New immigration restrictions in the United States and elsewhere in the 1920s and 1930s made legal entry dependent on specific kinship formalities. This article explores the impact of the new system through a study of British Caribbean migrants. Because family patterns and the place of church and state sanction within them varied greatly by class—here, as in many parts of the world—the result was a curtailment of mobility that affected elites very little, and working-class would-be migrants enormously. In order to elucidate de facto patterns of exclusion, the author concludes, historians of transnational labor must begin paying more attention to the work “family” does.

Latin American political movements linking traditional peasant values of subsistence with a leftist critique of imperialism are contributing to new forms of environmentalism there. While in the United States labor and environmental movements tend to operate within mainstream political and economic models based on privileging high levels of consumption and economic growth, Latin American voices are challenging both the global economic order and traditional concepts of economic development. From indigenous and peasant movements to leftist labor unions to political leaders, Latin Americans are calling for economic development that privileges the rights of rural peoples and their environments, and redistribution of resources domestically and globally. Yet they remain imbedded in an international economy based on extractivism and economic growth, which poses significant challenges to any alternative paths.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 interacted with long-unfolding economic trends to set a global tinder box aflame. Over the past thirty years, the world's workforce has increasingly found employment in low-wage, low-productivity jobs in the global services sector. The pandemic lockdowns hit these sorts of activities the hardest. Opportunities to work evaporated, spreading both poverty and hunger around the world. The same rise in global service sector employment shares, which amplified the pandemic lockdown's destructive effects, will now slow the pace of the recovery. The transition to a services-based economy has accelerated, due to what José Antonio Ocampo and Tomasso Faccio call “too much excess capacity and too little certainty about future demand,” which have depressed levels of investment and ushered in a period of economic stagnation. COVID-19 will make these tendencies worse. Weak economic recoveries will further entrench an economic order in which employers pay little attention to workers’ demands, deepening employment insecurity and economic inequality. The future for labor looks bleak. What that means for the future of working people remains an open question. Their fight for dignity, in the midst of the pandemic and post-pandemic eras, will prove decisive.

A decade-long project on the migration of Italian laborers around the world during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries points to the methodological challenges, theoretical debates, and some of the rewards of transnational analysis of class, ethnicity, and gender in the making of modern national states. Analyses of internationally mobile laborers historicize current transnational studies, problematize the historiography of national groups, and reveal how profoundly—and usually also how “nationally”—every multiethnic nation-state understood relations among ethnicity, race or color, class, and gender.

In the postwar era, conservatives manipulated concerns about union corruption and organized crime in order to score political points against New Deal Democrats and to win new legal restrictions on union power. The resulting racketeer menace had much in common with the contemporary red scare. Antiunion conservatives framed the issue of labor racketeering in terms that resembled the language then being mobilized against internal communist espionage and subversion. This rhetoric proliferated in the congressional debates of the postwar era. Proponents of the Taft-Hartley Act invoked the racketeer menace in 1946 and 1947. They depicted the law as an effort to curb racketeering and thus protect workers and the general public by restricting abusive union power. In the years that followed, a series of congressional hearings into union corruption kept attention focused on the issue of racketeering. For the Eisenhower Administration this campaign against labor racketeering offered a chance to peel the working-class vote away from the Democratic Party by politically dividing union members from their leadership. The culmination of this trend came at the end of the 1950s during the McClellan Committee hearings, which was the largest congressional investigation up to that time. Those hearings transformed Teamsters President James R. Hoffa into a potent symbol of the danger posed by labor racketeering. The committee's revelations and the publicity they received undercut the labor movement. Polls showed growing public skepticism toward unions, and especially union leaders. Such attitudes helped conservatives win a new round of legislative restrictions on organized labor in the form of the Landrum-Griffin Act (1959).

This essay stitches together the fragments of Marx's work on the United States that are scattered in newspaper articles, letters, notes, in some digressions in his early writings, in his economic manuscripts and in Capital (1867). The main aim is to show that what we can call a “global history of the Civil War” emerges from his pen: a history that is global not simply in a geographical sense, that is, because it expands the European space beyond the Atlantic and towards the Pacific, but also because of the general meaning it takes on in the history of capitalism. The essay highlights how the Civil War opened the Marxian issue of emancipation, his vision of class struggle and his view of the working class, to the presence of a black proletariat that interacted with the struggle of the white working classes, the latter of which until then had been the main focus of his work. It also highlights how the different and disarticulated voices of labor – slave and free, black and white – on both sides of the Atlantic effected a revolutionary shift in the Civil War: interjecting a “revolutionary turn” into what we can call the “long constitutional history” of the political conflict between North and South that changed the economic and social shape of the nation. More importantly, the essay reconstructs what can be termed the “state moment,” which was entangled with the “long constitutional history” and the “revolutionary turn” of the Civil War. As the transnational calls for emancipation from slavery and wage labor impacted the transnational processes of accumulation of industrial capital, the American state became a player in the world market: its financial and fiscal policies became socially linked to the government of industrial capital. In this sense, as the essay underlines in the conclusion, the “global history of the Civil War” that Marx effectively drafted, outlined the theoretical and political hypothesis that formed the basis of his mature reflection in the pages of Capital: the “emancipation of labour” should be thought of as a global issue, “neither a local nor a national, but a social problem.”

From the post-World War II era to the present, the US garment industry has turned to Latinas as a source of low-wage workers in their countries of origin and as migrants to the United States. The globalization of the garment industry has meant the proliferation of export processing zones overseas and of sweatshops in US cities. Sweatshops, here and there, have become a locus of Latinas' labor in the global economy. This essay examines the impact of this evolving process on Puerto Rican and Dominican women, in Puerto Rico and the Dominican Republic, and as labor migrants to New York City. The globalization of the garment industry provides an example of the economic and political connections between the United States and countries of origin that shape migrations, as well as a lens for understanding deteriorating economic conditions in the inner cities.

Education and popular adult education have been central in the development of Nordic societies, and as such, emphasis on education has also been an essential component of the Nordic labor movements. The article focuses on the conceptual history of sivistys (Bildung), a key concept and a characteristic element of the Finnish workers’ educational movement through the Finnish Workers’ Educational Association during its era of political education from the 1920s until the 1960s. Workers’ education took the concept sivistys from 19th century projects for people’s education, and thus tied workers’ education tightly to the broader field of Nordic popular adult education. In fact, the Finnish workers’ educational movement received more influence from Nordic people’s education than international socialist theories and programs for workers’ education – of which the use of the concept sivistys is a clear example.

In his first televised address as prime minister on March 2, 2014, Ibrahim Mehleb reiterated what has become a familiar term of state rhetoric used to contain labor unrest, widely referred to as “the wheel of production” (‘agalat el-intag) discourse. The true meaning of the “wheel of production” iteration was expressed in Mehleb's call on “Egyptians to help rebuild the nation and halt strikes and protests.” When representatives of the state—or state-allied political actors, including some labor unions—proclaim that the “wheel of production must turn” in response to strikes and other labor demonstrations, they are suggesting that the protesters are behaving selfishly, in their own economic interests. For laborers to make demands for better wages and working conditions during a time of national crisis is presented to the public as a threat to economic stability and national security that is harmful to all Egyptians. Ironically, though not unexpectedly, in the same address Mehleb pledged to address many of the basic demands raised by protesting workers: a decent standard of living, the even distribution of resources, the rooting out of corruption, and institutional reform of the public sector—all while maintaining workers’ rights. Although state agents' rhetorical commitment to decent standards of living and social and economic rights is not novel, the simultaneous conjuring of the “wheel of production” to halt protests has a more recent history occasioned by the last three years of revolutionary transformations.

This article examines the history of precarious labor within the retail sector in South Africa since the early decades of the twentieth century. It argues that a “regime of contract” characterized through a bifurcated legal apparatus for black and white workers and skill segmentation naturalized by race and gender can be used to track the continuities as well as explain the changes within forms of precarious labor in the present. The history of struggle for regulation as well as employer efforts to refragment the employment contract have been a key part of this story. This article suggests that “regimes of contract” can be used to develop comparative and transnational study to explain precarious labor regimes globally.

This article introduces an Africa-focused special issue showing that the rise of development in its modern form coincided with the demise of the political legitimacy of forced labor. It argues that by mobilizing the idea of development, both colonial and independent African governments were able to continue recruiting unpaid (or underpaid) labor—relabeled as “voluntary participation,” “self-help,” or “human investment” —after the passing of the ILO’s Forced Labor Convention. This introduction consists of two parts: the first section summarizes the main findings of the contributions to the special issue. The second part advances preliminary considerations on the implications of these findings for our assessment of international development “aid.” The conclusion advocates that research on planned development focus not on developers-beneficiaries, but rather on employers-employees. Doing so opens up a renewed research agenda on the consequences of “aid” both for development workers (those formally employed by one of the many development institutions) and for so-called beneficiaries (those whose participation in development is represented as conducive to their own good).

It is thought that workers under capitalism enjoy the freedom of changing employment at will, but studies show that unfree labor has historically existed alongside capitalist development. One explanation for the use of unfree labor under capitalism highlights the functional needs of production. However, the baoshengong, a form of bonded labor that was used in cotton mills in Shanghai from 1927 to 1937, problematizes this approach. Though the baoshengong system was not an efficient mode of labor control, it was put in place. Rejecting the functionalist account, I show that capitalist unfree labor is not necessarily spurred by production requirements. As the Shanghai case will demonstrate, unfree labor was used when the power dynamics in the larger socio-political context outside the immediate abode of production—namely, the conflict and collaboration between different forms of domination such as gang, patriarchal, capitalist, and state powers—superseded the functional considerations of the capitalists.

The Conservative Party has long faced concerns that in regard to the great British miners’ strike of 1984–1985, senior Tories had, in fact, planned the confrontation as early as 1977, when still on the opposition benches. Historian John Savile pointed to the existence of the Ridley Report—a Conservative think-tank paper produced in 1977, which appeared to include a detailed blueprint on how to provoke, and secondly win, a battle against Britain's powerful miners’ union. After Margaret Thatcher's second election victory, and her first landslide, in 1983, the Prime Minister populated the Downing Street Policy Unit with private-sector allies who looked to implement aspects of the report. Some of these allies had clear economic incentives in running down British coal. Nevertheless, the Policy Unit members were instrumental in determining government policy concerning all aspects of the strike, including preparation, policing, the law courts, financial concerns and the portrayal of the strike in the media. The campaign by Thatcher's Policy Unit resulted in a shattering blow for Britain's trade union movement from which it has yet to recover—just as the Ridley Report had predicted.

As part of the global circulation of capital and labor in the early twentieth century, labor and left activists traveled throughout the Pacific Rim. Highlighting the biographical and political journeys of two important left labor agitators of the period, Patrick Hickey and J. B. King, this essay considers the role of the agitator and the meaning of the left for the mobilization of working people during the first three decades of the twentieth century. Hickey and King both had early experiences with radical unions in North America, Hickey with the Western Federation of Miners in Utah and King with the Industrial Workers of the World in British Columbia. Their paths intersected in the formation of the left Federation of Labour (the “Red Feds”) in New Zealand. Both went on to play significant roles in Australian left labor circles in the years before, during, and after the First World War. Diverging over strategy and tactics during this time, Hickey became involved with the Labor Party of Australia and King eventually joined the Communist Party of Australia. Their biographical and political journeys reveal significant insights into the splits within the left and the public role of left labor agitators in the Pacific Rim during this period.