In my opinion, this book is definitely worth reading. While it is not an overtly revolutionary novel, it allows the reader to draw connections between the workers' movement and the need for a movement that will finally liberate the entire working class. It would be a great novel for starting discussions between the agency of the individual in society versus to the interconnectedness of the workers with the economic system.
____________________________
A common theme in Out of this Furnace is the use of various forms of propaganda in
upholding the company’s interests. The propaganda that is issued by the
company, paid-for advertisements, and newspaper editors utilizes common themes
of patriotism and anticommunism to discredit the workers in the union and their
purposes, while justifying the company’s greed and attacks against unions.
The first passage, on page 187, deals with the use of
company propaganda. Here, the company uses propaganda to intimidate the workers
into voting for Taft, the Republican candidate. The company’s use of
intimidation is found in the subtle threat on one of the posters—the threat
that if a “black-bearded anarchist” gets into office, the factories will close
and there will be no more jobs. The ad itself is ludicrous in that it seems to
equate any non-Republican candidate to an anarchist. This goes along with the
idea that any political views contrary to those of the company are not
patriotic—similar to how anarchism was considered unpatriotic at the time. The
company is therefore defining patriotism and telling the workers who to vote
for at the same time. Many workers were uneducated and perhaps eager to be
regarded as “American”—so they were likely to fall victim to this form of
propaganda during the election. This piece of propaganda upholds the company’s
interests because it keeps the workers in fear of losing their jobs and sends
them the message that if they vote Republican, they will not have to worry
about losing their job.
A second example, found on page 243, describes how
propaganda, in the form of newspaper advertisements, dealt with a strike,
predicting its failure and portraying the unions and striking workers as
greedy. The propaganda is clearly directed toward an immigrant audience (the
advertisements were printed in six or seven languages), which is likely to be
conscious about being patriotic “American” citizens. The propaganda uses the
immigrants’ vulnerability to its advantage by, once again, equating the strikers
with foreigners, anarchists, radicals, and even Bolsheviks. The anti-communism,
referred to as “Bolsheviks,” used here is meant to drive readers into fear of
the strikers and their evil and unpatriotic attempts to seize power.
Additionally, the advertisements portrayed the union leadership as greedily
robbing money from the new members’ dues. Finally, the advertisements declare
that the strike was a failure before it even ended—thus probably confusing
readers and workers alike into thinking it had ended and causing workers to go
back to work. It is definitely in the interests of the company that the workers
go back to work and that the public is opposed to the union because it allows
the company to continue exploiting as it has always done without people questioning
its actions. This propaganda upholds the interests of the company because it
accuses the workers, rather than the company owners and supervisors, as greedy.
This distracts the readers from the true cause of the problem—the company’s
greed and massive profits that were gained at the cost of the workers’ safety
and lives.
A final passage, on page 405, reveals how newspaper editors
strip the workers of their collective bargaining achievements by praising the
company for its charitable decision of giving the S.W.O.C. a contract. Once
again, patriotism is tied in with the propaganda: the company is praised as
being patriotic and charitable to the workers; while the SWOC is scolded for
not having proper etiquette (presumably by greedily demanding recognition and
improvements from their kind and charitable company owners). This shows how the
owners are portrayed as “good,” and the unions are portrayed as “bad” and
greedy for asking more of the company. Additionally, the newspaper completely
ignores the union’s struggle and victory. While the reason that the company
gave in to the workers’ demands is clear to any member of the union who
participated in the struggle it sends a different message to the outside
audience. It sends a message that if workers treat their company well, it will
reward them. However, this is completely incorrect. Additionally, the fact that
the company gave in to the demands before the Labor Board came to an official
decision shows that the company wanted the credit for allowing its workers to
unionize; this is much better than having a story circulating about how the
Labor Board forced the company to recognize the S.W.O.C. because of the
company’s unfair and intimidating practices. This shows how the company owners
collaborate with the newspaper writers—whether directly or indirectly—to have
the storys written sympathetically to the company.
