I'd like to endorse Jim's dating below. The postwar capitalist expansion cannot be regarded as simply an interruption in the working out of basic capitalist contradictions. In passing I'd like to invite Jim to come out as an SSA theorist.
Regarding Taft Hartley, the causation did indeed run both ways. The history of labour organizing in the 30's involves changes in labour legislation leading to stronger movements on the shopfloor leading to changed legislation leading to stronger movements on the shopfloor, etc. This is the story behind Norris Laguardia, Section 7(A) of the NIRA, and the Wagner Act. The no strike pledge during WWII set the stage for Taft-Hartley and Taft-Hartley set the stage for the capital-labor relations which consolidated in the postwar period. Terry Message: 25 Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:14:16 -0800 From: "Jim Devine" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Re: Taft-Hartley & the Crisi To: "Progressive Economics" <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Michael Nuwer: > So why should the current crises be rooted in the passage of Taft-Hartley > and not, say the passage of the Federal Reserve Act? (Or any other > historical regression?) isn't the crisis be rooted in the invention of credit by Grog, in 4,027 B.C.E.? If I were forced to choose a date that started the process that led to the current crisis, it would be August 6, 1979. That's when President Carter appointed Paul Volcker to run the Fed. Of course, that was merely the validation of the US shift from one "model" of economic growth to another, from what Michael might call "corporate liberalism" to what many call "neoliberalism." The former "model" (or SSA or mode of regulation or stage) had already been in crisis for about a decade: it had stopped working (i.e., stabilizing accumulation) so that the US saw serious balance of payments problems that led to Nixon's abandonment of the link between the USD and gold (and the whole superstructure of fixed exchange-rates) and to squeezed profit rates and serious stagflation. The "model" had to be replaced with _something_ and the capitalists -- including their financial cousins -- hit upon the accelerated one-side class war of neoliberalism, a "modern" version of 19th century liberalism. The old "model" was that of US-centric growth bolstered by the warfare/welfare state and resting on the US dominance in manufacturing, finance, and the military realm. Despite the weak state of organized labor -- and its steady weakening due to the gnawing of the slow one-sided class-war of the period -- most workers were able to share in the benefits of rising GDP. That's gone. > Taft-Hartley didn't weaken the labor movement in the > USA; the weak labor movement make Taft-Hartley possible. It's likely that causation ran both ways. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
