Stronger American labo(u)r movement?

Is it possible for a proper labo(u)r movement to arise in the US (i.e. one that isn't just shot at by the police and then abandoned, but actually gets into the political establishment) in the early 20th century? Jello Biafra's TL seems to indicate that this is possible, but how likely is it on a scale?
 

FDW

Banned
Is it possible for a proper labo(u)r movement to arise in the US (i.e. one that isn't just shot at by the police and then abandoned, but actually gets into the political establishment) in the early 20th century? Jello Biafra's TL seems to indicate that this is possible, but how likely is it on a scale?

I'd say 6 or 7 out of 10. You'd have to jump through some hoops (such as establishing a stronger anti-racist movement earlier than OTL), but it's certainly doable if you know whom to manipulate.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
Is it possible for a proper labo(u)r movement to arise in the US (i.e. one that isn't just shot at by the police and then abandoned, but actually gets into the political establishment) in the early 20th century? Jello Biafra's TL seems to indicate that this is possible, but how likely is it on a scale?

How do you define "proper"?

Are you talking about a Labor Party like the UK has, or full blown socialist state?
 
How do you define "proper"?

Are you talking about a Labor Party like the UK has, or full blown socialist state?

More the former than the latter. However, there would also be a more complete welfare state (something like what exists in, say, Canada IOTL) with universal healthcare, state pensions, child benefits, guaranteed vacation time, and so on.
 
Peoples should remember there is a difference and gradiants from social-democracy, socialism, communism.. BTW...

Social-democracy is plausible - heck, long ago, America was more on left than Canada... But harder, it is a challenger.
 
Peoples should remember there is a difference and gradiants from social-democracy, socialism, communism.. BTW...

Social-democracy is plausible - heck, long ago, America was more on left than Canada... But harder, it is a challenger.

Yes, well, social democracy is what I'm looking for.
 
William Jennings Bryan 1896 yo

There is something to that. Not only was Bryan a progressive of the progressives, McKinley's time in office was also a major setback for the progressive movement.

No, have the Populist Party of 1892 successfully counter the racism that was used to agitate whites in that election campaign.

That's another good PoD. The Southern Populists were quite racist, and if the national party coordinated its wings better, it'd perhaps be able to integrate the civil rights movement into its fold.
 

BlondieBC

Banned
William Jennings Bryan 1896 yo

Agreed, Williams Jennings Bryan being a successful President means the Democratic party becomes a fully progressive/socialist party. Now you need to have him as a successful president, but that should be doable in a TL. Who knows, maybe the partial devaluation of the US dollar on a dual metal system means the USA economy booms even more???
 

mowque

Banned
William Jennings Bryan 1896 yo

Agreed, Williams Jennings Bryan being a successful President means the Democratic party becomes a fully progressive/socialist party. Now you need to have him as a successful president, but that should be doable in a TL. Who knows, maybe the partial devaluation of the US dollar on a dual metal system means the USA economy booms even more???

MY TL explores this in depth.
Edit- well not 1986, although that works better. Mine is in 1908 (with a POD in 1902).
 

FDW

Banned
There is something to that. Not only was Bryan a progressive of the progressives, McKinley's time in office was also a major setback for the progressive movement.



That's another good PoD. The Southern Populists were quite racist, and if the national party coordinated its wings better, it'd perhaps be able to integrate the civil rights movement into its fold.

Well it wasn't that the Southern Populist were racist, as they tried to go after the black vote in the south. It was that the Southern Democrats knew what the base of the Populists were and tried to play Divide and Conquer via the process of race baiting, which succeeded.
 
Well it wasn't that the Southern Populist were racist, as they tried to go after the black vote in the south. It was that the Southern Democrats knew what the base of the Populists were and tried to play Divide and Conquer via the process of race baiting, which succeeded.

Ah, then I've misunderstood the situation altogether. Thank you for elaborating.
 
Is it possible for a proper labo(u)r movement to arise in the US (i.e. one that isn't just shot at by the police and then abandoned, but actually gets into the political establishment) in the early 20th century? Jello Biafra's TL seems to indicate that this is possible, but how likely is it on a scale?

Depends on the POD. Keep in mind, in OTL the U.S had a rather substantial labor movement that was growing quite quickly at the turn of the century - about 4% of the non-ag labor force in 1900, 8% in 1910, and 16% in 1920 (keep in mind that the UK labor movement was at about 10% prior to WWI)- and was beginning to move past its initial political isolationism due to the need to legalize labor unions, leading to a tacit alliance with Woodrow Wilson's Democratic Party.

If the anti-union drive known as the "American System," which coincided with the end of progressive rule in the Federal Government and the arrival of the Red Scare, hadn't happened (or if a more protracted American involvement in WWI had required the Federal government to buy the loyalty of the labor movement with more permanent protections), then the U.S labor movement wouldn't have lost 1 million members (with the AFL taking 20 years to get back to its former level of 4 million members). With more of a secure footing, the CIO and the AFL could well have expanded beyond the 30-odd percent of the workforce clustered in the industrial Northeast and Midwest, which would have greatly boosted both their economic and political power in the crucial decades of the 1950s-1970s.

Alternatively, there's an earlier POD that could have made a huge difference to the development of the American labor movement. Unlike the British labor movement, which was legalized in 1871-4, American unions were effectively made illegal through the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and subsequent Supreme Court decisions, and the courts were used systematically between the 1870s and the 1930s to smash unions through injunctions. This in turn fostered an attitude of voluntarism and reluctance to organize politically, both in the AFL and the IWW. If instead, the right to organize, strike, and boycott had been recognized in the 1870s-1880s and American unions had been widely seen as legitimate and legal organizations, the labor movement would likely have grown much faster in the late 19th century - the Knights of Labor stood at ~1 million members in the 1880s, but American labor was down to half that in 1900.
 
Top