On 1/15/06, Michael Pollak <mpollak at panix.com> wrote:
> Could you expand on that? Unions were regulaly opposed by armed force in
> the 19th century, so belonging to one seems like it had to be pretty
> engaging. And workers in general -- i.e., people in general -- voted at
> higher rates then than they do now, even in the late 19th century, when
> national politics were even more venal and empty of content than they are
> now. So it's not clear at first sight what you're referring to. Do you
> mean that their horizons were more local?
In the 19th century, a lot of the labor movement -- including the Knights of Labor and the AF of L -- opposed participation in the national political parties. But union work at the time was inherently political (as it still is).
Some people equate "politics" with "political parties," but as feminists have been saying for a long time, even the personal is political.
JD