Doug Henwood wrote,
>Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a bunch of
>friends of the working class are getting all excited about the
>prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions
>and lower wages for everyone else. Does the ghost of Andrew Mellon
>lurk over PEN-L?
What is weird is your construal of the so-called excitement. Anti-socialist
propaganda stands on two legs -- there is no alternative and the best of all
possible worlds. The best time to advance the economic interests of workers
is during an economic expansion. It so happens that during the good times
such gains are likely to be attributed to the expansion itself, rather than
to class struggle.
On the other hand, the struggle to defend previous gains during a recession
is more clearly recognized by everyone as a struggle. This creates the
illusion that struggle is always a negative, defensive activity. Thus all
the fun stuff comes from capitalism and the hair shirts are worn by the left.
The catch is that the form in which gains have been secured during an
upswing will have an important bearing on how defensible they will be during
a downtown. Capital would prefer to "give" something to workers during the
good times that it can readily take back during the bad times. That is, to
provide the gains as much as possible in the form of purely economic
individualistic 'utilities' -- stock options, say, rather than collective
agreements.
It is incumbant on friends of the working class to point out repeatedly
during the good times that they won't last forever (and why) and to remind
workers that the forms in which gains are taken now -- and the political and
economic content of those forms -- will largely determine whether those
gains will be transitory or enduring. Of course, when we do so we will be
mocked incessently because there is no pressing, overt "need" for, say,
protection against unemployment when the unemployment rate is at a 20 year
low. Why would anyone want to build their foundations out of anything but
sand when there is so damn much sand around and at such reasonable prices, eh?
There happens to be a reason why I write and study so much about working
time. The reason is not that I am a one-trick pony. The reason is that
historically, reductions in working time -- which, by the way, almost
invariably include wage gains as a component -- have proven to be more
defensible than strictly monetary wage gains. Karl Marx noticed this. The
founders of the American Federation of Labor noticed it. The 1902 report of
the Industrial Commission appointed by the U.S. Congress noticed it. The
early 20th century National Association of Manufacturers USA noticed and
abhorred it.
Organized labour in the U.S. seems to have forgotten it and has been in
decline for several decades. Employers' organizations, right-wing think
tanks, the financial press and mainstream economists seem to have remembered
it all too well and are quick to respond with ridicule and hostility to
comprehensive proposals to restrict and/or redistribute working time.
Coincidentally (or not), neo-liberalism has been in ascendency for several
decades. Leftists seem to take the issue for granted, as if it is all too
obvious a good thing to be worth investing much effort in. Maybe leftists
secretly prefer the drama of struggling against insurmountable odds to
defend indefensible gains.
Allow me the indulgence of quoting from the 1902 Industrial Commission
report (perhaps this passage was authored by John R. Commons?). In my
opinion it is the most succinct summary ever of the dialectic of hours,
wages and business cycles:
"A reduction of hours is the most substantial and permanent gain which labor
can secure. In times of depression employers are often forced to reduce
wages, but very seldom do they, under such circumstances, increase the hours
of labor. The temptation to increase the hours of labor comes in times of
prosperity and business activity, when the employer sees opportunity for
increasing his output and profits by means of overtime. This distribution is
of great importance. The demand for increased hours comes at a time when
labor is strongest to resist, and the demand for lower wages comes at a time
when labor is weakest."
Once again, I have to remark on how weird it is that a cosmopolitan left
observer of business gets alternatively blasé about the irrelevance of
raising the issue of unemployment during the upswing when unemployment is
low and indignant about the supposed glee of friends of the working class at
"the prospects for recession, which means the disemployment of millions and
lower wages for everyone else."
There is hope, Doug. There IS a cure for blasé indignation. It is called
beginner's mind. "In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but
in the expert's there are few."
Tom Walker
Bowen Island, BC
604 947 2213
