| Sumario: | The article presents the usefulness of secondary literature to a researcher in the field of labor history and advocates the wrong picturization of Daniel De Leon, a Marxist in the journal labor history. The article points out that, anyone familiar with the secondary literature can say that all of the sources mentioned in the piece are well-known and have been utilized widely by researchers for a number of years. Historians have not shown sufficient appreciation of Mr. Daniel De Leon's services to the labor movement and have given too much credence to his critics and opponents. The charge that De Leon was a strikebreaker is a serious one and should have definite documentary verification. The testimony by De Leon's bitter opponents that he was a strikebreaker is not sufficient, for denunciatory epithets were common in cases of jurisdictional labor rivalry. De Leon stressed the futility of political action alone, leaving the capitalist class in control of the economy, by which it could lock out the working class from its means of livelihood.
|
|---|