Moscow, Nauka Publ. 1983. 175 p.
The book by I. M. Savelyeva, a researcher at the Institute of International Labor Movement of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Candidate of Historical Sciences, attempts a comprehensive analysis of the ideological and political content, methodological basis, and most important stages in the evolution of bourgeois-reformist concepts of trade unionism in the United States during the XX century in comparison with the concepts of other bourgeois trends. The scientific and socio-political significance of studying this problem is determined by the fact that the views of bourgeois ideologists and theorists on the trade union movement serve as the basis for developing social policies of the ruling circles aimed at integrating trade unions into the system of institutions of capitalist society, at suppressing, neutralizing or using professional organizations of the proletariat in the interests of the bourgeoisie.
The monograph describes a complex and contradictory picture of the formation and evolution of the bourgeois-reformist approach to the problems of relations between labor and capital. The author traces the thorny path of development of American trade unions, not all groups of which have managed to rise to the acceptance of the idea of class struggle and are under the influence of anti-Sovietism and anti-communism. Having analyzed a wide range of works of bourgeois researchers, the author offers a scientifically grounded periodization of the stages of formation of the liberal-reformist approach, which began to take shape in the late 19th century in the general course of the social policy of the ruling class of the United States. This approach made its way in the fight against conservative and" hard individualist "concepts that treat the trade union as a "monopoly" and"violence against the worker's personality".
The author identifies the Wisconsin (historical and economic) and Baltimore (structural and administrative) schools, as well as socio-psychological and moral and ethical areas. Of great interest is the analysis of the views of the Wisconsin school, which had the strongest influence on the development of American historiography of the labor movement. Some aspects of the concepts of this school have already been considered in the works of S. M. Askoldova, V. L. Malkov, and other Soviet historians. I. M. Savelyeva gives a detailed analysis of the Wisconsin school in its entirety, in the general context of the evolution of the bourgeois historiography of the trade union movement in the United States. As the author shows, the leading representative of the Wisconsin people, J. R. R. Tolkien. Commons and his followers E. Perlman, D. Andrews, E. Sumner, etc., adhering to the concept of "historical institutionalism", which reduced the development of society to the history of socio-political institutions-governments, political parties, business associations, etc . - and the relationships between them, considered trade unions as a stabilizing force contributing to the establishment of " constitutional government in industry" (p. 22). Commons and his followers demanded that trade unions be given equal rights with business and government to achieve " institutional equilibrium." The main goal of all schools of liberal orientation in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, as the author notes, was to justify the need for state intervention in the relations between labor and capital in order to smooth out social and class conflicts (p.23).
page 129
An important stage in the formation of the bourgeois-reformist approach was the 1930s, when the main provisions of neoliberalism were formulated, which also incorporated some of the most important provisions of the Wisconsin school. The bankruptcy of traditional conservative concepts and approaches was a significant factor contributing to the rise of this trend to the forefront. "The scientific validity of the theory of "solid individualism" has been questioned, as well as its ability to practically ensure the functioning of the economy at any stage of the development of capitalism" (p. 39). Prescribing the role of the state as a regulator of the economic and social interests of various groups of society, the neoliberals (S. Chase, R. Tugwell, K. Dougherty, P. Douglas et al.) assigned the first place in the formation of policies aimed at creating "class harmony" to the legislative bodies (p.47), which was reflected in the legislative acts of the "new deal", especially the Wagner Act (p. 51).
After the Second World War, neoliberalism retreated in the face of the offensive of conservative forces. The Taft - Hartley (1947) and Landrum - Griffin (1959) laws reversed many of the gains of the working class of the 1930s. As the author correctly notes, the strengthening of conservatism was also directly reflected in the literature on labor relations, which was characterized by the revival of individualistic ideas of the "prosperity period", the aggravation of polemics between supporters and opponents of state regulation (p.69). Opponents of the latter are G. Simone, C. Lindblom, M. Friedman, and others, who have taken as a basis the views of F. Schulz. von Hayek and L. von Mises were grouped into the "Chicago school", which declared " interference of the trade union or the state in the prerogative of the owner... contrary to "true freedom" and "American traditions" (p. 72). However, certain factions of the ruling class who did not want to accept the neoliberal option of regulating labor relations, nevertheless began to understand that it was necessary to take into account the realities of state - monopoly capitalism.
This task, as noted in the book, was fulfilled by a new trend - neoconservatism, which arose as a result of the awareness of some individualists of the new role of the bourgeois state and at the same time the shift of certain groups of neoliberals to the right. The fundamental point for neoconservatives "was the recognition of state regulation of labor relations in the form of anti-worker labor legislation" (p. 73). They criticized the government's labor policy for allegedly placing trade unions in a privileged position. The author provides convincing arguments that confirm the scientific inconsistency of the theses of neoconservatives. The shift to the right in the socio-political attitudes of the United States in the post-war period ended with the formation of a "conservative-neoliberal consensus" (p. 82).
The author draws attention to the fact that after the Second World War, the study of relations between labor and capital entered a new stage in the United States. So, if earlier these studies were carried out by representatives of various specialties, from historians to lawyers and sociologists, now this area of social relations has been taken up by so-called industrialists, representatives of the special science "on labor or industrial relations" (pp. 98-99). The object of her attention was the relations of trade unions with entrepreneurs, the" labor policy " of the state, the labor market, etc. (p. 99). Representatives of the "science of industrial relations" (D. Bock, D. Dunlop, K. Kerr, R. Lester, etc.) are characterized by utilitarianism; their research is mostly applied, conducted on the orders of research centers of monopolies and under the leadership of the state, and determined by the tactical line of entrepreneurs in relation to trade unions (p. 104).
The author focuses on the analysis of the positions of conservatives, "hard individualists" and neoliberals in the 60s and 70s. The latter "began to rethink the ideological legacy of the Cold War period" (p. 117). Neoliberals called for relying on trade unions to implement a social state-monopoly policy. At the same time, they "replace the study of the diverse and contradictory reality of American trade unions with abstract theorizing," and identify the entire labor movement with the " bureaucratic trade union elite-
page 130
they ignore the evolution of trade Unionism itself (p. 121). The author considers I. Bernstein, D. Brody, W. Gaylinson and others to be neoliberal historiography. and the journal "Labor History" published by them. The author shows that the difference between this "historical" school and the Wisconsin traditions lies, in particular, in the fact that its adherents "included in the orbit of their scientific interests the laborious work of recreating the socio-psychological image of the proletariat of various epochs" (p.130). In general, according to the author, this group of neoliberals continued to adhere to the canons of the Wisconsin people in their research (p. 133).
A new interpretation of the American labor movement, I. M. Savelyeva points out, was formed in the works of those American researchers who decisively broke with the principles of the Wisconsin school and are looking for new approaches to the problem along the paths of the socio-cultural and everyday history of the working class. This attempt was expressed in the works of the "new working history", presented by G. Gutman et al. (p. 133). The object of their research is "a certain average "mass type" of worker, whose existence and consciousness are formed under the influence of all types of social community-family, ethnic group, religious community, school, trade union" (ibid.), etc. In cases when these historians refer to trade unions, strikes, political organizations of workers They aim to "show the process of formation of the working class, the features of the formation of the social consciousness of the proletariat, the attitude to work, the specifics of the" working culture " (p.136). As a response to the social and political movements of the 60s, Novaya Rabochaya Istoriya is notable for its interest in the lives of ordinary people and their spiritual world. Representatives of this school make extensive use of mass sources and quantitative methods of processing them. According to its methodology and techniques, this school functions within the framework of the influential "new social history" (p. 134). However, as the book rightly points out, the representatives of the "new workers 'history", having broken with traditional liberal views, still failed to rise to an objective understanding of the place and role of trade unions as mass workers ' organizations whose class interests are incompatible with the capitalist system.
In the 1960s, there was a growing interest in the history of the labor movement also among the left-wing intelligentsia. While criticizing the social system of the United States, the left-wing ("new left") historians S. Lind, G. Alperowitz, R. Radosh, F. Greenbaum, and others simultaneously developed, especially during the period of fascination with Marcusianism in the late 50s and early 60s, the idea of the conservative nature of American trade unionism throughout its history They considered the working class as part of the capitalist system (pp. 139-140). At the same time, the author points out, the new left brought "a refreshing stream to research on the labor movement", contributing to the debunking of "elitist views", activating the study of the role of the masses of the people, "ordinary people", and the role of economic factors in the historical process (p.142).
The book by I. M. Savelyeva, which examines the problems of forming the ideology of trade unionism in the United States, the role of the ruling class and its ideologues in introducing stereotypes and attitudes of bourgeois ideology into the consciousness of the working class, recalls the need for further research on the problems associated with the backwardness of the class consciousness of the American proletariat. It seems to us that when comparing various schools and trends of American bourgeois science of labor relations, the author does not critically assess the left-wing radical current, whose representatives sometimes went so far as to directly deny the role of trade unions, and indeed the entire working class in the socio-historical process. It also seems that the monograph does not always sufficiently take into account the tendency to distinguish between the trade unions proper, which make up only 19% of all workers, and the working class as a whole, and to contrast them with each other, which is clearly traced in some bourgeois researchers.
I. M. Savelyeva, for example, correctly writes that the crisis of 1929-1933, which showed the failure of the principles of the "free market", turned out to be a "weighty argument" against the ideology of"solid individualism". However, one can hardly agree with
page 131
the fact that this ideology "was written off as a theoretical antique, although a system of alternative political economic views to replace it has not yet been developed" (p. 40). In another place, I. M. Savelyeva quite correctly notes the "relapse of individualism", the revival of individualistic ideas of the "period of prosperity" after the Second World War (p. 69).
The reviewed work is a valuable addition to the historiography of the trade union movement in the United States. Containing a great deal of factual material and full of polemics with bourgeois authors, this book significantly expands our understanding of the ideological and political problems of American labor unions.
page 132
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2014-2025, LIBMONSTER.COM is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of the United States of America |