[lbo-talk] Alito & disability

Jim Devine jdevine03 at gmail.com
Sun Jan 15 13:43:44 PST 2006



> On Sun, 15 Jan 2006, Nathan Newman wrote:
> > It depends on your definition of engagement. Workers and unions that
> > existed in the 19th century were in many ways less engaged in politics in
> > the late 19th century than today.

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



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list