Paul,
Its been a long time since I have read Labor's Untold Story. I am not
sure exactly what you mean by Stalinist interpretation with respect to
the 1930s. If by that you mean that Boyer and Morris's interpretation of
events in the 1930s is similar to that of the CPUSA that would not
surprise me. I don't find the term Stalinist to be particularly
enlightening especially when discussing U.S. history. Perhaps it has a
role and is more meaningful in discussing the history of the Soviet
Union, although honestly it is a term meant to evoke an emotional or
some would call knee jerk reaction. I find it similar to the way in
which Republicans use the term liberal or socialist when talking about
health care. I don't know you at all so please don't take this the
wrong way. I am not comparing you to a Republican. You may have very
valid criticisms of Labor's Untold Story and I might even agree with
some or all of your views. It is just that the word Stalinism doesn't
really tell me anything about your views.
I think that many, although not all of the policies of the CPUSA in the
1930s with respect to the labor movement were okay and their
contributions to the labor movement in the U.S. were significant,
although there were many others who also helped build the trade union
movement in the 1930s. Again it has been a long time since I have read
Labor's Untold Story and I also have not read much about the labor
movement in the 1930s in a long time. Frankly, I would have been less
surprised if you said something about the 40's and 50's because of the
CPUSA's unquestioning defense of the Soviet Union which undoubtedly lead
to certain strategic and tactical errors in labor policy during and
after the war. (The book ends in 1955).
I wrote to a friend of mine who happens to be a labor historian and he
wrote back as follows:
As for labor history, I would recommend Ronald Filippelli's Labor in the USA, I
think that's the title. It is cogent, fair, and pretty progressive,
consistently so. He doesn't red bait at all. The book by Foster Rhea Dulles and
Melvyn Dubofsky, Labor in America,is also good, but boring and long. I would
combine Filippelli with Zinn's Peoples History of the United States. Zinn
writes better than all the text authors; he almost matches the colorful
anecdotal tone of Labor's Untold Story by Boyer and Morais. Boyer was a top
notch journalist, which is why the book is so well written and has never been
matched. But it stops in 1955, which is almost as long ago as 1954. Foner's
books are much too detailed for basic reading, and he also assumes that the
history of labor and the history of unions are identical. The reaction against
Foner by New Left historians was to ignore or belittle unions in labor history.
Both Filippelli and Zinn can be counted upon to assert the importance of
unions, while seeing that most workers have not belonged to them.
Rudy
Paul Zarembka wrote:
Rudy,
Thanks for the link that Labor's Untold Story is still available from
UE for $15:
http://www.ranknfile-ue.org/cat_hist.html
My problem with it is its Stalinist interpretation when it gets to the
1930s.
------------
Michael,
I guess I'll need to look into your suggestion of Bruce Laurie,
"Artisans into Workers: Labor in
Nineteenth-Century America".
I take it that you consider it to be genuinely independent left, right?
Thanks and if anyone else has ideas, I'd welcome them.
Paul
=====
(V23) THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press softcover, 2008
2nd ed
(V24) TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA .... (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES
CRISES
====> Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====> Paul Zarembka, Editor www.buffalo.edu/~zarembka
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
--
Rudy Fichtenbaum
Professor of Economics
Chief Negotiator AAUP-WSU
Wright State University
Dayton, OH 45435-0001
937-775-3085
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
