Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 269
   Enlarge and print image (65K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Andor D. Skotnes, The Black Freedom Movement and the Worker's Movement in Baltimore, 1930-1939, Rutger's PhD, 1991,
Image No: 269
   Enlarge and print image (65K)            << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
269 organized over 18,000 in a year and a half. At that point only two of the top four officers and a handful of the local chairs were Socialists. Without a means of stimulating rank-and-file initiative and giving that initiative guidance and direction, the membership would have melted away. While there were various levels of membership involvement, participation in meetings was reportedly high, especially in the PUL's first years. In early 1934, for example, 2,000 of 12,000 members had signed up to take part in self-help activities, representing a fairly high level of commitment. It is interesting to note that organizationally the PUL was similar to some of the more democratic trade unions. Some PUL organizers aspired to build a trade union of the unemployed, and they may well have been organizationally inspired by the structure of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers union in Baltimore with its central Joint Board, made up of delegates elected from the locals.59 The grassroots democracy of PUL's organizational structure indicates a paradox. This structure, PUL's demands for fundamental reform, its willingness to call mass actions, and its Socialist leadership all imply PUL was a very radical organization. On the other hand, the endorsements it received from establishment sources, the donations it received from large corporations and associations, the support it received from a number of church institutions, and much of its public image suggest it was rather a moderate organization. Frank Trager himself later emphasized its moderation. "The PUL was not a pariah organization," he once remarked. "We were both respectable citizens of Baltimore as well as respected citizens of Baltimore." In a similar vein, Naomi Riches recalled in 1973 that, in PUL, "our lack of indoctrination of Socialist principles was because we were so busy with local problems - more liberal welfare programs — and local efforts to increase employment." The impression is that the Socialists were too busy to make PUL radical. And when one contrasts the PUL to the Communist Party's Unemployed Councils with their rough-and-tumble revolutionary rhetoric and posture, it is easy to accept the view of PUL as moderate force at face value.