On 10/10/07, Michael Nuwer wrote:
The specific issue that I'm emphasizing in this thread is that these
struggles were not only, or primarily, demanding a share of the benefits
from a mass production economy. Significant parts of the labor force
were not yet "prisoners of the America dream," to borrow a phrase from
Mike Davis.
Throughout the period from 1880 to the 1930s important parts of the
working class struggled for something which never emerged. And, for
sure, that struggle was not for a piece of the modern mass consumption pie.
raghu wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? If not for "a piece of the mass consumption
pie", what were their aims? And why do you think they failed? Is it
because Fordism and the welfare-state lured many parts of the working
class over to their side?
The legal roots of the modern wage labor relationship are found in
master-servant law. The aims of the late 19th century trade unions were
a direct challenge to this relationship. It is difficult to make
generalizations about such topics in brief messages posted on the
internet. I do not wish to suggest that there was some hegemonic
philosophy that was adopted by the working class. But, there were
significant elements within the trade-union movement, including leaders,
that appealed to the working classes as producers and citizens (rather
than employees and consumers).
In the 1870s and 1880s trade-unionism engaged in activities which many,
at the time, viewed from the vantage point of self-rule. The AFL and
other organizations made plans to develop and maintain self
determination and craft union autonomy: autonomy from the state and
autonomy from capital. These plans viewed social and economic
organizations as resting in a virtuous and independent citizenry, and
this citizenry’s political and economic independence was intertwined
requiring a rough measure of economic equality. It was not a socialist
movement, but it was radical. In this view the law's chief aim was not
the security of private rights, but the preservation of the social
conditions necessary for such a self-governing citizenry.
The trade union movement was erecting itself as a rival law-maker,
challenging the authority of the courts and the state. Labor activists
utilized a competing language of rights, claiming entitlements in jobs
and workplaces as well as broad freedoms of action and association. They
promulgated rules of workers' control which they dubbed "laws," and
sought to enforce them through new weapons and organizations.
This heritage was passed down in varying forms through-to the 1930s.
Recall that section 6 of the Clayton Act (1914) provides that "the labor
of a human being is not a commodity." The AFL declared this to be
"Labor's Magna Charta." The provision had no bite, especially after the
Supreme Court had its say, but the fact that this line was included in
the statute is a reflection of a particular view within the trade union
movement about work and employment.
The struggle for a closed shop was a historically important issue,
because it went to the heart of which class would control the social
division of labor. Closed-shop agreements with manufacturers were one
way that labor could exercise and enforce self-determination in their
craft. Capital, however, regarded this conflict as one involving the
vital issue of managerial prerogative, and, as we know, capital won that
battle. When the 1935 National Labor Relations Act finally imposed
jurisdictional lines upon unions, the AFL's way of reproducing the
social division of labor was fatally undermined.
