What does America in the 20th century look like from “the people’s” perspective? What were the aims of the elites, and how did they seek to achieve them?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Howard Zinn provides a “people’s history” of America in the 20th century. He covers the labor movement, the Great Depression and the New Deal<\/a>, New Imperialism<\/a>, the World Wars, the Cold War, and significant social movements.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Read more to get Zinn’s take on America in the 20th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n Zinn’s “people’s history” of America in the 20th century takes aim at what he calls the American elite. This is the lens through which he discusses history, including the American labor movement<\/a> that began in the 19th century. Zinn writes that, in response to their grim conditions, workers organized (illegally at the time) and advocated better working conditions, higher pay, and other benefits. This usually involved striking, or laborers refusing to work until their demands were met.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Often, capitalists, police, hired thugs, and sometimes the National Guard attacked and killed strikers. Initially, labor organization was sporadic, small, and rarely effective\u2014employees of one plant would walk off the job in protest only to be replaced by other people looking for work. But, over time, it grew in scale and ambition. Zinn notes several important elements of the labor movement: trade unions, socialism, and radical organizers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn explains that the largest form of labor organization were trade unions: organizations of workers within a specific trade, such as teachers and longshoremen. These unions attempted to monopolize their specific form of labor, then used this monopoly to make demands of their employers.<\/strong> Trade unions also worked together through larger organizations such as the American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn explains that socialism, or the political and economic ideology promoting collective ownership of property, rapidly gained popularity in late 19th and early 20th century America. <\/strong>Socialists came from a number of backgrounds: They were trade unionists, rural populists, idealistic academics, immigrants, and so on. Their politics were anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-worker\u2019s rights, pro-government regulation, and pro-social safety nets. Socialists made their largest gains under the banner of the Socialist Party of America<\/a> (or SPA), a political party founded in 1901.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The SPA also overlapped with women\u2019s rights and women\u2019s suffrage groups of the era, though they weren\u2019t totally aligned; socialists tended to prioritize economic causes over social ones. In addition, while the SPA preached racial equality and allowed people of all races to join, it didn\u2019t advocate particularly hard for Black Americans despite it being a dangerous era for them due to white mob lynchings and horrible working conditions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn makes the case that radical organizers were also important for the labor movement. Their violence and serious disruptions to business put large amounts of pressure on capitalists to make concessions.<\/strong> Particularly toward the end of the 19th century under intense economic strain, more radicals emerged. Anarchists like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman believed that, to achieve the socialist dream of collective ownership, current political and economic systems had to be destroyed. They argued that, in the right context, violence\u2014including bombings and assassinations\u2014was appropriate to achieve these ends.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Founded in 1905, Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, was a militant union accepting all workers regardless of their industry, race, sex, or immigration status. Instead of negotiating contracts with management like trade unions, the IWW traveled the country supporting and organizing massive \u2018general strikes\u2019 of all <\/em>workers in a given area. They didn\u2019t condone violence except in cases of self-defense, but the nature of their cause meant they often clashed with and were heavily persecuted by law enforcement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite the growing size and scale of the American labor movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, Zinn argues progress was still slow and difficult. He notes three significant obstacles of the labor movement: institutional resistance, internal divisions, and moderates.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn explains that a majority of institutions in American society worked together against the labor movement<\/strong>. Police, private security, and even the National Guard often used violence to break up strikes and force people back to work. In addition, major newspapers and the judicial system persecuted labor organizers. For example, the first Red Scare (a political purge of the left and moral panic around communism in the early 1920s) led to a coordinated campaign of anti-labor propaganda, mass prosecutions, and violent suppressions of strikes, contributing to the IWW\u2019s loss of power and influence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Divides within the labor movement often prevented workers from organizing together, or in some cases, even turned them against one another<\/strong>. These divides were often based on racial, ethnic, or gendered prejudice. Divisions occurred along ideological lines\u2014the Socialist Party split in 1919 over whether it would support the newly formed Soviet Union. Pro-Soviet and more radical members left the SPA to form the Communist Party USA, halting the SPA\u2019s growing momentum.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn argues thelabor movement was alsohampered by moderates channeling time, energy, and money into inadequate reforms<\/strong>. In particular, these moderates often pushed for reform \u201cwithin the system\u201d via electoral or legislative victories. However, these were insufficient at best and ineffective at worst, Zinn argues, as electoral politics were structurally designed to serve elite interests. For example, the National Labor Union discouraged strikes in favor of lobbying Congress for labor reforms and running candidates in elections. However, their few legislative successes were bypassed with loopholes, and their candidates lost by large margins.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Economic and political circumstances of the late \u201920s through the \u201930s saw significant shifts in the American labor movement, explains Zinn: most significantly, the Great Depression and New Deal.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The activity and militancy of the American labor movement tended to fluctuate along with the desperation of workers and the state of the economy. Therefore, the Great Depression\u2014a severe economic downturn that began in 1929 and lasted over a decade\u2014caused labor unrest to skyrocket to an all-time high. <\/strong>For the first several years of the depression, elites in business and government had no clue what to do, leaving the American people to fend for themselves. Communists, socialists, and labor activists organized their communities to support one another, engage in massive, citywide strikes, and pressure elites to make concessions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some activists didn\u2019t coordinate with Black Americans during the depression\u2014they either weren\u2019t interested or worried that doing so would alienate potential white, working-class supporters. The Communists were one of the few groups who made a serious effort to build a cross-racial coalition during this era, secretly helping black laborers organize themselves.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Concessions to the American public came in the form of the New Deal, a series of laws and social programs under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt designed to help the country recover. However, Zinn argues the New Deal was still ultimately a project by and for elites\u2014<\/strong>it shared just enough wealth and power with the American people to prevent all-out rebellion while centralizing power in the federal government via appointee-only bureaucracies. In addition, the New Deal largely ignored the plight of Black Americans\u2014Roosevelt needed the support of Southern segregationists to pass his desired policies, so he didn\u2019t pursue anti-segregation or anti-lynching measures.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the Wagner-Connery Act in 1935 legalized labor unions and formalized the process of labor-management negotiations. This law provided some concessions to labor\u2014employers could no longer fire workers for being union members, for example. However, it also channeled popular energy away from using strikes to cause broad social change and toward internal union politics and negotiating financially beneficial contracts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For centuries, American expansion had been fueled by the frontier\u2014the \u201cfree\u201d land and resources of the West provided a way for enterprising capitalists to make and expand their fortunes. But, by the end of the 19th century, Zinn explains, the American frontier had closed. Land and wealth in the US were largely divided up among a select few elites. To continue increasing their wealth, elites had to start influencing and controlling other countries and peoples\u2014they had to make America an empire.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Around the turn of the 20th century, the US engaged in a number of imperial projects, influencing, controlling, and even conquering other nations and colonies. These accomplished two major goals for elites: First, they created new markets for American goods and new sources of cheap labor and natural resources. Second, they attempted to soothe domestic unrest by appealing to patriotism and nationalism<\/strong>\u2014if everyone thought of themselves as part of a collective American project, they would pay less attention to class divisions within the country. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While elites and major newspapers tended to support these projects, Zinn suggests popular opinion was mixed. Trade unions occasionally supported colonial ventures, believing they would improve business. On the other hand, the Socialist Party was staunchly against American imperialism, and many Black Americans sympathized with or even supported peoples oppressed by the US abroad, recognizing their common struggle. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, the 1898 Spanish-American War saw the US intervene in the Cuban Revolution to secure American economic interests in the region. After winning the war in 1902, the US secured control over newly independent Cuba\u2019s government and economy<\/a>. The US also annexed a number of other Spanish colonies following the war, including the Philippines\u2014after stomping out Filipino resistance in a bloody three-year campaign.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The two world wars represented some of the first times the new American empire acted on a global stage, Zinn explains. He outlines American participation in each war and the popular response to them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1914, World War I began\u2014what Zinn describes as a years-long bloody and pointless conflict between European imperial powers. He argues the US joined the war in 1917 to protect American elite financial interests despite mixed or even anti-war public opinion. <\/strong>Before and early on in the war, American elites developed strong business ties with and made large investments in Allied nations. Going to war allowed them to protect these investments. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Elites tried to garner support for the war through propaganda campaigns and suppressing dissent. For example, the Espionage Act of 1917 made criticizing the war essentially illegal, and it was used to arrest a number of high profile critics of the conflict. Despite these efforts, public opinion was by no means pro-war: When the US government asked for one million volunteers at the start of the war, only 73,000 people signed up in the first six weeks. The government had to start drafting people to meet their quota. In addition, the Socialist Party\u2014the main anti-war party\u2014made significant gains in state and local elections during the war.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 1939, World War II began between the Axis Powers, led by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, and the Allies, led by the UK, France, and the USSR. The US joined the Allies two years later. However, Zinn argues that American participation in the war was less about fighting fascism and more about protecting imperial power and elite financial interests. <\/strong>He offers several pieces of evidence: First, the US didn\u2019t fight fascism in the years leading up to the war, whether in the Spanish Civil War or during the gradual rise of Nazi Germany. Second, the US didn\u2019t join the war until its imperial possessions were directly attacked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regardless of this elite reasoning, popular opinion in the US was mostly pro-war<\/strong>. Many Americans supported the allied cause due to patriotism and anti-Japanese racism. While some Black Americans didn\u2019t want to fight for their oppressors, many others were drafted or voluntarily joined the prejudicial and racially segregated US military. Despite the overall pro-war sentiment, though, the US government still suppressed any perceived dissent\u2014using the Espionage Act to arrest anti-war activists and imprisoning thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps, even if they supported the American war effort or had no connections to Imperial Japan.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As the major power who\u2019d suffered the least damage during the war, American elites were able to dictate a favorable post-war political and economic landscape, <\/strong>explains Zinn. <\/strong>They did so in a number of ways: funding massive reconstruction programs in Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, granting the US a significant amount of control over the newly formed United Nations and International Monetary Fund, and securing oil for decades to come through an alliance with the Saudi royal family.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because of this uncontested economic position, enough money was flowing into the country that elites were willing to provide benefits to many American workers and laborers. <\/strong>The GI Bill provided funding to help thousands of veterans buy homes and attend college. Infrastructure projects, anti-poverty initiatives, and cheap goods caused overall standards of living to rise. At the same time, however, military, business, and political elites collaborated to ensure the existing war economy would continue indefinitely, concentrating disproportionate wealth in their hands.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Following the end of World War II, Zinn explains, American elites embarked on a decades-long campaign to prevent the spread of communism and protect their\u2014and Western European elites\u2019\u2014financial interests. This strategy would limit the political and economic strength<\/a> of the Soviet Union while also protecting the US-dominated post-war economy. Zinn notes several important theaters of the Cold War, including the CIA\u2019s covert operations and the Vietnam War<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, covertly enacted America\u2019s foreign policy throughout the Cold War. Composed of a number of business and political elites, the CIA<\/a> supported, planned, and even participated in coups in countries that threatened American or European business interests<\/strong>\u2014regardless of whether they were communist or pro-Soviet. For example, the CIA helped coordinate a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, when he attempted to nationalize the country\u2019s British-owned oil companies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In some instances, Zinn explains, covert actions weren\u2019t enough to secure the goals of elites. This was the case in Vietnam, where the US tried and failed to covertly stop popular Vietnamese resistance against the French colonial government. Instead of trying to work with the initially cooperative Vietnamese revolutionary movement, the US created a capitalist dictatorship in South Vietnam and eventually went to war with North Vietnam to defend it.<\/strong> During the war, the US used a strategy of mass death and destruction\u2014using chemical and incendiary weapons to destroy wildlife, bombing civilian infrastructure like dams to cause starvation, and indiscriminately killing civilians.<\/p>\n\n\n\n From the mid to late \u201960s, the anti-Vietnam War movement became a popular force across the US.<\/strong> Black Americans in the Civil Rights Movement<\/a> started the campaign, but thousands of students, young people, and eventually the middle class joined. Civilians protested and dodged the draft, while anti-war American soldiers deserted, refused to follow orders, or even killed their commanding officers in protest. Faced with mounting domestic political pressure and a determined, skilled North Vietnamese insurgency, US elites eventually had to admit defeat. They withdrew American soldiers from Vietnam, and South Vietnam collapsed shortly afterward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn explains that, while the post-WWII settlement and spoils of empire made the US richer than ever before, it didn\u2019t resolve the social unrest<\/a> of previous decades. If anything, the influx of wealth further revealed the country\u2019s many inequalities and social divides\u2014inspiring decades of popular social movements for justice and equality. <\/strong>Despite these efforts, elites cemented control over political and economic institutions, creating a \u201cmodern consensus\u201d in politics that persisted into the 21st century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Zinn outlines several of the significant social movements of the \u201940s through the \u201970s: the decline of the labor movement during the Second Red Scare, the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, second-wave feminism, and more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the years following WWII, elites purged members of left and labor movements in the Second Red Scare, explains Zinn. Seeing the rise of the communist bloc, the start of decolonization, and a strike wave in the US once the no-strike pledge ended, elites feared the possibility of a strong American left. They responded with mass firings, prosecutions, and investigations of leftists and labor activists under the guise of combatting the Soviet Union and communism. They also passed laws limiting the power and influence of unions. Zinn argues the Second Red Scare started the decline of the American labor movement, as organizations either cooperated with purges or had their influence reduced via legislation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite Black participation in WWII and the booming post-war economy, Black Americans remained a legally segregated and oppressed underclass, Zinn explains. As a result, Black Americans organized on a larger scale than ever before to struggle for equality. <\/strong>Their struggle began with the Civil Rights Movement, a campaign for legal equality through peaceful, yet disruptive protests. From 1954 to 1968, the Civil Rights Movement pressured elites into outlawing racial segregation<\/a> and passing a series of moderate reforms to protect Black rights.<\/p>\n\n\n\nThe Labor Movement in America<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
1) Trade Unions<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
2) Socialists and the Socialist Party of America<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
3) Radicals, Militant Unions, and the IWW<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Labor Movement\u2019s Obstacles<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
1) Organized Institutional Resistance<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
2) Internal Divisions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
3) Moderates<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Great Depression and the New Deal (1929-1939)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Great Depression<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The New Deal<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Rising Empire (1898-1945)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Early Imperial Projects<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The World Wars<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
World War I (1914-1918)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
World War II (1939-1945)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Post-War Settlement<\/h5>\n\n\n\n
The Cold War (1947-1991)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Covert Actions and the CIA<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Vietnam War (1963-1972)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Social Upheaval and the Modern Consensus (1945-2001)<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Social Movements (1945-1980)<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Second Red Scare (1945-1960)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
The Civil Rights and Black Power Movements (1954-1980s)<\/h4>\n\n\n\n