The Daily Worker

The Daily Worker

In the 1929 General Election the Labour Party obtained 8,370,417 votes and won 287 seats, enabling Ramsay MacDonald to form a minority government. The Communist Party of Great Britain only received 47,544 votes and its membership had fallen to 3,500. It seemed to have lost the fight to gain the support of the British working-class. Harry Pollitt, the general secretary, realised the CPGB had serious problems and he admitted that "the transmission belts were turning no wheels" and that "the bridge to the masses has become only the same faithful few going over in every case". (1)

Pollitt recruited Tom Wintringham to help establish a new CPGB newspaper. Wintringham found premises at 41 Tabernacle Street, London EC2. On 1st January 1930, launched The Daily Worker. Wintringham later commented: "So we got it out on time with antiquated machinery, makeshift organisation, candles lighting the grim warehouse that was our office, the newspaper trains closed to us." (2)

William Rust became the first editor of the newspaper. Rust was described by a colleague at this time as "round and pink and cold as ice." Another friend said that he rarely saw him smile. His biographer, Kevin Morgan, pointed out that he was chosen because it was claimed that "even among his fellow communists for his quite exceptional devotion to Moscow." (3)

Rust made it clear from the beginning that the newspaper was going to be an organ of agitation. "There was little news in the Daily Worker in the early days, unless you wanted to read very politically slanted articles about unemployment, strikes and the Soviet Union, or absurd sectarian propaganda". (4) Lenin was quoted in the first edition as saying: "without a political organ, a movement deserving to be called a political movement is impossible in modern Europe." (5)

On 25th January 1930, Rajani Palme Dutt, wrote an article in the newspaper condemning the inclusion of sports news: "Capitalist sport is subordinate to bourgeois politics, run under bourgeois patronage and breathing the spirit of patriotism and class unity; and often of militarism, fascism and strike breaking. Sport is a hotbed of propaganda and recruiting for the enemy. Spectator sports (horse racing and football) are profit run professional spectacles thick with corruption. They are dope; to distract the workers from the bad conditions of their lives, to stop thinking, to make passive wage slaves. You cannot reconcile revolutionary politics with capitalist sport!" (6)

It was decided to stop covering sport. This was unpopular and Wintringham later recalled: "I had to pay printers with I.O.U.s, stave off landlord and business, keep the paper going in spite of a mountain of debts for paper and machinery." After only a few weeks the circulation had dropped from 45,000 to 39,000 and the newspaper was losing £500 a week. Pollitt wrote to John Ross Campbell in Moscow and told him about "a financial problem that I do not know how to face". Eventually it was arranged for the Soviet Union to fund the venture. However, "Pollitt knew that the money he got to run the Daily Worker depended on Moscow's approval of its contents." (7)

Claud Cockburn was an investigative journalist who published his work in The Week. Cockburn was persuaded to contribute to the Daily Worker(using the name Frank Pitcairn). As he explained in his autobiography, In Time of Trouble (1957): "It was at about this time (September 1934) that Mr Pollitt, Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, whom I had never met, was suddenly announced on the telephone - would I, he asked, take the next train, in twenty minutes or half an hour, and report a mine disaster at Gresford, North Wales. Why? Because he had a feeling that there was a lot more in it than met the eye. But why I in particular? Well, because, it seemed, Mr Pollitt - who was worrying at the time about what he believed to be a lack of' reader appeal' in the Daily Worker - had been reading The Week and thought I might do a good job." (8)

Harry Pollitt, the General Secretary of the Communist Party of Great Britain, asked him to cover the Spanish Civil War for the Daily Worker. When he arrived in Spain he joined the Fifth Regiment so that he could report the war as an ordinary soldier. While in Spain he published Reporter in Spain. Cockburn was attacked by George Orwell in his book Homage to Catalonia. In the book he accused Cockburn of being under the control of the Communist Party of Great Britain. Orwell was particularly critical of the way Cockburn reported the May Riots in Barcelona. (9)

In 1935 Idris Cox became editor of the newspaper. The hardline Rajani Palme Dutt, replaced him a year later. John Ross Campbell was the foreign correspondent of the Daily Worker in the Soviet Union and became a loyal supporter of Joseph Stalin in his attempts to purge the followers of Leon Trotsky. As Campbell was the CPGB representative in the Soviet Union, it is unlikely that he was unaware of what was really going on. (10) Along with Palme Dutt and Denis Nowell Pritt, Campbell were "enthusiastic apologists for the Moscow frame-up trials". (11)

In 1936, Victor Gollancz, formed the Left Book Club. It had over 45,000 and 730 local discussion groups, and it estimated that these were attended by an average total of 12,000 people every fortnight. The Left Book Club published several books written by members of the Communist Party of Great Britain. This included the defence of the Soviet Show Trials. This included the "suppression of some of his (Gollancz) most fundamental instincts and cherished beliefs" and included his "ready acceptance of Stalinist propaganda concerning the Moscow trials, despite the disquiet widely evident among socialists". (12)

Gollancz was vice-president of the National Committee for the Abolition of the Death Penalty but he agreed to Pollitt's suggestion that he published a defence of the prosecution and execution of former members of the Soviet government. Dudley Collard was approached to write a book on the legality of the Soviet Show Trials. The book was entitled Soviet Justice and the Trial of Radek and Others. (13)

An article by John Ross Campbell in the Daily Worker on 5th March 1938: "Every weak, corrupt or ambitious enemy of socialism within the Soviet Union has been hired to do dirty, evil work. In the forefront of all the wrecking, sabotage and assassination is Fascist agent Trotsky. But the defences of the Soviet Union are strong. The nest of wreckers and spies has been exposed before the world and brought before the judgement of the Soviet Court. We know that Soviet justice will be fearlessly administered to those who have been guilty of unspeakable crimes against Soviet people. We express full confidence in our Brother Party." (14)

Dave Springhall replaced Rajani Palme Dutt as editor of the Daily Worker in 1938. Springhall was not an experienced journalist and John Ross Campbell became editor in 1939. Later that year the Left Book Club published Campbell's Soviet Policy and its Critics, in defence of the Great Purge in the Soviet Union. He agreed with Dudley Collard that the main issue between Trotsky and Stalin was over the issue of "socialism in one country". He quoted Stalin as saying: "Our Soviet society has already, in the main, succeeded in achieving Socialism... It has created a socialist system; i.e., it has brought about what Marxists in other words call the first, or lower phase of Communism. Hence, in the main, we have already achieved the first phase of Communism, Socialism." (15)

It was later argued that Campbell had good reason to be uncritical of the Soviet government. He married Sarah Marie Carlin in 1920. He acted as father to five children from a previous marriage. Sarah encouraged her oldest son, William, to go to the Soviet Union and help build socialism. According to Francis Beckett, the author of Stalin's British Victims (2004), "with his stepson as a sort of hostage in the Soviet Union" he was not in a position to tell the truth of the way that loyal Bolsheviks were being persecuted. (16)

The rise of fascism in Germany and Italy increased support for the Communist Party and after the signing of the Munich Agreement, membership reached 15,570. Members included Mary Valentine Ackland, Felicia Browne, Christopher Caudwell, James Friell, Claude Cockburn, John Cornford, Patience Darton, Len Crome, Ralph Fox, Nan Green, Charlotte Haldane, John Haldane, Christopher Hill, Rodney Hilton, Eric Hobsbawn, Lou Kenton, David Marshall, Jessica Mitford, A. L. Morton, Esmond Romilly, George Rudé, Raphael Samuel, Alfred Sherman, Thora Silverthorne and E. P. Thompson.

On 23rd August, 1939, Joseph Stalin signed the Soviet-Nazi Pact with Adolf Hitler. However, long-time loyalist, John Ross Campbell, felt he could no longer support this policy. "We started by saying we had an interest in the defeat of the Nazis, we must now recognise that our prime interest in the defeat of France and Great Britain... We have to eat everything we have said." Other leaders of the CPGB agreed with Campbell a statement was issued that "declared its support of all measures necessary to secure the victory of democracy over fascism". (17)

On the outbreak of the Second World War, the General Secretary of the CPGB, Harry Pollitt, published a 32-page pamphlet, How to Win the War (1939): "The Communist Party supports the war, believing it to be a just war. To stand aside from this conflict, to contribute only revolutionary-sounding phrases while the fascist beasts ride roughshod over Europe, would be a betrayal of everything our forebears have fought to achieve in the course of long years of struggle against capitalism.... The prosecution of this war necessitates a struggle on two fronts. First to secure the military victory over fascism, and second, to achieve this, the political victory over the enemies of democracy in Britain." (18)

On 24th September, Dave Springhall, a CPGB member who had been working in Moscow, returned with the information that the Communist International characterised the war as an "out and out imperialist war to which the working class in no country could give any support". He added that "Germany aimed at European and world domination. Britain at preserving her imperialist interests and European domination against her chief rival, Germany." (19)

At a meeting of the Central Committee on 2nd October 1939, Rajani Palme Dutt demanded "acceptance of the (new Soviet line) by the members of the Central Committee on the basis of conviction". He added: "Every responsible position in the Party must be occupied by a determined fighter for the line." Bob Stewart disagreed and mocked "these sledgehammer demands for whole-hearted convictions and solid and hardened, tempered Bolshevism and all this bloody kind of stuff."

William Gallacher agreed with Stewart: "I have never... at this Central Committee listened to a more unscrupulous and opportunist speech than has been made by Comrade Dutt... and I have never had in all my experience in the Party such evidence of mean, despicable disloyalty to comrades." Harry Pollitt joined in the attack: "Please remember, Comrade Dutt, you won't intimidate me by that language. I was in the movement practically before you were born, and will be in the revolutionary movement a long time after some of you are forgotten."

Harry Pollitt then made a passionate speech about his unwillingness to change his views on the invasion of Poland: "I believe in the long run it will do this Party very great harm... I don't envy the comrades who can so lightly in the space of a week... go from one political conviction to another... I am ashamed of the lack of feeling, the lack of response that this struggle of the Polish people has aroused in our leadership." (20)

However, when the vote was taken, only John Ross Campbell, Harry Pollitt, and William Gallacher voted against. Pollitt was forced to resign as General Secretary and he was replaced by Rajani Palme Dutt and William Rust took over Campbell's job as editor of the Daily Worker. Pollitt, then agreed to disguise this conflict and issued a statement saying it was "nonsense and wishful thinking the attempts in the press to create the impression of a crisis in the Party". (21)

Over the next few weeks the newspaper demanded that Neville Chamberlain respond to Hitler's peace overtures. Palme Dutt also published a new pamphlet, Why This War? explaining the new policy of the CPGB. Campbell and Pollitt were both removed from the Politburo. (22) Campbell also "subsequently rationalized the Comintern's position and publicly confessed to error in having opposed it." (23) Douglas Hyde claims that Palme Dutt was clearly the "most powerful man in the Party". (24)

On 22nd June 1941 Germany invaded the Soviet Union. That night Winston Churchill said: "We shall give whatever help we can to Russia." The CPGB immediately announced full support for the war and brought back Harry Pollitt as general secretary. As Jim Higgins has pointed out Palme Dutt's attitude towards the war was "immediately transformed into an anti-fascist crusade." (25)

In the early stages of the Second World War, the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, banned the Daily Worker. Following the German army's invasion of the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa, in June 1941, a campaign supported by Professor John Haldane and Hewlett Johnson, the Dean of Canterbury, began to allow the newspaper to be published. On 26th May 1942, after a heated debate, the Labour Party carried a resolution declaring the Government must lift the ban on the newspaper. The ban was lifted in August 1942. (26)

As Francis Beckett has pointed out: "Suddenly the Communist Party was popular and respectable, because Stalin's Russia was popular and respectable, and because at a time of war, Communists were able to wave the Union Jack with the best of them. Party leaders appeared on platforms with the great and the good. Membership soared: from 15,570 in 1938 to 56,000 in 1942." (27)

Officially, William Rust, the editor of The Daily Worker, remained in charge, however, Douglas Hyde, the news editor, later recalled: "We would sit in a room, just half a dozen of us, and talk about the political issues of the day." However, it was Rajani Palme Dutt who decided on the newspaper's policy. "When we had all had our say, Dutt would drape his arm over the arm of his chair - he had the longest arms I have ever seen - bang his pipe out on the sole of his shoe, and sum up. Often the summing up was entirely different from the conclusions we were all reaching, but no one ever argued." (28)

Rust attempted to turn the Daily Worker into a popular mass paper. According to Francis Beckett: "He was a fine editor: a cynical boss who thumped the table in his furious rages, he nonetheless inspired journalists' best work. A tall and by now heavily built man, Rust was one of the Party's most able people, and one of the least likeable." Sales of the newspaper reached 120,000 in 1948. (29)

Alison Macleod worked for the newspaper after the war. In her book, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997), she claimed that in private John Ross Campbell, the assistant editor, was highly critical of the actions of Joseph Stalin. He agreed with Tito in his dispute in June 1948 but in his articles he "refused to say that the Soviet Government was right, stopped short of making any public protest". Campbell argued that if you "were serious about wanting Socialism or you weren't. If you were serious, you couldn't attack the one country which had achieved it." (30)

William Rust, aged 46, died of a massive heart-attack on 3rd February 1949. John Ross Campbell once again became the editor of the Daily Worker. (31) According to one source he was an excellent journalist: "Johnny Campbell, who took over as editor after Rust's death in 1949, was in the great Scottish Communist tradition of worker intellectuals, a man". (32)

Campbell was liked and respected by his staff. One of his young sub-editors wrote: "Since then I have met several editors who put on matey airs. They imagine (as they lunch at the Savoy Grill) that the reporters lunching at the Wimpy Bar adore them. Campbell's matiness was real. He was interested in people. He would sit in the canteen we all used, and talk to compositors, tape boys or the latest recruit to the staff. Nobody could be better suited to keep the loyalty of a temperamental team, and hold it together amid external attacks." (33)

During the 20th Party Congress in February, 1956, Nikita Khrushchev launched an attack on the rule of Joseph Stalin. He condemned the Great Purge and accused Stalin of abusing his power. He argued: "Stalin acted not through persuasion, explanation and patient co-operation with people, but by imposing his concepts and demanding absolute submission to his opinion. Whoever opposed this concept or tried to prove his viewpoint, and the correctness of his position, was doomed to removal from the leading collective and to subsequent moral and physical annihilation. This was especially true during the period following the 17th Party Congress, when many prominent Party leaders and rank-and-file Party workers, honest and dedicated to the cause of communism, fell victim to Stalin's despotism." (34)

Harry Pollitt found it difficult to accept these criticisms of Stalin and said of a portrait of his hero that hung in his living room: "He's staying there as long as I'm alive". Francis Beckett pointed out: "Pollitt believed, as did many in the 1930s, that only the Soviet Union stood between the world and universal Fascist dictatorship. On balance, he reckoned Stalin was doing more good than harm; he liked and admired the Soviet leader; and persuaded himself that Stalin's crimes were largely mistakes made by subordinates. Seldom can a man have thrown away his personal integrity for such good motives." (35)

However, according to his biographer, John Mahon, Pollitt found Khrushchev's speech upsetting: "Pollitt was far too human a person to regard the Stalin disclosures with personal detachment, they were as painful for him as far for thousands of other responsible Communists, and he was fully aware that they were giving rise to new and complex problems for the Party. Immediately following the Congress, he showed visible signs of physical exhaustion." On 25th April, 1956, he experienced a loss of ability to read following a haemorrhage behind the eyes. Unable to do his job properly he resigned as general secretary of the Communist Party. (36)

James Friell (Gabriel), the political cartoonist on the Daily Worker, argued that the newspaper should play its part in condemning Stalinism. Gabriel drew a cartoon that showed two worried people reading the Khrushchev speech. Behind them loomed two symbolic figures labelled "humanity" and "justice". He added the caption: "Whatever road we take we must never leave them behind." As a fellow worker at the newspaper, Alison Macleod, pointed out in her book, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997): "This brought some furious letters from our readers. One of them called the cartoon the most disgusting example of the non-Marxist, anti-working class outbursts." However, Macleod went on to point out that a large number of party members shared Friell's sentiments. (37)

Khrushchev's de-Stalinzation policy encouraged people living in Eastern Europe to believe that he was willing to give them more independence from the Soviet Union. In Hungary the prime minister Imre Nagy removed state control of the mass media and encouraged public discussion on political and economic reform. Nagy also released anti-communists from prison and talked about holding free elections and withdrawing Hungary from the Warsaw Pact. Khrushchev became increasingly concerned about these developments and on 4th November 1956 he sent the Red Army into Hungary. (38)

Peter Fryer, the Daily Worker journalist in Budapest was highly critical of the actions of the Soviet Union, and was furious when he discovered his reports were censored. Fryer responded by having the material published in the New Statesman. As a result he was suspended from the party for "publishing in the capitalist press attacks on the Communist Party." Campbell now sent the loyal Sam Russell to report on the uprising. (39)

Malcolm MacEwen, one of the journalists drafted a petition on the reporting of the uprising and persuaded nineteen out of the thirty-one staff of the newspaper to sign it. MacEwen made reference to Edith Bone, a journalist from the Daily Worker who had been in a Budapest prison since 1949. "The imprisonment of Edith Bone in solitary confinement without trial for seven years, without any public inquiry or protest from our Party even after the exposure of the Rajk trial had shown that such injustices were taking place, not only exposes the character of the regime but involves us in its crimes. It is now clear that what took place was a national uprising against an infamous police dictatorship." (40)

John Ross Campbell turned on MacEwen. He later commented: "I don't think I've ever loved anybody more than I loved Johnnie Campbell". He was shocked when his best friend was suddenly transformed into his worst enemy, denouncing him so venomously that he knew what Laszlo Rajk and Rudolf Slánský must have felt. He felt he could not carrying on like this and he resigned from both the newspaper and the Communist Party. (41)

Fryer told Campbell he must resign from the newspaper. Campbell pleaded with him to stay. He told Fryer that he had been in Moscow during the purges of the 1930s; he had known what was going on. But what could he do? How could he say anything in public, when the war was coming and the Soviet Union was going to be attacked. Alison Macleod, who watched this debate going on later commented: "This might have been some excuse for silence. However, Campbell was not silent in the 1930s. He wrote a book: Soviet Policy and its Critics, which was published by Gollancz in 1939. In this he defended every action of Stalin and argued the purge trials were genuine." (42)

James Friell condemned Campbell for supporting the invasion. He told Campbell: "How could the Daily Worker keep talking about a counter-revolution when they have to call in Soviet troops? Can you defend the right of a government to exist with the help of Soviet troops? Gomulka said that a government which has lost the confidence of the people has no right to govern." When Campbell refused to publish a cartoon by Friell on the Hungarian Uprising he left the newspaper. "I couldn't conceive carrying on cartooning about the evils of capitalism and imperialism," he wrote, "and ignoring the acknowledged evils of Russian communism." (43)

Campbell pleaded with the other journalists who were considering leaving the newspaper: "I am one of those who detest any possibility of a return to Stalinism. I have a very simple request to make to any comrades planning to leave the paper. Think it over for 24 hours! Do not do it in a way which will inflict the maximum injury on our paper... If a leading member of the staff leaves the paper at this moment it is not an ordinary act but a deadly blow." (44)

Over 7,000 members of the Communist Party of Great Britain resigned over what happened in Hungary. One of them later recalled: "The crisis within the British Communist Party, which is now officially admitted to exist, is merely part of the crisis within the entire world Communist movement. The central issue is the elimination of what has come to be known as Stalinism. Stalin is dead, but the men he trained in methods of odious political immorality still control the destinies of States and Communist Parties. The Soviet aggression in Hungary marked the obstinate re-emergence of Stalinism in Soviet policy, and undid much of the good work towards easing international tension that had been done in the preceding three years. By supporting this aggression the leaders of the British Party proved themselves unrepentant Stalinists, hostile in the main to the process of democratisation in Eastern Europe. They must be fought as such." (45)

Arnold Wesker had joined the Communist Party a few years earlier, had little difficulty resigning: "The Communist Parties of the world and especially of Britain suddenly found that Stalin and his policy which they once praised was now in disgrace; that the men they once criticised as reactionaries and traitors were not so; that the men whose deaths they once condoned were in fact innocent. There has been a fantastic spate of letters in the Daily Worker from Party members who are virtually in tears that they had ever been so lacking in courage.... It is as though they had all gone to a mass confessional and with terrible secrets in their heart now out in the open they feel new people."

His mother, Leah Wesker, who had joined in the early days of the movement found the speech made by Nikita Khrushchev very distressing. "Leah, my mother... does not know what has happened, what to say or feel or think. She is at once defensive and doubtful. She does not know who is right. To her the people who once criticised the party and were called traitors are still traitors despite that the new attitude suggests this is not the case. And this is Leah. To her there was either black or white, communists or fascists. There were no shades... If she admits that the party has been wrong, that Stalin committed grave offences, then she must admit that she has been wrong. All the people she so mistrusted and hated she must now have second thoughts about, and this she cannot do - because having bound her politics so closely to her personality she must then confess a weakness in her personality. You can admit the error of an idea but not the conduct of a whole life." (46)

In 1959 George Matthews became the new editor of the Daily Worker. According to Mike Power: "Matthews... became aware of a need to expand the paper's appeal beyond the largely male, industrial, working-class readership implied by its title, and, in April 1966, led its relaunch as the Morning Star. Increasing its interest for women, students and professional people - achieved by covering a wider range of topics and better use of pictures and cartoons - resulted in an immediate circulation increase to 100,000, though a substantial part of that figure represented subsidised sales to Soviet-bloc countries." (47)

In January 1968 the Czechoslovak Party Central Committee passed a vote of no confidence in Antonin Novotny and he was replaced by Alexander Dubcek as party secretary. Soon afterwards Dubcek made a speech where he stated: "We shall have to remove everything that strangles artistic and scientific creativeness." During the next few weeks Dubcek announced a series of reforms. This included the abolition of censorship and the right of citizens to criticize the government. Dubcek described this as "socialism with a human face". (48)

Newspapers began publishing revelations about corruption in high places. This included stories about Novotny and his son. On 22nd March 1968, Novotny resigned as president of Czechoslovakia. He was now replaced by a Dubcek supporter, Ludvik Svoboda. The following month the Communist Party Central Committee published a detailed attack on Novotny's government. This included its poor record concerning housing, living standards and transport. It also announced a complete change in the role of the party member. It criticized the traditional view of members being forced to provide unconditional obedience to party policy. Instead it declared that each member "has not only the right, but the duty to act according to his conscience." The new reform programme included the creation of works councils in industry, increased rights for trade unions to bargain on behalf of its members and the right of farmers to form independent co-operatives. (49)

In July 1968 the Soviet leadership announced that it had evidence that the Federal Republic of Germany was planning an invasion of the Sudetenland and asked permission to send in the Red Army to protect Czechoslovakia. Alexander Dubcek, aware that the Soviet forces could be used to bring an end to Prague Spring, declined the offer. On 21st August, 1968, Czechoslovakia was invaded by members of the Warsaw Pact countries. In order to avoid bloodshed, the Czech government ordered its armed forces not to resist the invasion. Dubcek and Svoboda were taken to Moscow and soon afterwards they announced that after "free comradely discussion" that Czechoslovakia would be abandoning its reform programme. (50)

John Ross Campbell, no longer reliant on the financial support of Moscow, condemned the invasion. So also did other leaders of the Communist Party of Great Britain including John Gollan, the general secretary. Gollan was on holiday at the time and it was left to his deputy, Reuben Falber, to issue a statement calling for the troops to be withdrawn. Falber later argued: "We had no doubt what we should do. It was our responsibility to declare publicly our total opposition to the Soviet-led intervention." Chris Myant, who claims that Falber was the man responsible for collecting funds from the Soviet Union, pointed out: "So the official who collected the Soviet money found himself on the steps of the party offices personally handing out the statement to the waiting reporters condemning the actions of his paymasters." (51)

Monty Johnstone, who had been "shut out of top-level Communist Party affairs for almost a decade for asking awkward questions" published a pamphlet under the title Czechoslovakia's Struggle for Socialist Democracy. The previously loyal Sam Russell was sent to Czechoslovakia, by George Matthews, the editor of The Morning Star, to produce some pro-Soviet articles. These articles did not placate Moscow and decided to cut back on the funding of the CPGB. (52)

He (William Rust) was a fine editor: a cynical boss who thumped the table in his furious rages, he nonetheless inspired journalists' best work. A tall and by now heavily built man, Rust was one of the Party's most able people, and one of the least likeable.

Capitalist sport is subordinate to bourgeois politics, run under bourgeois patronage and breathing the spirit of patriotism and class unity; and often of militarism, fascism and strike breaking. Spectator sports [horse racing and football] are profit run professional spectacles thick with corruption. You cannot reconcile revolutionary politics with capitalist sport!

From the main streets you could already hear quite clearly the machine-gun and rifle fire at the front.

Already shells began to drop within the city itself. Already you could see that Madrid was after all going to be the first of the dozen or so big European capitals to learn that "the menace of Fascism and war" is not a phrase or a far-off threat, but a peril so near that you turn the corner of your own street and see the gaping bodies of a dozen innocent women lying among scattered milk cans and bits of Fascist bombs, turning the familiar pavement red with their gushing blood.

There were others besides the defenders of Madrid who realised that, too.

Men in Warsaw, in London, in Brussels, Belgrade, Berne, Paris, Lyons, Budapest, Bucharest, Amsterdam, Copenhagen. All over Europe men who understood that "the house next door is already on fire" were already on the way to put their experience of war, their enthusiasm and their understandings at the disposal of the Spanish people who themselves in the months and years before the Fascist attack had so often thrown all their energies into the cause of international solidarity on behalf of the oppressed and the prisoners of the Fascist dictatorships in Germany, Hungary and Yugoslavia.

It was no mere "gesture of solidarity" that these men - the future members of the International Brigade - were being called upon to carry out.

The position of the armies on the Madrid fronts was such that it was obvious that the hopes of victory must to a large extent depend first on the amount of material that could be got to the front before the German and Italian war machines smashed their way through, and secondly, on the speed with which the defending force of the People's Army could be raised to the level of a modern infantry force, capable of fighting in the modern manner.

When the church bells ring in Malaga that means the Italian and German aeroplanes are coming over. While I was there they came twice and three times a day. The horror of the civilian bombing is even worse in Malaga than in Madrid. The place is so small and so terribly exposed.

When the bells begin ringing and you see people who have been working in the harbour or in the market place, or elsewhere in the open, run in crowds, you know that they are literally running a race against death.

But the houses in Malaga are mostly low and rather flimsy, and without cellars. Where the cliffs come down to the edge of the town, the people make for the rocks and caves in which those who can reach them take refuge. Others rush bounding up the hillside above the town.

Those in the town, with an air of infinite weariness, wait behind the piles of sandbags which have been set up in front of the doorways of the apartment blocks. Though they are not safe from bombs falling on the houses, they are relatively protected from an explosion in the street and from the bullets of the machine-guns.

Sometimes you can see the aeroplane machine-gunner working the gun as the plane swoops along above the street.

If you were to imagine, however, that this terribly hammered town is in a state of panic you would be wrong. Nothing I have seen in this war has impressed me more than the power of the Spanish people's resistance to attack than the attitude of the people as seen in Malaga.

The Outbreak of the General Strike (Answer Commentary)

The 1926 General Strike and the Defeat of the Miners (Answer Commentary)

The Coal Industry: 1600-1925 (Answer Commentary)

Women in the Coalmines (Answer Commentary)

Child Labour in the Collieries (Answer Commentary)

Child Labour Simulation (Teacher Notes)

1832 Reform Act and the House of Lords (Answer Commentary)

The Chartists (Answer Commentary)

Women and the Chartist Movement (Answer Commentary)

Benjamin Disraeli and the 1867 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

William Gladstone and the 1884 Reform Act (Answer Commentary)

Richard Arkwright and the Factory System (Answer Commentary)

Robert Owen and New Lanark (Answer Commentary)

James Watt and Steam Power (Answer Commentary)

Road Transport and the Industrial Revolution (Answer Commentary)

Canal Mania (Answer Commentary)

Early Development of the Railways (Answer Commentary)

The Domestic System (Answer Commentary)

The Luddites: 1775-1825 (Answer Commentary)

The Plight of the Handloom Weavers (Answer Commentary)

Health Problems in Industrial Towns (Answer Commentary)

Public Health Reform in the 19th century (Answer Commentary)

Classroom Activities by Subject

(1) Henry Pelling, The British Communist Party (1975) page 53

(2) The Daily Worker (7th January, 1930)

(3) Kevin Morgan, William Rust : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(4) Hugh Purcell, The Last English Revolutionary: Tom Wintringham (2004) page 79

(5) The Daily Worker (1st January, 1930)

(6) Rajani Palme Dutt, The Daily Worker (25th January, 1930)

(7) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 127

(8) Claud Cockburn, In Time of Trouble (1956) page 243

(9) George Orwell, Homage to Catalonia (1938) page 217

(10) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 74

(11) Jim Higgins, International Socialism (February 1975)

(12) Dudley Edwards, Victor Gollancz: A Biography (1987) page 244

(13) Chris Moores, Civil Liberties and Human Rights in Twentieth-Century Britain (2017) page 53

(14) John Ross Campbell, Daily Worker (5th March, 1938)

(15) Joseph Stalin, speech on Soviet Constitution (25th November, 1936)

(16) Francis Beckett, Stalin's British Victims (2004) page 149

(17) Statement issued by the Communist Party of Great Britain (2nd September, 1939)

(18) Harry Pollitt, How to Win the War (1939)

(19) John Mahon, Harry Pollitt: A Biography (1976) page 251

(20) Minutes of the Comunist Party of Great Britain Central Committee (2nd October 1939)

(21) Harry Pollitt, Daily Worker (13th October, 1939)

(22) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 96

(23) Monty Johnstone, John Ross Campbell : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(24) Douglas Hyde, I Believed (1951) page 154

(25) Jim Higgins, International Socialism (February 1975)

(26) John Mahon, Harry Pollitt: A Biography (1976) page 266

(27) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 98

(28) Douglas Hyde, I Believed (1951) page 154

(29) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 118

(30) Alison Macleod, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997) page 15

(31) Monty Johnstone, John Ross Campbell : Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004-2014)

(32) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 127

(33) Alison Macleod, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997) page 20

(34) Nikita Khrushchev, speech at the 20th Communist Party Congress (25th February, 1956)

(35) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 144

(36) John Mahon, Harry Pollitt: A Biography (1976) pages 403-404

(37) Alison Macleod, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997) page 95

(38) Asa Briggs, Modern Europe: 1789-Present (2003) page 326

(39) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 134

(40) Malcolm MacEwen, petition on the Hungarian Uprising (3rd November, 1956)

(41) Chris Hall, The Independent (16th May, 1996)

(42) Alison Macleod, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997) page 101

(43) Mark Bryant, Dictionary of Twentieth-Century British Cartoonists and Caricaturists (2000) pages 81-82

(44) Alison Macleod, The Death of Uncle Joe (1997) page 176

(45) Peter Fryer, Hungarian Tragedy and Other Writings on the 1956 Hungarian Revolution (1997) page 90

(46) Francis Beckett, Stalin's British Victims (2004) page 158

(47) Mike Power, The Guardian (8th April, 2005)

(48) Bernard Wasserstein, Civilisation and Barbarism: A History of Europe in our Time (2007) page 600

(49) Kieran Williams, The Prague Spring and its Aftermath (1997) pages 10-11

(50) Matthew J. Ouimet, The Rise and Fall of the Brezhnev Doctrine in Soviet Foreign Policy (2003) pages 34–35

(51) Chris Myant, The Independent (30th May, 2006)

(52) Francis Beckett, Enemy Within: The Rise and Fall of the British Communist Party (1995) page 165


The Mill Girls of Lowell

Who were the “mill girls”? The term “mill girls” was occasionally used in antebellum newspapers and periodicals to describe the young Yankee women, generally 15 - 30 years old, who worked in the large cotton factories. They were also called “female operatives.” Female textile workers often described themselves as mill girls, while affirming the virtue of their class and the dignity of their labor. During early labor protests, they asserted that they were “the daughters of freemen” whose rights could not be “trampled upon with impunity.”

Despite the hardship of mill work, women remained an important part of the textile workforce for many years. In the late 19th century, women held nearly two-thirds of all textile jobs in Lowell, with many immigrant women joining Yankee mill girls in the textile industry


The Daily Worker - History

Socialist Worker was the publication of the International Socialist Organization (U.S.) from the group’s founding in April 1977 until its dissolution in 2019. Though SW has stopped publishing, its website dating back to 2001 is a rich source of socialist analysis and news of the working-class movement.

Socialist Worker was published and distributed nationally in newspaper form throughout its 42-year history, as a monthly, biweekly and weekly at various times. SW’s website was launched in 2001 and began publishing daily starting in May 2008, becoming a significant voice among independent media.

The road that brought us to Standing Rock

SW contributors tell what they saw and heard on a trip to bring support and solidarity for the historic resistance against the Dakota Access Pipeline.

Welcome to the new normal

My mom has found herself among the long-term unemployed who are struggling in the suburbs where the American Dream is supposed to thrive.

The case against “The case against open borders”

Angela Nagle’s attention-getting article claiming that migration hurts the working class relies on arguments as old as they are deceptive.

Inside the #MeToo revolt at Google

It may be the biggest international walkout in modern labor history. Here’s why it happened, how it happened and what it tells us.

The power of #MeToo

The confidence that women feel because of #MeToo to speak out against sexual abuse and assault can only strengthen the struggle against all injustice.


Viral Video: ‘Get The Posters Out Of Our Schools’: 9-Year-Old Girl Blasts School Board For BLM Posters

Erik McGregor/LightRocket via Getty Images

A video of a nine-year-old Minnesota girl confronting her school board about the installation of Black Lives Matter posters in her school has gone viral, showing her blasting them for banning political messages in schools yet permitting the BLM posters to be posted. “You have lied to me,” she charged. “Get the posters out of our schools. Courage is contagious so be courageous.”

The girl, who said her name was Novalee, spoke at the Lakeville Area School Board meeting on June 8. Lakeville is a suburb of the city of Minneapolis, where George Floyd died in 2020 and where the BLM protests around the nation originated.

Novalee stated, “The other day I was walking down the hallway at Lakeview Elementary School to give a teacher a retiring gift. I looked up onto the wall and saw a BLM poster and an Amanda Gorman poster. In case you don’t know who that chick is, she’s some girl who did a poem at Biden’s so-called inauguration. I was so mad. I was told two weeks ago at this very meeting spot: no politics in school. I believed what you said at this meeting.”

“So at lunch I went up to my principal to tell him about the BLM poster and that I wanted it down,” she continued. “He said, ‘It’s not coming down. I was like, ‘Yeah, it is, because the school board said on May 25 no BLM or politics in school.’ He said, ‘That’s weird they were the ones who made them.’”

“I was stunned. When I was here two weeks ago you told us to report any BLM in our schools,” Novalee claimed. “Apparently you know they are in our schools because you made the signs. I said there should be no BLM in schools, period. Doesn’t matter what color you make the posters and the fonts you use we all understand the meaning: it is a political message about getting rid of police officers, rioting, burning buildings down while King Governor (Tim) Waltz just sits on his throne and watches.”

“We all know: Changing the colors or the fonts of posters does not change the meaning. I am nine years old and I know that. You expect me to believe that you did not know what you were doing by making these posters? Come on, people,” she challenged.

Novalee then segued to her own beliefs: “I do not judge people by the color of their skin. I don’t really care what color their hair, skin, or eyes is. I judge by the way they treat me. MLK said I have a dream that one day my four little children will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. That dream has come true. I do not care or look at the color of skin but you make me think of it.”

“I have Asian, Mexican, white, Chinese, black friends and I don’t care. I like them because some of them make me laugh some of them are sweet and kind, sporty, or share the love of God. They are just my friends,’” she asserted.

She charged, “You have lied to me and I am very disappointed in all of you. You cannot even follow your own rules. If you were gonna do that, why do we follow any rules we deemed unfair or ridiculous? I’m not following your mask rule anymore then.”

She concluded, “Get the posters out of our schools. Courage is contagious so be courageous.”

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.


George Floyd had ‘violent criminal history’: Minneapolis police union chief

The head of the Minneapolis police union says George Floyd’s “violent criminal history” needs to be remembered and that the protests over his death are the work of a “terrorist movement.”

“What is not being told is the violent criminal history of George Floyd. The media will not air this,” police union president Bob Kroll told his members in a letter posted Monday on Twitter.

Floyd had landed five years behind bars in 2009 for an assault and robbery two years earlier, and before that, had been convicted of charges ranging from theft with a firearm to drugs, the Daily Mail reported.

Floyd died last week after a white cop kneeled on the 46-year-old black man’s neck for nearly 9 minutes, a shocking incident that was caught on video and is sparking widespread violent protests, including in New York City. Floyd had allegedly just tried to pass a phony $20 bill before he died.

“This terrorist movement that is currently occurring was a long time build up which dates back years,” Kroll said in his letter of the protests, adding that some of his city’s issues exist because Minneapolis leaders have been “minimizing the size of our police force and diverting funds to community activists with an anti-police agenda.

“Our chief requested 400 more officers and was flatly denied any. This is what led to this record breaking riot,” he said.

George Floyd Ben Crump Law

The union chief vowed that his organization would help the cop accused of killing Floyd, now-fired Officer Derek Chauvin, and three other officers who were at the scene and are being investigated.

“I’ve worked with the four defense attorneys that are representing each of our four terminated individuals under criminal investigation, in addition with our labor attorneys to fight for their jobs. They were terminated without due process,” Kroll wrote.


The Daily Worker - History

From The New York Times, I’m Michael Barbaro. This is “The Daily.”

Today: The Minneapolis police officer whose tactics led to George Floyd’s death had a long record of complaints of misconduct. My colleague, Shaila Dewan, on why he was still patrolling the streets.

Shaila, you have been covering the criminal justice system and the cops for a really long time. So what were you thinking as you watched the video of George Floyd’s death?

Well, at first, I didn’t actually watch the video. I read about it, and I have seen too many of those videos. And it just is too painful. I knew what I needed to know right then to do my job, which was immediately to find out more about the officers who were involved in the incident and what we knew about them, what we could tell about them.

So we wanted to look immediately to see their work histories and whether they had had problems in the past. I mean, sometimes it can be really, really difficult to find out the history of an officer, especially if you need to do it quickly. There is a lot of secrecy around police records. Sometimes they just only keep complaints for a certain amount of time, sometimes you can’t see complaints at all.

So we use a variety of sources of information from civil lawsuits — that’s often a really good way to see details about what happened. We look at news accounts. So we just try to pull it from wherever we can find. Often, it’s a patchwork.

But Minneapolis is actually unusual in the sense that they have a searchable database online. And pretty quickly they put out a list of the complaints for each officer involved in the case. So in the case of Officer Chauvin, who was the guy who had his knee on George Floyd’s neck for over eight minutes — he had at least 17 complaints against him in his 19-year history. But we can’t see what the complaints were about.

And we found that the vast majority of those resulted in no discipline. There were two letters of reprimand placed in his file. We could also see that he was the subject of a brutality complaint.

And we know that he was involved in three shootings over the course of his career. In one of those, the man said that Officer Chauvin came into his house, and the man did not have a gun. There was a domestic violence call. And he says that Chauvin burst through the bathroom door, started hitting him and then fired two shots in his abdomen.

He says that Chauvin basically shot him unprovoked. And Chauvin said that the guy was going for his gun.

So you’re saying that despite all these complaints, Chauvin was never suspended, he wasn’t docked pay, he wasn’t really punished at all. I guess, to the degree he was punished, it was some kind of wrist slapping.

That’s right. Like I said, there were two letters of reprimand placed in this file. And there’s an account of one verbal reprimand for using derogatory language in a demeaning tone.

And what about the other officers on the scene when George Floyd dies? What did you find out about them?

So the officer who Chauvin and arrived at the scene with, Tou Thoa, had six complaints against him on his list. And he also was the subject of a civil lawsuit that said he basically handcuffed a guy and then beat him up. And that resulted in a $25,000 settlement.

But what about repercussions for that officer as a member of the Minneapolis police department?

Again, it doesn’t seem like that officer was ever disciplined by the police department.

I mean, how is that possible that neither of these officers face any real punishment, stayed on the force despite these complaints, and stayed in the kind of line of work where they would respond to a street incident like the one involving George Floyd?

Well, it’s not just possible. It’s notoriously common in this country. Our systems are basically set up to protect police officers from repercussions for their actions. That’s been noted over and over again. And it’s even been bitterly complained about by police chiefs who come in wanting to make changes and wanting to reform their departments and clean them up, and even they are sometimes prevented from doing that by the systems that are in place.

Well, Minneapolis is actually a perfect example of this. They’ve had two police chiefs who were heralded as reformers. The current chief in fact, sued the department for what he said were racist hiring practices before he became chief. And when I read that he had fired these four officers almost immediately, my first thought was, I don’t know if that’s going to stick. He may be forced to rehire those guys because of all the protections that officers have.

I mean, so what exactly is happening here? I mean, what is getting in the way of these police chiefs running their departments the way that they want to, reforming them if they want to, and disciplining cops who cross the line?

So many things. There are so many things that work together to put these obstacles in place. They’re just kind of enshrined parts of the job. And it can be sort of helpful to break them out into buckets.

So there are five main reasons why it’s so hard to hold the police accountable for their actions. The first one is that the police are often policing themselves. Departments have internal affairs divisions that are part of the department usually. And those officers take complaints and investigate them, and come back and say what they think happened and what they think the consequences should be. And they tend to be charitable towards their own.

And what’s an example of this?

Well, for example, in Minneapolis in 2010, it was almost like a precursor of the Floyd case, where a man named David Cornelius Smith was held down by two officers. One of them had a knee on his neck for four minutes. He ended up dying. And the officers, after an internal affairs investigation, were never disciplined. In fact, the police chief at that time praised them for handling a tough situation.

OK, so what’s the second system that tends to block the disciplining of cops?

The second system this is really interesting civil service protection. Basically, public employees are allowed to appeal firings or other discipline to an independent body. And a lot of times with cops, they are given a lesser punishment when they appeal. Or if they’ve been fired, they’re reinstated. And in the Minneapolis area, The Pioneer Press did an analysis of this. And they found that the Minnesota board that deals with these cases reinstated law enforcement officers 46 percent of the time after they were fired.

So half the time that a cop was somehow fired for misconduct, this system puts them back in their jobs, basically overrules the punishment?

That’s right. And one interesting thing is that — sometimes the board would say there wasn’t enough evidence. But sometimes they would say, you know, you can’t punish this officer this way because there are prior examples of someone doing the same thing, and they didn’t get this severe of a punishment. So what that means is if you have a reformer coming in who wants to clean up, who wants to stop being lenient and wants to get tough on officer discipline, they’re going to be hamstrung by what was done in the past. So if somebody does something completely unacceptable in their eyes and they fire them, someone can come along and say oh, other officers that have kicked people were only given a suspension. So you can’t fire this guy.

So arbitration relies on a kind of precedent system, and the precedent has been not to punish these cops too severely. So it’s like a self-reinforcing cycle in which no person involved in arbitration is likely to break out of that system too far.

OK, what is the third bucket here?

That’s the concept of civilian review. And I hate the use of the word civilian, because it implies that the police are not civilians, which they are. But it’s this idea that non-police officers should be able to review the actions of police and complaints against the police and determine whether the police are meeting community standards for behavior.

They might be able to watch the body camera footage. They might be able to call in witnesses. And then typically they would make a recommendation. And sometimes the police department can just ignore the recommendation of the civilian review board. They’re a lot of times non-binding.

So they’ve kind of, over time, been seen as toothless. And Minneapolis is actually a perfect example of the kind of push and pull over how are we supposed to police the cops. They’ve had a civilian review board and then dismantled it, and had it again and dismantled it. And then finally a few years ago, they just did away with it altogether and replaced it with a police conduct review panel.

And the city maintains that this panel works much better. It is made up of appointed civilians and police together. Critics say that complaints from the public are still largely disregarded.

It’s important to keep in mind, of course, that any member of the public can lodge a complaint for any reason, and often, they are very unhappy when they have an interaction with the police. So it’s not uncommon to find many civilian complaints unfounded. But the percentage that this one organization cited to me that keeps track of such things is that out of 2,600 complaints that originated with the public, only 12 resulted in discipline. And the city has since come back to dispute that figure, but it is certainly a very low percentage of complaints that result in discipline.

Suggesting that this panel frequently does not punish cops based on public complaints?

So the fourth reason why it’s hard to hold police accountable is the police unions. And these are the organizations that represent the rank-and-file members. It’s their job, basically, to protect police jobs. So they’re often led by kind of old-school, law-and-order individuals who are often the biggest opponent of reform-minded chiefs who come in. That is often a real source of clashing and tension.

And is that the case in Minneapolis?

Minneapolis is actually a textbook example of this. The union president, Bob Kroll, is a very controversial figure. He himself has had 29 complaints against him as a police officer. He is a Trump aficionado who stood on stage with him and thanked him for letting cops do their jobs. He has been blamed by the previous police chief for blocking reforms, for being one of the biggest opponents to cleaning up the department. And he’s already saying that he’s going to fight to get the jobs back of the four officers that were involved in the Floyd killing. So that’s the guy who represents the rank-and-file Minneapolis police officers. So if you have somebody who’s just saying you’ve got to defend officers at all costs sort of no matter what they do, that’s a banner that some cops could choose to walk under.

So Shaila, I mean, with all that in mind, how much power does any police chief in the country — I mean, even the most reform-minded variety of police chief — really have to try to discipline cops given the obstacles?

I think it is really hard, even as we’ve seen public attitudes shift dramatically, and the unions just have so much power in this equation.

OK. By my count, we are on system number five that keeps police from being disciplined.

That’s right, system number five is a big one. And that’s the difficulty of holding police criminally accountable for their actions. And that’s a lot due to a legal concept called reasonable fear. So even if you overcome prosecutor’s reluctance to charge police officers, and even if you overcome jury’s reluctance to convict officers, officers still have a lot of protection. And that’s built up on the idea that they have very difficult, dangerous jobs where they have to make split-second decisions. And you can’t really second guess them. So if an officer can make an argument that a reasonable officer would have been afraid for their life, or for the life of a fellow officer in that moment, then the jury is not supposed to convict them. And that’s a pretty big hurdle to overcome if what you think is that police need to be sent to prison. And that’s the system that we’ve set up for the courts.

And of course, Minneapolis has charged Officer Chauvin with murder. It sounds like you’re saying that if that charge is brought to a trial, that this concept of reasonable fear could be a major argument in his favor and could make it very hard to prosecute him.

I mean, there’s already a lot of talk about what a jury might do in this situation and how hard it will be to prove this case. Certainly, nobody thinks it’s going to be an easy case to prove.

Shaila, all these systems that we are discussing as potential impediments to disciplining cops, I have to think that all of them were put in place for a reason, and maybe even at first a good reason.

I mean, sure. There’s two sides to all of these stories. So of course, as an employee, you don’t want to be at the whim of an unreasonable boss. So you want the protection of being able to appeal. I think we can all understand how a union protects workers. And no one thinks that police officers have an easy job. But I think there’s something even deeper going on here, which is that these systems come out of a failure of trust — that police officers simply don’t trust, and maybe for good reason, that the public could possibly understand them or their choices or their jobs, or what they’re really facing. And so they can’t contemplate subjecting themselves to that kind of public scrutiny.

And so that belief kind of permeates all of this.

You know, it’s interesting, almost by definition, whether you think that these systems are problems or you think that they offer necessary protections to cops, they feel quite entrenched. And they feel kind of immovable.

This is a system that, even an institution that wants to change itself, can’t overcome its architecture. And this is why you see the rage on the streets. Those are people who, I think, viscerally feel that architecture. And the only thing they can see to do is dismantle it. They don’t think that it’s about tweaking it or adjusting it. It’s about tearing it down.

On Monday afternoon, the medical examiner’s office in Hennepin County, Minnesota released the results of a preliminary autopsy on George Floyd. The office classified his death as a homicide, saying that his heart stopped as police, including officer Chauvin, restrained him and compressed his neck.

Here’s what else you need to know today.

archived recording ( president donald trump)

You have been dominated. If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time. They’re going to run over you. You’re going to look like a bunch of jerks.

In a conference call with governors on Monday, President Trump lashed out at them for what he described as their inadequate response to the protests, demanding, quote, “retribution against the demonstrators for the unrest.”

archived recording (president donald trump)

You have to arrest people, and you have to try people. And they have to go to jail for long periods of time. I saw what happened in Philadelphia.

A few hours later, in his first remarks from the White House since the protests began, Trump called the violent scenes unfolding across the country, quote, “acts of domestic terror,” and said he was prepared to step in if local officials failed to contain the demonstrations.

archived recording (president donald trump)

If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

Outside the White House on Monday night —

— police used tear gas and flash grenades to push back protesters who were peacefully demonstrating in Lafayette Park, so that the president could pose for photos at a church on the park’s edge that had been damaged during protests the night before. As of Monday night, at least 40 cities, including Washington and New York, have imposed curfews to try to discourage the protests.


POLL: 86% Of Workers Don’t Want To Return To Office Full-Time

Thomas Barwick/Getty Images

Last year, with a contagious virus spreading around the world — one that eventually killed more than 3.5 million people — many companies virtually shut down and relied on workers to perform their jobs from home. The whole thing became the largest work-at-home experiment in history.

Now, with the pandemic finally easing, some companies want their workers back in the office. But that may be easier said than done.

According to a survey by tech job market platform Hackajob, 86% of workers want to keep doing their jobs from home, City A.M. reports. “Only 14 percent of the 1,700 tech professionals surveyed want to go back to a company office full-time, while around one in four would like to work remote permanently.”

But the workers are OK with a compromise: 60% are happy to drop into the office once in a while and spend the rest of time working from home.

“Hybrid working is the new deal breaker for tech professionals,” said Mark Chaffey, co-founder and CEO of Hackajob. “Although working from home may not have been the easiest for individuals this past year, tech professionals clearly find the value in not being in the office every day. Employees are feeling more comfortable and happier working from home, having cultivated a work-life balance,” Chaffey told City A.M.

Chaffey also said that tech professionals are “just as productive when working from home, even more so in fact thanks to fewer distractions and no commute.”

But major tech companies are calling their workers back to the office. Apple employees, for instance, have been told to return to the office starting in early September.

“For all that we’ve been able to achieve while many of us have been separated, the truth is that there has been something essential missing from this past year: each other,” CEO Tim Cook said in an email. “Video conference calling has narrowed the distance between us, to be sure, but there are things it simply cannot replicate.”

But Cook said the company will employ a hybrid schedule. “Most employees will be asked to come in to the office on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, with the option of working remotely on Wednesdays and Fridays. Teams that need to work in-person will return four to five days a week,” The Verge reported, adding:

Employees also have the chance to work remotely for up to two weeks a year, “to be closer to family and loved ones, find a change of scenery, manage unexpected travel, or a different reason all your own,” according to the letter. Managers need to approve remote work requests.

Other companies, including Google, Ford Motor Co., and Citigroup Inc., are also promising greater flexibility, but others, like JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon, aren’t so sure. At a recent conference, Dimon said that remote work doesn’t cut it “for those who want to hustle.”

“But as office returns accelerate, some employees may want different options,” Bloomberg News reported. “A May survey of 1,000 U.S. adults showed that 39% would consider quitting if their employers weren’t flexible about remote work. The generational difference is clear: Among millennials and Gen Z, that figure was 49%, according to the poll by Morning Consult on behalf of Bloomberg News.”

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies and counter-cultural outlets for news, opinion, and entertainment. Get inside access to The Daily Wire by becoming a member.


Tour our special section on the 1934 West Coast longshore strike. In it you will find introductory essays on the strike, links to photographs and primary source documents, slideshows, videos, original newspaper articles and much more.

The 1948 longshore strike secured the future of the leftwing ILWU in the midst of the Cold War. Here is a detailed report

The 1971 longshore strike was the third great victory for the ILWU. Here is a report and a database of contemporary newspaper coverage of the strike.


Alexander Hamilton was the United States Secretary of the Treasury at the time of Tammany Hall’s founding. As immigrant populations flowed to New York City, they undoubtedly had the hopeful refrain of Lin-Manuel Miranda’s lyrics in their minds – “look around at how lucky we are to be alive right now!”

Pandasaurus Games took their first steps into the risky world of tabletop game publishing in May of 2012, with the campaign launch of Tammany Hall. The game raised well over $100,000, making it one of that year’s most successful tabletop game campaigns. Nearly a decade after that first campaign, Tammany Hall is finally returning to store shelves with a minor facelift. Let’s raise a glass to freedom, and take a look at this fantastic area control game!

Designed by Doug Eckhart, with artwork from Peter Dennis (A Few Acres of Snow) and graphic design by Stevo Torres (Ctrl, Godspeed). Tammany Hall is designed for 3 to 5 players, takes 60 to 90 minutes to play, and is recommended for ages 10 and up.

Set in the middle of the 19th Century, players are political proctors in a growing New York City, sending their Ward Bosses into the city’s various districts to influence and manipulate growing immigrant populations. The game takes place over four election cycles, each of which involves four rounds of placing their Ward Boss meeples, dropping Immigrant Cubes to obtain Political Favor from those communities, and occasionally spreading slander throughout those same sectors to negatively impact other players. At the end of every four rounds, an election takes place, where each ward votes for their preferred player to become Mayor. Whichever player wins the majority of wards will walk away as New York’s new Mayor, and must assign other players to City Offices, allowing them to make many manipulations in the forthcoming term. Points are scored in several ways – throughout the game, players will score for winning individual ward elections, controlling Tammany Hall itself, and winning the Mayorship. At the end of the game, points are also awarded for retaining the most Political Favour in each Immigrant community, as well as for each unspent Slander token. The player with the most victory points is declared the winner, securing their spot to be in the room where it happens.

In my opinion, Tammany Hall is on par with the greatest area control games of all time. It has the elegant simplicity of El Grande, the tension of Hansa Teutonica, all wrapped in a narrative that can rise up from the table and grab hold of its players. At higher player counts, the potential for temporary alliances emerges, and the players knocking at your most critical ward will suddenly start to talk less, smile more. The game leaves players feeling complicit in a system of dirty politics, with a shadowy grime that is injected into the artwork and overall graphic design.

Most of the artwork is unchanged from the previous editions. However, the window dressing around that art makes for an impactful improvement. New font choices pop out from the game board, political office tiles, and even the box itself, leaving players feeling like they’ve been hit by a propaganda campaign. Player colours have changed slightly – yellow is no longer a Ward Boss option, replaced with orange. It’s a small change that adds to the muted palette of the entire game, adding to the dark, tense undertones, like a powder keg about to explode.

My favourite component upgrade in this edition are the Slander tokens, which were black discs in the previous printing. Debuting in this version of the game are grey speech bubble tokens, and as the rumours only grow, these tokens assist in deepening the flavour of the game. Each player starts the game with three of them, which can be spent throughout the game to mortally wound the prospects of other players. Slander provides players with plenty of opportunity for plot twists, and these updated tokens are perfectly fitting to place your people in a prosperous enough position to achieve electoral victory.

The most important addition to the game is not a game component, but rather, the inclusion of a small sheet of paper, explaining the complexity of this time in New York’s history. Pandasaurus has acknowledged the challenges still present in America with regards to voting and disenfranchisement, along with donation commitment to the Brennan Center for Justice. Many in the tabletop game industry are making strides to correct and improve issues of inclusion and representation. Given the vast number of games that include troublesome thematic material, this is a positive gesture that other publishers would be wise to follow.

“History has its eyes on you.”

New editions of popular games do not always require a complete overhaul, and in this light Pandasaurus Games did not throw away their shot with the new printing of Tammany Hall. The game retains so much of what made it great in the first place, and makes a number of small improvements without diluting the deliciously dirty experience of this highly interactive tactical puzzle of a game.

The DWP thanks Pandasaurus Games for sending a media copy of Tammany Hall for this review.


4 Child Workers

As factories grew, the demand for cheap labor grew with it. In the late 19th century, many children were drawn into the labor force for work inside factories. With adult wages so low, children were often forced to work in the factories to support their families. In 1900, there were 1.7 million children under the age of 15 working in America, according to the National Archives. Children working in the factories often had spine curvature, stunted growth and contagious diseases like tuberculosis. Current child labor laws have continued to evolve to protect children from long work hours and dangerous conditions.