- 783
- 1,405
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2012
Great thread so far, fellas. Most of you have covered the general gist of post-WWII Detroit's decline. From a macro-economic standpoint, the fall of Detroit is akin to that of the slave south: Just as the Old South's economy was often rooted in mono-crop exchange which left it exposed to ecological exhaustion of soil and a turbulent Atlantic economy, Detroit's dependence on the manufacturing sector left it vulnerable to shifts in global capitalism. Indeed, by the mid-20th century, the motor vehicle industry was by far the largest employer in Detroit, providing nearly 1/3 of all jobs in the city. But to focus solely on abstract market forces would deny the strategy of corporate leadership to extinguish labor radicalism.
Deindustrialization has ravaged Detroit. Although automation played a role in closing and downsizing industrial plants, automation is not the mark of some inevitable technological process. It was undoubtedly encouraged among corporate leaders to weaken unions. GM, Ford, and Chrysler initially relocated their factories to suburban Detroit and then to small mid-west cities. It is not a coincidence that these companies moved to places that would later enact right-to-work laws, or legislation that prohibits unionization as a condition for employment. Arguments about corporate greed doesn't get us anywhere. After all, the nature of capitalism is the incessant search for cheap land and cheap labor. The key is to situate corporate decision making within a distinct historical context of labor militancy.
A bunch of you have cited "unions" as the central reason for Detroit's "rough shape." You should be weary of indiscriminate union bashing, for you might find yourself in bed with modern conservatives who wish to roll back the positives to which Lfuqua referenced. There has been a 60+ year war on unions. Starting with the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which in overturning the Wagner Act, prohibited Wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and opened the way to the proliferation of right-to-work legislation, which in states like Alabama, Indiana, and the like means the right to starve. Reagan won a major victory for corporate capitalism by firing the nearly 12,000 striking PATCO employees. And how can we forget about Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin's attempt to take away the right of public sector unions to collectively bargain? By painting a broad stroke implicating unions as the cause of Detroit's woes, you serve as the mouthpiece of the modern conservative project which would happily return to the days of laissez-faire liberalism.
The way I see it, unions can be criticized on the basis of their history of racism and the ascendancy of labor aristocrats. During the 1940s The UAW was pivotal in securing the right to collectively bargain, providing workers with well-deserved pay packages and benefits, and, thanks to seniority rules, ensured a relative degree of stability among unionized autoworkers. However, this positive could take on a racist character. First, hiring practices were highly decentralized and differed across the numerous auto plants throughout Detroit. In short, the ability of black Americans to gain employment depended on place. Secondly, because of the entrenched localism within the UAW organizational structure, local union leadership could ensure that for African Americans, seniority rules meant "last hired, and first fired." When unionization was linked to housing, within the UAW local 3 white rank-and-file members engaged in hate strikes against African American unionization and to guard against "Negro invasions." And then there's the labor "fat cats," as they are commonly referred. Although not tied to the auto sector, people like Jimmy Hoffa were corrupt, engaged in fraud, and relied on his gang of thugs to enforce his rule. George Meany of the AFL-CIO was brazenly homophobic and supported the Vietnam war.
Obviously demographics and politics are important in explaining the state of Detroit. But it all starts with recognizing the principle rule of capitalism stated above and recognizing that the history of unions is a story of radicalism and racialism. Check out Thomas Sugrue's The Origins of the Urban Crisis not only for the definitive account of post-war Detroit but also for the story of the rust belt.
Deindustrialization has ravaged Detroit. Although automation played a role in closing and downsizing industrial plants, automation is not the mark of some inevitable technological process. It was undoubtedly encouraged among corporate leaders to weaken unions. GM, Ford, and Chrysler initially relocated their factories to suburban Detroit and then to small mid-west cities. It is not a coincidence that these companies moved to places that would later enact right-to-work laws, or legislation that prohibits unionization as a condition for employment. Arguments about corporate greed doesn't get us anywhere. After all, the nature of capitalism is the incessant search for cheap land and cheap labor. The key is to situate corporate decision making within a distinct historical context of labor militancy.
A bunch of you have cited "unions" as the central reason for Detroit's "rough shape." You should be weary of indiscriminate union bashing, for you might find yourself in bed with modern conservatives who wish to roll back the positives to which Lfuqua referenced. There has been a 60+ year war on unions. Starting with the Taft Hartley Act of 1947, which in overturning the Wagner Act, prohibited Wildcat strikes, secondary boycotts, and opened the way to the proliferation of right-to-work legislation, which in states like Alabama, Indiana, and the like means the right to starve. Reagan won a major victory for corporate capitalism by firing the nearly 12,000 striking PATCO employees. And how can we forget about Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin's attempt to take away the right of public sector unions to collectively bargain? By painting a broad stroke implicating unions as the cause of Detroit's woes, you serve as the mouthpiece of the modern conservative project which would happily return to the days of laissez-faire liberalism.
The way I see it, unions can be criticized on the basis of their history of racism and the ascendancy of labor aristocrats. During the 1940s The UAW was pivotal in securing the right to collectively bargain, providing workers with well-deserved pay packages and benefits, and, thanks to seniority rules, ensured a relative degree of stability among unionized autoworkers. However, this positive could take on a racist character. First, hiring practices were highly decentralized and differed across the numerous auto plants throughout Detroit. In short, the ability of black Americans to gain employment depended on place. Secondly, because of the entrenched localism within the UAW organizational structure, local union leadership could ensure that for African Americans, seniority rules meant "last hired, and first fired." When unionization was linked to housing, within the UAW local 3 white rank-and-file members engaged in hate strikes against African American unionization and to guard against "Negro invasions." And then there's the labor "fat cats," as they are commonly referred. Although not tied to the auto sector, people like Jimmy Hoffa were corrupt, engaged in fraud, and relied on his gang of thugs to enforce his rule. George Meany of the AFL-CIO was brazenly homophobic and supported the Vietnam war.
Obviously demographics and politics are important in explaining the state of Detroit. But it all starts with recognizing the principle rule of capitalism stated above and recognizing that the history of unions is a story of radicalism and racialism. Check out Thomas Sugrue's The Origins of the Urban Crisis not only for the definitive account of post-war Detroit but also for the story of the rust belt.
Last edited:
