A lot of thoughts ran through my head reading this, mostly having to do with the artificial, and therefore horseshit, divisions that many in the USian labor movement have created for themselves; one core concept the domestic movement can't get right is the essential value of all work. White building trades unionists look down on labor movements that are significantly non-white (especially non-white women) in leadership and their rank and file. One view is that this started with Samuel Gompers and the birth of his AF of L: No use for non-craft workers, those who worked mills, docks, and factories--who also happened to include thousands of Eastern European immigrants in their numbers. Internal divisions and perspective rifts among workers persist today. Naturally, because women are seen as "having the option" to revert to child-bearing and maternity leave where it exists, workers' movements led by and inclusive of mostly women get short shrift in the taxonomy of "worthiness" to lead and drive discussions about workers' rights. Illustration of the latter was front and center in my labor movement career across two unions. The predominantly male members of the IUOE looked down on those in SEIU whom I had previously represented; the latter were viewed as unskilled janitors or "just" social and office workers. Likewise, the value of publicly-funded labor (highway workers, planners, analysts) elicited eye-rolls among those unionized in the private sector (again mostly male) who operate cranes, heavy equipment, and complex building systems. It is not as though women are frozen out of the latter; apprentice waves admit some. The "man's work" culture, though, is a disincentive for women and in some cases people of color to grind through apprenticeships and attempt to function as peers once they achieve journey-level status.
All of the above-listed artificial divisions delight capitalists as they create barriers to the development of class consciousness.
May Day is about the value of *all* labor, though I have a few problems with including cop unions in the discussion given those groups tend to identify with the capitalists who send them out to hurt the working class.
Every time someone tries to divide labor by saying, "Well, this type of worker is different because X," it comes back to bite them. Unity is the only strength we have.
Yes thank you for elucidating reminder of what May 1st means to Labor. Power to the people. I look forward to more articles including on the labor movement in the US.
This is a compelling and highly coherent articulation of the socialist perspective on labor as the foundational axis of political struggle. What stands out most to me is the consistency of the argument; you don’t just argue that labour matters - you connect it to nearly every major social and political issue in a way that feels internally logical and historically sound.
I also think the strategic insight toward the end is strong: positioning labour as the “tentpole” for broader coalition-building is a clear, actionable idea rather than just abstract theory. Whether one agrees or not, it’s hard to deny that this lens provides a more integrated way of thinking about politics than the often fragmented issue-by-issue approach.
If anything, this essay is so interesting because it doesn’t shy away from big claims - it leans into them and builds a strong case with conviction.
A question for you: How would you respond to critics who argue that centering everything on labour risks oversimplifying complex social issues that may not be reducible to economic structures alone?
A lot of thoughts ran through my head reading this, mostly having to do with the artificial, and therefore horseshit, divisions that many in the USian labor movement have created for themselves; one core concept the domestic movement can't get right is the essential value of all work. White building trades unionists look down on labor movements that are significantly non-white (especially non-white women) in leadership and their rank and file. One view is that this started with Samuel Gompers and the birth of his AF of L: No use for non-craft workers, those who worked mills, docks, and factories--who also happened to include thousands of Eastern European immigrants in their numbers. Internal divisions and perspective rifts among workers persist today. Naturally, because women are seen as "having the option" to revert to child-bearing and maternity leave where it exists, workers' movements led by and inclusive of mostly women get short shrift in the taxonomy of "worthiness" to lead and drive discussions about workers' rights. Illustration of the latter was front and center in my labor movement career across two unions. The predominantly male members of the IUOE looked down on those in SEIU whom I had previously represented; the latter were viewed as unskilled janitors or "just" social and office workers. Likewise, the value of publicly-funded labor (highway workers, planners, analysts) elicited eye-rolls among those unionized in the private sector (again mostly male) who operate cranes, heavy equipment, and complex building systems. It is not as though women are frozen out of the latter; apprentice waves admit some. The "man's work" culture, though, is a disincentive for women and in some cases people of color to grind through apprenticeships and attempt to function as peers once they achieve journey-level status.
All of the above-listed artificial divisions delight capitalists as they create barriers to the development of class consciousness.
May Day is about the value of *all* labor, though I have a few problems with including cop unions in the discussion given those groups tend to identify with the capitalists who send them out to hurt the working class.
Every time someone tries to divide labor by saying, "Well, this type of worker is different because X," it comes back to bite them. Unity is the only strength we have.
Yes thank you for elucidating reminder of what May 1st means to Labor. Power to the people. I look forward to more articles including on the labor movement in the US.
Then you're in the right place!
May Day is almost completely unobserved in Canada; Canada has its labour day in September, like the US, for the same reasons.
This is a compelling and highly coherent articulation of the socialist perspective on labor as the foundational axis of political struggle. What stands out most to me is the consistency of the argument; you don’t just argue that labour matters - you connect it to nearly every major social and political issue in a way that feels internally logical and historically sound.
I also think the strategic insight toward the end is strong: positioning labour as the “tentpole” for broader coalition-building is a clear, actionable idea rather than just abstract theory. Whether one agrees or not, it’s hard to deny that this lens provides a more integrated way of thinking about politics than the often fragmented issue-by-issue approach.
If anything, this essay is so interesting because it doesn’t shy away from big claims - it leans into them and builds a strong case with conviction.
A question for you: How would you respond to critics who argue that centering everything on labour risks oversimplifying complex social issues that may not be reducible to economic structures alone?
Corrected - Thanks Lee!