PDF Summary:A People's History of the United States, by Howard Zinn

Conventional accounts of American history tend to focus on the people at the top—presidents, generals, CEOs, and other influential figures and their struggles, ambitions, hopes, and dreams. But what about average people? The ones who had to live with the consequences of elite decisions, and who often struggled in obscurity? In A People’s History of the United States, historian Howard Zinn aims to tell their story, providing a bottom-up view of American history focusing on Indigenous people, Black Americans, women, laborers, and activists.

Our guide outlines Zinn’s interpretation of significant events, themes, and historical trends in American history. Through our commentary, we’ll provide alternative opinions on the motivations behind and consequences of historical events. We’ll also further explain Zinn’s approach to history and provide additional context for his arguments as well as his perspective on events that happened after the book’s publication.

(continued)...

1) Trade Unions

Zinn explains that the largest form of labor organization were trade unions: organizations of workers within a specific trade, such as teachers and longshoremen. These unions attempted to monopolize their specific form of labor, then used this monopoly to make demands of their employers.

Trade unions also worked together through larger organizations such as the American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886. These organizations allowed trade unions to coordinate their strikes across an industry or even across multiple industries, giving them more leverage to make greater demands. But like many of the trade unions it consisted of, the AFL didn’t represent all American workers—Blacks, women, and immigrants couldn’t join for several decades. However, the AFL still fought hard for important rights like shorter working days, better working conditions, and a ban on child labor.

(Shortform note: Trade unions were a relatively new concept when they reached the US, having only been invented a few decades prior, in the mid-to-late 18th century. Before people formed trade unions in Europe and the US, organized labor typically took the form of violent and sporadic events such as peasant rebellions. In addition, it was often craftsmen, who owned and ran their own businesses, organizing for labor reform rather than wage-earning employees. Trade unions developed in large part as a response to the sudden change of conditions for many people due to industrialization—laborers faced harsher working conditions and worked in closer proximity to their coworkers than ever before, giving them the motive and means to organize.)

2) Socialists and the Socialist Party of America

Zinn explains that socialism, or the political and economic ideology promoting collective ownership of property, rapidly gained popularity in late 19th and early 20th century America. Socialists came from a number of backgrounds: They were trade unionists, rural populists, idealistic academics, immigrants, and so on. Their politics were anti-war, anti-imperialist, pro-worker’s rights, pro-government regulation, and pro-social safety nets. Socialists made their largest gains under the banner of the Socialist Party of America (or SPA), a political party founded in 1901.

(Shortform note: Socialism in the US had two main ideological origins: Christianity and secular academia. Christian socialism emerged throughout American Protestant churches in the mid-19th century, especially in the Episcopalian church and among German immigrants. These thinkers cited Christian texts on subjects like charity, aiding the poor, and collective ownership to argue for modern socialism. The other main origin was in secular academia, as philanthropists, social reformers, and philosophers read the works of 19th century French, English, and German socialists like Charles Fourier, Robert Owen, and Karl Marx. These thinkers used economic, political, and historical analysis to argue that socialism was the ideal way to organize society.)

The SPA also overlapped with women’s rights and women’s suffrage groups of the era, though they weren’t totally aligned; socialists tended to prioritize economic causes over social ones. In addition, while the SPA preached racial equality and allowed people of all races to join, it didn’t advocate particularly hard for Black Americans despite it being a dangerous era for them due to white mob lynchings and horrible working conditions.

(Shortform note: Where socialism overlapped with social issues like racism and sexism, activists were often divided on the question of what should come first—social or economic equality. For example, Black abolitionist and author Peter H. Clark only participated in socialist politics when he believed it was the best route to achieving racial equality. However, he didn’t believe socialism was necessary for racial equality and was willing to collaborate with non-socialist politicians to push for Black rights. On the other hand, Black minister and SPA member George Washington Woodbey believed racial equality could only be achieved in a society with the full economic equality promised by socialism.)

3) Radicals, Militant Unions, and the IWW

Zinn makes the case that radical organizers were also important for the labor movement. Their violence and serious disruptions to business put large amounts of pressure on capitalists to make concessions. Particularly toward the end of the 19th century under intense economic strain, more radicals emerged. Anarchists like Alexander Berkman and Emma Goldman believed that to achieve the socialist dream of collective ownership, current political and economic systems had to be destroyed. They argued that in the right context, violence—including bombings and assassinations—was appropriate to achieve these ends.

Founded in 1905, Industrial Workers of the World, or IWW, was a militant union accepting all workers regardless of their industry, race, sex, or immigration status. Instead of negotiating contracts with management like trade unions, the IWW traveled the country supporting and organizing massive ‘general strikes’ of all workers in a given area. They didn’t condone violence except in cases of self-defense, but the nature of their cause meant they often clashed with and were heavily persecuted by law enforcement.

What Makes a Union Militant?

To better understand how radical organizations like the IWW functioned, it helps to have a working definition of labor militancy. Scholars note three main areas that determine the militancy of a labor union:

1) Ambitious demands: More militant unions demand more from their employers compared to moderate unions. Sometimes this refers to the size of demands, like demanding a larger pay raise. Other times, this refers to the number of demands, like demanding extra safety measures in the workplace.

2) Willingness to mobilize: Militant unions are more willing to mobilize their full membership in group actions—things like strikes or recruitment drives. Less militant unions tend to strike less and use a smaller number of career bureaucrats, instead of mass mobilization, to accomplish tasks.

3) Attitude toward management: More militant unions tend to view themselves as fundamentally in conflict with management—they believe that the more one side gains, the more the other will lose. Less militant unions, on the other hand, believe their role is to cooperate with management to find the best possible outcomes for everyone.

The Labor Movement’s Obstacles

Despite the growing size and scale of the American labor movement in the 19th and 20th centuries, Zinn argues progress was still slow and difficult. He notes three significant obstacles of the labor movement: institutional resistance, internal divisions, and moderates.

1) Organized Institutional Resistance

Zinn explains that a majority of institutions in American society worked together against the labor movement. Police, private security, and even the National Guard often used violence to break up strikes and force people back to work. In addition, major newspapers and the judicial system persecuted labor organizers. For example, the first Red Scare (a political purge of the left and moral panic around communism in the early 1920s) led to a coordinated campaign of anti-labor propaganda, mass prosecutions, and violent suppressions of strikes, contributing to the IWW’s loss of power and influence.

(Shortform note: Mills (The Power Elite) elaborates on how major American institutions were able to organize their efforts in the way Zinn describes. According to Mills, the elites running these institutions are socially coordinated—they grow up around one another by attending prestigious preparatory schools and universities and spend time together as adults at the same social clubs. This social coordination gives elites connections so they can organize toward common goals like opposing labor power.)

2) Internal Divisions

Divides within the labor movement often prevented workers from organizing together, or in some cases, even turned them against one another. These divides were often based on racial, ethnic, or gendered prejudice. For example, a brickyard strike in 1899 in Newburg, New York morphed into a race riot when striking white workers attacked Black workers brought in to cross the picket line. Divisions also occurred along ideological lines—the Socialist Party split in 1919 over whether it would support the newly formed Soviet Union. Pro-Soviet and more radical members left the SPA to form the Communist Party USA, halting the SPA’s growing momentum.

(Shortform note: Labor historians debate the extent to which elites created and stoked divisions within the US labor movement to weaken labor power—particularly when it comes to race—as race caused some of the biggest divides between American workers. Some historians argue that management tended to break strikes with immigrant or Black laborers to keep workers pitted against one another. These historians also tend to emphasize instances of cross-racial collaboration as evidence that racial divisions weren’t inherent in the labor movement. Other historians argue that management merely played on existing racial divisions, and that cross-racial worker collaboration was the exception rather than the rule.)

3) Moderates

Zinn argues the labor movement was also hampered by moderates channeling time, energy, and money into inadequate reforms. In particular, these moderates often pushed for reform “within the system” via electoral or legislative victories. However, these were insufficient at best and ineffective at worst, Zinn argues, as electoral politics were structurally designed to serve elite interests (as discussed earlier in our section on the US Constitution). For example, the National Labor Union discouraged strikes in favor of lobbying Congress for labor reforms and running candidates in elections. However, their few legislative successes were bypassed with loopholes, and their candidates lost by large margins.

(Shortform note: American leftists still debate the role and importance of mainstream electoral politics—as opposed to strikes, protests, and other direct action. These debates tend to follow the same general arguments on both sides: Pro-electoral leftists argue that participation in mainstream electoral politics allows the left and labor movements to gain leverage over mainstream politicians and push them further left. Anti-electoral leftists argue that they have a moral obligation to not participate in a political system ruled by elites. They also suggest that it’s more effective to spend time, money, and energy on direct action compared to mainstream politics.)

The Great Depression and The New Deal (1929-1939)

Economic and political circumstances of the late ’20s through the ’30s saw significant shifts in the American labor movement, explains Zinn: most significantly, the Great Depression and New Deal.

The Great Depression

The activity and militancy of the American labor movement tended to fluctuate along with the desperation of workers and the state of the economy. Therefore, the Great Depression—a severe economic downturn that began in 1929 and lasted over a decade—caused labor unrest to skyrocket to an all-time high. For the first several years of the depression, elites in business and government had no clue what to do, leaving the American people to fend for themselves. Communists, socialists, and labor activists organized their communities to support one another, engage in massive, citywide strikes, and pressure elites to make concessions.

Some activists didn’t coordinate with Black Americans during the depression—they either weren’t interested or worried that doing so would alienate potential white, working-class supporters. The Communists were one of the few groups who made a serious effort to build a cross-racial coalition during this era, secretly helping black laborers organize themselves.

(Shortform note: While the upsurge of union membership and labor action during the Great Depression was sudden, scholars argue it wasn’t spontaneous. Instead, the surge was built on years of smaller scale, long-term organizing work. Even during the comparatively labor-unfriendly 1920s, labor and left activists continued working to organize various workplaces and industries even in the face of setbacks and defeats. This display of commitment built trust between workers and organizers, meaning that once the depression hit and more workers wanted to strike and unionize, they knew who to go to.)

The New Deal

Concessions to the American public came in the form of the New Deal, a series of laws and social programs under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt designed to help the country recover. However, Zinn argues the New Deal was still ultimately a project by and for elites—it shared just enough wealth and power with the American people to prevent all-out rebellion while centralizing power in the federal government via appointee-only bureaucracies. In addition, the New Deal largely ignored the plight of Black Americans—Roosevelt needed the support of Southern segregationists to pass his desired policies, so he didn’t pursue anti-segregation or anti-lynching measures.

For example, the Wagner-Connery Act in 1935 legalized labor unions and formalized the process of labor-management negotiations. This law provided some concessions to labor—employers could no longer fire workers for being union members, for example. However, it also channeled popular energy away from using strikes to cause broad social change and toward internal union politics and negotiating financially beneficial contracts.

(Shortform note: While people today often view the New Deal as a coordinated ideological project, in reality it was much less clearly defined and more based on trial and error. When FDR was first elected in 1932, he didn’t have a clear vision of what the New Deal was—instead, he decided to try a large number of ideas and projects to see what worked and what didn’t. During the first two years of FDR’s presidency, New Deal projects were smaller and generally more financially conservative. It was only in 1935, in the face of growing labor unrest and political pressure, that FDR began to adopt many of the progressive social programs the New Deal is known for today.)

Part 4: Rising Empire (1898-1945)

For centuries, American expansion had been fueled by the frontier—the “free” land and resources of the West provided a way for enterprising capitalists to make and expand their fortunes. But by the end of the 19th century, Zinn explains, the American frontier had closed. Land and wealth in the US were largely divided up among a select few elites. To continue increasing their wealth, elites had to start influencing and controlling other countries and peoples—they had to make America an empire.

(Shortform note: While the US Census officially announced the “closing of the frontier” in 1890 when the borders of the contiguous US were set, the government continued to take land from American Indians in the following decades. Reservations of land set aside by the government for Indian tribes shrank considerably, especially in the Rocky Mountain and Great Plains regions. This was in large part because of the Dawes Act, which broke up reservations by redistributing lands from tribes as a whole to individual American Indians—who would often choose or be forced to sell that land to non-Indians for economic reasons. Maps of Indian reservations in 1893 versus 2016 show the extent of this loss.)

In Part 4 of our guide, we’ll discuss how and why the US became an empire as well as the growing popular unrest within the country throughout the first half of the 20th century. We’ll also cover how major global events—namely the two World Wars and the Cold War—influenced these trends.

Early Imperial Projects

Around the turn of the 20th century, the US engaged in a number of imperial projects, influencing, controlling, and even conquering other nations and colonies. These accomplished two major goals for elites: First, they created new markets for American goods and new sources of cheap labor and natural resources. Second, they attempted to soothe domestic unrest by appealing to patriotism and nationalism—if everyone thought of themselves as part of a collective American project, they would pay less attention to class divisions within the country.

While elites and major newspapers tended to support these projects, Zinn suggests popular opinion was mixed. Trade unions occasionally supported colonial ventures, believing they would improve business. On the other hand, the Socialist Party was staunchly against American imperialism, and many Black Americans sympathized with or even supported peoples oppressed by the US abroad, recognizing their common struggle.

For example, the 1898 Spanish-American War saw the US intervene in the Cuban Revolution to secure American economic interests in the region. After winning the war in 1902, the US secured control over newly independent Cuba’s government and economy. The US also annexed a number of other Spanish colonies following the war, including the Philippines—after stomping out Filipino resistance in a bloody three-year campaign.

(Shortform note: Early US imperial and colonial projects were part of New Imperialism, a wave of global imperial expansion in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. This period is distinct from the first wave of European imperialism, which lasted from the 15th to the early-19th century and led to the creation of colonial America. The first wave was followed by a lull in imperial expansion as Europe recovered and rebuilt from the Napoleonic Wars. Then, starting in the 1870s, major European powers began to aggressively compete for colonial possessions again, particularly in Africa and Asia. Improvements to transportation and communication in the decades since allowed empires of this era to rule far more territory and wealth than before.)

The World Wars

The two world wars represented some of the first times the new American empire acted on a global stage, Zinn explains. He outlines American participation in each war and the popular response to them:

World War I (1914-1918)

In 1914, World War I began—what Zinn describes as a years-long bloody and pointless conflict between European imperial powers. He argues the US joined the war in 1917 to protect American elite financial interests despite mixed or even anti-war public opinion. Before and early on in the war, American elites developed strong business ties with and made large investments in Allied nations. Going to war allowed them to protect these investments.

Elites tried to garner support for the war through propaganda campaigns and suppressing dissent. For example, the Espionage Act of 1917 made criticizing the war essentially illegal, and it was used to arrest a number of high profile critics of the conflict. Despite these efforts, public opinion was by no means pro-war: When the US government asked for one million volunteers at the start of the war, only 73,000 people signed up in the first six weeks. The government had to start drafting people to meet their quota. In addition, the Socialist Party—the main anti-war party—made significant gains in state and local elections during the war.

(Shortform note: For decades after the end of the war, the public and historians alike generally accepted that the US entered the war because of elite economic interests. This was connected to general public regret around entering the war, as people felt the US had only joined to benefit a few select elites. However, views on the war began to shift in the decades following WWII, when historians started arguing the US went to war to preserve democracy or protect national security. Some scholars suggest this shift in perspective was tied to overall political changes in the US, as the public and academia became less focused on questions of class conflict and economic interests in the latter half of the 20th century.)

World War II (1939-1945)

In 1939, World War II began between the Axis Powers, led by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, and Imperial Japan, and the Allies, led by the UK, France, and the USSR. The US joined the Allies two years later. However, Zinn argues that American participation in the war was less about fighting fascism and more about protecting imperial power and elite financial interests. He offers several pieces of evidence: First, the US didn’t fight fascism in the years leading up to the war, whether in the Spanish Civil War or during the gradual rise of Nazi Germany. Second, the US didn’t join the war until its imperial possessions were directly attacked.

(Shortform note: Some US elites weren’t just disinterested in fighting fascism, but actually plotted their own fascist coup in 1933 known as the Business Plot. A number of elite bankers and businessmen believed FDR was going to transform the US into a socialist state, and they wanted to replace him—and the US democratic system—with a fascist dictatorship. They planned for Marine Corps Officer Smedley Butler to form a fascist veteran’s association and plan a massive march of disgruntled veterans who would depose the president. This strategy was similar to those used by fascists in Germany and Italy in previous years.)

Regardless of this elite reasoning, popular opinion in the US was mostly pro-war. Many Americans supported the allied cause due to patriotism and anti-Japanese racism. While some Black Americans didn’t want to fight for their oppressors, many others were drafted or voluntarily joined the prejudicial and racially segregated US military. Despite the overall pro-war sentiment, though, the US government still suppressed any perceived dissent—using the Espionage Act to arrest anti-war activists and imprisoning thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps, even if they supported the American war effort or had no connections to Imperial Japan.

(Shortform note: American anti-war sentiment looked very different in WWII than it did in WWI. Opposition to WWI was mainly rooted in socialist, communist, pacifist, and anti-imperialist groups who believed the war was a pointless waste of life. While some of these groups opposed WWII as well, a significant portion of the anti-war movement during this period had fascist or antisemitic tendencies instead. These groups weren’t opposed to imperialism or war in general, but instead wanted to keep the US from fighting against the Axis powers. Examples of fascist or antisemitic anti-war advocates included American businessman Henry Ford, aviator Charles Lindbergh, and the pro-Nazi German American Bund.)

Post-War Settlement

As the major power who’d suffered the least damage during the war, American elites were able to dictate a favorable post-war political and economic landscape, explains Zinn. They did so in a number of ways: funding massive reconstruction programs in Western Europe through the Marshall Plan, granting the US a significant amount of control over the newly formed United Nations and International Monetary Fund, and securing oil for decades to come through an alliance with the Saudi royal family.

Because of this uncontested economic position, enough money was flowing into the country that elites were willing to provide benefits to many American workers and laborers. The GI Bill provided funding to help thousands of veterans buy homes and attend college. Infrastructure projects, anti-poverty initiatives, and cheap goods caused overall standards of living to rise. At the same time, however, military, business, and political elites collaborated to ensure the existing war economy would continue indefinitely, concentrating disproportionate wealth in their hands.

(Shortform note: Mills (The Power Elite) argues that the post-war years also saw US elites coordinating their efforts and interests more than ever before. He explains that to supply and fight the war efficiently, the US military, civilian government, and private corporations had to directly cooperate. But after the war ended, this high level of cooperation and integration continued. Mills suggests that while elites from these different spheres may have had broadly similar interests before the war, it was during and after WWII that they started truly acting as one coherent power bloc.)

The Cold War (1947-1991)

Following the end of World War II, Zinn explains, American elites embarked on a decades-long campaign to prevent the spread of communism and protect their—and Western European elites’—financial interests. This strategy would limit the political and economic strength of the Soviet Union while also protecting the US-dominated post-war economy. Zinn notes several important theaters of the Cold War, including the CIA’s covert operations and the Vietnam War.

(Shortform note: Though the Cold War is often discussed as a struggle between communism and capitalism, the US government was willing to cooperate with communist nations so long as they were aligned against the USSR. Specifically, the US maintained economic and diplomatic ties with communist governments in Yugoslavia, Somalia, and China at various points during the Cold War. This suggests the conflict was less about opposing all communism and more about opposing the USSR and its allies.)

Covert Actions and the CIA

The Central Intelligence Agency, or CIA, covertly enacted America’s foreign policy throughout the Cold War. Composed of a number of business and political elites, the CIA supported, planned, and even participated in coups in countries that threatened American or European business interests—regardless of whether they were communist or pro-Soviet. For example, the CIA helped coordinate a coup of the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, when he attempted to nationalize the country’s British-owned oil companies.

(Shortform note: While histories of the CIA during the Cold War tend to focus on covert actions in developing nations, some historians argue the CIA also used violence to influence the politics of America’s European allies. They point to Operation Gladio, where the CIA allegedly funded and trained paramilitary units in countries across Western Europe to organize resistance in case of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. A 2000 Italian parliamentary report connected units funded by Gladio to several acts of far-right terrorism in Italy in the 1960s and ’70s. However, the US denies it supported or authorized any such terrorist activity.)

The Vietnam War (1963-1972)

In some instances, Zinn explains, covert actions weren’t enough to secure the goals of elites. This was the case in Vietnam, where the US tried and failed to covertly stop popular Vietnamese resistance against the French colonial government. Instead of trying to work with the initially cooperative Vietnamese revolutionary movement, the US created a capitalist dictatorship in South Vietnam and eventually went to war with North Vietnam to defend it. During the war, the US used a strategy of mass death and destruction—using chemical and incendiary weapons to destroy wildlife, bombing civilian infrastructure like dams to cause starvation, and indiscriminately killing civilians.

From the mid to late ’60s, the anti-Vietnam War movement became a popular force across the US. Black Americans in the Civil Rights Movement (which we’ll discuss in Part 5) started the campaign, but thousands of students, young people, and eventually the middle class joined. Civilians protested and dodged the draft, while anti-war American soldiers deserted, refused to follow orders, or even killed their commanding officers in protest. Faced with mounting domestic political pressure and a determined, skilled North Vietnamese insurgency, US elites eventually had to admit defeat. They withdrew American soldiers from Vietnam, and South Vietnam collapsed shortly afterward.

(Shortform note: Despite the brutality of the war, relations between the US and Vietnam mended within a few decades. Vietnam in particular sought normalization of relations relatively quickly after the war’s end, wanting the political legitimacy and economic benefits it would provide. And while the US was initially hesitant to cooperate and levied a trade embargo on Vietnam, they lifted it and normalized relations in the years following the end of the Cold War when communism was no longer seen as an existential threat.)

Protesting the War or the Draft?

Many historians and analysts argue that the anti-Vietnam War movement was successful in large part because of the US policy of conscription. Conscription meant that a large number of average Americans were forced to care about the war—they could be forced to fight and die in it at any time. Since many of them had little to no personal stake in the conflict itself, they turned against the draft system. Anti-draft sentiment then fed into and naturally bolstered existing anti-war sentiment, making the movement bigger, more urgent, and more consistent. It also led to the direct disruption of the US capacity to wage war, as draft dodgers hampered military recruitment efforts.

To further cement the importance of resistance to the draft, historians compare the anti-Vietnam War and anti-Iraq War movements. The US didn’t draft soldiers for the Iraq War, meaning Americans had a much smaller personal stake in it. Consequently, the anti-Iraq War movement lacked the same level of commitment and public support as the anti-Vietnam War movement, despite organizing larger protests on several occasions.

Part 5: Social Upheaval and the Modern Consensus (1945-2001)

Zinn explains that while the post-WWII settlement and spoils of empire made the US richer than ever before, it didn’t resolve the social unrest of previous decades. If anything, the influx of wealth further revealed the country’s many inequalities and social divides—inspiring decades of popular social movements for justice and equality. Despite these efforts, elites cemented control over political and economic institutions, creating a “modern consensus” in politics that persisted into the 21st century.

Part 5 of our guide will briefly cover the causes, methods, and outcomes of US social movements in the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, as well as the “modern consensus” on policy throughout the world of politics afterward.

Social Movements (1945-1980)

Zinn outlines several of the significant social movements of the ’40s through the ’70s: the decline of the labor movement during the Second Red Scare, the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, second-wave feminism, and more.

The Second Red Scare (1945-1960)

In the years following WWII, elites purged members of left and labor movements in the Second Red Scare, explains Zinn. Seeing the rise of the communist bloc, the start of decolonization, and a strike wave in the US once the no-strike pledge ended, elites feared the possibility of a strong American left. They responded with mass firings, prosecutions, and investigations of leftists and labor activists under the guise of combatting the Soviet Union and communism. They also passed laws limiting the power and influence of unions. Zinn argues the Second Red Scare started the decline of the American labor movement, as organizations either cooperated with purges or had their influence reduced via legislation.

(Shortform note: In addition to direct anti-labor action, changes to the structure of American life weakened the labor movement. Specifically, scholars argue that the rise of suburbs and decline of cities in the 1950s and ’60s also contributed to the decline of the American labor movement. Suburbanization meant workers lived farther away from one another and their workplaces, meaning that they couldn’t gather and organize as easily. And, as people moved, so did jobs, going from cities with established unions and cultures of organized labor to suburbs and smaller towns without them.)

The Civil Rights and Black Power Movements (1954-1980s)

Despite Black participation in WWII and the booming post-war economy, Black Americans remained a legally segregated and oppressed underclass, Zinn explains. As a result, Black Americans organized on a larger scale than ever before to struggle for equality. Their struggle began with the Civil Rights Movement, a campaign for legal equality through peaceful, yet disruptive protests. From 1954 to 1968, the Civil Rights Movement pressured elites into outlawing racial segregation and passing a series of moderate reforms to protect Black rights.

However, Zinn argues, legal equality failed to significantly improve the lives of Black Americans, as racial discrimination, racist violence, and poverty were still commonplace. As a result, some Black Americans embraced the more radical and militant beliefs and methods of the Black Power Movement. Through leaders like Malcolm X and Huey Newton and groups like the Black Panther Party, the Black Power Movement advocated the use of violence in self-defense, class struggle, and achieving Black economic and political independence.

Violent white supremacist suppression prevented the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements from achieving genuine racial equality, Zinn argues. Police and white supremacist vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan murdered and terrorized protesters and activists. Black leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X were assassinated under mysterious circumstances, while others like Fred Hampton were explicitly assassinated by the FBI. Discriminatory anti-crime measures and the proliferation of drugs destroyed Black communities and their ability to organize, while increased media and political representation of Black Americans gave the false appearance of equality.

(Shortform note: Since the publication of A People’s History of the United States, Black Lives Matter (BLM) has emerged as the largest contemporary movement for Black equality. Unlike the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, BLM is intentionally decentralized—consisting of nonhierarchical local chapters and organizations. According to BLM organizers, this decentralized structure makes it harder for their political opponents to shut down the movement by slandering or otherwise targeting one individual, as was the case for earlier Black equality movements.)

Ideological Origins of the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements

While the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements worked toward broadly similar goals, they each consisted of a number of different groups with varied ideologies. Let’s examine the main ideological strains behind each of these movements:

Civil Rights Movement: The ideology of the Civil Rights Movement was heavily influenced by liberal and progressive organizations that had fought for integration and Black political rights in years past—groups like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP, which was founded in 1909. In addition, Civil Rights leaders like James Farmer and Martin Luther King Jr. were inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s policy of satyagraha, or nonviolent protest and civil disobedience, during the Indian independence movement.

Black Power Movement: The Black Power Movement’s main ideological origin was in Black nationalism, or the belief that Black Americans should have their own distinct cultural, economic, and political institutions. Black nationalism began as an offshoot of abolitionism and was adopted in some Black reconstruction-era communities. Over the course of the 20th century, different Black nationalist groups brought in other ideologies that influenced the Black Power Movement. For example, the Nation of Islam rejected Christianity as a white religion in favor of their own version of Islam. The Black Panther Party adapted Marxist-Leninism, viewing its revolutionary methods and ideals as the best way to achieve Black independence.

Other Significant Movements (1960s-1970s)

Zinn notes there were many other social movements in the ’60s and ’70s on behalf of the vulnerable and oppressed. The second-wave feminist movement, Red Power movement, gay liberation movement, and prison reform advocates sought to raise awareness of injustices and address unequal treatment of women, American Indians, homosexuals, and convicts, respectively. More broadly, movements and the culture of this era challenged conservative social attitudes of previous decades—beliefs about how to approach sex, relationships, work, and so on.

(Shortform note: The social movements of the ’60s and ’70s also coincided with an ideological and demographic shift among the American left. Student progressives like the Students for a Democratic Society argued that the university and student activism, not the labor unions and socialist political parties of the past, were the foundation of the left. This “New Left” tended to be younger, more interested in social justice, and less focused on class struggle and building labor power. Meanwhile, the new economic security of the post-war settlement combined with purges of left-wing unions meant that some white workers broke with the left altogether.)

Disillusionment and Scandal (1972-1975)

Zinn suggests the social discontent of the ’60s transformed into distrust of and alienation from politics in the early ’70s. Average Americans didn’t feel like they could impact change: the Vietnam War had lasted almost a decade despite its unpopularity, and political institutions didn’t significantly change even after major scandals. In the Watergate scandal, several of President Richard Nixon’s illegal political operations became public—and while Nixon eventually had to resign, he was never prosecuted and no significant anti-corruption measures were passed afterward.

A group of senators formed the Church Committee to uncover many past illegal CIA operations, coups, and assassinations for the first time—but the agency wasn’t dissolved or even significantly limited as a result.

(Shortform note: Evidence suggests that Watergate, the Church Committee, and Vietnam were just the start of a larger trend of American alienation and distrust in politics. This can be seen in public trust in government—from 1964 to 1974, the average percentage of Americans who trusted the government to do what was right fell from 77% to 36%. Besides temporary bumps in the ’80s and 2000s, this percentage has continued trending downward in the years since, sitting at 16% as of 2023. This suggests that Vietnam, Watergate, and the Church Committee were just the start of a larger trend of American alienation and distrust in politics.)

The Modern Consensus (1974-2001)

Zinn argues that after the tumultuous ’60s and early ’70s, elites tightened their control over the country. In large part as a consequence of diminished labor power and elite suppression of dissenting social movements, a modern “consensus” emerged in American politics: That is, regardless of party, all American politicians had the same overall political goals.

(Shortform note: While Zinn describes the modern consensus as emerging in the ’70s and persisting beyond the end of the millennium, other historians argue it lasted from the end of WWII with the post-war settlement until around the 1980s. These historians point out that during this period, Congress was less politically polarized and more likely to make compromises—suggesting they were more amenable to a single consensus regardless of political party. The historians point to the ’80s as the end of this consensus because during this era, members of Congress became more unified around their specific party ideologies.)

Lacking alternatives to this consensus and already distrustful of the government after Vietnam and Watergate, Americans became more disconnected from and disinterested in politics. Zinn briefly outlines the main tenets of the modern consensus:

The Modern Consensus on Domestic Policy

In domestic politics, the modern consensus secured the power of corporations and the security state at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised. Economically, this meant deregulation of corporations, weakening labor power, and dismantling the social safety nets of the New Deal and post-war eras. As a result of these policies, levels of inequality and poverty rose. Desperate and lacking organized ways to express discontent, many poor Americans turned to crime. Elites blamed the country’s problems on these criminals and massively expanded the police and prison systems, issuing harsh penalties for minor crimes.

(Shortform note: While Zinn focuses on how the expanded prison system enforces social control, other experts note that it’s also a source of profit for elites. They describe the prison industrial complex, a network of relationships between the prison system and private businesses that benefit from it. Businesses profit from government contracts to supply or even run prisons. In addition, they benefit from the extremely cheap labor of prisoners, who are paid far less than minimum wage. As the prison system became profitable in this way, it also began to expand—disproportionately at the expense of people of color, who are far more likely to be imprisoned.)

The Modern Consensus on International Policy

Zinn explains that the modern consensus continued the postwar era’s imperial policies—covertly organizing coups, backing dictators, and fighting wars to protect elite business interests. Though America’s “war economy” had ostensibly been for fighting the Cold War, it continued even after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Not wanting to risk Vietnam War levels of public backlash, American elites tended toward smaller and shorter conflicts that were less disruptive to average citizens.

When the terrorist group Al-Qaeda destroyed the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001, elites capitalized on the event by declaring a “war on terror.” This essentially served as a blank check for military action and the surveillance and security state. With almost all news media pushing pro-war revenge narratives and with anti-Arab racism on the rise, the US invaded Afghanistan weeks after 9/11 on dubious grounds—supposedly, the Afghan government was collaborating with Al-Qaeda.

(Shortform note: Evidence supports Zinn’s claim that the war on terror and the US response to 9/11 was a continuation of US foreign policy instead of a sudden shift in priorities. Specifically, while the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was pitched partially as an anti-terrorism mission, US elites wanted to invade Iraq years before 9/11. They simply altered existing invasion plans to fit the exceedingly patriotic environment of post-9/11 America. This suggests that 9/11 provided an excuse for an ongoing policy of foreign military intervention.)

Does the Modern Consensus Still Exist?

The final version of A People’s History of the United States was published in 2003. Has the modern consensus Zinn described continued on in the two decades since? Or has US politics shifted into a new era? Let’s go through the elements of the modern consensus Zinn describes and consider which of them still exist today.

Domestic policy: On the domestic front, some trends Zinn identified have continued. Union membership has continued to decline since 2003, while wealth and income inequality has continued to increase. The US prison population reached its peak in 2010, but has slowly declined since. However, other trends he discusses are less clear. There have been some small expansions to social safety nets since 2003, including a partial Medicaid expansion in 2010 and a steady rise in federal spending on food stamps. In addition, the poverty rate has remained relatively constant since 2003.

Foreign policy: In terms of foreign policy, the trends Zinn discussed seem to have continued. Military spending has remained relatively consistent since 2003. The US has also been involved in numerous invasions: invading Iraq from 2003 to 2011, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2017, and continuing to occupy Afghanistan until 2021. In addition, the US has continued selling large quantities of weapons across the world, including to authoritarian nations like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And while modern covert coups are difficult to definitively prove, the US has been accused of backing various coup attempts—for example, in Bolivia in 2019 and Venezuela in 2020.

Popular Resistance

Despite the relative continuity of the modern consensus, Zinn notes several outlets for popular resistance in this era. These often formed to address specific issues, rather than broad movements. For example, large protests against nuclear proliferation, government inaction in the face of the AIDS epidemic, or the South African apartheid government. In addition, popular anti-war protests formed in the wake of various American invasions up to and including the invasion of Afghanistan—where Zinn finishes his history.

(Shortform note: In addition to the individual protest movements, there has also been a small resurgence of leftist and progressive politics in the US since the publication of A People’s History of the United States. Congress members like Bernie Sanders and Rashida Tlaib identify as democratic socialists, while left-wing organizations like the Democratic Socialists of America have grown significantly.)