'May 1968' in the USA?

I've just been reading quite a bit about the May 1968 student protests and general strike in France and found it interesting a point that was made about how in some nations, such as France and Italy, student movements and trade unions worked together in the late 1960 and early 1970's, whereas in others such as the USA and West Gernmany they did not.

So what if in the USA the student movement and the trade unions worked together, particularly with regard to opposition to the Vietnam War in the late 1960's and early 1970's? In OTL this didn't occur and in fact many trade unions and workers were hostile to the students (ie the Hard Hat Riot of 1970). In this ATL perhaps after the Kent State Shootings in May 1970, we have many trade unions going on a General Strike in protest?

In OTL trade unions in Australia took action against the Vietnam War. At some stage in the early 1970's the ACTU (the Australian equivalent of the AFL-CIO), put a ban on an of its members from handling non-military items going to Vietnam. Among other things it often prevented letters getting to Australian military personnel in Vietnam. Obviousy this was controversial, but I don't gather it did the trade unions any lasting harm to their public image or reputation.

What POD is required for this to happen? I think you would definitely need someone well-respected in the Democratic Party who was both popular with workers and anti-war for this to happen. The problem was that at this time Hubert Humphrey (popular with workers) was pro-war and George McGovern (anti-war) was unpopular with workers. Perhaps if RFK wasn't assassinated but still lost the 1968 election to Nixon he could lead this?

How would this affect the US government's policy toward Vietnam? How would affect public perception of the students, trade unions and workers?
 
The SDS, the Mobe, yippies etc did think they were pulling off what was being done in France. Only it was the Panthers and other less militant African-American groups that were their allies, not organised labour, so there weren't traditional strikes.

I don't know much about May in France, but was it the communist unions alone or the communists and socialist unions who backed the students?

Organised labour in America in favour of radical student anti-war activism would take a huge POD (though IMO a quietly anti-war AFL-CIO is possible--under a President Goldwater.) Even most of the anti-war unions in Australia were mainly aligned with the respectable Dr Jim Cairns anti-war leadership, not so much with the local student revolutionaries ala the groups throwing marbles under police horses, seizing control of buildings at Monash, etc.
 
American unions in 1968 were anything but anti-war. They were dominated by WWII veterans and those older. They would have been anti-protest, pro-draft and more. The anti-war attitude of many democrats was a sign that the party was dividing the unions. Case in point: the AFL-CIO endorsed Nixon over McGovern in 1972.
 
You'd have to have a much more radical labor movement. Kent State is much too late for a POD - you'll have to go back to the 1880s to get left leaning unions in the US.

The Haymarket Massacre in 1886 would be a good POD. Three points:

1) The anarchists avoid the march there (not too hard - they saw the unionists 8-hour day as not radical enough).

2) No bomb thrown, but the Chicago police still open fire and kill a number of unionists, but no police officers killed.

3) Instead of anarchists, the police blaim unionists.

Done right, the following crackdown on the unions could very well push the unionists more solidly into the socialist/anarchist camp.
 
You'd have to have a much more radical labor movement. Kent State is much too late for a POD - you'll have to go back to the 1880s to get left leaning unions in the US...

Done right, the following crackdown on the unions could very well push the unionists more solidly into the socialist/anarchist camp

But there were anti-union massacres in the States much worse than Haymarket, without the influence of anarchists or any other kinds of '-isms', for many years into the 20th century--they reached a historical climax in the steel industry violence in the '30s.

Perhaps if the ameliorative policies that the U.S. government came up with in the progressive era and the New Deal weren't implemented...

Though I do feel that the militancy of a John Lewis or a Jimy Hoffa is realistically the most 'socialistic' a majority-radical union movement could ever get in America.

(Perhaps this more CIO/Teamster-style union movement opposes a Goldwater administration on Vietnam because Barry is trying to implement Reagan's strikebreaking policies 15 years earlier than OTL--though, as per Australia, I can't imagine most of these unionists wanting to get into bed with the student revolutionaries. It would be more like the Reuthers supporting Martin Luther King on Civil Rights. Though it'd certainly be a change from the hardhats beating on the hippies with baseball bats.)
 
Last edited:
But there were anti-union massacres in the States much worse than Haymarket, without the influence of anarchists or any other kinds of '-isms', for many years into the 20th century--they reached a historical climax in the steel industry violence in the '30s.

Oh indeed. However it was the anti-anarchist backlash after Haymarket that stated the push of main stream unionism away from the radical left. If, instead of associating organised labor with crazy bomb throwing anarchism, there were a crackdown on mainsteam unionism, that could push labor much more towards the radical left instead of away from it. (And unions would celebrate May Day properly like the rest of the world. ;))

Also, no police killed is a biggy. If it's just unionists, it'll be seen more as big nasty corporations stomping on the little guy rather than the police cracking down on crazy bombthrowers.

As for the timing, to get a more radical unionism, the AFL will either have to be much less conservative or have very reduced influance.
Gompers conservative unionism had triumphed by 1900.

The above was just one suggestion to put the labor movement on a more leftist track.

Perhaps if the ameliorative policies that the U.S. government came up with in the progressive era and the New Deal weren't implemented...

That'd probably dovetail in after a pre-1900 POD.

Though I do feel that the militancy of a John Lewis or a Jimy Hoffa is realistically the most 'socialistic' a majority-radical union movement could ever get in America.

(Perhaps this more CIO/Teamster-style union movement opposes a Goldwater administration on Vietnam because Barry is trying to implement Reagan's strikebreaking policies 15 years earlier than OTL--though, as per Australia, I can't imagine most of these unionists wanting to get into bed with the student revolutionaries. It would be more like the Reuthers supporting Martin Luther King on Civil Rights. Though it'd certainly be a change from the hardhats beating on the hippies with baseball bats.)

Sans a big shift, agreed.

BTW, just out of curiosity, am I the only labor activist posting to this?
 
Oh indeed. However it was the anti-anarchist backlash after Haymarket that stated the push of main stream unionism away from the radical left. If, instead of associating organised labor with crazy bomb throwing anarchism, there were a crackdown on mainsteam unionism, that could push labor much more towards the radical left instead of away from it. (And unions would celebrate May Day properly like the rest of the world. ;))...

As for the timing, to get a more radical unionism, the AFL will either have to be much less conservative or have very reduced influance.
Gompers conservative unionism had triumphed by 1900...

The above was just one suggestion to put the labor movement on a more leftist track...

I think the much more ideological unionism you're thinking of wouldn't get far in a U.S. where the progressive era ends with WWI and the first Red scare.

As is the American way, it would be crushed, only to be revived as Lewis' qualified ideological militancy during the Great Depression--but that's neither here nor there, as I've a feeling that in his original post mtg999 is conflating French communist unionism with Australian anti-war unionism.

The Catholic unions certainly weren't in league with the French students, just as the Australian unions never came close to the militancy of Paris, 1968.

I still think Walter Reuther leading a moderate anti-Vietnam War union campaign is plausible. An anti-war AFL-CIO coordinating with the SDS is ASB.

BTW, just out of curiosity, am I the only labor activist posting to this?

No, I'm really more interested in Australian parliamentary labourism than the industrial kind.
 
I don't know much about May in France, but was it the communist unions alone or the communists and socialist unions who backed the students?

Actually rather surprising most of the leadership of the communist and socialist trade unions in France and in particular the parliamentary leadership of the Communist and Socialist parties were against the student and worker demonstrations of May 1968, preferring instead to use parliamentary means to change policy. Lots of the protests were relatively spontaneous and to the extent that they were lead, emerged from the local leadership of the trade unions, rather than their national leaderships.

It was often perceived as a generational clash, not just in terms of the students, but also between the young and middle-aged workers and their older union leadership. For instance, many of the trade union leadership (I'm speaking here of in particular the Communists) were very old-style unionist, only interested in wages and conditions, like holidays, etc. The younger generation of workers were more interested in things which were rather ambiguosly termed 'respect' in the workplace, ie less hierarchical structure, more career advancement opportunities, less formality in the workplace.
 
As is the American way, it would be crushed, only to be revived as Lewis' qualified ideological militancy during the Great Depression--but that's neither here nor there, as I've a feeling that in his original post mtg999 is conflating French communist unionism with Australian anti-war unionism.

No I'm not conflating French communist unionism with Australian anti-war unionism, in the sense that the strikes and demonstrations of May 1968 weren't pro-communist. At the very least it can be said that they were not 'traditonal Communist' in the sense of Marxist-Leninist ideology. They were far more of the New Left of the 1960's, which was usually as anti-Soviet as they were anti-capitalist. To the extent that some of the more extreme fringes were influenced by communist thought, it would of the more pre-Marx utopian socialism, with a anarchistic bent to it.
 
I agree with some previous posters that a good POD for this ATL is to have Goldwater win the Presidency in 1964. If he had been introducing anti-union measures for the previous few years as well as being pro Vietnam War, as he would be, then it is more likely that unions and students will find common cause.

Also one thing that makes this more plausible, is the fact that May 1968 in France was a very decentralised, almost spontaneous movement (there was no central authority in the union movement organising strikes.) Trade unions in the USA are also fairly decentralised, so I assume similar would happen there as well.
 
No I'm not conflating French communist unionism with Australian anti-war unionism

Alright, though really I should have phrased that criticism "conflating Australian anti-war unionism with French communist unionism"; it makes sense in that it's the ACTU who never went as far as the French general strikers of '68, not the other way round. No-one who wasn't an Oz Marxist-Leninist would expect it to be (or could be) the reverse.

Also, the revolutionary New Left here was not necessarily dominated by the students. In her biography of Jim Cairns, Janice Crosio writes of the good doctor being harangued for his bourgeios ways by student leader Albert Langer and thirty-something 'bookstore propietor' Bob Gould.

How much did the commos in the Australian union movement (let alone the none-communists) have to do with these angry poseurs? My guess is the relationship between New Left and union leaders was kept to a minimum, was less about ideological comity and more about co-ordinating a defence of the protest venues against such reactionaries as police informants, Liberal govt. agents provocoteur, Dr Cairns and Mr Whitlam...
 
then it is more likely that unions and students will find common cause...

Trade unions in the USA are also fairly decentralised, so I assume similar would happen there as well.

Which students? The kids who were 'going clean for Gene', scrubbing up and getting haircuts so they could volunteer for McCarthy's insurgent campaign? They would line up with anti-war Reutherites, sure.

The slightly older kids who'd gone south to organise for Dr King and John Lewis? Sure, they might have graduated by the time the anti-war popular front started, but they could join it.

Then there's the other kids. The difficult kids. The SDS, the Berkeley Free Speech movement, the fellow travellers of the Panthers and Stokely Carmichael. The free love and drugs advocates. Worst of all, the Yippies.

Some of the people in that youth movement could move over--the Tom Hayden's and the Hunter S. Thompson's.

But the vast majority of them would never go over to a popular front lead by men from the AFL-CIO.

mtg999, it'd be as if the anti-war movement unions in Australia had been the AWU and the NSW Catholic Right, not the likes of Jack Mundy's BLF. How do you think our student radicals would have felt getting behind John Ducker and Tom Dougherty?

The angriest American kids would never have worked with the Rethers and the Hoffas--it doesn't matter that getting the more open-minded union men to declare themselves against the war would have been a great turning point (and I think the more stolid George Meany-types would have been neutral at best, if not still actual war hawks as they all were OTL).
 
Which students? The kids who were 'going clean for Gene', scrubbing up and getting haircuts so they could volunteer for McCarthy's insurgent campaign? They would line up with anti-war Reutherites, sure.

Thes were the students I was thinking of, not the more radical fringe groups such as the SDS.
 
Top