Labor and Socialism in America: The Gompers Era by William M. Dick (review)

REVIEWS 467 to live according to theirinnaterationality. But, for thesewhite intellectuals, blackmenwerenotinnatelyrationalandcouldnot participateasequalsin the social, economic, political,andacademic marketplaces. Genetically inferiorand irrational,theymustremainin segregation underthepaternalistic leadership of superiorand rational whites.As WoodrowWilson stated,while he increased segregation in the federalgovernment duringhis presidency, 'You may feel assured of myentirecomprehension of theambitions of theNegroraceandmy willingness anddesiretodealwith thatracefairly andjustly.' WhatProfessor Claytonpoints out,however, isthatthese southern whiteintellectuals had no interestin understanding southern blacks,that theydefinedthe Southastheregionof whitemenonly.Althoughcriticalof theirrationalities of uneducated whites,theseintellectuals unconsciously sharedthe white racismof theverylower-class whiteswhomtheyrejected. Professor Claytonbelieves that the self-delusions of theseintellectuals had destructive regionaland national effects:'America's greatcommitment toequality wasdeferred in partbecause of the actions of southern intellectuals: theyhelpedto increase the gap between blacks andwhites,helpedtointensify fearandprejudicethroughtheiradvocacy of rigidseparation of theraces and,ironically, thushelpednourish the Savage Ideal.' Whatissurprising aboutthisthesis isthewayit ignores books of theearly•96os likeLeonLitwack's North ofSlavery andWinthropJordan's White OverBlack whichhaveestablished whiteracismasa national,not a regionalphenomenon, andwhichhavemadeit verydifficultfor Americanhistorians to continue the delusion thattheFounding Fathers, committed to caste, class, and sexual hierarchies , hadanycommitment toequality. DAVID W. NOBLE University o[Minnesota Labor and Socialismin America: The GompersEra. wmu•,M M. mc•c. Port Washington, N¾,London,Kennikat Press,National UniversityPublications, I97e. Pp.x, eI •. $•o.95. Duringthe •96osyounger scholars, seeking to understand the role of radicalism in United Stateshistory, re-explored and reinterpreted the riseand declineof Americansocialism. Despitesubstantial disagreements aboutthenatureof Americansocialism andthecauses of itsfailure,theyagreedthat socialism's mostglaringweakness wasitsinabilityto permeate thenationallabourmovement. Alone among Western industrial nations, theUnitedStates developed a nationallabour centre- the•,Fof L--whichnotonlyrefused to endorse socialism but rejectedit openly andvociferously. It istothisquestion - the•,FofL'Srejection of socialism -- that William M. Dick devotes his attention. ByandlargeDickexplores familiarterrain.He examines theemergence of the modern American labour movement as it evolved from the clash between the tradeunions andtheKnightsof Laborin the 188os; thedevelopment of Samuel Gompers' socialand politicalphilosophy ashe confronted firstthe politicsof 468 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW HenryGeorge, thenPopulism, andsocialism; thecharacteristics of anAmerican socialist movement whichmouthed orthodox Marxian principles but practised revisionist policies; the divisiveissue of industrialunionism whichexacerbated relations between tradeunionists andsocialists; theimpactof WorldWar xon radicalism andlabour;and,finally,thecollapse of bothsocialism andlabourin the; 9eos. Usinghissources (primarilytherecords andpapers oftheAr of,., the. Socialist party,andvarious unionandpartyleaders)carefully andintelligently, Dickrepeats anoft-toldtaleyetmanages to contribute toourknowledge of the historical relationship between labourand socialism in the United States. In tworespects Dickdeepens ourcomprehension of thefactors underlying the failure of Americansocialism. First, unlikemostAmericanhistorians who are unable totranscend a provincial perspective, Dickregularly compares theAmericanexperience to thatof Britishtradeunionists andsocialists. The parallels between the British and American trade-union movements of the late nineteenth century, asdescribed byDick,seem inescapable, aswasthetendency ofAmerican socialists andlabourleaders to imitateBritishmodels. Unfortunately, however, Dick's ventures incomparative historical analysis aremore allusive thansubstan- ' tive;stilltheyraise questions forhistorians to ponder moreseriously in thefuture. Second, Dickisespecially effective inreminding reader• thattheAmerican labour movement remained radicalinsocial philosophy andapproach, evenafter the emergence of the AFof ,. in the mid ;88os,and that Gompers retaineda residualMarxist radicalismthroughout his long trade-union career.Unlike revisionist 'NewList'historians whoexplainGompers' evolving conservatism in terms ofhis'cooptation' bycorporate leaders, Dick locates theroots of Gompers' antisocialism in a working-class syndicMist traditionin which 'organized labor constituted a classmovement with broadsocialaims,very differentfrom the "pressure group" unionism oftoday'(p. x83). ButDickconcedes, ashemust, that Gompers' leadership of the AFof ,. denieddemocratic socialism the mass base labourmovements lentit in othernations. Unwillingto findthecauses of socialism 's failurein theAmerican social system orinthecharacter oftheworking class, Dick retreatsto Carlyle's'greatman' theoryof history.If onlyGompers had remaineda socialist, the United States in the •97os,like Great Britain,would havealabour partyasoneofitstwodominant national political organizations. Sloppy editorialsupervision andseveral careless factualerrors maranotherwise praiseworthy work.Thoughnota polished stylist, Dickcanwritewith graceand always with clarity.Thusit seems jarringwhensuchmistakes asthefollowing appear: Cincinattifor Cincinnatitwice;CayahogaCounty,Ohio, insteadof Cuyahoga; Uriah Stevens in placeof Stephens; AbrahamratherthanAbram Hewitt; placing JohnBrophy insouthern Illinoisinstead ofcentralPennsylvania; andcharacterizing Sidney Hillmanasa 'pureandsimple unionist.' Dick'sdiscussion oftheKnights ofLaboranditsconflict withthetradeunions mightalsohave benefited froma closer readingof David Montgomery's Beyond Equality.Minor criticisms aside, Dickdeserves an audience and,in thefuture,a betterpublisher. MELVYN DUBOFSXV StateUniversity ofNew Yorkat Binghamton ...