Goldman Archive | Trotskyist Writers Index | ETOL Main Page
From Socialist Appeal, Vol. IV No. 18, 4 May 1940, p. 2.
Transcribed & marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for ETOL.
By its declaration that anti-picketing laws in Alabama and California are unconstitutional, the United States Supreme Court will lead some gullible people to believe that it has become the guardian of the rights of the workers.
A short while ago the Supreme Court assumed to play the role of protector of the Negro people by reversing a conviction of Negroes who were compelled to “confess” by the use of the most vicious form of the third degree.
That the Supreme Court, as at present constituted, is more liberal than it was can be admitted without argument. It is necessary, however, to understand clearly what that signifies. Essentially it means nothing more than that the Supreme Court now follows the fundamental policy of President Roosevelt, which consists of making minor concessions to the masses in order the better to guard the essential rights of the owning class.
Just as Roosevelt has gained favor in the eyes of many workers by making concessions that do not threaten the existence of the profit system, so the Supreme Court will undoubtedly earn the applause of many by rendering decisions that can be regarded as liberal but which do not endanger the right of the bosses to continue exploiting the workers.
There have always been serious differences of opinion in the camp of the employing class and its representatives as to the best method to be used in keeping labor under control. One group advocates a firm hand – yielding nothing; another proposes to make concessions in order not to lose everything. The Supreme Court for the time being now belongs to the latter group.
When the Supreme Court declares an anti-picketing law unconstitutional, it in effect says to the lower courts and to the legislature: “You fools, can’t you see that by taking away such small and insignificant rights of the workers, you play into the hands of the revolutionists? We believe that it is far wiser and far more effective to let the workers have a minor right and deprive them of a really valuable one.”
What did the court’s decision really amount to? The Supreme Court decided that unions have the right to have a picket carrying a banner in front of an establishment where a strike was called. Of course, having that privilege is better than not having it, but all the same it has come to a pretty pass when we are asked to rejoice and be grateful for a decision granting the workers this elementary right.
One must never forget that it was practically the same Supreme Court that declared the sit-down strike illegal. In comparison to the right of having a picket walk in front of a struck shop with a banner, the sit-down is infinitely more important for the workers. But just because it is so much more important, it was declared illegal by the court.
It is all very well to have a conviction of a Negro reversed when the conviction was obviously achieved by the use of the most brutal torture. But this is nothing in comparison to the fact that the Supreme Court permits the white masters of the South to disfranchise the Negro population.
The Sherman anti-trust law was enacted as a weapon against the trusts. When the Supreme Court perverts that law to be used against trade unions, it strikes a really effective blow against the workers. In return, it can afford to be liberal on a minor point.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed for the purpose of protecting the Negroes. Instead it was interpreted by the Supreme Court in a manner which aided mainly the property rights of the bosses. It was then worthwhile for the court to throw a crumb now and then to the workers in the form of a favorable decision on a minor matter, based on the same amendment.
It is exceedingly important for workers to recognize that a “liberal” Supreme Court will render decisions favorable to the exploited masses only when there is danger that the masses will resent too strongly an adverse decision. And nine times out of ten a favorable decision will come only in connection with a case involving a matter of secondary importance.
And this is certain. Never will the Supreme Court render a decision which will take away the right of the bosses to exploit labor. Why? For the simple reason that the Supreme Court, “liberal” or conservative, was created to protect that very right.
The Supreme Court has always been looked upon as a bulwark of the employing class. Justifiably so, for it has frequently, by its decisions, rushed to protect that class against any legislation that might be harmful to the employers. As a result there has always existed a tendency amongst the workers in favor of abolishing the Court.
Let not the workers be deceived by an occasional favorable decision. As against such decisions on matters of secondary importance, it is important to remember the anti-democratic role the court has played throughout American history.
Considering all possible factors it is more advantageous, in the long run, to do away with an institution that was created for the express purpose of nullifying legislation passed at the demand of the masses.
The workers will be better off if the Supreme Court is abolished.
Main NI Index | Main Newspaper Index
Encyclopedia of Trotskyism | Marxists’ Internet Archive
Last updated on 2 February 2019