Reviews for Reds or rackets?

The average rating for Reds or rackets? based on 2 reviews is 5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2008-03-25 00:00:00 Janet Salee Kimeldorf's book is a model for comparative historical sociology. The research question and design is rock-solid, the analysis is both historically nuanced and theoretically sophisticated, and he does it all without resorting to a lot of jargon.

Review # 2 was written on 2018-08-23 00:00:00 Todd Landess Kimeldorf in this volume compares the two dominant longshoremen unions of the USA in the 1930s-50s, the West Coast's ILWU, and the East Coast's ILA, which are polar opposites in both effectiveness and politics. The ILWU was a union that elected radicals, particularly Communists with long red politics such as Harry Bridges, and defended them against attacks, building cultures of solidarity, action, political action, and anti-racism. The ILA, on the other hand, was radically anti-Communist particularly after the war, utterly corrupt to the point of suppressing labor militancy in return for massive bribes from shipping magnates through brute violence and assassinations, and encouraged racial divisions by second and third generation Irish and Italian dockworkers, epitomized by Joe Ryan whom hated Communists as much as he loved money to the point of impoverishing his membership. Kimeldorf points out several reasons why these widely divergent cultures emerged. The ILWU faced 3 large shipping companies whom tried to brutally crush the 1934 strike and only increased the militancy and radicalism of the dockworkers. The ILA faced dozens of shipping companies whom found it easier to bribe the union officials rather than drive them out. The ILWU Communist Party radicals, while giving lip service to the various party-lines, in actuality tended to be more responsive to the wants of the rank and file workers than what the party wanted, ignoring the dual unionist line of the Third Period to work in the Pacific district ILA that would late become the ILWU, or refusing to give any concessions even during the war. In the ILA, radicals who operated in NYC towed the party line more strictly and were quickly discredited by their rivals and pushed out all together after the war, mirroring what happened in the UAW and other unions. The ILWU had a stable workforce and largely anti-racist and inclusionary political stance with militant and confrontational actions that won concessions from bosses, while the ILA was more or less openly racist and very conservatively Catholic as 3rd generation Irish workers had been Americanized away from their radical Republican ancestors, as well as very corrupt to the point of stealing so much cargo that insurance rates drove NYC to be the most expensive port in the world. Kimeldorf remarks that the question is often posed as "Why No Socialism in the US?" which he flips to "Why were there some socialists in the US?" It is fitting that both unions were expelled from their labor federations in the 1950s. The ILWU was expelled because of their radicalism from the CIO, while the ILA expelled for their corruption from the AFL. Still, interestingly, the ILWU was one of the few "Communist-led" unions expelled from the CIO whom successfully fended off attacks by anti-Communist and rival unions, and continues to thrive to this day as a militant activist union. Largely, it is because Harry Bridges was made by the rank and file as much. The union was very democratic in both words and deeds, marking the relationship as two ways instead of top down. The contrast between the two unions operating in essentially the same industry reminds the reader that history is not so predetermined but made by people crafted but their circumstances but achieved through their actions.