While the first section of this book is dense and a tad merciless about it, the information one can garner from it yet is still more than one would get out of a usual text that long. It's really that the rhythm and density of it makes it a bit unwelcoming and conceptually unclear. But when the second part, "The Age of Reagan," kicks in, the purpose of the prior chapters clicks into focus as the book progresses. But it's really the second section of this book that has the most incredible, clarifying analysis delivered with uncompromising boldness. The analysis of the Mondale campaign against Reagan, especially in relation to the Jackson campaign and the trade-unionist bureaucracies, rings all too true today as the Democratic party once again repeats its mistakes of abandoning itself to a near-identical "military Keynesianism" brand of economic regime that was a far cry from the economic ideas set forth in the New Deal or the Great Society. Davis's analysis remains intersectional and refreshing: Prisoners of the American Dream bolsters a lot of the arguments in Allen's The Invention of the White Race in that Davis convincingly argues that a 70s middle-class strata of white bourgeois moderates created and maintained a backlash to the civil rights aspirations of the 60s, and this backlash - along with the AFL-CIO's racist protectionism and lack of interest in organizing women's work (i.e., the upsurge of clerical workers that happened in those decades) - were part of a serious recipe that all in all constituted a death knell to the rise of a sustainable labor movement in solidarity with minorities and marginalized groups. The culture that brought the Democrats farther rightward was the one where the white middle strata - the buffer zone between oppressed minorities and prosperous white elites - was functioning, essentially as designed, when discussed in Allen's text. Much of Davis's analysis is spot on, and many of his predictions did come true. Portents of the Bernie campaign abound, and likewise with the right-wing nose-dive into fascism. The text is cathartic in its second act, dense with excoriating analysis, and masterfully prescient all in all. But it comes after a hell of a slog of a first act. I wonder if the second part would suffice on its own, but overall it did pay off handsomely as a whole.

magisterial history of the working class left in the US, probing the question of the absence of a US socialist party in the context of rapacious capitalist exploitation here and abroad, while brutally describing several of the other blunderous own-goals of various Lefts in the 20th century US. there were a few parts that got a little deep in the weeds / of the moment, for me, but just for a second consider how relevant these assessments of 1984 are to the politics of DSA in 2022 (pg 297, 298-99):

"The ascendancy of electoralism on the left, far from being an expression of new popular energies or mobilizations, was, on the contrary, a symptom of the decline of social movements of the 60s, accompanied by organic crisis of the trade union and community-service bureaucracies. Rather than being a strategy for unifying mass struggles and grassroots organization on a higher programmatic level, electoralism was either imagined as a substitute for quotidian mass organizing, or it was inflated as an all-powerful catalyst for movement renewal"

"With its explicit anti-imperialism, the Jackson campaign probably invited an impossible leap from DSA leaders like Harrington or Howe who have given life-long dedication to liberal zionist and anti-Communist causes. The absent of any debate about the election in DSA, except from a passionate group of Black members, leaves open the question of whether even the 'Debsian' grassroots of that organization are capable of challenging its traditional mortgage to Israel and the Cold War, or of realigning the organization toward mass political currents that do not have the endorsement of liberalism."

if you don't have the wherewithal for it, check out this podcast from 2020 https://thedigradio.com/podcast/mike-...

Mike Davis offers an essential analysis and perspective of American class dynamics, outlining decisive schisms in the imperial working class that have had catastrophic implications in the years following this book's publication. Its relevance has only increased for those living outside the U.S as global neoliberalism has begun to reach it's peak throughout the American sphere of influence.

very interesting seeing that the problems davis wrote about in the middle of the reagan years are still problems!

A history of the mid- and late-20th century American labor landscape, with lessons and insights that are extremely relevant for the left today. Davis takes a materialistic view of the changes in character and composition of both the labor movement and the democratic party, especially in the 80's. Davis's analysis helps us understand why there isn't a more politically active and united labor movement in the United States and still resonates today. The book itself straddles a line between a popular audience and an academic one, making it highly readable while extremely well-researched.

I will review it later. But this book is depressing as fuck

This is the first book by Mike Davis that I've read. The width and depth achieved here are amazing. The book has two parts. The first discusses why the US doesn't have a strong independent labor movement/party. The second analyzes Reaganism--how it emerged and where it's leading (the book was written in 1986).

Davis argues that there are two typical paths to independent labor politics. One is through the struggle for democratic rights, usually within the context of a bourgeois revolution. Often in such transitions, the ascendant capitalist class is either unable or unwilling to completely dispose of feudal political structures, and so a proletarian current assumes a more important role in securing voting rights. The second path is through the radicalization of labor unions, which respond to state repression or political abandonment by creating their own party.

In the US, neither of these happened. For one, the US did not have to overcome feudalism. In fact by 1750 most white men in the colonies could vote. There were many small property owners, as opposed to the large landed estates of Europe. There was no revolutionary need or ideological opportunity to the further radicalization of a workers movement.

The labor movement in the US was weakened by racism. And various immigrant groups were often separated by linguistic and religious differences. Craft unionism was disproportionately powerful (vs industrial unionism) and maintained a close connection with the Democratic party for many years.

Reaganism was, in some ways, a backlash to the movements of the 60s. The failure of organized labor to strongly align itself with them allowed a white middle income strata and specific industries in the Sunbelt to assert their will. Davis situates this within changes in technology, patterns of trade, election strategies, etc.

The first part of the book is phenomenal. The second part is very good, but it demands a lot of the reader and tries to do too much IMO. I could read this three times and still learn new things.

A little too academic at times, hard to read and follow, with so much historic detail on the twists and turns of the labor unions. But overall amazing analysis of American history through 1984 using a neomarxist lens. Many of Davis's observations/predictions came true or are even more relevant in 2020.

Maybe his best

*Makes a rather coherent case for why America didn't follow the template 19th century European Marxists thought it would, and also gives a very novel and well argued portrayal of the actual state of American politics in the mid 1980s.

The stuff on black struggle as the key issue of American society is as relevant now as it was when the book was written.

Deserves its reputation. Not necessarily dry writing (a lot of Perry Anderson-esque quirky and fun turns of phrase), but shockingly dense, so don't expect a ripping narrative read.

Absolutely brilliant book. Must-read analysis of the history and politics of socialist politics and class struggle and political economy in the US from the 1800s to the 1980s. The book is dense and packed with information; best way to read it is probably by taking it slowly and with consistent note-taking. Perhaps the best evidence for the book's analysis is the fact that it successfully predicts trends in political economy and politics that emerged in the '90s and '00s, and even arguably predicts the rise of Trump and a new brand of neo-fascist politics in 2016. Its worth noting however that this book is probably not for people new to these subjects and it will help a lot of readers have already an intermediate level of knowledge of US labor history.