What do you think?
Rate this book
Left Out: Reds and America's Industrial Unions
This study discusses the legacy of the Communists in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) from the 1930s through the 1950s. How did the Communists win and hold power in the CIO unions, and what did they do with it once they had it? Did they subordinate the needs of workers to those of the Soviet regime? Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin find that Communists were more egalitarian and most progressive on class, race and gender issues. They were also leading fighters in exemplary workplace struggles to enlarge the freedom and enhance the human dignity of America's workers.
392 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2002
2 people are currently reading
239 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 8, 2018
Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin's study of the participation of Communists in the history of the CIO challenged much of the earlier historiography of "Red Unions" and their eventual expulsion from the labor movement, causing a much needed rethink in labor history. It noted early on that in 1946, of the 39 unions in the CIO, 18 were communist dominated, and 10 were strongly influenced by Communists or nearly identical to party lines, representing nearly a million and a half workers, or a 1/4th of the total CIO. This is enormous. The charges of historians writing since, both from conservative apologists of the anti-communist purges that defined American anti-communist liberalism as well as their leftist rivals who sought to discredit the Communist unionists based on their Stalinist apologists of the Soviet regime, were three fold. They charged that the Communists were anti-democratic and stifled rank n file workers in the unions. They charged they stifled worker gains, especially in suppressing strikes, during WWII in order to satisfy the war effort to help the Soviet Union, and that they signed sweet-heart deals with companies after the war in order to end strikes. Finally, they charge that the Communists only gave lip service to black and women's struggles without much action. All of these add up to the justifications for the purges of Communists and their allies in the late 1940s from the CIO, including expulsion of nearly a million workers.
Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin demonstrate that each of these charges are based on Cold War falsities who sought to rewrite history and used actual contracts and material gains to justify their claims. Their argument really boils down to that Communist unionists who, either as officers of international unions, local officers, or as worker activists on the shop floor, often gave only lip service to whatever party line those in the CP's Union Square headquarters was hawking from Moscow. Despite a dizzing change of party lines over and over, actual organizing remained specific in that it was militant, courageous, and confrontational. While the CP had nurtured much of the radical activists who worked in unions and outmaneuvered their leftist rivals, the CP leadership actually couldn't do much to control them since they had the actual influence amongst the workers, not Union Square.
The authors compare often the "Big 3" unions of the CIO, in the UE (United Electrical and Radio) which was very pro-Communist, the UAW (United Auto Workers) which was drastically split between Communist and leftist locals and conservative and anti-Communist locals in the leadership, and finally the USWA (United Steelworkers of America) which was very anti-Communist at most levels. The Communists often gained power amongst unions which were amalgamated and joined together existing radical unionists, while losing out when the CIO directly built up unions (such as Steelworkers who were mainly by the efforts of the anti-Communist United Mine Workers.) Other Communist-led unions like the ILWU were the result of break-away locals from corrupt AFL unions.
Communist unions had a record of winning more for their membership as far as material gains, refusing to cede control to management on the floor, and promoting lively union democracy with active factions (something absent in anti-Communist unions where dissent was almost always not tolerated.) Even during WWII, while mostly enforcing no-strikes, they still engaged militantly and confronted management on the shop floor, standing up for workers. They also had a good record of support African-American and women inclusion in leadership and taking up their issues while their anti-Communist rivals failed dismally at inclusion, often actually reacting harshly to it. African-Americans often supported Communist leadership, especially in the huge local of UAW Local 600 in Dearborn, which remained a bastion of leftist social unionism and rank and file democracy even after the red purges of the UAW by the early 1950s.
The authors note that the purges of the Communists were done for dubious reasons and led to a large gutting of the militancy of the labor movement. Even the unions that either left or were expelled from the CIO, such as ILWU and UE, continued militant activist traditions and give a hint of what the CIO would have looked like had it not chosen the expulsions. When the Communists were discredited following Khrushchev's revelations of Stalin's crimes and the invasion of Hungary, the Communist Party shrunk by nearly 9/10ths, yet those "red" unions and locals continued on as militant activist unions and even thriving and reviving in isolation. Thus, at their core, they were not beholden to the Communist Party and not lapdogs of Moscow, and in fact, were popular unionists amongst workers because of their devotion to worker democracy, enmity of management, and militancy. Unfortunately, because of the gutting of their most energetic, creative, and radical members, the CIO merged with the AFL, and the AFL-CIO through the remainder of the 20th century was probably the most conservative union in the developed world. This work is the story, therefore, of possibilities, of the "American tragedy", as the authors put it.
Stepan-Norris and Zeitlin demonstrate that each of these charges are based on Cold War falsities who sought to rewrite history and used actual contracts and material gains to justify their claims. Their argument really boils down to that Communist unionists who, either as officers of international unions, local officers, or as worker activists on the shop floor, often gave only lip service to whatever party line those in the CP's Union Square headquarters was hawking from Moscow. Despite a dizzing change of party lines over and over, actual organizing remained specific in that it was militant, courageous, and confrontational. While the CP had nurtured much of the radical activists who worked in unions and outmaneuvered their leftist rivals, the CP leadership actually couldn't do much to control them since they had the actual influence amongst the workers, not Union Square.
The authors compare often the "Big 3" unions of the CIO, in the UE (United Electrical and Radio) which was very pro-Communist, the UAW (United Auto Workers) which was drastically split between Communist and leftist locals and conservative and anti-Communist locals in the leadership, and finally the USWA (United Steelworkers of America) which was very anti-Communist at most levels. The Communists often gained power amongst unions which were amalgamated and joined together existing radical unionists, while losing out when the CIO directly built up unions (such as Steelworkers who were mainly by the efforts of the anti-Communist United Mine Workers.) Other Communist-led unions like the ILWU were the result of break-away locals from corrupt AFL unions.
Communist unions had a record of winning more for their membership as far as material gains, refusing to cede control to management on the floor, and promoting lively union democracy with active factions (something absent in anti-Communist unions where dissent was almost always not tolerated.) Even during WWII, while mostly enforcing no-strikes, they still engaged militantly and confronted management on the shop floor, standing up for workers. They also had a good record of support African-American and women inclusion in leadership and taking up their issues while their anti-Communist rivals failed dismally at inclusion, often actually reacting harshly to it. African-Americans often supported Communist leadership, especially in the huge local of UAW Local 600 in Dearborn, which remained a bastion of leftist social unionism and rank and file democracy even after the red purges of the UAW by the early 1950s.
The authors note that the purges of the Communists were done for dubious reasons and led to a large gutting of the militancy of the labor movement. Even the unions that either left or were expelled from the CIO, such as ILWU and UE, continued militant activist traditions and give a hint of what the CIO would have looked like had it not chosen the expulsions. When the Communists were discredited following Khrushchev's revelations of Stalin's crimes and the invasion of Hungary, the Communist Party shrunk by nearly 9/10ths, yet those "red" unions and locals continued on as militant activist unions and even thriving and reviving in isolation. Thus, at their core, they were not beholden to the Communist Party and not lapdogs of Moscow, and in fact, were popular unionists amongst workers because of their devotion to worker democracy, enmity of management, and militancy. Unfortunately, because of the gutting of their most energetic, creative, and radical members, the CIO merged with the AFL, and the AFL-CIO through the remainder of the 20th century was probably the most conservative union in the developed world. This work is the story, therefore, of possibilities, of the "American tragedy", as the authors put it.
March 28, 2021
Great book on history of community party and their role in the labor movement - particularly on the role of union democracy and rank-and-file power. Applicable lessons for all social movements, absolutely worth the read.
Read
August 5, 2009Read for class by author (Maurice Zeitlin)***
March 4, 2007
it seems that radical democracy matters to a union, who would have thunk it..
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews