The article deals with the development of Catalan cotton textile trade unionism between 1890 and 1914. It has been argued that, given the economic difficulties which faced the cotton textile industry, employers were anxious to cut labour costs and unwilling to negotiate with trade unions. Between 1889 and 1891, therefore, they launched an attack on trade-union organisation within the industry. In many rural areas they were able to impose their will with relatively little difficulty. In urban Catalonia, however, they faced stiffer opposition. The state's response to labour unrest was not uniform. Nevertheless, at crucial moments the authorities supported the mill owners' assaults on labour organisation. The result was to radicalise the cotton textile labour force. This could be seen in the growing influence of socialists and anarchists in the textile unions' ranks, and in the increasing willingness of the textile workers to use general strike tactics.

This article is a study of the Owenite community established in Co. Clare, Ireland from November 1831 to November 1833. It examines the role of economic crisis in Ireland in stimulating interest in Owenite solutions. It analyses the differing motivations of the various actors (landowner, Owenite reformer, the peasantry) in joining the venture. It examines the sources of the community's stability – economic, sociological, and cultural. It argues that the community was destroyed by the contradictory roles of its founder, Vandeleur, who was both owner and President. In the process a detailed description of the community is provided, covering matters such as institutional arrangements, the division of labour, wages and benefits, gender relationships, and religion.

The debate over the labour bureaucracy has changed considerably since Robert Michels first argued that oligarchy was inevitable whenever humans organized. Recent work has tended to play down the notion of the labour bureaucracy as a body distinct from, and often in opposition to, the rank and file. Indeed, in the pages of this journal, Jonathan Zeitlin has maintained that “no clear line can be drawn between trade union officials and the ‘rank and file’”. Carrying this argument to its logical conclusion Zeitlin has urged that the “‘rank and filist’ paradigm is fundamentally unsatisfactory and should be abandoned rather than further refined”. Though others would not push the revisionist argument this far, the general tendency has been to agree that the earlier generalizations were over-blown and that it is difficult to distinguish between bureaucrats and members. Many of Zeitlin's earlier opponents now appear to be nearly indistinguishable from him, and few argue that the interests of the labour leadership differ in any important degree from those of the rank and file. I believe, however, that the reports of the demise of the labour bureaucrat have been somewhat exaggerated. This paper will argue that though the argument needs to be re-formulated, the paradigm of the labour bureaucracy remains a useful one. Such a reformulation must shift the focus from differences of ideology separating the leaders from the members and instead must turn to an analysis of the power relationship between the two. This paper will trace the recent twists and turns in the debate and will suggest ways in which it is possible to view the labour bureaucracy as a distinct layer of the union movement.