why hasn't there ever been a true labor movement in the US

[KDawgCometh]

this has been something I have wondered myself. In every other western nation there has been a true labor movement that has taken place. While we have had Figures like Eugene V Debs and Samuel Gompers we have yet to trully have a major labor movement. I think some of this is becasue of TRoosevelt enforcing the Sherman Anti trust laws at the begining of the 20th century, but I'd like to hear some arguments/thoughts on why one has never taken hold in this country

[pryor15]

Because Debs, who was a major force in American politics, was thrown in jail on trumped-up charges and the labor movement (which was quite substantial, actually) lost a lot of its credibility.

Two reasons: The wealthy have always held the power, and a multi ethnic, segregated society.

[KDawgCometh]

[ QUOTE ]
Two reasons: The wealthy have always held the power, and a multi ethnic, segregated society.

[/ QUOTE ]


but this type of society has existed in other western nations too. England by the 1900s wasn't just a pure white country, and the power was still held principally by the house of lords(as in many important gov positions were held by men from titled families)

[sam h]

This is a fascinating question that has been debated for a long time, especially among leftists. The phrase "American exceptionalism", now borrowed by all sorts of people to describe various other facets of American uniqueness, first came into currency as a way to describe America's unique standing as the only western industrializer without a strong labor movement and a strong labor-based political party.

I don't know the topic that well, but I can point you to a couple common explanations. Some people have said that the American manufacturing sector in the 19th century was more oriented toward craft production than larger enterprises, leading to less of a concentration of workers and a less fertile ground for unionism.

Others have said that America simply embraced more laissez faire ideals that did not lend themselves to regulations on the economy that would support union growth, although this seems like a dubious explanation given that England was similar in its laissez faire orientation and that in other countries it was the strength of the labor movement that allowed it to gain regulatory concessions that entrenched their position, not the other way around.

Another approach has proposed that the American business lobby was simply more activist and used its influence to quash the labor movement. This one also seems dubious to me, since opposition to labor was pretty intense in many European and Latin American countries.

A last argument has proposed that the stability of the American political system made it less likely that labor would find allies in politics that would help its growth along. When you have a lot of political upheaval caused by external wars, such as was the case in Europe, or internal conflict, like in many Latin American countries, you are more likely to have a situation in which things are in flux and political entrepreneurs might try to mobilize a support base among the working class.

I don't really know enough to comment that much further on the validity of these different explanations. Probably they were all contributing causes to some degree or other.

[DVaut1]

I think it's what scholars call American exceptionalism; here's a bunch of reasons, and I think some of them are interrelated, but all refer to this notion of exceptionalism - that is, an exceptionalism that is almost diametrically opposed to what we know of other Western cultures. They might sound repetitive, but only because I think they're somewhat dependent (by the way, Engels spent no less than the last 10 years of his life trying to answer this after Marx died – although it certainly confused Marx while he was alive as well):

- because the United States is a relatively new nation, it never had developed an entrenched aristocracy; our social systems are relatively egalitarian; this is uniquely American, and certainly allows for more peaceful class coexistence, whereas Europe’s class conflicts frequently makes enemies out of the two dialectical class camps (landlords/aristocracy vs landless/proletariat)
- we were a nation founded on principles of liberalism (for some of you conservatives, you may want to refer to your dictionary when I use the word liberalism here) and individualism; the US has a history of casting a suspicious eye toward collective action/movements.
- no heritage of primogeniture (highly corollary to not having an entrenched aristocracy)
- our Constitution was written during the middle of the Enlightenment, which certainly guarantees some measure of democratic rule and (at least partly) legitimizes our economic systems (my apologies to Marxists)
- we industrialized rapidly (and therefore profited) early, and our industrial labor avoided some (not all) of the pains of slow, grueling industrialization
- when we did industrialize, there was abundant, available land - which meant that, in the US’s formative industrial years, the poor who were moved off land by wealthier landlords weren’t necessarily compelled to move to urban areas and take low-wage labor positions; they merely moved elsewhere and staked claims to their own plots; contrast this with Old Europe, where available land is sparse and labor movements flourished precisely because the poor have no option but to immigrate to urban areas and perform manual labor
- because of the abundance of available land, the landless weren’t compelled to move to urban areas, meaning that those who did choose to move to urban areas and take wage-labor jobs benefited from labor scarcity

Certainly, though – I believe the failure of the American labor movement is purely historical, but in a macro sense (and not attributable to a single era or legislative act, as argued by the OP) – the US is largely exceptional because, unlike Europe, we don’t have a class consciousness centered on economic disparity. Without a strong working class consciousness, labor movements seem bound to fail. There reasons why Americans don’t have a class consciousness are varied, but I think I’ve covered most of them above.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
The phrase "American exceptionalism", now borrowed by all sorts of people to describe various other facets of American uniqueness, first came into currency as a way to describe America's unique standing as the only western industrializer without a strong labor movement and a strong labor-based political party.

[/ QUOTE ]

You beat me to it; but yes.

[KDawgCometh]

I like your analysis of it. I do think that the Laissez Faire attitude of econmics has been a constant in AMerica. The founding fathers were very influenced by Adam Smith's econmic ideas, but that time had essntially passed from the late 1700s and early 1800s. THe America that ALexis DeTocqueville observed in the 1830s was non existent by 1890-1917. By that point you had seen the rise of the monopoly in Standard Oil and essentially the Ford Motor company. NOw the condidtions were ripe for this typeof movement, and was pointed out earlier died down a bit after Eugene V Debs was incarcerated, but why then when the 30s hit weren't they followed through in true form, same goes for the 70s, in fact one could argue that in the coming years the conditions will be ripe again for a labor movement

I do like some of the ansers so far,I just want to stir the pot even more to get some meaty discussion

[[censored]]

Because we never had a ruling class lording over serfs. For the most part we don't look at management as some group seperate and unattainable. Management in America has always been more accessible and intergrated in common society. We eat at some of the same places, our kids go to the same schools, we go to the same churches..etc. This results in labor and managment sharing many similar beliefs and thus grouping in the same political parties.

I think the glue that has held this all together has been America's strong, vibrant and relatively well off middle class. If this changes or continues to change then you could see the political structure change as well.

edit--see post above mine for what I was really trying to say.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Because we never had a ruling class lording over serfs. For the most part we don't look at management as some group seperate and unattainable. Management in America has always been more accessible and intergrated in common society. We eat at some of the same places, our kids go to the same schools, we go to the same churches..etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

As I said in my post, I think this is central, and does a great deal to explain the weakness of labor movements in the US.