>Before the war, the US capitalist >class was severely weakened by >the
Depression and did not have >the strength to result either rising >union
militancy or new state >intervention.
By the formation of the CIO in the 30s it was already about 'bread-and-butter' trade unionism, for auto and steel (1935-37). Radical or even progressive unionism for that matter was dead by the time Sacco and Vanzetti hung from ropes.
Do you think perhaps the century's first red purges and xenophobic anti-immigrationcurbs might have had something to do with it?
>But due to the no-strike clause, >their profits zoomed and they >banked it
for the expected >confrontation with labor
>after the war.
Like companies and government were going to let anyone strike on a large scale during the war? Cripes, you had 18 millions (mostly) men in the armed forces during the war. Who was going to strike? Rosie the Riveter, Norma Rae and some zoot suiters?
>And in 1946, that >confrontation >came and US labor largely
>lost-- leading to the >"management rights" compromise >that would determine
the
>essentially bread-and-butter >unionism of postwar unionism in >the US.
Once again the Dem-Rep. US government showed it was more than willing to intercede in strikes on behalf of business. Even if he ineffectively vetoed Taft-Hartley in 1947, Truman sent in the Army and nationalized the railroads in 1950 in an anti-strike action. Then in 1952 he unconstitutionally nationalized the steel mills to avert a strike. Then came Eisenhower and the next wave of Dem-Rep anti-red purges (this with so few to purge).
>And
>with that defeat, left forces in the >unions lost power, leading to the
>ability of the conservative >unionists to expel them.
Stick to sociology Nate.
Charles Jannuzi