The Cold Millions

Jess Walter uses his novel to paint a complex depiction of unions and socialism. Though the protagonists of the novel are on the side of the unions, their belief in the union’s power is challenged by two compelling forces, anarchy and individualist capitalism. This allows the reader to understand how unionism is a complex, nuanced, and realistic perspective of labor dynamics, rather than a simplistic vision of the workers’ triumph.

Lem Brand represents individualist capitalism. He argues that Gurley and the union leaders use the workers as pawns to further their agenda. Their real intention, he says, is to start an unending war with no real goal, since they will never be satisfied by any victory they land, whether that victory involves wage increases or women’s suffrage. Though Lem admits to using workers for his purposes as well, he distances himself from the unions by paying his workers, giving them a chance to fulfill their dreams and aspirations. He furthermore tries to appeal to Rye’s sense of individualism by trying to relate to Rye’s struggles. He mentions that he used to work at the same mine where Rye’s father worked. Much later, Rye finds him eating at the servants’ table instead of the dining room. Lem often tries to pass himself off as having a humble background despite the overwhelming luxury and wealth that surrounds him. Nowhere is this more evident than in his attempts to disguise himself as a driver. Though Rye falls for the charade, Del Dalveaux is less willing to oblige it, calling him out as soon as he sees it. Lem’s challenge to unionism is flawed because it willfully ignores the fact that Lem’s wealth differentiates him and Rye. Lem and Rye’s father may have worked in the same mine, but Lem still owned the mine while Rye’s father suffered through imprisonment in debtor’s jail. If Lem’s motivation is to protect his wealth, then he must protect it from all the other individuals who try to claim it, including Rye.

More compelling to Rye is Early Reston’s argument for anarchy, which he lays out during their return from Taft to Spokane. Where Lem appeals to Rye’s aspirations, Early appeals to his cynicism and sense of defeat. He deploys an allegory of kings, nobility, and peasants, noting that the nobility will always try to overthrow the kings to quench their dissatisfaction with the rulers’ greed. However, the unending cycle of violence and regime change leads the peasants, who view the events from a distance, to one conclusion: Their reliance on authority is the real flaw to be corrected. Rye only begins to feel that Early is correct when the union fails to stop Gig’s conviction. He becomes conscious of the fact that his story has been used to raise support but not to resolve the problem he asked them for help with. In fact, Rye finds that Lem actually resolves the issue when he asks for his help, which further demoralizes him. However, Rye can no longer stomach cynicism when he recognizes it in Gig. He goes to Gurley, who echoes his sentiment of defeat and admits that sometimes she does not know the answer. Rye later realizes that a good answer had come from Gurley after their escape from Taft: “[N]o one wins the war, Ryan… I mean, we’re all going to die… But to win a battle now and then? What more could you want?” (336). Rye realizes that Early’s feudal allegory had been too simplistic, removing authority altogether and leaving people to their own devices.

What Walter suggests in Gurley’s answer is that unionism does not claim to solve the world’s problems because nothing can. Unionism can only try to make things better for those who suffer and find a sense of meaning in the attempt. Rye embraces Gurley’s pragmatic but hopeful vision later in his life when he becomes an officer in the local chapter of his steelworkers’ union. Rye is not a revolutionary, but he uses his position to protect and defend his fellow workers to make their lives better.