> ...the simple fact (is) that there is no movement to abolish capitalism in
> the US...
> One reason there is no repeat of the CIO organizing in the 1930s is that
> much of their actions are now illegal. And American workers are in a
> defensive crouch, blaming themselves for corporate layoffs. We still have
> to argue that the provision of health care is even a political issue.
==========================================
It seems there is no movement to abolish capitalism in the US because
despite rising inequality and stress most workers until very recently did
not fear losing their jobs or homes and had access to cheap air travel,
computers, cell phones, flat panel TVs. They experienced this as a
constantly improving standard of living, although they worried about whether
it would be sustained for their kids.
Against this relatively benign backdrop, they're naturally inclined to consider the present crisis as temporary and are waiting for the economy to "recover", ie. for a restoration rather than a change of the status quo.
I can't agree that the reason why why there is no repeat of CIO organization is because of Hart-Taftley and other anti-union legislation. Union militancy was highest when the state was was more repressive, violently so, before the the right to organize and strike were legalized in the 30's. The CIO sit-ins which sparked the organizing drives in industry were, as you'll recall, illegal. So the reason for the relative passivity of the American working class has to be sought elsewhere.
I've attributed it previously to (1) the opening of new global labour markets which has produced labour surpluses rather than shortages in the advanced capitalist economies, particularly in the unionized industrial sectors - a condition which places workers on the defensive, as you say, rather than the offensive; and (2) it is easier to organize full-time assembly line workers in highly conentrated factory, mine, and mill towns and neighbourhoods who are subject to harsh labour discipline and conditions than to organize workers in predominantly service economies who are more diverse and dispersed, whose working hours and periods of work are more irregular and whose turnover is higher, and whose workplace is generally less dangerous and regimented.
The working conditions in a modern service economy therefore do not seem to contribute to the same development of a collective sense of grievance and organization as in industrial economies - the modest successes of the SEIU and other service sector unions notwithstanding. Perhaps the current economic crisis will lead to a revival of union militancy, but it is an open question - for me, at least - whether the long decline of the unions, which corresponds to the shift from manufacturing to services, owes more to structural rather than to conjunctural factors.