What do you think?
Rate this book
Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919–1939
This book examines how it was possible and what it meant for ordinary factory workers to become effective unionists and national political participants by the mid-1930s. We follow Chicago workers as they make choices about whether to attend ethnic benefit society meetings or to go to the movies, whether to shop in local neighborhood stores or patronize the new A & P. As they made daily decisions like these, they declared their loyalty in ways that would ultimately have political significance. When the depression worsened in the 1930s, workers adopted new ideological perspectives and overcame longstanding divisions among themselves to mount new kinds of collective action. Chicago workers' experiences all converged to make them into New Deal Democrats and CIO unionists. First printed in 1990, Making a New Deal has become an established classic in American history. The second edition includes a new preface by Lizabeth Cohen.
566 pages, Paperback
First published September 28, 1990
28 people are currently reading
947 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews
February 21, 2015
I guess I have more of a thing for labor history than I previously thought. I generally enjoyed this exploration of workers' lives and the rise of unions in the 1930's.
Cohen argues that industrial workers in Chicago lived mostly in ethnic enclaves that they were heavily dependent on as social and economic networks. They experienced mass cultural phenomenon such as radio and movies, but these did not necessarily homogenize them, at least in the short term. These communities were pretty insular, and things like insurance companies, banks, and grocery stores tended to be locally owned and operated. The workers usually weren't in unions and had little interaction with the state or politics.
The key event that destroyed this lifestyle was the Great Depression. Ethnic communities could not handle the high unemployment numbers, the collapse of local banking and insurance companies, the evictions, and the major demands for charity. Feeling let down, ethnic workers increasingly turned to the government, especially the Democratic Party, for help. The result under FDR was the New Deal, which was not simply imposed from above but demanded and facilitated by workers' actions from below. Workers also reacted to the Depression by unionizing in massive numbers, aided by the federal government.
This is a great example of top-down and bottom-up histories coming together in a coherent narrative. Cohen is a great writer who organizes her argument very logically. She also includes the numerous, varied experiences of different groups in the population while also building a coherent narrative that generally applied to all workers.
Cohen argues that industrial workers in Chicago lived mostly in ethnic enclaves that they were heavily dependent on as social and economic networks. They experienced mass cultural phenomenon such as radio and movies, but these did not necessarily homogenize them, at least in the short term. These communities were pretty insular, and things like insurance companies, banks, and grocery stores tended to be locally owned and operated. The workers usually weren't in unions and had little interaction with the state or politics.
The key event that destroyed this lifestyle was the Great Depression. Ethnic communities could not handle the high unemployment numbers, the collapse of local banking and insurance companies, the evictions, and the major demands for charity. Feeling let down, ethnic workers increasingly turned to the government, especially the Democratic Party, for help. The result under FDR was the New Deal, which was not simply imposed from above but demanded and facilitated by workers' actions from below. Workers also reacted to the Depression by unionizing in massive numbers, aided by the federal government.
This is a great example of top-down and bottom-up histories coming together in a coherent narrative. Cohen is a great writer who organizes her argument very logically. She also includes the numerous, varied experiences of different groups in the population while also building a coherent narrative that generally applied to all workers.
September 14, 2021
In 1919, hundreds of thousands of workers in the U.S went on strike in an attempt to preserve the wage gains of WWI. The strike was crushed. In the context of the first red scare, employers used the many cleavages that ran through the American working class -- ethnic, racial, religious, and geographic -- to splinter the movement.
In Chicago, the strikers, led by future Communist Party of the US leader William Z Foster, were well aware of these differences, and they proved impossible to overcome. After the strike failed, unionism in the U.S reached its pre-1979 nadir; industrial workers instead turned to a mix of ethnic, religious, and racial institutions for help in times of need, all watched over by the stern but fatherly gaze of the welfare capitalist.
How, then, were the children of these workers able to forge together an alternative, proletarian culture, capable of overcoming employer resistance to organize 1/3rd of major industries in Chicago by 1940? This is the epochal transformation that Lizbeth Cohen attempts to chart in her book, Making a New Deal.
Cohen's focus is cultural. The nativist frenzy that swept the U.S following WWI led to an end to mass migration. Immigrant worker communities no longer had a constant flow of fresh blood from the Old Country to keep connections with traditional cultures alive. This led their children especially to adapt their immigrant backgrounds to a broader, American culture, one which was undergoing intense changes as mass media began to create a unified culture across the country. Most importantly, these transformations were happening in an era of welfare capitalism, when big employers promised workers good wages and benefits in exchange for good behavior.
What was particularly striking to me were what i guess I'd call intangible benefits -- the opportunities, for example, for workers to feel heard by their employers. In my own experience, I've found that whenever a boss, or one of the boss' friends, wants you to make yourself heard, it's best to stay quiet or make something up. It's a way for the company to capture your anger and transform it of something of use to their bottom line. Anyway.
Welfare capitalism, Cohen argues, raised worker expectations. They came to believe a moral capitalism was possible, a system where sure, the bosses got to keep their cut of the profit, but workers got a fair deal. When most employers jettisoned the benefits of welfare capitalism at the onset of the Great Depression, workers maintained their faith that such a system of "just" free enterprise was possible.
This provides an answer for those of us who have wondered why the revolutionary potential of the 1930s went unfulfilled. The American working class, even on an unconscious, unarticulated level weren't interested in overthrowing and replacing capitalism. The upswell of energy from the grassroots was reformist, not revolutionary; although in the American context these reformist demands were seen by many capitalists as tantamount to revolution.
I'm again struck by the lack of independence of the American working class. Maybe workers here have failed to develop independent institutions because there were never supposed to be a permanent toiling class in the U.S at all. Attempts to create independent labor parties all floundered -- the most promising, the Farmer Labor party of Minnesota, crashed and burned in 1938 and was eventually absorbed into the Democratic party. And Mike Davis has argued, somewhat correctly in my view, that the CIO was not really a grassroots movement at all, but a move by more forward thinking, traditional unionists, to capture the energy from a potential destabilizing working class movement and harness it to more traditional ends -- what Davis calls the "barren marriage" of the Democratic party and the labor movement. In this view, John L Lewis becomes something of a working class FDR.
Despite all this, the era is worth celebrating. There are no moments in the 1930s where workers faced a genuine choice between socialism or the reformist capitalism of the New Deal. It was the New Deal or nothing, so the New Deal should be cheered as an achievement for working class people.
In Chicago, the strikers, led by future Communist Party of the US leader William Z Foster, were well aware of these differences, and they proved impossible to overcome. After the strike failed, unionism in the U.S reached its pre-1979 nadir; industrial workers instead turned to a mix of ethnic, religious, and racial institutions for help in times of need, all watched over by the stern but fatherly gaze of the welfare capitalist.
How, then, were the children of these workers able to forge together an alternative, proletarian culture, capable of overcoming employer resistance to organize 1/3rd of major industries in Chicago by 1940? This is the epochal transformation that Lizbeth Cohen attempts to chart in her book, Making a New Deal.
Cohen's focus is cultural. The nativist frenzy that swept the U.S following WWI led to an end to mass migration. Immigrant worker communities no longer had a constant flow of fresh blood from the Old Country to keep connections with traditional cultures alive. This led their children especially to adapt their immigrant backgrounds to a broader, American culture, one which was undergoing intense changes as mass media began to create a unified culture across the country. Most importantly, these transformations were happening in an era of welfare capitalism, when big employers promised workers good wages and benefits in exchange for good behavior.
What was particularly striking to me were what i guess I'd call intangible benefits -- the opportunities, for example, for workers to feel heard by their employers. In my own experience, I've found that whenever a boss, or one of the boss' friends, wants you to make yourself heard, it's best to stay quiet or make something up. It's a way for the company to capture your anger and transform it of something of use to their bottom line. Anyway.
Welfare capitalism, Cohen argues, raised worker expectations. They came to believe a moral capitalism was possible, a system where sure, the bosses got to keep their cut of the profit, but workers got a fair deal. When most employers jettisoned the benefits of welfare capitalism at the onset of the Great Depression, workers maintained their faith that such a system of "just" free enterprise was possible.
This provides an answer for those of us who have wondered why the revolutionary potential of the 1930s went unfulfilled. The American working class, even on an unconscious, unarticulated level weren't interested in overthrowing and replacing capitalism. The upswell of energy from the grassroots was reformist, not revolutionary; although in the American context these reformist demands were seen by many capitalists as tantamount to revolution.
I'm again struck by the lack of independence of the American working class. Maybe workers here have failed to develop independent institutions because there were never supposed to be a permanent toiling class in the U.S at all. Attempts to create independent labor parties all floundered -- the most promising, the Farmer Labor party of Minnesota, crashed and burned in 1938 and was eventually absorbed into the Democratic party. And Mike Davis has argued, somewhat correctly in my view, that the CIO was not really a grassroots movement at all, but a move by more forward thinking, traditional unionists, to capture the energy from a potential destabilizing working class movement and harness it to more traditional ends -- what Davis calls the "barren marriage" of the Democratic party and the labor movement. In this view, John L Lewis becomes something of a working class FDR.
Despite all this, the era is worth celebrating. There are no moments in the 1930s where workers faced a genuine choice between socialism or the reformist capitalism of the New Deal. It was the New Deal or nothing, so the New Deal should be cheered as an achievement for working class people.
March 5, 2026
In Making a New Deal Lizabeth Cohen examines the experience of Depression/New Deal era workers in Chicago. Cohen argues that the experience of this group of workers shows how the New Deal was not just made from "above," rather, workers on the ground helped shape the scope and form of it.
Though her thesis has been a pillar of American Labor historiography, I would contend that her most important contribution to the field is how she extracts the newly formed "mass" working-class culture of the time.
Overall, Making a New Deal is still an essential read for students of American labor history.
Though her thesis has been a pillar of American Labor historiography, I would contend that her most important contribution to the field is how she extracts the newly formed "mass" working-class culture of the time.
Overall, Making a New Deal is still an essential read for students of American labor history.
September 12, 2013
It is hard to believe that this book is over twenty years old. I still refer to it when discussing the Great Depression and the formation of the New Deal coalition of the 1930s. I think the greatest strength of the book is the detailed description Cohen gives us of the social safety net that existed in the United States prior to the Depression. Local communities, tight knit ethnic communities, religious organizations and other local entities that would help those that were in need. By and large this was the widow who couldn't work, the elderly and the occasional working man who hit a rough patch. Sometimes in a capitalist economy, the local structures might be a little more stressed, but things would turn around.
Then the Great Depression hit. Cohen does a marvelous job of explaining how earth-shattering an event this was. Institutions that once were the safety net of a community found themselves overwhelmed, ill-equipped and sometimes destroyed like so many other parts of the economy. All levels of government were in similar straits. The almost slavish devotion to a balanced budget was practically crippling to city, state and national administrations. It wasn't, as some seem to posit, that those in power were cold, a very unfair characterization of Herbert Hoover, but the experience was so out of their purview that they were at a loss.
Cohen then describes how the various ethnic groups in Chicago coalesced around the ideas of the New Deal and became more of a working-class, united within unions, specifically the CIO, and under the umbrella of the Democrats and the New Deal. This is her central point: how the New Deal was more than a collection of programs emanating from Washington. It was much more of a grass-roots, organized effort. All things considered, I still feel like the working class in the United States is more of a fantasy than a reality. In the 1930s it was as close as it was probably every going to get, and to be a worker meant voting one way, which at the time dovetailed nicely with ones class. However, a couple of major sticking points regarding Cohen and her praise of this class formation. First, as the Depression ends, World War II ends, the workers are not interested in political power, as in a more European model, but are more than happy trade that in for middle-class comforts. Second and much more importantly, Cohen does not discuss race...like at all. The Great Migration had transformed Chicago, yet I'm not sure it even registers in Making a New Deal. More to the point, the lionization of the workers always annoys me because the second an African-American attempted to make inroads into the benefits of this new class culture, they were immediately cut down, rarely allowed into the union shops, definitely no equity in housing, or pay, or political representation. The sad truth about the United States, is that race trumps class. It is hard to see a working class golden age, when those same workers were busy beating African-Americans who dared to cross the street or apply for a job in a "white" factory.
Then the Great Depression hit. Cohen does a marvelous job of explaining how earth-shattering an event this was. Institutions that once were the safety net of a community found themselves overwhelmed, ill-equipped and sometimes destroyed like so many other parts of the economy. All levels of government were in similar straits. The almost slavish devotion to a balanced budget was practically crippling to city, state and national administrations. It wasn't, as some seem to posit, that those in power were cold, a very unfair characterization of Herbert Hoover, but the experience was so out of their purview that they were at a loss.
Cohen then describes how the various ethnic groups in Chicago coalesced around the ideas of the New Deal and became more of a working-class, united within unions, specifically the CIO, and under the umbrella of the Democrats and the New Deal. This is her central point: how the New Deal was more than a collection of programs emanating from Washington. It was much more of a grass-roots, organized effort. All things considered, I still feel like the working class in the United States is more of a fantasy than a reality. In the 1930s it was as close as it was probably every going to get, and to be a worker meant voting one way, which at the time dovetailed nicely with ones class. However, a couple of major sticking points regarding Cohen and her praise of this class formation. First, as the Depression ends, World War II ends, the workers are not interested in political power, as in a more European model, but are more than happy trade that in for middle-class comforts. Second and much more importantly, Cohen does not discuss race...like at all. The Great Migration had transformed Chicago, yet I'm not sure it even registers in Making a New Deal. More to the point, the lionization of the workers always annoys me because the second an African-American attempted to make inroads into the benefits of this new class culture, they were immediately cut down, rarely allowed into the union shops, definitely no equity in housing, or pay, or political representation. The sad truth about the United States, is that race trumps class. It is hard to see a working class golden age, when those same workers were busy beating African-Americans who dared to cross the street or apply for a job in a "white" factory.
June 11, 2017
Cohen sought to answer the question of why the strikes of 1919 in Chicago (and beyond) were defeated by division by ethnicity and skill, while by 1935, the same neighborhoods and working class communities readily embraced unions and demanded programs from the government, which resulted in the New Deal. Cohen seeks to reframe the New Deal not as solutions brought from labor leaders and FDR from above, but instead, demands from below by working class people who had been hit hard by the depression and set aside old ethnic rivalries. Cohen begins with the 1919 mass strikes, which were utterly crushed everywhere but in the Garment Industry, where strong Jewish labor traditions prevailed. Otherwise, ethnically Chicago neighborhoods tended to be insular and divided by industry, ethnicity, and skill level. Over the course of the 1920s, Cohen argued, ethnic workers became steadily homogenized and Americanized by mass consumption and entertainment, common corporate charity, and finally, the utter upheaval that the Great Depression brought upon all working class people. The Depression brought unemployment, hunger, evictions, and precarious employment that fueled a demand for better treatment, which meant that street protests and unionization swelled massively, which also put pressure on the government to provide programs which had disappeared when charity and corporate recreation collapsed. Therefore, the same homogenization of immigrants and their children also set the seeds for mass participation in the New Deal and union democracy in industry, which in places like Steel, had previously been seemingly impervious to unions.
Key Themes and Concepts:
-“Moral Capitalism” grew out of the corporate welfare provided by companies to workers in order to keep unionization off the table, as well as company unions that made workers realize they had a common interest. Eventually, as the Great Depression caused these companies to shrink or abandon these programs, workers now believed they were entitled to a piece of capitalism’s pie, which, along with Catholic social justice teachings of the 1920s, caused workers to believe only through unions would they receive what they deserved. Unions also sought to build common culture. They demanded that the state provide programs which they believed they had earned as workers.
-CIO built a unionism that was family oriented, and cut across geography and homes.
-Companies sought to keep unions out through charity, recreation, and building identification with the company. This later would be used by unions, in the 1930s to build common identity amongst workers through embracing the same tactics companies had used in the 1920s.
Key Themes and Concepts:
-“Moral Capitalism” grew out of the corporate welfare provided by companies to workers in order to keep unionization off the table, as well as company unions that made workers realize they had a common interest. Eventually, as the Great Depression caused these companies to shrink or abandon these programs, workers now believed they were entitled to a piece of capitalism’s pie, which, along with Catholic social justice teachings of the 1920s, caused workers to believe only through unions would they receive what they deserved. Unions also sought to build common culture. They demanded that the state provide programs which they believed they had earned as workers.
-CIO built a unionism that was family oriented, and cut across geography and homes.
-Companies sought to keep unions out through charity, recreation, and building identification with the company. This later would be used by unions, in the 1930s to build common identity amongst workers through embracing the same tactics companies had used in the 1920s.
July 17, 2014
A book I have dipped heavily into in the past, but it was good to wade full in and see the full scope of Cohen's argument. In the 20s working class Chicagoans were tied to neighborhood and ethnic organization (whether for banking/insurance, charity, religion or shopping). The large corporate employers (and she is looking at five particular neighborhoods on the South and West Side) managed to limit discontent due to these ethnic differences, as well as a small bit of corporate welfare (modest attempts at insurance, vacations, and profit sharing) and a fairly vibrant economy in the 20s. This economic time, especially in the aftermath of the post WWI steelworker strikes, was not a conducive environment for labor organizing.
Cohen recounts how the depression broke down both corporate welfare and, more importantly the ethnic connections, as ethnic banks collapsed, charities were overcome with the needy, and neighborhood stores were bankrupted when they extended too much credit. This allowed for a certain centralization, whether from federal government relief, the Democratic Party, chain grocery stores, movies, and radio stations, the Catholic Church, or labor unions organizing across ethnic, and even racial, lines. A history of workers, broad in scope, and including significant detail on African-Americans whose plight was similar to, but even more constrained by outside factors (read segregated housing and employment practices) that increased their reliance on the federal government's assistance, their only source of potential relief until some small space came with CIO organizing.
Cohen recounts how the depression broke down both corporate welfare and, more importantly the ethnic connections, as ethnic banks collapsed, charities were overcome with the needy, and neighborhood stores were bankrupted when they extended too much credit. This allowed for a certain centralization, whether from federal government relief, the Democratic Party, chain grocery stores, movies, and radio stations, the Catholic Church, or labor unions organizing across ethnic, and even racial, lines. A history of workers, broad in scope, and including significant detail on African-Americans whose plight was similar to, but even more constrained by outside factors (read segregated housing and employment practices) that increased their reliance on the federal government's assistance, their only source of potential relief until some small space came with CIO organizing.
July 25, 2017
This is a fabulous history of working class Chicago during the period between WW1 & WW2. To Cohen's credit she gets beyond the easy ttap of the depression-as-dominant narrative to draw in work and family life, workers' leisure lives, the challenge of ethnicity to class solidarity and so much more. A powerful and insightful social history of workers' lives.
January 15, 2012
FANTASTIC....ok, it's about as exciting as a book about the shifting culture & ethnicity of industrial workers in the inter-war years can be, but the erudition and clarity with which Cohen presents her topic make this book extremely enjoyable (especially since I'm sure you're being forced to read it for school just like I was!)
February 2, 2026
Social history at its finest; that is, social history that deftly weaves together economics, politics, labor, and culture. Cohen does a remarkable job getting around the gaps in the archives, which I admire all the more for my own difficulties with some of those same archives right now. I cannot recommend enough to anyone who wants to know more about the ordinary men and women who have been a part of Chicago's history, or for this fraught and fascinating period in American history more broadly.
Read
September 29, 2015Prize-winning study of the "New Deal Coalition"
March 25, 2020
Genius scholarship. A model for historians and scholars of every stripe.
April 13, 2020
This is an exceptional book on American working class culture during the inter-war years. Brilliantly researched, organized, and presented, Making a New Deal is an excellent scholarly analysis of American culture if readers cannot make it through the Lynd's two books on Middleton. Cohen has a central thesis that the working class were accustomed to support from their insular, ethnic, neighborhood institutions like the church, local grocer / merchant, cultural societies, etc whenever they faced economic uncertainty. However, the Great Depression crushed those institutions, and the working class created the New Deal.
When I first read this book in grad school 20 years ago, I was in awe over Cohen's source material and analysis of society in the 1920s. She identified so many of the radical changes of the society and how they impacted the working class. Nearly a fifth of the book is endnotes elaborating her findings and offering detailed citations. She did an excellent job describing the social institutions that supported ethnic communities. I was a little surprised at how she evaded any mention of gangsterism either in the 1920s or the 1930s. How can you discuss the Unione Siciliana and not mention the bloody ends of at least 5 presidents in the second half of the 1920s and the general perception continuing into the 1950s that the Unione was a front for the Mafia?
Cohen spends considerable time discussing welfare capitalism. The progressive ideas of robber barons rarely had an impact on the working class, who viewed such paternalism rather cynically. Cohen says that mid-level management was to blame. She has unearthed some anecdotal evidence to support that conclusion. But it was clear that the entire bureaucracy of the corporations were working actively against bestowing benefits. She does a masterful job describing the many ways, the corporate structure fought the stated intentions of the welfare capitalists. It is worth mentioning that some robber barons tried creating employee representative councils (internal / company unions). When the NIRA required employers to allow employees to organize and collectively bargain through representatives of their own choosing, workers saw for the first time that the federal government was working for them.
Cohen spends considerable time discussing the role of Communists in the book. I a uncertain to what level the Communists were instrumental in organizing unions and driving an agenda. Cohen repeatedly emphasizes that workers were slavishly loyal to capitalism and rejected communism. Instead, they hungered to a moral capitalism somehow similar to welfare capitalism practiced by some of the larger firms Cohen studied. Ultimately, Cohen subtly changed this to a working class desire for the federal government and labor unions to regulate and balance capitalism (p. 252, 286).
It is interesting that the original union drives of the 1930s sought to include women and children auxiliaries. That unions sought to include family members and incorporate them into the fraternal bonds shows considerable imagination. The unions held social events that crossed ethnic lines and strengthened members as a whole. This goes back to the opaque involvement of the Communists in the union drives. It is telling that these events and auxiliaries declined with the unions (. 348-349).
Cohen's description of the working class turn to the federal government does not appear as strong or as convincing as her analysis of the social institutions of the 1920s. Politics continued on a largely local footing - as long as it supported Democrats. The politicians consumed each other's factions and formed the big political machines. The conclusion seems to go into new directions. Cohen contends that the Democrats were alarmed at the radical transformation of the working class, and oriented themselves towards economic growth rather than balancing growth with taming capitalism's excesses (p. 366). The result was the Truman Administration supporting employers during the biggest strike wave ever in 1945-1946. The subsequent Taft-Hartley Act limited many of the gains unions secured during the 1930s. I do not know enough of subsequent labor history to confirm or deny that claim. I can tell that Cohen does not offer much evidence in her conclusion to support such a position.
Overall, this is an excellent book. I am not convinced of her central thesis. However, I greatly admire her research and analysis. Her observations of the 1920s are great. I am less generous in my praise for her treatment of the 1930s. Partly through my own limited knowledge of the 1930s and labor history in general, I cannot say that I am convinced the workers created the New Deal.
When I first read this book in grad school 20 years ago, I was in awe over Cohen's source material and analysis of society in the 1920s. She identified so many of the radical changes of the society and how they impacted the working class. Nearly a fifth of the book is endnotes elaborating her findings and offering detailed citations. She did an excellent job describing the social institutions that supported ethnic communities. I was a little surprised at how she evaded any mention of gangsterism either in the 1920s or the 1930s. How can you discuss the Unione Siciliana and not mention the bloody ends of at least 5 presidents in the second half of the 1920s and the general perception continuing into the 1950s that the Unione was a front for the Mafia?
Cohen spends considerable time discussing welfare capitalism. The progressive ideas of robber barons rarely had an impact on the working class, who viewed such paternalism rather cynically. Cohen says that mid-level management was to blame. She has unearthed some anecdotal evidence to support that conclusion. But it was clear that the entire bureaucracy of the corporations were working actively against bestowing benefits. She does a masterful job describing the many ways, the corporate structure fought the stated intentions of the welfare capitalists. It is worth mentioning that some robber barons tried creating employee representative councils (internal / company unions). When the NIRA required employers to allow employees to organize and collectively bargain through representatives of their own choosing, workers saw for the first time that the federal government was working for them.
Cohen spends considerable time discussing the role of Communists in the book. I a uncertain to what level the Communists were instrumental in organizing unions and driving an agenda. Cohen repeatedly emphasizes that workers were slavishly loyal to capitalism and rejected communism. Instead, they hungered to a moral capitalism somehow similar to welfare capitalism practiced by some of the larger firms Cohen studied. Ultimately, Cohen subtly changed this to a working class desire for the federal government and labor unions to regulate and balance capitalism (p. 252, 286).
It is interesting that the original union drives of the 1930s sought to include women and children auxiliaries. That unions sought to include family members and incorporate them into the fraternal bonds shows considerable imagination. The unions held social events that crossed ethnic lines and strengthened members as a whole. This goes back to the opaque involvement of the Communists in the union drives. It is telling that these events and auxiliaries declined with the unions (. 348-349).
Cohen's description of the working class turn to the federal government does not appear as strong or as convincing as her analysis of the social institutions of the 1920s. Politics continued on a largely local footing - as long as it supported Democrats. The politicians consumed each other's factions and formed the big political machines. The conclusion seems to go into new directions. Cohen contends that the Democrats were alarmed at the radical transformation of the working class, and oriented themselves towards economic growth rather than balancing growth with taming capitalism's excesses (p. 366). The result was the Truman Administration supporting employers during the biggest strike wave ever in 1945-1946. The subsequent Taft-Hartley Act limited many of the gains unions secured during the 1930s. I do not know enough of subsequent labor history to confirm or deny that claim. I can tell that Cohen does not offer much evidence in her conclusion to support such a position.
Overall, this is an excellent book. I am not convinced of her central thesis. However, I greatly admire her research and analysis. Her observations of the 1920s are great. I am less generous in my praise for her treatment of the 1930s. Partly through my own limited knowledge of the 1930s and labor history in general, I cannot say that I am convinced the workers created the New Deal.
January 25, 2024
Lizabeth Cohen's 1990 work Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939 explores the intricacies of the adaptations in the lives and ideologies of Chicago's industrial workers during the interwar period. She argues, "[T]hat mass culture and mass consumption in the 1920s had kept workers tied to, rather than unmooring them from, their ethnic and working-class communities and then, in the 1930s, had helped them build influential class-based political institutions like labor unions" (xxv). Further, Cohen argues that in the interwar period, ethnic groups, mass culture, and employers vied for workers' loyalties, which often deepened the racial and ethnic divide among workers and stunted unionization efforts. Along with its convincing argument that mass culture did not disrupt ties but prepared interwar period workers for unionization, Cohen's book informs and provides a firm footing in the historiography on the significance of mass consumption, ethnic and racial identity, civic engagement, and the gendering of unions and the welfare state.
Setting the stage, Cohen begins with early attempts at unionization with the Steel Strike of 1919, which included 4 million workers at its peak but failed after only four months. She contends that the strike and its ultimate failure represent the culmination of previously budding political tensions. Cohen explains that the deep ethnic and racial separations amongst the five working-class Chicago neighborhoods and workplaces led to the failure of the Strike of 1919 as well as the lack of unionization until the 30s. These separations were only sometimes purposeful, however.
Racial segregation, accessibility to the workplace, language, and other cultural ties often kept Chicagoan workers in their respective cultural communities. Local and regional ethnic communities were then strengthened and consolidated into larger national ones partly by shared challenges European immigrants faced in the 20s as America passed restrictive immigration laws, mass culture threatened to destroy tradition, and ethnic communities and religious organizations provided mutual benefit and social welfare to community members. Despite community leaders' and immigrant workers' fears, Cohen shows that mass culture's impact on a community relied heavily on the context in which it developed and how communities experienced it. While many European cultures tended to push away mass culture, Black communities would consume mass culture as a form of Black capitalism, not as a form of American homogenization.
Cohen also displays how the workers felt a political pull from their employers. Cohen explains that the Great Depression catalyzed a transformation in the relationship between industrial workers and their employers, marking a rise in welfare capitalism. In the 1920s, employers would use strategies to break down ethnic and racial lines to redefine the workers' view of the workplace and coworkers. Cohen argues that while welfare capitalism fell short in the 1920s, the process employers began by bringing workers together and encouraging collaboration equipped them to challenge those same employers in the 1930s.
It is in the mid-1930s that Cohen discusses a shift and transformative period, with Chicago's manufacturing workers building a network of national-level industrial unions highlighted by workers' change in attitudes based mainly on the disillusionment with capitalism after the Great Depression. Cohen argues that workers shifted reliance from ethnic communities and welfare capitalists employers to faith in the state and unions. The CIO successfully unionized Chicago steel workers, and Cohen mentions the "culture of unity" among workers as the instrumental piece in overcoming divisions that previously prevented them. Cohen illustrates that shared experiences, past unionization attempts, and the CIOs' strategic efforts fostered the unification the workers needed. In Making a New Deal, Cohen deepens our understanding of unionization by shedding light on the cultural life of Chicago's interwar workers, the reconfiguration of their social consciousness, and the shift in their expectations and affiliations.
Setting the stage, Cohen begins with early attempts at unionization with the Steel Strike of 1919, which included 4 million workers at its peak but failed after only four months. She contends that the strike and its ultimate failure represent the culmination of previously budding political tensions. Cohen explains that the deep ethnic and racial separations amongst the five working-class Chicago neighborhoods and workplaces led to the failure of the Strike of 1919 as well as the lack of unionization until the 30s. These separations were only sometimes purposeful, however.
Racial segregation, accessibility to the workplace, language, and other cultural ties often kept Chicagoan workers in their respective cultural communities. Local and regional ethnic communities were then strengthened and consolidated into larger national ones partly by shared challenges European immigrants faced in the 20s as America passed restrictive immigration laws, mass culture threatened to destroy tradition, and ethnic communities and religious organizations provided mutual benefit and social welfare to community members. Despite community leaders' and immigrant workers' fears, Cohen shows that mass culture's impact on a community relied heavily on the context in which it developed and how communities experienced it. While many European cultures tended to push away mass culture, Black communities would consume mass culture as a form of Black capitalism, not as a form of American homogenization.
Cohen also displays how the workers felt a political pull from their employers. Cohen explains that the Great Depression catalyzed a transformation in the relationship between industrial workers and their employers, marking a rise in welfare capitalism. In the 1920s, employers would use strategies to break down ethnic and racial lines to redefine the workers' view of the workplace and coworkers. Cohen argues that while welfare capitalism fell short in the 1920s, the process employers began by bringing workers together and encouraging collaboration equipped them to challenge those same employers in the 1930s.
It is in the mid-1930s that Cohen discusses a shift and transformative period, with Chicago's manufacturing workers building a network of national-level industrial unions highlighted by workers' change in attitudes based mainly on the disillusionment with capitalism after the Great Depression. Cohen argues that workers shifted reliance from ethnic communities and welfare capitalists employers to faith in the state and unions. The CIO successfully unionized Chicago steel workers, and Cohen mentions the "culture of unity" among workers as the instrumental piece in overcoming divisions that previously prevented them. Cohen illustrates that shared experiences, past unionization attempts, and the CIOs' strategic efforts fostered the unification the workers needed. In Making a New Deal, Cohen deepens our understanding of unionization by shedding light on the cultural life of Chicago's interwar workers, the reconfiguration of their social consciousness, and the shift in their expectations and affiliations.
January 5, 2018
In Lizabeth Cohen’s seminal exploration of collectivization and unionization in Chicago in the inter-war years, the story of identity and industrial life is dramatically retold. Cohen rejects the previously accepted narrative that the sudden success of unionization efforts in the 1930s after years of disinterest and distrust was solely the result of institutional and political changes, arguing instead that it was affected more by a slow shift in identity and politics on the social level. She argues that people drove the push for unionization in the 30s, not politics. Cohen argues that in Chicago there was a sample representative of the country as a whole, hence her focus on the city. In Chicago like the rest of the United States, she argues that identities were fluid and malleable, and that they often shifted, merged and diverged depending on political, social and economic climates. The identity of a Chicagoan could easily drift from ethnic to native, and their identity as a worker, an Italian, a woman, or any of the other myriad identities available to them could become their defining feature. Thus in the great depression era the collective identity of many Chicagoans as poor and rejected workers superseded their ethnic and gendered identities, allowing unionization to occur on such a wide scale for the first time. Cohen argues that in previous attempts, particularly in the immediate post-WWI era, ethnic identities were still too strong and divided many workers in the city into distinct groups, making the efforts to unionize futile. Anti-immigrant sentiment was easily mobilized in order to crush attempts at collectivization, as was seen after the infamous Haymarket affair. Only when these identities were shifted and changed, uniting people of all backgrounds under one economic identity, could unionization occur on the scale seen in the mid 1930s. This was spurred on by the growth of organizations such as the CIO, which stood for all workers regardless of their ethnic background or occupation.
March 17, 2021
i read this for class! i honestly loved it. the most fascinating piece of the book for me was her argument in the conclusion -- that by examining the 20s + 30s on their own, without knowing what happens with racial justice/worker's rights in the 40s + 50s-- we can gain a better understanding of the new deal and the kinds of cultural consolidation that were going on at the time. highly recommend if you are interested in chicago history, the 20s, the new deal and/or labor politics and unions !
July 31, 2025
Cohen’s mosaic account of industrial workers in Chicago is stunning, curious, expansive. Not quite urban history or labor history but it’s inflected with it enough that the journeys into, say, radio commercialization and chain stores, are not just enjoyable but welcome. Learning about the CIO’s success organizing across racial and ethnic lines was heartening and lively in Cohen’s telling
March 20, 2018
Parts of the book that looked at breakdown of ethnic ties during mass culture of the 1920s was fascinating. Overall a great book to understand unionization and welfare capitalism.
March 23, 2019
as you might imagine, this was an assigned book rather than one i read for fun. my review at the time was "well researched..."
April 26, 2020
The power of the fist over reason, the blunt weapon against the means of production, a glorification of violence and a whitewash of pillaging.
January 14, 2022
we choose our own paths because we're all liberals
Read
February 15, 2022read in: sophomore year
September 7, 2025
Recognized some ways in which I'm being union busted
September 30, 2025
Thorough & persuasive
May 23, 2013
Lizabeth Cohen’s 1990 work Making a New Deal: Industrial Workers in Chicago, 1919-1939 takes this process a step further. While Brinkley incorporated regular citizens into the story of the New Deal through the approbation they gave to the ideas of populist critics of Roosevelt, Cohen’s approach is a long and deep study of the blue color workers who became the base of the New Deal order. Choosing Chicago as a case study because of its multi-ethnic and interracial workforce, industrial economy and the copious records generated by University of Chicago researchers in the 1920s and 1930s, Cohen asks how and why workers turned to unions and electoral politics in the mid-30s and what their priorities were. Cohen argues that “what matters most in explaining why workers acted politically in the ways they did during the mid-thirties is the change in workers’ own orientation during the 1920s and 1930s. Working-class American underwent a gradual shift in attitudes and behavior over the intervening decade and a half as a result of a wide range of social and cultural experiences.” Cohen’s account begins with the post-war strike wave of 1919, in which more than one in five Americans workers participated. The almost universally the strikes were broken as lack of resources, ethnic fragmentation and divisions between high and low skill workers took a toll. In the reactionary wave of nativism and anti-unionism that followed workers in Chicago retreated from unionism, invested in ethnic self-help societies and shunned mainstream political participation. Nevertheless, important changes were occurring which laid the groundwork for developments in the 1930s.
The changes Cohen shows are two-fold. First, the immigrant workers found common ground as they became more assimilated into the emerging mass culture of the 1920s. “Although they did not always recognize it, workers increasingly were shopping at the same chain stores, buying the same brand goods, going to the same chain theaters, and listening to the same radio programs on chain networks. . . Not only did they participate in more experiences that transcended Chicago neighborhoods, but also they were beginning it share a cultural life with workers elsewhere in the country.” Second, Cohen argues that the welfare capitalist policies adopted by industry leaders to buy off workers and avoid more unionization and strikes were reconciling workers to capitalism. Through the benefits, good pay and secure employment, managers were creating an idea among workers of what Cohen calls “moral capitalism,” in which labor and capital both profited. If the concessions to workers thus given were always limited and insufficient, the idea which was being created of an equitable bargain, rather than inherently unjust system, had legs. When organizing began in earnest following the Wagner Ac it was supported by a more culturally unified workforce and the demands of workers for a better cut of profits and increased consumption opportunities rather than deep structural reform, ideas and desires also expressed through ethnic workers increasing participation in mainstream politics through the Democratic Party. The ideas and demands became powerful influences during Roosevelt’s second and third terms.
The changes Cohen shows are two-fold. First, the immigrant workers found common ground as they became more assimilated into the emerging mass culture of the 1920s. “Although they did not always recognize it, workers increasingly were shopping at the same chain stores, buying the same brand goods, going to the same chain theaters, and listening to the same radio programs on chain networks. . . Not only did they participate in more experiences that transcended Chicago neighborhoods, but also they were beginning it share a cultural life with workers elsewhere in the country.” Second, Cohen argues that the welfare capitalist policies adopted by industry leaders to buy off workers and avoid more unionization and strikes were reconciling workers to capitalism. Through the benefits, good pay and secure employment, managers were creating an idea among workers of what Cohen calls “moral capitalism,” in which labor and capital both profited. If the concessions to workers thus given were always limited and insufficient, the idea which was being created of an equitable bargain, rather than inherently unjust system, had legs. When organizing began in earnest following the Wagner Ac it was supported by a more culturally unified workforce and the demands of workers for a better cut of profits and increased consumption opportunities rather than deep structural reform, ideas and desires also expressed through ethnic workers increasing participation in mainstream politics through the Democratic Party. The ideas and demands became powerful influences during Roosevelt’s second and third terms.
February 9, 2009
The rise of the Congress of Industrial Organizations, or CIO, can be attributed to the changing attitudes and actions of industrial workers. Previously, historians have given more credit to the rise of the state and new union organizations and their leaders. 1920s laborers in Chicago were ethnically diverse. Ethnic elites and paternalistic employers created a security net for workers. The Great Depression severed these loyalties. Workers now turned to the democratic party—a clear example of mass media’s influence in stifling parochialism and making these issues, and loyalties, national. These new alliances came, in part, because the laboring class was becoming homogenized. By the mid-1930s, workers shared much in common, in part because of cultural trends, the decline of ethnic institutions. New CIO unions worked hard to heighten workers’ common ground to create a “culture of unity.”
Cohen’s years of investigation are telling. In 1919, the government was likely to side with business, and not labor, in part because they feared the radicalism of labor unions. Cohen’s examination also questions the homogenization of all citizens in urban areas. Most scholars find this as a time in which identity was becoming nation; Cohen finds that localized, ethnic neighborhoods remained the norm in the mid-1920s. It took the Great Depression to change that reality. Mass media, such as radio, did not necessarily break down traditional, ethnic loyalties either—in fact, it could reinforce them. But radio, movies and other forms of mass consumption did not expose all people to new cultural experience. They were, in a sense, practicing the politics of consumption as early as the 1920s.
It was working class culture that caused the rise of industrial unionism and worker politics in Chicago in 1930s. Before then, ethnic and racial divisions prevented effective working-class action. Industries recognized the importance of ethnicity and used it to assuage workers unions. Welfare capitalism, which included wage incentives, recreations programs, and workers’ councils, was industry’s attempt to placate unionizing workers. By mixing ethnicity in, for example, workers’ councils, industries believed they could divide, and not cohere, union members. This backfired. Their arguments that capitalism could be moral (a clear struggle against socialist movements) only led the way for 1930s liberalism and reform. During the 1920s, however, encroaching outsiders broke down ethnic identifications. The Catholic church is one example; it replaced ethnic parishes with English speaking parishes. Large corporations too attracted workers’ allegiances. National networks soon drove out ethnic radio stations and theaters. In time, mass culture broke down ethnic barriers. They used “mass culture to create a second-generation ethnic, working-class culture that preserved the boundaries between themselves and others.” (147) these workers, faced with the great depression, thus made a new deal.
Cohen’s years of investigation are telling. In 1919, the government was likely to side with business, and not labor, in part because they feared the radicalism of labor unions. Cohen’s examination also questions the homogenization of all citizens in urban areas. Most scholars find this as a time in which identity was becoming nation; Cohen finds that localized, ethnic neighborhoods remained the norm in the mid-1920s. It took the Great Depression to change that reality. Mass media, such as radio, did not necessarily break down traditional, ethnic loyalties either—in fact, it could reinforce them. But radio, movies and other forms of mass consumption did not expose all people to new cultural experience. They were, in a sense, practicing the politics of consumption as early as the 1920s.
It was working class culture that caused the rise of industrial unionism and worker politics in Chicago in 1930s. Before then, ethnic and racial divisions prevented effective working-class action. Industries recognized the importance of ethnicity and used it to assuage workers unions. Welfare capitalism, which included wage incentives, recreations programs, and workers’ councils, was industry’s attempt to placate unionizing workers. By mixing ethnicity in, for example, workers’ councils, industries believed they could divide, and not cohere, union members. This backfired. Their arguments that capitalism could be moral (a clear struggle against socialist movements) only led the way for 1930s liberalism and reform. During the 1920s, however, encroaching outsiders broke down ethnic identifications. The Catholic church is one example; it replaced ethnic parishes with English speaking parishes. Large corporations too attracted workers’ allegiances. National networks soon drove out ethnic radio stations and theaters. In time, mass culture broke down ethnic barriers. They used “mass culture to create a second-generation ethnic, working-class culture that preserved the boundaries between themselves and others.” (147) these workers, faced with the great depression, thus made a new deal.
September 24, 2012
My huge issue with this book is that this question was not answered: Would the working class have had a voice at all in the CIO if Communists did not participate as CIO leaders?
Because of this, I am not convinced that the working class truly had a powerful voice due to their political activism in the CIO during the 1930s. While the working class pushed for its creation, the CIO was ultimately a national, top-down, organization. The author perpetually argues that the working class ideology of moral capitalism, seeded in the 1920s and Great Depression, largely affected the CIO during the 1930s. Yet the author also points out that Communists played a big role as CIO leaders during this time, and admits that Communists leaders were sensitive to the needs/wants of the working class. OF COURSE COMMUNISTS FOCUSED ON WORKING CLASS NEEDS; THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! The author seems to argue Communists listened to workers because workers were actively making themselves heard, which may somewhat be the case...but wouldn't Communist CIO leaders have essentially fought for changes that would benefit the working class, regardless of their interaction? Cohen admits, "Ordinary factory workers were using Communist organizers as much as they were used by them" (p.311), which pushes me even further from Cohen's argument, along with her "stopping of the historical clock" in 1940...in which we see that as Communists exit the CIO, the aims of the CIO turn against the workers' moral capitalism. A similar argument can be made for the workers' alliance with the Democratic Party, which I think Cohen is clearer about...but in my reading of this book she relentlessly emphasizes the worker's active role in the CIO.
I generally agree with Cohen's overarching argument that the working class was a distinct political unit that operated as it did during the 1930s because of unified, yet changing, individual orientations grounded in the 1920s and Depression, but my thinking above almost entirely ruined this book for me. Maybe someone in class tomorrow will bring up a point about the Communist CIO leaders that I missed...
Also, in A Fierce Discontent, the author stresses the idea that Victorian independence was relinquished by the Progressive middle class during the 1930s. This can been seen in the working class in this book, as they became increasingly dependent on the state to find a solution to their problems. That sounds bad, but it was a logically progression. Workers received some support from ethnic institutions previously, then welfare capitalists advocated providing benefits for workers to ensure worker loyalty during the 1920s. Yet capitalists rarely provided the very expectations they generated, then largely couldn't during the Depression. Workers then felt entitled to fair treatment and moral capitalism (since they voted and contributed to society), so they looked to the state.
Because of this, I am not convinced that the working class truly had a powerful voice due to their political activism in the CIO during the 1930s. While the working class pushed for its creation, the CIO was ultimately a national, top-down, organization. The author perpetually argues that the working class ideology of moral capitalism, seeded in the 1920s and Great Depression, largely affected the CIO during the 1930s. Yet the author also points out that Communists played a big role as CIO leaders during this time, and admits that Communists leaders were sensitive to the needs/wants of the working class. OF COURSE COMMUNISTS FOCUSED ON WORKING CLASS NEEDS; THAT'S WHAT THEY DO! The author seems to argue Communists listened to workers because workers were actively making themselves heard, which may somewhat be the case...but wouldn't Communist CIO leaders have essentially fought for changes that would benefit the working class, regardless of their interaction? Cohen admits, "Ordinary factory workers were using Communist organizers as much as they were used by them" (p.311), which pushes me even further from Cohen's argument, along with her "stopping of the historical clock" in 1940...in which we see that as Communists exit the CIO, the aims of the CIO turn against the workers' moral capitalism. A similar argument can be made for the workers' alliance with the Democratic Party, which I think Cohen is clearer about...but in my reading of this book she relentlessly emphasizes the worker's active role in the CIO.
I generally agree with Cohen's overarching argument that the working class was a distinct political unit that operated as it did during the 1930s because of unified, yet changing, individual orientations grounded in the 1920s and Depression, but my thinking above almost entirely ruined this book for me. Maybe someone in class tomorrow will bring up a point about the Communist CIO leaders that I missed...
Also, in A Fierce Discontent, the author stresses the idea that Victorian independence was relinquished by the Progressive middle class during the 1930s. This can been seen in the working class in this book, as they became increasingly dependent on the state to find a solution to their problems. That sounds bad, but it was a logically progression. Workers received some support from ethnic institutions previously, then welfare capitalists advocated providing benefits for workers to ensure worker loyalty during the 1920s. Yet capitalists rarely provided the very expectations they generated, then largely couldn't during the Depression. Workers then felt entitled to fair treatment and moral capitalism (since they voted and contributed to society), so they looked to the state.
September 21, 2013
Prior to the 1930s, industrial workers in Chicago were isolated in small, tightly woven ethnic communities, racial and cultural tension between these communities made any working class movements impossible. In Making a New Deal, Lizabeth Cohen explores how it was possible for this severely fragmented working class of Chicago to join together in a united movement in the 1930s. She argues that although these Chicagoans held strong ties to very different ethnic groups, the Great Depression gave them a common ground so they could relate to each other like never before.
Cohen brilliantly lays out this gradual transformation of ethnic workers in Chicago to effectively show how and why they changed. There is controversy over whether Cohen depicts these changes as too neat and tidy, but she does address the fact that it was a complicated evolution. She does not seem to argue that this was the only answer to the problems faced by the working class in Chicago, but that these developments helped them unite and to them it probably seemed like the logical answer. While it was simplified a bit, she does address the resistance and clearly shows that these developments were not instantaneous. It took time for workers to trust the federal government enough to rely so heavily upon it, and for the workers to develop a common bond that allowed them to join together regardless of ethnicity. She begins by laying out the background information leading up to this change and then backs up each point with evidence and quotes found from letters and manuscripts belonging to the workers creating an effective look at the Great Depression from the bottom up.
Cohen brilliantly lays out this gradual transformation of ethnic workers in Chicago to effectively show how and why they changed. There is controversy over whether Cohen depicts these changes as too neat and tidy, but she does address the fact that it was a complicated evolution. She does not seem to argue that this was the only answer to the problems faced by the working class in Chicago, but that these developments helped them unite and to them it probably seemed like the logical answer. While it was simplified a bit, she does address the resistance and clearly shows that these developments were not instantaneous. It took time for workers to trust the federal government enough to rely so heavily upon it, and for the workers to develop a common bond that allowed them to join together regardless of ethnicity. She begins by laying out the background information leading up to this change and then backs up each point with evidence and quotes found from letters and manuscripts belonging to the workers creating an effective look at the Great Depression from the bottom up.
January 16, 2023
Lizabeth Cohen focuses her sights on workers in the city of Chicago from a disastrous time for them - the smack down they received after a strike in 1919 - to a more positive time in the history of labor - the growth of the CIO and concessions won for all workers by the late 1930s. She examines the steel, meatpacking, farm equipment and electrical equipment industries in the region.
In the early years of her study, workers tended to rely on ethnic institutions for support - neighborhood retailers, bankers, churches, etc. By the late 1920s, the employers were providing what they called welfare capitalism - just enough support to keep the workers from striking. In the depths of the depression, companies could no longer afford this and workers were left with nothing until the Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal began to make itself felt. Part of the New Deal gave more rights to workers and their unions to organize and strike.
It's interesting to see this progression from 1919 to 1939.
In the early years of her study, workers tended to rely on ethnic institutions for support - neighborhood retailers, bankers, churches, etc. By the late 1920s, the employers were providing what they called welfare capitalism - just enough support to keep the workers from striking. In the depths of the depression, companies could no longer afford this and workers were left with nothing until the Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal began to make itself felt. Part of the New Deal gave more rights to workers and their unions to organize and strike.
It's interesting to see this progression from 1919 to 1939.
March 4, 2018
With the world in crisis and our country headed toward some kind of reconfiguration in the near future, I've been really interested lately in reading about the New Deal, to see what can be learned from the last time American society was reconfigured for the better. Having already read a biography of FDR, I loved getting the chance here to see the New Deal from the perspective of industrial workers on the ground - and in Chicago, no less! This book taught me so much, not just about the labor struggles of the 20s and 30s, but also about the history of my home city and the people who have lived, worked, and struggled there. Cohen gives a detailed look at every segment of the workforce (Eastern/Southern European immigrants, African-Americans, Mexicans) how they lived, why they worked, what they listened to on the radio, and how they came to build the New Deal and the CIO. If you're on the same intellectual track as me these days, I highly recommend this one.
November 9, 2007
Cohen is a much more interesting author for me than Brinkley. The chapters are extraordinarily long, but she uses an impressive amount of anecdotal evidence about the various ethnic groups that makes it more entertaining than Brinkley's more political account. In this book, Cohen argues that it was a number of progressive changes that united the ethnic groups of Chicago, IL just before, and during, the great depression that allowed the formation of unions. Until Cohen, no one had argued many causes to this phenomena, but rather singular causes. Ground-breaking work.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 43 reviews