Wojtek
^^^^ Union organizing was difficult in the 1800’s and early 20th Century. The US "culture" at that time had generated laws that made unions criminal enterprises - Criminal syndicalism. * The word “syndicate” has a criminal connotation
in US English because of this. If tough times and “cultural” anti-unionism had been reasons not to organize unions, there never would be unions. Capitialism will always generate and
regenerate a hostile environment to unionism, so that is not a basis for giving up on unionism.
Don't complain; Organize
Joe Hill
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitney_v._California
Whitney v. California
Charlotte Whitney, a member of a distinguished California family, was convicted under the state's 1919 Criminal Syndicalism Act for allegedly helping to establish the Communist Labor Party, a group the state charged was devoted to teaching the
violent overthrow of government.
Whitney claimed that it had not been her
intention, nor that of other organizers, that the party become an instrument of violence.
Note by CB: Mr. Justice Brandeis, the famous civil libertarian
concurred in the conviction by the
way. As my Constitutional law prof. said, Brandeis wrote a pean
to free speech and then voted the
wrong way. Typical liberal !
The Brandeis concurrence The Whitney case is most noted for Justice Louis D. Brandeis's concurrence, which many scholars have lauded as perhaps the greatest defense of freedom of speech ever written by
a member of the high court.[1] (He and Justice
Holmes concurred in the result because of certain
technical issues, but there is no question that the
sentiments are a distinct dissent from the views of
the prevailing majority.)
Yea "technical issues" like defending capitalism -CB
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/2006/2006-February/002540.html
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/1998/1998-May/000908.html