What do you think?
Rate this book
Reds or Rackets?: The Making of Radical and Conservative Unions on the Waterfront
Why is the American working class different? For generations, scholars and activists alike have wrestled with this question, with an eye to explaining why workers in the United States are not more like their radicalized European counterparts. Approaching the question from a different angle, Reds or Rackets? provides a fascinating examination of the American labor movement from the inside out, as it were, by analyzing the divergent sources of radicalism and conservatism within it. Kimeldorf focuses on the political contrast between East and West Coast longshoremen from World War I through the early years of the Cold War, when the difference between the two unions was greatest. He explores the politics of the West Coast union that developed into a hot bed of working class insurgency and contrasts it with the conservative and racket-ridden East Coast longshoreman's union. Two unions, based in the same industry―as different as night and day. The question posed by Kimeldorf is, why? Why "reds" on one coast and racketeers on the other?
To answer this question Kimeldorf provides a systematic comparison of the two unions, illuminating the political consequences of occupational recruitment, industry structure, mobilization strategies, and industrial conflict during this period. In doing so, Reds orRackets? sheds new light on the structural and historical bases of radical and conservative unionism.
More than a comparative study of two unions, Reds or Rackets? is an exploration of the dynamics of trade unionism, sources of membership loyalty, and neglected aspects of working class consciousness. It is an incisive and valuable study that will appeal to historians, social scientists, and anyone interested in understanding the political trajectory of twentieth-century American labor.
To answer this question Kimeldorf provides a systematic comparison of the two unions, illuminating the political consequences of occupational recruitment, industry structure, mobilization strategies, and industrial conflict during this period. In doing so, Reds orRackets? sheds new light on the structural and historical bases of radical and conservative unionism.
More than a comparative study of two unions, Reds or Rackets? is an exploration of the dynamics of trade unionism, sources of membership loyalty, and neglected aspects of working class consciousness. It is an incisive and valuable study that will appeal to historians, social scientists, and anyone interested in understanding the political trajectory of twentieth-century American labor.
256 pages, Paperback
First published July 9, 1988
182 people want to read
About the author
Howard Kimeldorf
5ÌýbooksHoward Kimeldorf is Professor of Sociology Emeritus at the University of Michigan.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 5, 2023
One of the best materialist labor histories I have read. The divergence in the development of labor organizing on the West Coast docks compared to the east following the first world war provides a perfect case study of the various forces that shape the ideological direction of unions. Kimeldorf is one of the few non-Marxist historians I've read who takes such a rigorously scientific approach. He attempts to look at all the structural forces at play in the period covering both world wars that pushed the two coastal dockworkers unions in opposite directions, and the role played by various actors in the class struggle like Harry Bridges and Jon Ryan in making their contribution to the movement of history. This gives us a far more comprehensive view of historical causality than most much more idealistic labor histories which are more popular.
A fantastic study, and a must read for organizers who want to build a future beyond just a slightly fairer capitalism.
A fantastic study, and a must read for organizers who want to build a future beyond just a slightly fairer capitalism.
August 24, 2018
Kimeldorf in this volume compares the two dominant longshoremen unions of the USA in the 1930s-50s, the West Coast's ILWU, and the East Coast's ILA, which are polar opposites in both effectiveness and politics. The ILWU was a union that elected radicals, particularly Communists with long red politics such as Harry Bridges, and defended them against attacks, building cultures of solidarity, action, political action, and anti-racism. The ILA, on the other hand, was radically anti-Communist particularly after the war, utterly corrupt to the point of suppressing labor militancy in return for massive bribes from shipping magnates through brute violence and assassinations, and encouraged racial divisions by second and third generation Irish and Italian dockworkers, epitomized by Joe Ryan whom hated Communists as much as he loved money to the point of impoverishing his membership.
Kimeldorf points out several reasons why these widely divergent cultures emerged. The ILWU faced 3 large shipping companies whom tried to brutally crush the 1934 strike and only increased the militancy and radicalism of the dockworkers. The ILA faced dozens of shipping companies whom found it easier to bribe the union officials rather than drive them out. The ILWU Communist Party radicals, while giving lip service to the various party-lines, in actuality tended to be more responsive to the wants of the rank and file workers than what the party wanted, ignoring the dual unionist line of the Third Period to work in the Pacific district ILA that would late become the ILWU, or refusing to give any concessions even during the war. In the ILA, radicals who operated in NYC towed the party line more strictly and were quickly discredited by their rivals and pushed out all together after the war, mirroring what happened in the UAW and other unions. The ILWU had a stable workforce and largely anti-racist and inclusionary political stance with militant and confrontational actions that won concessions from bosses, while the ILA was more or less openly racist and very conservatively Catholic as 3rd generation Irish workers had been Americanized away from their radical Republican ancestors, as well as very corrupt to the point of stealing so much cargo that insurance rates drove NYC to be the most expensive port in the world.
Kimeldorf remarks that the question is often posed as "Why No Socialism in the US?" which he flips to "Why were there some socialists in the US?" It is fitting that both unions were expelled from their labor federations in the 1950s. The ILWU was expelled because of their radicalism from the CIO, while the ILA expelled for their corruption from the AFL. Still, interestingly, the ILWU was one of the few "Communist-led" unions expelled from the CIO whom successfully fended off attacks by anti-Communist and rival unions, and continues to thrive to this day as a militant activist union. Largely, it is because Harry Bridges was made by the rank and file as much. The union was very democratic in both words and deeds, marking the relationship as two ways instead of top down. The contrast between the two unions operating in essentially the same industry reminds the reader that history is not so predetermined but made by people crafted but their circumstances but achieved through their actions.
Kimeldorf points out several reasons why these widely divergent cultures emerged. The ILWU faced 3 large shipping companies whom tried to brutally crush the 1934 strike and only increased the militancy and radicalism of the dockworkers. The ILA faced dozens of shipping companies whom found it easier to bribe the union officials rather than drive them out. The ILWU Communist Party radicals, while giving lip service to the various party-lines, in actuality tended to be more responsive to the wants of the rank and file workers than what the party wanted, ignoring the dual unionist line of the Third Period to work in the Pacific district ILA that would late become the ILWU, or refusing to give any concessions even during the war. In the ILA, radicals who operated in NYC towed the party line more strictly and were quickly discredited by their rivals and pushed out all together after the war, mirroring what happened in the UAW and other unions. The ILWU had a stable workforce and largely anti-racist and inclusionary political stance with militant and confrontational actions that won concessions from bosses, while the ILA was more or less openly racist and very conservatively Catholic as 3rd generation Irish workers had been Americanized away from their radical Republican ancestors, as well as very corrupt to the point of stealing so much cargo that insurance rates drove NYC to be the most expensive port in the world.
Kimeldorf remarks that the question is often posed as "Why No Socialism in the US?" which he flips to "Why were there some socialists in the US?" It is fitting that both unions were expelled from their labor federations in the 1950s. The ILWU was expelled because of their radicalism from the CIO, while the ILA expelled for their corruption from the AFL. Still, interestingly, the ILWU was one of the few "Communist-led" unions expelled from the CIO whom successfully fended off attacks by anti-Communist and rival unions, and continues to thrive to this day as a militant activist union. Largely, it is because Harry Bridges was made by the rank and file as much. The union was very democratic in both words and deeds, marking the relationship as two ways instead of top down. The contrast between the two unions operating in essentially the same industry reminds the reader that history is not so predetermined but made by people crafted but their circumstances but achieved through their actions.
March 24, 2015
Kimeldorf's book is a model for comparative historical sociology. The research question and design is rock-solid, the analysis is both historically nuanced and theoretically sophisticated, and he does it all without resorting to a lot of jargon.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.