NEW RADICALISM
353
revitalization of the "old" radicalism which refuses to sever its
umbilical attachment to the proletariat. But organized labor's record
on the matter of
civil
rights
is
and has been a sorry mess for a long
time. (I refer anyone who may be interested to an excellent study of
the long-term problem by Ray Marshall, "Unions and the Negro
Community," in the January, 1964,
Industrial and Labor Relations
Review.
) Harrington admits that organized labor is anything but
radical. And he is also aware of the frictions between unions and the
Negroes, especially over the past five years when the unemployment
rate has hovered persistently between five and six percent of the
civilian labor force, and at double this range for Negroes. Two
quotations from Harrington should serve to pinpoint his dilemma.
. . . The true revolutionist is not he who talks most boldly but
he who, with the limited options now before us, is patiently,
radically trying to go forward to the next step.
. . . It is simple enough to make a convincing argument that this
unity [between labor and the civil rights movement] is impossible.
Unfortunately, the same demonstration would also show that
any real social change is impossible.
If
there
be
no alliance of
white and black workers--or worse,
if
they should be at one
another's throats-there is no political majority for what needs
to
be
done.
This
is
exactly the problem. The "old" radicals have become
gradualists in the face of political reality. The old slogans have become
threadbare and no longer arouse the masses, as the European socialists
and the British Labour Party have discovered. And American labor,
"which
is
as far Left as the masses go," has become part of the
Establishment. I remember a few years ago taking part in a con–
ference with Michael Harrington at Hobart and
William
Smith
Colleges. Harrington's thesis at that time was that unions in
this
country, as compared to their European counterparts, were non–
ideological, and that contrary to one's expectations more labor violence
took place in the United States than in Europe. This he attributed
to the non-ideological nature of the American trade union movement
which concentrates on the redress of specific grievances with particular
employers, without any overriding concern for social problems or
reforms. Despite this view and despite the reservations he expresses
