When I
first read Nelson Lichtenstein’s State of
the Union, I was attending his course at the University of California,
Santa Barbara, in the Spring Quarter of 2007.
At the time I did not know much about Lichtenstein as a scholar—nor did
I know much about scholarly labor studies in general. I was a undergraduate history major who had
just recently transferred into the University from the local community college;
a benefit I enjoyed resulting from my father’s honorable military discharge. My ability to read the text critically at the
time was hampered by my intent to do well in the class and search for whatever
components of the text would aid me in that endeavor. The book has once again appeared on my desk
as assigned reading for my comprehensive exams this Fall. After re-reading it, I feel I can better
express my thoughts on it, and perhaps create an enticing call for others to read
it as well.
Lichtenstein
is usually considered the foremost labor historian in the United States. His work on Wal Mart and the leadership of
the major trade-unions set a precedent for understanding labor in America as a
unique vestige of its European ancestry.
In State of the Union (2002),
Lichtenstein tackles a more complicated question: Why did labor decline as a solidified
movement during the so-called “era of labor-management accord (1947-1978)?” To answer this, Lichtenstein asks historians
and citizens to reconsider the gains made by the labor movement during its
heyday of the 1930s and 40s. The accord,
in his view, was “at best a limited and unstable truce” among unified labor
organizations and massive industrial as well as commercial corporations.[i] But, Lichtenstein radically insists, the
fault lay on both sides of the isle.
Throughout
the latter part of the 1990s and the early part of the 2000s, historians and
labor activists witnessed the resurgence of labor-related claims and issues; a
revitalization of the so-called “labor-question” of what to do with wages,
living standards, and the role of the American worker in the expanding consumer
society. Despite a rise in the
consciousness of labor-related issues, however, Lichtenstein argues that “the
sad fact is that most union activism—at the bargaining table, the ballot box,
and on the picket line—is designed to defend the status quo.”[ii] Whereas the 1930s and 40s brought forth a
labor movement present in the streets with numbers reaching in the tens of
thousands, the 1990s and early 2000s saw little more than political appeals and
divided approaches to solving the issues of labor. Furthermore, attacks on institutions and
policies once held dear to the American way of life—including social security,
union rights, and progressive legislation—reached all-time highs.
The problem,
Lichtenstein suggests, is that the labor movement as a whole shares a major
portion of the blame, but they fail to recognize it. Labor seeks accord, not change. It seeks to establish standards of living
within the over-arching framework of wage-labor capitalism, as opposed to
altering the framework directly. This,
ultimately, is what Lichtenstein charges as the current “state of the union.” But he doesn’t leave this in ambiguity;
indeed, the labor movement experienced fundamental changes during its period of
“accord” that altered its methods and approaches. These alterations steered labor away from
solidarity and organized reform and toward a movement based on individual
litigation and a rejection of collective social power.
To
remedy the situation, Lichtenstein argues, labor must return to the strength it
wielded during the Great Depression. It
must command a message of solidarity that, in a revolutionary manner, strikes
hard at the already-existent collective solidarity of corporatism. Labor must “fully ally itself” with the
marginalized sectors of society, and bring back the militant attitudes that
fostered success where failure was unacceptable. As a result of its character, and its charge
that theory must be linked with direct action, Lichtenstein’s book is a
must-read for anyone who considers them an ally of working people.
No comments:
Post a Comment