The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
Readers should consult the final copy-edited version published in the
American Historical ReviewSINCE THE EARLY DAYS OF THE Cold War, observers have reproached American anticommunism by invoking the example of British moderation. Historians have often compared the British and American approaches to policing communism, finding that traditions of political toleration in the UK forestalled the extremities of political repression that culminated in the McCarthy era in the U.S. As one writer has put it,"The caution and concern for liberty displayed by the British would, if transferred to America, have prevented many heartbreaks and injustices in the United States." 1 In these accounts, when atomic spy scandals threatened the emerging Anglo-American "special relationship," British officials adopted a moderate loyalty-screening program for civil servants at the United States' behest, but avoided the sorts of abuses that have earned an abiding disrepute for American anticommunism. However, the story is considerably more complicated. During the interwar years, British political policing operations dwarfed the American regime. The interwar British security services rivaled the Cold War-era FBI in the scale and scope of their surveillance operations. The development of the post-World War II American
Labor editors Leon Fink and Jennifer Luff interviewed Andy Stern—for fifteen years the most influential labor leader in the United States—two months after he stepped down from the presidency of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) in May 2010. Here Stern ranges widely, recalling his days as a young social worker and organizer, then as the national organizing director, his involvement in the Beverly Enterprises and Justice for Janitors campaigns, and his emergence in the mid-1990s, in a cadre of other advancing organizing directors, into the leadership of his international union. Despite Stern's intense strategic planning and high hopes for change within SEIU, the AFL-CIO, and, after 2005, Change to Win, he unabashedly faces the limits of what his union was able to accomplish. While generally defending his own actions in internal controversies that swirled around his leadership, he delivers a surprising critique of ruling-class power in America as the chief source of labor's current predicament.
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.