond of understanding, not class.” A majority of the WSP, however, contended that such statements are non-socialist because the struggle for socialism is primarily a working-class problem. “If we have capitalists in the Party, it is only because they have risen above their class interests and come over to the party of the working class.” Lou Fein’s application was rejected, but the controversy within Boston Local continued for months.
Rab had often made the point that the criteria for membership were simply understanding that capitalism can never operate in the interest of society as a whole, no matter how it is “reformed,” and that socialism represents a viable alternative to capitalism in which the interest of society is identical to that of each individual. However, Rab was out of town for most of the time “the Anne Rab controversy” raged in Boston. There were strong feelings on both sides of the discussion. At one point, Anne blurted, “I agree with Lou Fein, and if you think he shouldn’t be a member, maybe I shouldn’t be either!”
Anne was an official speaker for the Party, and the Secretary of the Local. She thought that her defense of the Fein application would persuade others to change their minds about it. But the strategy backfired, and Anne was dropped from the Party rolls in late June, along with Henry
Muse (who had been the circulation manager of the Western Socialist). Rab — still away on his organizing tour — and Sam Orner, in New Jersey, both sent telegrams to the NAC in Boston, urging that they not take any action rashly — but it was too late.
Throughout her life, Anne consistently defended the case for socialism even though she had been hounded out of the only organization that held to that case. In the course of time, ironically, the Party’s position came to look very much like her analysis of trade unions. As the labor movement in the U.S. slid steadily downhill, newer members of the WSP did not trouble to hide an openly critical attitude towards unions and their politics. By the time that happened, though, Anne Rab had lost
interest in being a member.
