>From the CCDS listeserv, formerly C of C. Michael Pugliese
>From: "Eric V. Kirk" <kirk at humboldt.net>
>To: debsian at pacbell.net
>Date: 4/1/01 11:35:23 PM
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: portsideMod at netscape.net <portsidemod at netscape.net>
>To: portside at yahoogroups.com <portside at yahoogroups.com>
>Date: Saturday, March 31, 2001 5:43 PM
>Subject: RE: SDS FILM 'LABOR & THE LEFT'
>
>
>>Labor and the 60s Left - discussion sparked by Lemisch review
of SDS
>>film
>>
>>[In response to the Jesse Lemisch review of the new film on
SDS, there
>>has been considerable discussion on the H-Net Labor History
Discussion
>>List <h-labor at h-net.msu.edu> . Below are some of the responses
which
>>draw
>>on personal experience, review of historical materials and
documents,
>>related to the relationship between the 60s Left, mainly the
"New Left,"
>>
>>and the labor movement. Postings are in the chronological
order in
>>which
>>they appeared on the H-LABOR listserve. - Moderator]
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>1. From: Joe Torre <bg21908 at binghamton.edu> (March 26)
>>
>>It seems to me that there is a profound relationship between
labor and
>>SDS. It was after all the UAW that sponsored Port Huron and,
at least in
>>
>>part, Cleveland ERAP. Reuther et al did this, I think, in the
true
>>spirit
>>of liberalism -- the same spirit behind Reuther's "Model Cities"
and,
>>incidentally, the same spirit behind Johnson's War on Poverty,
his Civil
>>
>>Rights efforts and, tragically, the Vietnam War. The question
then is,
>>what was the relationship between workers and their largely
middle-class
>>
>>hopes and aspirations, the dreams and aspirations of Reuther
and the UAW
>>
>>and Johnson liberals, and the more radical aspirations of SDS
and Saul
>>Alinsky-type (and trained radicals) -- who unambiguously hobbled
the
>>"liberal" efforts on numerous fronts (especially Office of
Economic
>>Opportunity efforts in Syracuse and other Community Action
Programs) in
>>hopes of igniting more profound change? Or, put another way,
what was
>>the
>>relationship between liberalism and radicalism in labor and
other social
>>
>>movements? Where does something like the Dodge Revolutionary
Union
>>Movement (DRUM) fit into all of this? Some of this speaks,
I think, to
>>the continued tension between liberalism and radicalism often
found on
>>H-
>>Labor discussions.
>>
>>Joe Torre SUNY-Binghamton
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>2. From: "Albert V. Lannon" <avlannon at sfsu.edu> (March 26)
>>
>>H-Labor might be interested in knowing that Marvin Rogoff and
I are in
>>the midst of co-writing an article on the antiwar movement
in the labor
>>movement in the late '60s, early '70s. I was the ILWU's Washington
>>Representative and Marvin worked for the EEOC after years with
the ILGWU
>>
>>and IUE. Through circumstances we ended up working together
virtually
>>full-time for several months putting together a national Labor
for
>>Peace,
>>only to have to rein in it in when it became too narrow, a
function of
>>the ill-fated Alliance for Labor Action UAW-Teamster alliance.
Our
>>article looks at earlier efforts to build a labor peace movement
and
>>their problems, the birth of Washington Labor For Peace with
a full-page
>>
>>anti-war ad in the <italic>Washington Post, </italic>working
with
>>Senators McGovern and Cranston to take it national, and the
final
>>creation of Labor For Peace in 1972. The story has not, to
our
>>knowledge,
>>ever been told, and since we were there, we thought we'd tell
it.
>>
>>Albert Lannon, Laney College, Oakland, CA
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>3. From: "Scott Shuster" <scottshuster at msn.com> (March 26)
>>
>>As to whether a discussion of the new film on SDS belongs on
a radical
>>list as opposed to a labor list, where does one frame of reference
stop
>>and the other start? If one is talking about the relationship
of
>>radicals to the labor movement, such a discussion might appropriately
>>belong on either list. My experience in SDS was that a discussion
of the
>>
>>relationship between radical politics, the labor movement and
working
>>class was ongoing and frankly endless, the influence of C.
Wright Mills'
>>
>>skepticism about labor as an agency for social change not withstanding.
>>Radical activism in the labor movement took on both a subterranean
and
>>less than self conscious manifestation in the decade or so
after the
>>passage of Taft-Hartley and the marginalization of an organized
left
>>presence within the labor movement. Nevertheless, there was
something of
>>
>>a parallel development between rank and file workers movements
and the
>>civil rights movement during the late '50's and early '60's,
while each
>>movement had little knowledge of or contact with the other.
Harvey
>>Swados alluded to this phenomenon in his seminal 1956 essay,
"The Myth
>>of
>>the Happy Worker." While the civil rights and antiwar movements
of the
>>period were much more publicly visible, by the mid 1960's,
rank and file
>>
>>labor movements in alliance with secondary leaders had managed
to topple
>>
>>the administrations in half a dozen major international unions
and exert
>>
>>a public presence in several others. Such shake ups in the
structure of
>>
>>organized labor could hardly go unnoticed by the New Left,
given its
>>affinity for "participatory democracy." Beyond that, several
"Old Left"
>>
>>tendencies, such as PL, the Dubois Clubs, the YSA and the IS,
though
>>usually at odds with each other, always had a presence in New
Left
>>circles and constantly reoriented the public discourse within
the New
>>Left in the direction of the working class.
>>
>>One of the more peculiar ironies of the New Left was, that
despite its
>>ideological rejection of what Mills characterized as "the labor
>>metaphysic," many of its adherents ended up as union staffers,
not to
>>mention academic labor historians and sociologists.
>>
>>Gabe Gabrielsky, Shop Steward, HERE Local 54
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>4. From: James Barrett <jrbarret at uiuc.edu> (March 26)
>>
>>a good short summary. This generation, as a result of the work
you have
>>in mind, continues to stick out as the years pass, not least
in academic
>>
>>circles where they have changed the way we look at history.
>>
>>Jim Barrett
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>5. From: Melvyn Dubofsky <dubof at binghamton.edu> (March 27)
>>
>>Let me give you another interesting take on the relationship
between
>>SDS,
>>the student left, or whatever you want to call it, and labor
and trade
>>unionism. In the summers of 1980 and 1981 when I taught NEH
summer
>>seminars for labor leaders (such things actually existed funded
by the
>>feds before Reagan), I discovered that a number of the younger
"labor
>>leaders" (really low level local officials) had come directly
out of the
>>
>>student left, SDS included, and after its collapse moved into
trade-
>>union service. Not only that but in such unions as SEIU, AFCSME,
and
>>even
>>the UFCW they found a protective haven that enabled them to
pursue some
>>of their social objectives. The relationship between labor
and the
>>student left was fraught with tension and at times open conflict
but
>>also
>>often with cooperation and coalition. I remember an antiwar
meeting at
>>the Chicago amphitheater in the mid-1960s whose speakers included
>>Staughton Lynd (I don't remember whether or not Jesse Lemisch
was
>>there),
>>a leader from the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, and another
from the
>>Butcher Workmen and Leather Workers.
>>
>>And apropos James Barrett's comments, he gives too much credit
to the
>>impact of his cohort on higher education. Much of what they
brought to
>>academe was already in gestation and or had birthed before
they arrived.
>>
>>Over here David Montgomery, Herb Gutman, Al Young, Natalie
Davis,to name
>>
>>only a few, represented an older generation. The same was true
in
>>England
>>where E.P. Thompson, Eric Hobsbawm, Christopher Hill, Richard
Cobb, and
>>even Asa Briggs had altered the way history was conceived and
done. Jim
>>might even consider the undergraduate experience of his colleague
at
>>Illinois, David Roediger, who was partly shaped as an historian
by
>>historians at Northern Illinois U., most of whom were pre-SDS
and
>>pre-1960s. Let's concede that the 60s reinforced changes already
>>underway
>>but let's not ignore some of the grayheads and graybeards.
>>
>>Jesse is right, the legacy of the 60s is extraordinarily mixed
and
>>ambiguous. Look at today's column in the Washington Post by
Thomas
>>Edsall
>>on voting trends over the past 30 years for some of that ambiguity.
>>
>>Melvyn Dubofsky Distinguished Professor of History and Sociology
>>Binghamton University, SUNY
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>6. From: "NORMAN MARKOWITZ" <markowit at cac-gen3.rutgers.edu>
(March 27)
>>
>>As someone who teaches a course on the culture of the 1960s
but hasn't
>>yet seen the film that Jesse Lemisch critiques(I use a variety
of films,
>>
>>from Dr. Strangelove and Medium Cool, to Berkeley in the 1960s
and
>>Remembering Mylai, to capture the period, along with a variety
of texts,
>>
>>including the really fine collection edited Alexander Bloom
and Wini
>>Breines, Takin it to the Streets) it is useful, I think, to
look at the
>>what the society was before the sixties began as an historicial
period(I
>>
>>see 1963 as its beginning) and what the society was when it
ended as an
>>historical period(I see the 1974-1975 as its end). In most
ways, SDS
>>wasn't, as I see it, that important. Its anarchic approach
and the
>>enormous diversity of SDS chapters made it less a coordinating
force(in
>>the tradition, I would argue of the CPUSA in the 1930s) for
the anti-war
>>
>>movement, and the movement to democratize campus life, but
an expression
>>
>>of those mass movements. The Civil Rights/Black Liberation/Black
Power
>>movement, the Womens Rights/Women's Liberation movement, the
Anti-
>>War/Anti-U.S. imperialism movements, the anti- corporate/consumer
>>/environmental/ecological movements, along with the "counterculture"
are
>>
>>what is important, about the period because they did change
the way
>>large numbers of people thought about life, the way they interacted
with
>>
>>each other, and, in a significant way, through civil rights
legislation,
>>
>>environmental protection legislation, even the elimination
of the draft
>>and the lowering of the voting age, law. That we have lived
for a
>>generation in a sort of anti-1960s, in which right politicians
have run
>>against the 1960s the way Southern white supremacists ran against
>>Reconstruction, and in regard to politics and economic policy,
a
>>rightwing crusade, appeased by Carter-Clinton Democrats, against
all
>>forms of economic regulation and social legislation,can't be
blamed on
>>1960s activists or movements. While labor was largely the missing
link
>>in
>>the 1960s(there were movements like DRUM and the League of
Revolutionary
>>
>>Black Workers in Michigan, and rank and file radical currents)
how, in a
>>
>>period in which the living standards of workers, in regard
to social
>>incomes and money incomes, reached their peak, how could the
Meany AFL-
>>CIO leadership over organized workers have been effectively
challenged,
>>since, if it was ever delivering the goods, it was then. Campaigns
to
>>organize white collar workers, farm workers, etc, did advance
in a major
>>
>>way and, in my experience, a great many activists now work
fulltime for
>>the trade union movement and often push progressive politics,
as against
>>
>>the stereotype of activists becoming either yuppie stockbrokers
or
>>yuppie
>>radical professors.The cold war liberal democrats, who moved
to the
>>right
>>in the 1970s in response to international economic changes
and their
>>refusal to organize the unorganized low income non-voters outside
of
>>American politics and the AFL-CIO leadership, who refused to
endorse
>>George McGovern in 1972, objectively taking the position, Better
Nixon
>>than McGovern, and continued to refuse to organize unorganized
workers,
>>even when it became clear that postwar gains were being lost
rapidly
>>after the middle 1970s, had the power that radical activists
never had,
>>and stuck to pre-1960s policies as those policies led to political
>>disaster and disaster for the trade union movement. Since
the issues
>>and
>>struggles of the 1960s are ongoing and unresolved, neither
self-
>>contratulation, nor flagellation, self or otherwise, should
be taken too
>>
>>seriously by students of history
>>
>>Norman Markowitz
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>7. From: Frank Koscielski <ac2668 at wayne.edu> (March 27)
>>
>>Albert Lannon and others interested in the Labor Movement and
the
>>Vietnam
>>War might want to look at my book, Divided Loyalties: American
Unions
>>and
>>the Vietnam War (1999, Garland) recently reviewed in Labor
History.
>>
>>Frank Koscielski Wayne State University
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>8. From: Kevin G Boyle <kboyle at history.umass.edu> (March 29)
>>
>>I've enjoyed reading the exchanges about what "we" did in the
sixties.
>>(I
>>put "we" in quotes because, personally, I didn't do anything
in the
>>sixties.) I'm really interested in how labor unions and working
people
>>related to the social movements in the era and I've learned
a lot from
>>reading the postings. I wonder, though, whether the time has
come to
>>move
>>beyond the effort to fit labor and the working class into the
standard
>>story of the sixties (that is, to say how they related to SDS
or SCLS or
>>
>>NOW). Perhaps we also need to look at how working people experienced
the
>>
>>decade on their own terms: in factories and office buildings,
in their
>>neighborhoods, in their families, in their churches, at the
Moose Lodge.
>>
>>Maybe if we look at that perspective, we will get a whole new
history of
>>
>>the 1960s, one that isn't centered on SDS at all. In other
words, maybe
>>the time has come to do for the history of the 1960s what historians
in
>>the 1960s taught us to do with the past, to rewrite it from
entirely new
>>
>>angles.
>>
>>Kevin Boyle
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>9. From: Jefferson Cowie <jrc32 at cornell.edu> (March 29)
>>
>>Kevin Boyle's posting struck me as particularly important.
Decentering
>>Berkeley, Columbia, and Ann Arbor, and examining blue-collar
communities
>>
>>on their own terms will be the only way to understand the sixties
"in
>>factories and office buildings, in their neighborhoods, in
their
>>families, in their churches, at the Moose Lodge." Bravo.
>>
>>Going one step further, I suspect that "the sixties" as we're
describing
>>
>>them (questioning of authority, upheavals in gender and race
relations,
>>the war) didn't really happen in those places IN the sixties.
I would
>>argue that these issues did not hit most blue collar communities
until
>>the seventies and did so in different and unintended ways.
The many
>>questions posed by the New Left were done so in the midst of
a
>>successful
>>economy, but most working people struggled to come to terms
with those
>>issues in a different, and shrinking, world of economic opportunity.
>>The
>>search for lofty goals such as participatory democracy, authenticity,
>>legitimacy of authority, and racial equality seemed very different
under
>>
>>the weight of the worst economic conditions since the Great
Depression.
>>
>>Interestingly, the seventies (unlike much of the previous decade)
did
>>see
>>a resurgence of workplace issues (from federal legislation
to strike
>>activity to commercial pop culture), but when the answers came,
they
>>were
>>not pleasant.
>>
>>Jeff Cowie
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>10. From: "John Beck" <beckj at msu.edu> (March 29)
>>
>>I would add Christian Appy's WORKING-CLASS WAR: AMERICAN COMBAT
SOLDIERS
>>
>>AND VIETNAM (1993, UNC Press) to anyone's list to read for
understanding
>>
>>of what "we" did in the 1960's. Working class communities,
though
>>fractured in their views, were united in their contribution
of the
>>majority of foot soldiers in the Vietnam conflict -- a fact
which
>>contributes to any context of protest, the student movement
and the
>>union
>>movement in the 60's and 70's.
>>
>>John P. Beck, Labor Education Program Michigan State University
>>
>>===========================
>>
>>11. From: "Pam Brunfelt" <p.brunfelt at thor.vr.cc.mn.us> (March
29)
>>
>>I agree with Jeff Cowie that in many ways the movements of
the sixties
>>bypassed some working class communities. I believe that that
was
>>certainly the case on the Mesabi Iron Range, where I grew up
in the
>>sixties. I remember engaging in some debates about Vietnam
while in
>>school, but otherwise the anti-war activity was very limited.
Some
>>people would argue that the other social movements such as
Civil Rights
>>and Women's Liberation have still not occurred here. I personally
>>believe that the impact of the former has had almost no effect
here
>>because the minority population is still miniscule, and racism
is a
>>continual problem. The latter, however, has had a wider impact
in
>>business, in the mines, and in government.
>>
>>The reason's why places like the Mesabi remained backwaters
as the tidal
>>
>>wave of social change occurred elsewhere needs to be explored.
Perhaps
>>I
>>will get to it one day.
>>
>>Pam Brunfelt History Instructor Vermilion Community College,
Ely, MN
>>
>>===========================
>>
>> 12. From: Heather Thompson <hathomps at email.uncc.edu> (March
29)
>>
>>I have enjoyed the "What we did in the Sixties" postings tremendously.
>>It
>>seems to me that the insightful discussion which has unfolded
on this
>>topic really shows how useful thinking about 60s radicalism
and labor
>>together can be. As several have pointed out, trying to link
SDS to the
>>labor movement as traditionally defined is not easy but I,
like Kevin
>>Boyle and Jeff Cowie, want to suggest strongly that we break
out of that
>>
>>mold anyway. If one begins to look at workers in the late 1960s
and
>>1970s
>>more as they really were, rather than as pop culture imagines
all of
>>them
>>to be--the white Archie Bunker hard hat war-supporter--we see
a very
>>different picture of this era emerging. Young African American
workers
>>and white workers from factories in Detroit to New Jersey to
Atlanta to
>>rural Lordstown Ohio were fighting the War in Vietnam, oppressive
>>management, sexism, racism, etc., etc. (not to mention engaging
in
>>dramatic protests and wearing long hair!) at the same time
that many of
>>their co-workers (and oftentimes their union leaders) were
swinging
>>rightward. If anyone is interested, I delve into some concrete
examples
>>of this in a recent article that I wrote for Mid-America called
"Another
>>
>>War at Home: Reexamining Working Class Politics in the 1960s,"
>>(September
>>2000).
>>
>>Heather Thompson Department of History University of North
Carolina at
>>Charlotte
>>
>>
>>__________________________________________________________________
>>Get your own FREE, personal Netscape Webmail account today
at
>http://webmail.netscape.com/
>>
>>
>>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a
>>news, discussion and debate service of the Committees
>>of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It
>>aims to provide varied material of interest to people
>>on the left.
>>
>>Post : mail to 'portside at egroups.com'
>>Subscribe : mail to 'portside-subscribe at egroups.com'
>>Unsubscribe : mail to 'portside-unsubscribe at egroups.com'
>>List owner : portside-owner at egroups.com
>>Web address : <http://www.egroups.com/group/portside>
>>Digest mode : visit Web site
>>
>>
>>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>>
>
>