From mass mobilization to neoliberal war-making: Labor strikes and military-industrial transformation in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How did workers affect—and how were they affected by—the dramatic transformations of U.S. war-making that have occurred since the mid-twentieth century? Where do such transformations leave workers and war in the twenty-first century? Using newly compiled data on workers’ strikes in the U.S. armaments industries from World War II through the present, this paper examines the relationship between labor and military-industrial restructuring. The paper introduces the concept of regimes of war-making and makes three main arguments. First, workers’ power was a significant force shaping the shift from a regime of mass mobilization war-making to a regime of neoliberal war-making, as armaments firms aimed to overcome the constraints imposed by workers in the mid-twentieth century. Wartime mobilizations—for Korea and Vietnam—temporarily stymied these efforts by enhancing the disruptive power of workers, who leveraged that power into pauses or reversals of firms’ initial attempts at restructuring. Second, U.S. defeat in Vietnam was a watershed moment. Mass mobilization was abandoned, and the changing nature of war meant that subsequent military buildups offered workers little leverage with which to resist restructuring. Third, in the twenty-first century, the combination of greatly expanded wars and decades of restructuring has resulted in a bifurcation among armaments workers, between those producing supplies needed for pressing counterinsurgency operations and those producing other innovative, but unused, systems. Thus, while the regime of neoliberal war-making has reduced the size and strength of armaments workers in general, some still have significant disruptive potential at the present juncture.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".