Does the U.S. labor movement have a future?

In 1935 the American Federation of Labor held its annual convention in Atlantic City. It was a tumultuous meeting. Workers throughout the nation's mass production industries were in a state of revolt against the devastation wrought by the Great Depression. Within the AFL there was a sharp split between the craft unionists like Bill Hutcheson, who found the organization of unskilled industrial workers repugnant, and the radicals like John L. Lewis, who understood that only massive industrial unionization would save the labor movement from extinction. During acrimonious debate, Lewis threw his famous punch into Hutcheson's face, and the split soon became a secession, marked by the birth of the CIO. The rest, as they say, is history.

In 1995 the AFL-CIO met in New York City. Tension and excitement were palpable. For the first time in more than 100 years, there was a contest for the highest offices. The pathetic Lane Kirkland had been forced to resign and his heir apparent, Tom Donohue, himself a national officer, could not control the large and powerful unions that were pushing for change. The Service Employees, the Mine Workers, the Teamsters, and AFSCME, among others, organized an insurgent movement, the "New Voice," to topple the old guard. John Sweeney, a noted organizer with the SEIU, headed the new group, along with Rich Trumka of the UMW and Linda Chavez-Thompson of AFSCME. By the time of the 1995 convention the "New Voice" slate had enough votes to defeat the Donohue forces. At the convention excitement rippled through the crowded halls, which were filled with the orange banners of "New Voice."

After the votes were cast and the tumult died down, Sweeney, Trumka, and Chavez-Thompson promised nothing less than the building of a new social movement and proposed a wide variety of initiatives to do so. To date, the new leadership has begun a "Union Summer" organizing campaign, recruiting and training hundreds of young people as organizers and political activists; it has organized several conferences bringing together trade unionists and intellectuals to discuss matters such as organizing, labor law, and racism; it has begun the revitalization and coordination of the actions of Central Labor Councils; and it has committed millions of dollars to organizing efforts and progressive politics. Of some importance, it did not oppose the formation of a new labor party this June in Cleveland, a party whose base includes some of the unions that supported "New Voice."

Is it possible to imagine that the new leadership can transform the AFL-CIO into a labor movement which will be the core of a radical social movement? Will history repeat itself? In what follows, I attempt to examine both the formidable obstacles and the windows of opportunity facing those who want to rebuild the labor movement and ultimately transform our society.

II

Both the Great Depression and the long-term boom which followed the Second World War were unique episodes in the history of U.S. capitalism. The capital of the mass production industries which spawned the CIO was relatively new, which precluded plants closing or moving in the face of militant unionism. What is more, the massive reserve army of the unemployed did not present an insurmountable barrier to unionization. The depth of the depression had made workers willing to take actions that they might normally have been unwilling to take, such as physically confronting the police and occupying the factories. Public sentiment had shifted sharply against the rich and powerful. In addition, the unemployed, themselves, had begun to organize, militantly and under radical leadership, and there were occasions when those who were out of work supported the organization of those still employed. The leftward shift in attitudes and actions made it more difficult for the state and employers to brutalize workers into submission as they had so often in the past.

The long expansion after the war was marked by limited competition to U.S. capital, which meant that profit rates were very high. The newly revitalized labor movement could, therefore, win continuous improvements in working class living standards without unduly jeopardizing job security. Cold War military spending helped to prop up aggregate demand and prevent the recurrence of another depression. Of course, capital continued to expand internationally and technological change continued both to replace labor and to de-skill it, but the negative effects of these things were masked by the strength of the boom.

Today, circumstances have changed dramatically. The economic stagnation of the past 25 years has generated a ferocious corporate attack upon labor, and the result has been labor's complete rout. Labor's defeat was accompanied by intense competition from European and Japanese capital, numerous plant closings, and considerable capital flight. The resulting unemployment was compounded by the electronic revolution, which not only continued the de-skilling of labor but also allowed for the elimination of labor in both the goods- and the services-producing industries. Clerical work in insurance companies located in the United States, for example, can now be done by women working at home in rural Ireland. In a recent article in the New York Review of Books, Simon Head describes computer technology which has increased productivity in IBM's financial subsidiary by 10,000 percent. The much-enlarged reserve army of labor created by these developments has, in turn, allowed firms to make increasing amounts of employment contingent: involuntary part-time, temporary, leased, home-worked, or independently contracted.

Because of their work arrangements these workers are extremely difficult to organize. Slack labor markets have also allowed employers to implement so-called "lean" production techniques which have resulted in greatly enhanced managerial control and speedup inside of our workplaces. All of this has greatly magnified the insecurity which is the normal lot of workers in capitalist economies. Insecurity, in turn, has made millions of underemployed workers willing to scab and take whatever work they can get.

The politics of 1995 stands in sharp contrast to that of 1935. Then there was a vibrant left-wing politics which helped to move mainstream politics as far to the left as it has ever been. Progressive politics provided sustenance for the working class. It is not possible to give a plausible explanation for the labor laws enacted, the diminution of police repression, and the liberal shift in federal court decisions without reference to the radically changed political climate. And while the times themselves helped to generate this climate, there were important left-wing organizations already in existence when the Depression began. The Socialist Party and the IWW were still alive, helping along with the Communists to give memory and direction to the Unemployed Councils and the new unions.

In 1995 we find a completely different political climate. The politics of the United States today is monolithic. Both political parties have embraced a neoliberal ideal: the most important thing is to serve the needs of capital. It is assumed that the movement of capital across the globe in search of profits is part of the natural order, ordained by the great market god and interfered with at our peril. The Republicans make no bones about this, and will support any policy, no matter how odious, if it benefits business. But the Democrats act the same way. Thus both parties aggressively support NAFTA, GATT, and all of the other "free trade" agreements, the misery of Mexican workers and peasants and the loss of U.S. jobs notwithstanding. Both parties together dismantled the welfare system.

Labor is now seen by both parties as a special interest group, antiquated in its thinking. Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, Clinton's most liberal minister, has suggested that unions may no longer have any role to play in the modern "team-oriented" workplace. The AFL-CIO went all-out for Clinton this year. Yet a more anti-labor president is hard to imagine. In 1992 when Clinton was not yet the Democrat's nominee, an AFL-CIO official in Clinton's home state of Arkansas said that Clinton "was a guy who would put his arm around you while he pissed down your leg." The fact that Clinton is supported by organized labor speaks volumes about the hostility of the political system to organized labor, something which does not bode well for any rebirth of the labor movement.

III

It would be incorrect to believe that the future of the labor movement hinged simply upon political economy. Unfortunately labor's difficulties run much deeper. To use Gramsci's famous phrase, capitalism is a "hegemonic system." It infiltrates all aspects of our lives, including the most personal, with the logic of exchange. If there had been a vibrant alternative culture throughout the post-Second World War period, it would have been difficult to keep that culture alive. The fact that there was no such culture gave capitalism the field to itself. The results have been inimical to the growth of the labor movement.

Suppose that we consider a typical working class neighborhood in 1935. Workers lived in close proximity to one another, and most of them worked close by. They got their news from newspapers and perhaps radio, and there were a good many newspapers, some aimed directly at them. Few of them had cars, and all of them worked too hard for too little pay (or were unemployed) to have been obsessed with consumption. The Depression had struck them ferociously, obliterating many of the subtle economic differences which previously had marked them. Of course, they were sharply divided by race and by sex, but even these seemingly insurmountable differences showed signs of weakening in the crucible of depression suffering. In such circumstances it made sense to speak of a working class "outlook" if not yet a working class "consciousness."

In my own hometown, fifteen years after the end of the Great Depression, it was still the case that most people thought of themselves as working people, and they knew that their employers were not the same as they. When people left work, they went to their bars and clubs and talked among themselves. Everybody was pretty much in the same boat, and those who did not share a working class outlook were looked upon with suspicion. Nothing could be worse than being thought of as a "company man." No wonder then that the CIO electrified entire communities and organized at a dizzying pace. In my mother's town, a small and poor mining village, people were ready for the UMW. Here was an organization which galvanized their deepest feelings and no amount of propaganda could defeat it.

Turn the clock ahead to 1995. There is a glass factory near Meadville, Pennsylvania, and some of the employees there want a union. The plant is located in an isolated area, and the company has taken pains to hire people from a widespread area. When the shift ends, workers scatter in their vans and trucks to their rural and suburban homes. There is no sense of community. The typical worker does not consider himself or herself to be working class. In fact, the company has begun a team concept program, and quite a few workers are pleased to be designated as "associates." The new distinctions which the employer promotes among the workers do not face the nearly unanimous disdain which they would have encountered 60 or even 30 years before. The younger workers especially do not think of the union as I would have when I was their age. They are interested in themselves and in consumption and little else. They do not have any clear idea of why things are the way they are or how a union might improve their lives. The union which tried to organize them did all of the right things, but despite its best efforts, it could not convince these young workers to vote union.

The suburbanization of the white working class after the Second World War and the increased working class consumption which accompanied it, both of which were encouraged by capital and the state and ironically made possible by the successes of the labor movement, have created lifestyles and modes of thinking which preclude critical thought and radical action. Capitalism commodities everything from the media to religion; life is literally organized around the marketplace. The social relationships which comprise our economic system are thoroughly masked, and all that matters is our relationship with the things we buy. No one encourages us to look beyond the market to grasp the relationships of unequal power which ultimately underlie it. The market is the whole of life; all that we can do is conform to its dictates.

The market's thorough infiltration of everyday life has left most people without a moral compass. As David Moberg, citing an opinion analyst, put it in a recent Nation article, "Most workers simply don't have anything approaching an ideological perspective, a basic framework, maybe even some crude Keynesianism. It's not just that they're uninformed, but they have no theory of the world to organize the information they get." This ideological vacuum has two effects, both bad for the labor movement. On the one hand, people tend to develop a pervasive cynicism. Everyone is corrupt. Everyone is in it for the money. Nothing can be trusted and nothing can be done. Like every organization, unions are immediately suspect, just another special interest group and probably corrupt. Needless to say, employers play upon this cynicism for all it's worth. Yet human beings have a need for meaning. And so, on the other hand, workers gravitate toward groups which claim to understand why it is that consumption leaves us feeling so empty. It is no accident that religious fundamentalism is raising its ugly head throughout the world or that alienated people join militias. Many workers will even be attracted to charlatans like Ross Perot. They will think-here is a man so rich that he must be in the know. If he says things that we sometimes think, then maybe he can be trusted to pull us out of the swamp. While fundamentalists, militia members, and followers of Perot may be or become good union members, they will never be led to class consciousness through such groups or persons. What is worse is that ignorance combined with traumatic social change is a breeding ground for sexism, racism, and homophobia. These pathologies are best challenged when people have some understanding about the society in which they live and when there are powerful egalitarian movements to do the challenging. The broadest of such movements is a labor movement.

In every modern society there are people who think for a living. Given capitalism's hegemonic tendencies, they do not typically think whatever they please, especially if they want to live well. Capitalism's intellectuals are a varied lot, but the one thing they have in common is a dread and hatred of working class consciousness. Their job, so to speak, is to stamp it out, to cast it in such a negative light that no one will think that it is a good thing. Today, nearly all intellectuals have accepted capitalism as inevitable and as basically good. Their ideas are trumpeted loudly in the media, and they are rewarded with positions of power and influence. Those few who are critical of capitalism are marginalized, beyond the pale of public discussion. Brain-dead pundits dominate the media, while a great intellectual like Noam Chomsky is persona non grata.

Even among intellectuals not overtly hostile to workers, class consciousness is rarely discussed. For example, labor-management cooperation is the dominant paradigm in our schools of labor and industrial relations. This is an especially dangerous model because many of its proponents are close to organized labor, some segments of which have embraced it. These intellectuals sometimes give lip service to more radical ideas, but they are fundamentally hostile to them. My friend Kate Bronfenbrenner had a recent experience which illustrates this. Kate and her colleague Tom Juravich have done pioneering research which shows that class-based organizing (what might be called solidarity unionism) actually works best. That is, those unions which mobilize rank-and-file workers around a program of aggressive solidarity and conflict with their employers have the best chances of winning union elections, bargaining good contracts, and resisting decertification. Kate presented their research at the 1995 meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association. It was met with unremitting antagonism. At her panel, the lone discussant devoted all of his time to denouncing Kate's research, and she was not permitted to defend herself. All of this at the meeting of the country's dominant liberal labor relations organization. Of course, industrial relations programs have close corporate and government ties, and since the liberal corporate and government entities which provide them with money now espouse cooperation, professors in the schools follow suit.

Surprisingly, leftist intellectuals do not always give much attention to the working class. They are often content to engage in academic theorizing among themselves without seeing the necessity of engaging actual workers. Or they reject the grand narrative of Marx in favor of a theoretical deconstruction which claims that class is no more important than a host of other "identities." They ignore or downplay the fact that capitalism is a system of class exploitation and that class-based organization is a necessary condition for its supersession. To put it bluntly, rich women, bourgeois African Americans, and gay businessmen will not liberate us. But the working class might.

With the concentrated power of capital, in all of its guises, working against the formation of a labor movement and with intellectuals saying that a labor movement is a bad thing or not necessary or not of much importance, it is small wonder that the average person is not class conscious. It may be a miracle that millions of working people are union members and more liberal than we have any right to expect them to be.

IV

If in 1935 a labor movement was born, why did it not succeed in making itself a permanent thorn in capital's side? Why has it so meekly succumbed to capital's depredations? These are questions long debated by scholars and we cannot do justice to these debates here, but let me suggest a critical reason for labor's demise (and as we shall see, a reason which labor will have to address if it wants to have a future). In the late 1930s the CIO was poised to become a mass movement, complete with a labor political party. But its conservative heritage and effective co-optation by the Democratic Party prevented this from happening. If this had occurred, the labor movement would have begun to develop a radical ideology, one rooted in egalitarianism and class struggle. Sadly this golden opportunity passed and allowed the conservatives within the movement, people with no discernible beliefs other than economic gain for their members and power for themselves, to seize the day. The results were catastrophic, the considerable increase in the real incomes of union members after the Second World War notwithstanding. Within 20 years of the founding of the CIO, its new leaders had expelled its most left-wing and democratic unions, cooperated in the witch hunts which ruined the lives of labor's best and most progressive organizers, joined forces with the State Department and the CIA to undermine progressive labor movements worldwide, halted its plan (Operation Dixie) to organize black workers in the South (where the left-wing unions had notable successes), and merged with the racist and reactionary AFL.

It is natural that, as unions became larger and collective bargaining more complicated, union bureaucracies developed. No organization can thrive for long without bureaucrats. But bereft of principles, bureaucrats exhibit a strong tendency to protect their interests. Many unions became known more for their autocracy than for their insurgency, and corruption ran rampant in the Teamsters, the ILA, the hotel and restaurant unions, and many construction unions. The USW, UMW, IBEW, and the UAW showed little interest in rank-and-file control and intra-union democracy. The union bureaucrats spent small sums on organizing and on educating their memberships. As a result, the labor movement found it difficult to claim that it spoke for all workers. How could it make such a claim when unions were so distant from their own members? The neglect of education helped to create the lack of knowledge and understanding of our citizenry described above. Once in a labor education class with a group of automobile workers, a man came up to me at the break and said, "You're opening a lot of eyes." I thought to myself that the union should have opened his eyes long ago.

As long as the economy grew rapidly, organized labor secured better conditions for union members, and membership grew simply because the economy did. However, when the long expansion ended in the early 1970s, the chickens came home to roost. Labor could not withstand capital's onslaught, and it could not muster allies in government or in the larger society. The greatest unions lost millions of members and gave up some of the most significant gains which they had won for their members. By the time Reagan came to power, labor's bankruptcy and impotence were apparent. It has been a field day for the rich and their loyal collaborators in the government, in the media, and in the universities and think tanks.

V

One of Marx's greatest insights was the dialectical notion that, in the very process of attempting to achieve social hegemony, capital inevitably creates resistance to such domination. Therefore, a labor movement is always in the process of becoming. Of course, some times are more propitious than others, so the question is: are there forces at work now which are strong enough to combat capital's power? Despite the barriers examined above, I believe that there are.

First, new technology and organizational restructuring have created new vulnerabilities for capital. Outsourcing and just-in-time inventory make capital susceptible to relatively minor disruptions. A strike or slowdown by workers at a critical subcontractor can shut down or seriously cripple a large corporation, as a recent strike by workers at a General Motors parts plant demonstrated. Similar actions can stop the flow of inventory coming into a plant, and it will not be possible to utilize in-plant stocks because there aren't any. Electronic technology is susceptible to sabotage as machinists have shown when they have reprogrammed numerically-controlled machines to slow down machine speed. Workers can also use technology to their own advantage. For example, the internet makes it possible to rapidly organize and coordinate worldwide consumer boycotts. Or unions can use computers to collect information about companies and the connections between them for use in bargaining, boycotts, and corporate campaigns. Such information can then be sent to unions and other potential allies worldwide. A stunning example of sophisticated research, made possible by electronic technology (combined, it must be added, with the expenditure of thousands of hours of labor and millions of dollars) was the victory by the United Steel Workers over the Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation.

The flexibility of capital is often overstated. Many of the jobs in the burgeoning service sector cannot be exported. The workers in a McDonald's restaurant in Pittsburgh cannot be replaced by workers in another country. Nor is it likely that fast food technology will, in the near future, allow McDonald's to substitute machines for its employees. The same can be said for the millions of custodians, cleaners, security guards, day-care workers, waiters, dishwashers, and sales workers now laboring at substandard wages. In other words, these workers are eminently organizable, although unions will have to utilize innovative techniques to bring them into the union fold. They might, for example, have to abandon jurisdictional rules and support any union in an area which has demonstrated the ability to organize successfully. They might have to form or join forces with community organizations which can serve as a base for organizing a particular category of workers or all of the workers in a community.

While the service sector is growing rapidly and most new workers organized will probably be service workers, there are also good organizing opportunities in the goods-producing industries. U.S. manufacturing is highly productive and often has the lowest unit costs in the world. There are hundreds of thousands of nonunion mine, auto, and steel workers in the United States, and there is no inherent reason why they cannot be organized as they once were. The same is true for hundreds of thousands of nonunion construction workers.

Though it may be true that economic and technological conditions do not preclude the rebirth of the labor movement, there are critical political considerations. As we have seen, the cold war mentality of the AFL-CIO made it impossible for domestic workers to forge links of solidarity with workers in other countries, although such linking would have helped to build stronger labor movements here and abroad. And what Chomsky calls "brainwashing under freedom" made most workers hostile to any kind of solidarity. However, the end of the Cold War, marked by the collapse of the Soviet Union and its satellites in Eastern Europe, may open space for both international solidarity and the growth of radical elements within the domestic labor movement.

In the past, any criticism of the United States or suggestion of imperialism was filtered through the thick screen of anti-communism. But today it is easier to broach radical subjects. There is no longer an official enemy that was so threatening that capital felt compelled to define itself as the antithesis of evil and, therefore, by definition, good. No longer can it be so easily implied that whatever the ill effects of capitalism upon the working class, these are the necessary sacrifices which we must make to avoid something far worse. Capitalism must now stand naked before the world, and it may be easier to connect low wages, unemployment, environmental degradation, and so forth to its nature.

Already there are hopeful signs of political reawakening. Steel workers, mine workers, electrical workers, and auto workers have cooperated and struggled with their counterparts worldwide with little notice of the more radical politics of many of their foreign counterparts. Radicals have not had as much influence in the AFL-CIO since before the ejection of the left-wing unions from the CIO after the Second World War. I have recently given a paper at an AFL-CIO sponsored conference, and many of my radical friends have done likewise. I have also taught a course in Economics in a graduate program for AFL-CIO union administrators and organizers. Other radicals are now finding themselves in positions of real influence in the AFL-CIO and in member unions. The "Union Summer" program used no political litmus test to screen out the radicals. Member unions are cooperating with numerous progressive groups to organize workers, groups such as Black Workers for Justice which are considerably to the left of mainstream labor. Of some significance was the lack of red-baiting toward the just established Labor Party in Cleveland last June. The Labor Party is full of radicals, and in the past it would have faced the uniform wrath of the AFL-CIO.

Of course, I am not suggesting that radicalism is going to blossom any time soon as official labor policy. The American Institute for Free Labor Development (AIFLD) and its sister organizations in Africa and Asia are alive and well, financed by the State Department and as anti-communist as ever. The old Cold Warriors are still powerful in the AFL-CIO, and they have been busy beavers in the former Soviet republics, working as always to make the unions of these nations safe for capitalism. The New Voice leaders have promised a house cleaning in the AFL-CIO's international departments, and they have appointed a new director. But unless they clean house, they will not be able to develop an independent politics, nor will they be able to maintain credibility with organized labor elsewhere. As a start, the new leaders should make the membership aware of the organization's international operations. Not one member in a thousand has the slightest idea of the magnitude of these activities, a fact that speaks tellingly about the lack of democracy in the house of labor. Second, the AFL-CIO can at least maintain a hands-off policy toward member unions which forge cooperative links with foreign unions and organizations which the old leadership would never have tolerated. If the AFL-CIO had linked itself to the labor movements of the nations of Central America, for example, perhaps thousands of lives could have been saved.

There is a deep-seated anger burning in the hearts of millions of people in this nation, fueled by the widespread unemployment, poverty, and gross inequality which mark the current period. This anger has spawned widespread cynicism about the fairness of both the economic and political systems. Most of us now believe that these systems are rigged for the benefit of the rich. The trouble is, however, that cynicism and anger do not lead automatically to radical consciousness. Instead they might lead to religious fundamentalism, right-wing libertarianism, militias, and racism. As despicable as all of these ideologies and action are, what motivates them is a desire to find a refuge in a hostile word. It is not inconceivable that the labor movement can once again become such a refuge. However, for this to happen, there must be a labor movement, one prepared to challenge capital on the level of emotions. Such a movement must embrace all elements of the working class, including the unemployed and those outside of the wage labor force. And it must be concerned with the totality of life, from the family to the schools to the workplace to the culture. It must be unabashedly egalitarian and democratic. It must be prepared to give people a way to think, that is, it must have and agitate for an ideology, and this ideology must be anti-capitalist and willing to support not just militant union actions but also new ways of organizing production.

Is the AFL-CIO up to this formidable challenge? There are, as I have argued above, many hopeful signs. To survive, labor must radically change itself, and it has taken some important steps. The young organizers it is now recruiting and training have already done some exciting things, and many of them have been transformed by their confrontations with power. The radicals being placed in positions of authority within the labor movement will encourage young radicals and rank-and-file militants, and they will invite independent radicals to participate in their activities. As they succeed in winning organizing drives and building successful coalitions with other radical organizations, a powerful momentum will build within the AFL-CIO for still greater radicalism. This momentum, if it reaches a great enough level, will be difficult to reverse. Should labor have the courage to address issues beyond wages and benefits such as the nature of work, employment as a right, the meaninglessness of consumption, and, perhaps most importantly, the scourge of racism, look out! The new century might not see the resurrection of fascism after all.

VI

Needless to say, there are a lot of big "ifs" in the last paragraphs. In my view, the key "if" concerns organized labor itself. The economic, political, and cultural constraints facing labor are not going to abate; if anything, they will become stronger. Therefore, what labor does will be decisive. I believe that there are four crucial issues for labor: political independence, union democracy, race, and sex. There are signs that labor is seeking an independent politics, but there is a tremendous chasm between where the AFL-CIO is now and where it needs to be. "Support the lesser evil" rhetoric still dominates labor's thinking. It will not be possible to alter the economic and cultural landscapes as long as labor is fled to a political party completely dominated by capital.

Social transformations come from the bottom up; they cannot be ordered into being by those at the top, no matter how well-intentioned the leaders may be. The AFL-CIO is implementing an impressive array of programs, but absent union democracy these will not bear the desired fruit. Examples of union autocracy abound; whenever possible the AFL-CIO must oppose them and give support to insurgent movements. A good start might be made by inviting back into the labor movement the United Electrical Workers (UE). This union of electrical workers has maintained a level of democratic militance which should be the standard in the AFL-CIO. At a more general level, the AFL-CIO must see itself as a part of a broader international movement of working people and must act democratically within this movement. And, of course, rank-and-file groups and progressive organizations must continue to organize independently and in confrontation with AFL-CIO officialdom if need be.

The labor force of the United States is increasingly female and nonwhite. This threatens white men, who are all too willing to believe that women and African Americans are the cause of their problems. It is possible that women and especially people of color will become the new scapegoats of our political economy, replacing the now impotent Communists. The dismantling of the national welfare system and the open attacks on immigrants, supported by labor's standard bearer, President Clinton, are indications that this is happening right now. If the AFL-CIO is to become a progressive movement, it must do all in its power to denounce and combat racism and sexism. Its record to date is not very good, although the New Voice leaders have made some important gestures, including making the Executive Board more diverse than it has ever been. But this is just a baby step. What does the leadership have to say about full employment, sexual harassment (Why no statement of outrage when women at a Mitsubishi auto plant are harassed en masse? Why not a condemnation of the union leaders who turned a blind eye to this discrimination?), prisons, welfare, and a host of other matters of special concern to women and people of color? It is true as President Sweeney says, that "America needs a raise," but it needs a lot more. How will it be possible to organize the new labor force unless labor commits itself fully to racial and sexual egalitarianism?

VII

Since Monthly Review is read mainly by radicals, perhaps it is fitting to end this essay by asking: What can radicals do to help to rebuild the labor movement? This is an important question. Unions and workers are now more receptive to radical ideas than at any time in recent memory. Radicals have an opportunity to provide the labor movement with ideas and active support, and we have an obligation to do so. Here are three suggestions: First, at the level of theory, radicals must return class to the center of their analysis of society. The drive to accumulate capital is still the foundation of capitalism, and capital is still accumulated by the exploitation of labor. And the accumulation of capital remains the source of our most pressing problems. How we are to create a better word without confronting capital with the power of the working class escapes me. Radicals should tirelessly point out the class nature of our society. And they should also criticize all reformist programs which do not insist upon maximum worker control of their workplaces and communities. Second, radicals should do empirical research which can be used by workers, and they should try to make this research understandable to working people. Finally, radicals should become active within the labor movement. This can be done by supporting local rank-and-file groups, getting involved with organizations such as Black Workers for Justice, and doing research for unions and appearing as experts in legislative hearings. My personal hobby horse is labor education. I have been teaching workers for many years. They are eager to learn, and they could use what radical teachers can teach them. But, in any event, now is the time to act; we might not get another chance.

NOTES

1. I have used many sources for this article. I will be happy to send complete references to interested readers. Here, though, I must mention the essays of Jeremy Brecher, Tim Costello, Jane Slaughter and others in Labor Research Review, No. 24, as well as work by Kate Bronfenbrenner, Tom Juravich, Fernando Gapasin, and Doug Henwood. Harry Magdoff made many helpful comments on an earlier draft. I also recommend highly the article by Greg Albo in the December 1996 issue of Monthly Review.

Michael D. Yates, is professor of economics at the University of Pittsburgh at Johnstown, he is the author of Longer Hours, Fewer Jobs Employment and Unemployment in the United States (Monthly Review Press, 1994).

COPYRIGHT 1997 Monthly Review Foundation, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group