Strikes as Sequences of Interaction: The American Strike Wave of 1886

Abstract

The American Strike Wave of 1886 Theories of strikes-or any kind of conflict-are theories of interaction. Marxists envisage class conflict as a dialectical struggle between proletariat and bourgeoisie. Neoclassical economists imagine strikes as an unintended consequence of bargaining between rational actors. The tumult of class conflict is far removed from the quiet of rational bargaining, yet these theories are alike in this respect: strikes ensue from dyadic interaction. Adding political authorities to the dyad of workers and employers extends interaction to three sets of actors.

Land Tenure Inequality, Harvests, and Rural Conflict: Evidence from Southern Spain during the Second Republic (1931–1934)

“…Inequality, unemployment and underemployment, crises, and exploitation are the norm, not the exception, in most developing countries and in historical societies, yet conflict only erupts in very special historical circumstances. Several theorists have stressed the role of expectations and contagion in large social processes, given the obvious nonlinearity of most social processes (Biggs 2002(Biggs , 2005Freeman 1998). In this framework, small changes in material conditions or in political opportunities can lead to large changes in collective participation.…”

The Knights of Labour and the Failure of the Arbitration Platform, 1886–1887: Ideology, Hegemony, and Contextually Generated Opportunities for Frame Success

“…Historical interest in the KOL stems largely from their claim to be one of the few North American labor movements animated by truly collectivist and inclusivist principles (Ware 1959; Kealey and Palmer 1981, 1982; Fink 1983; Levine 1983; Fink 1988; Voss 1988; Conell and Voss 1990; Marks 1991; Voss 1993; Babb 1996; Voss 1996; Phelan 1999; Weir 2000; Kaufman 2001; Biggs 2002; Gerteis 2002; Biggs 2003). The KOL extended membership in the movement to all workers, including women and blacks; a notable exclusion to their inclusivist intentions were Chinese workers (Levine 1983; Gerteis 2002).…”

“…In spite of its presence in the official statements of the movement, the policy of arbitration was not intimately associated with the career of the KOL. KOL assemblies were responsible for orchestrating some of the more significant strike actions of the 1880s, including the 1883 Telegrapher’s strike against the Western Union (which ended with no concessions gained and the right of organization lost), the Philadelphia shoemakers’ strike, the Union Pacific shopmen’s strike, and finally, the great railway strikes of 1884 (Union Pacific), 1885 (Wabash line), and 1886 (the Southwest Railway) (see Ware 1959:119–134; Levine 1983:63–103; Biggs 2002). In addition, the surge in membership experienced by the KOL from 1885 to 1886 (they added close to 500,000 members in the space of a single year) was coincident with the 1886 strike wave (concomitant with the eight‐hour movement; see further discussion) that hit the North American continent with a magnitude unparalleled until after World War I (Ware 1959:66; Biggs 2003:217).…”

“…The movement was behind the call for a general strike of all workers on May 1, 1886, as a confrontational gesture to compel employers to recognize the eight‐hour demand. The movement peaked in the first week of May, when as many as one in four American workers were on strike (Biggs 2002). In addition, this peak was also associated with a series of violent confrontations between capital and labor, including the infamous Haymarket affair, at which a bomb was thrown into the crowd during a labor rally.…”

“…This representation of movement practice, however, was only one of a range of interpretations of KOL imperatives available to movement constituents. Events between 1885 and 1887, including a surge in working‐class mobilization, a huge, continent‐wide strike wave, and a series of violent altercations between workers and capital, had the effect of distancing the interpretations contained within the arbitration frame from the ideas, goals, and beliefs of a majority of movement constituents (Ware 1959; Fink 1983; Babb 1996; Biggs 2002; Biggs 2003).…”