Registered user login:

The unemployed under the New Deal

John Strachey

Published 24 April 2008

Taken from The New Statesman 17 March 1934
During the Great Depression of the 1930s, mass unemployment affected the industrial state of Pennsylvania more than many others. John Strachey, a leading Marxist intellectual at the time and later a Labour government minister, visited the small town of York to see how those without wages survived. His restrained article showed how debilitating the lack of a proper support system for the unemployed was early in President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.
Selected by Robert Taylor

York, Pennsylvania, is a manufacturing town of 75,000 inhabitants, not untypical of the industrial east of the United States. Having recently a day to spend in it, I devoted my time to visiting the institution which caters for the unemployed of the city.

York has had some 10 to 20 per cent of its total number of families wholly unemployed during the past twelve months. It is claimed that the figure is now nearer the lower than the higher limit. These citizens, some seven thousand to fourteen thousand in number, are kept alive in the following manner. An institution known as a "commissary" (no one could explain the name to me) has been established. I was shown over this institution by its manager, a Mr Schmidt. He is not a government official as he would be in England, but a retired business man, working either gratuitously or for his expenses.

The commissary is supported by Federal, State and County funds, raised by taxation. Up till a few months ago it also received money subscribed by private charities. But private charity in York has now run dry. The commissary relieves the unemployed by issuing to each family a weekly food package. These packages are made up according to the number of adults and the number of children in the family. It has been calculated that so many calories of food are necessary to sustain life in an adult, so many in a child, and precisely this amount of food, per person relieved, is provided.

The commissary employees are not permanent State or local officials, but are either amateur, unpaid, social workers, or paid an extremely low weekly wage, on a purely temporary, week to week, basis. A large staff of investigators inquire into the circumstances of every applicant's relief, in a manner very similar to the Means Test investigations in England.

I witnessed a long queue of applicants for relief coming in to get their food package. They were not actually starving, but they appeared to be on a strictly subsistence level. I was informed by a newspaper correspondent, who had been in close touch with the unemployed, that they reported that the rations were just sufficient to maintain health while they were not working. But if and when any of them obtained work on one of the road schemes, etc, in the neighbourhood, they were unable to do any serious work until they had received their first wages, and were able to buy larger quantities of food.

This commissary system appears to be typical of the whole State of Pennsylvania, but endless variations of it appear to be in existence in other parts of the United States. In many places the main source of income to the relief institutions is still private charity, and in these places the amount of food given to each applicant does not depend on the applicant's need, but on the amount of money which the relief institution has available. Thus, if there is a sudden increase in unemployment, the amount of food distributed to each family has to be at once reduced.

I inquired of the administrators of the York commissary whether the present system was intended to be a permanent one. They were not able to answer this question. While not denying that unemployment would now be a permanent feature of their community, they were unwilling to consider the question of establishing a permanent relief system. The present system has all the marks of its temporary and emergency origin. I inquired whether there were not now in the fourth winter of the depression many families who were entirely without money of any sort. I was told that practically all the families which were being regularly relieved were in this condition. I at once inquired as to what happened to the rent. I was informed that it was impossible to evict some 20 per cent of the total population of the city, and that consequently the landlords of most of the working-class property were themselves bankrupt. As a result, the remarkable phenomenon has arisen that an agitation for relieving the unemployed by money payments, for a "dole" system, had arisen from the landlords!

At the moment the unemployed themselves appear to be passive. Last February, however, when the present system of relief by food packages was instituted, there was serious rioting in the town, and the distribution of food at the commissary had to be undertaken under the guard of State troopers. Up till that time, relief had been given by means of vouchers which could be cashed at the local grocery stores, so that the unemployed were at any rate enabled to choose their own food.

After visiting the commissary, I happened to meet a young Democratic assembly man who had just been elected, from this normally Republican town, to the State legislature. Hoping to obtain the views of a representative of liberal opinion as to the system of relief, I asked him whether he had favoured the introduction of the commissary system. He replied he had been against it. I asked him why? "It brings the unemployed together too much," he said. "They live in different quarters of the city, and if you leave them where they live they can't ever get together. But if you bring them all out to one centre to feed them, they begin to talk amongst themselves, and that's dangerous." During the Great Depression of the 1930s, mass unemployment affected the industrial state of Pennsylvania more than many others. John Strachey, a leading Marxist intellectual at the time and later a Labour government minister, visited the small town of York to see how those without wages survived. His restrained article showed how debilitating the lack of a proper support system for the unemployed was early in President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Abridged here, the article can be read in full at: www.newstatesman.com/from-our-archive

Selected by Robert Taylor

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

1 comment from readers

johannine
27 April 2008 at 04:38

i think this quote sums it all up

;;Hoping to obtain the views of a representative of liberal opinion as to the system of relief,

I asked him whether he had favoured the introduction of the commissary system. He replied he had been against it.

I asked him why? "It brings the unemployed together too much," he said. "They live in different quarters of the city, and if you leave them where they live they can't ever get together.

But if you bring them all out to one centre to feed them, they begin to talk amongst themselves, and that's dangerous''

[???]

What is with the govt [of supposed free speech] that dont like people talking?

Noting the rise in insurance has stopped many of sociaties 'get togethers '' from happening , because they cant afford the quadrupled price of public liability insurance

Seems the forward planning so people ''dont get together [and talk]'' isnt intended to be allowed to repeat this time [and we wonder why we have our suburbs scattered far and wide]

Use your freedumb of speech while you stil got it folks,

get together and talk [before the voting machines elect another elect to serve the other elects .

Remembering there was plenty of 'jobs' during the great depression] just no money to pay people to do them [as well there was plenty of food [just no money to buy it].

Noting we are giving the elites [our govt is giving their elites plenty of credit

[on the tax payers credit card ;

[37,000 each [us citizen] is in the hole supporting big multinational bankers cartel ,buying out the last community owned assets [via privatisation] and bankruptsy

Self regulation isnt working [the privatisatrion of the fed reserve to 12 international bankers has failed [govt lending its own money [at intrest] from the privatised fed reserve has failed ,

Recalling the oil''shortage of the eighties was only caused by a 2 percent shortfall of supply[induced by speculators generating fears [because they got together] just as the govt lobby gets together to control out leaders '

But hey who you going to be able to tell about it anyway

[big brother is listening , so big bro what you going to do about fixing it bro?

who are you sworn to serve bro?

What is free speech if you dont use it to set the people free [the bankers own the media [it wont be doing nothing the bankers and paid lobby dont tell it to do] ,

Free your govt [free your right to speak] to who ever you chose [in peace and love [without blame or revolution [the evil ones understand revolt [but its time to evolve towards peace,not revolution EVOLUTION

It begins with you speaking out peacefully and honestly [or we know how it all ends]

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Read More

Vote!

Should world leaders be forced to stay at the table until their plates are clean?

Win Manu Chao
Albums!

Plus limited edition shirts and vinyl

Enter online