From: Jim Devine Sharon Beder: > The Pacific Ecologist, whence this article came, provided this editorial > note: Sharon Beder explores the history of consumer societies from the > 1920s when over-production of goods exceeded demand. Instead of > stabilising the economy, reducing working hours, and sharing work > around, which would have brought more leisure time for all, > industrialists decided to expand markets by promoting consumerism to the > working classes.
"Industrialists decided"? Instead, the industrialists likely _never even considered_ the alternative to promoting consumerism (i.e., reducing work hours and sharing work). The key reason why "industrialists" didn't think of work-sharing and the like was that any social movement in favor of it was extremely weak during the 1920s (largely as a result of the industrialists' shared hatred of unions, "high" wages, etc.) ^^^^^^^^ CB: As to the status of a social movement in favor of work-sharing or reduction in work hours during the 20's maybe Sandwichman knows more. There was some consciousness of reducing the workday because of May Day and the historical events giving rise to it in the late 1800's. Marxists would have been aware of reducing the length of the work day as a goal because of the discussion of the issue of absolute surplus value , and reducing the work day in _Capital_ and the emphasis that the Bolsheviks put on May Day. How much this translated into "social movement" in the US in the 1920's , I'm not sure. What about _Babbit_ ? ^^^^ Third, the industrialists likely didn't get together to make this kind of decision. For example, the creation of mass consumer credit during the 1920s was a product of decentralized decision-making by banks, based on their profit motive, and not on some vision that production exceeded the demand for goods. The role of central decision-making probably came in only when the bankers lobbied to make sure that the the extension of consumer credit was legal. ^^^^ CB; Strictly speaking the statement in the article doesn't say the industrialists got together. It just says industrialists decided, which could mean they decided individually and not together. It could be saying industrialists all came to the same conclusion individually based on their profit motives, as you say. However, realistically, there were chambers of commerce galore, and other organizations, clubs, college friendships, lion's clubs, kwanaz clubs, boat clubs, golf clubs, marriages, interlocking directorates on boards of directors, law firms such that it seems almost certain that the leading businessmen _did_ get together very much, all the time, and decide these issues as capitalist class leaders. Today's anti-conspiracy theory habit on the left with respect to whether the capitalist class leaders "get together" on all critical issues is very naive. There decision making is very centralized continuously. The structure of corporate governance, with the board of directors as clearly superior to the CEO and presidents is a more _collective_ form of leadership than that of the American government form. The executive, President, Governor or Mayor , is less subordinate to the legislative branch, than the corporate top exec is to the board of directors. Although that is just one corporation. As to profit motive, it doesn't seem likely that their analysis of how to make profit would be so shallow as to not be aware that a major factor in their profit rate falling was overproduction of goods. Marxist economists have produced statements ffom business leaders that demonstrate that they understand surplus value , too. > The social decision to produce unlimited quantities of > goods rather than leisure, nurtured wastefulness, obsolescence, and > inefficiency and created the foundation for our modern consumer culture. > People were trained to be both workers and consumers in a culture of > work and spend. The rest of this follows from the fallacious view that "industrialists decided." We should face the fact that a lot of what happens under capitalism is not due to some concerted decision by "industrialists" and other greed-heads. It _just happens_, as a result of the "laws of motion" of the system and the unpredictable results of class struggle. ^^^^^ CB: I don't think you have demonstrated that there isn't a lot of concerted decisionmaking by "industrialists" On the contrary, there is much evidence of a very high level of concerted decisionmaking by the capitalist class leaders, locally , state wide , and nationally. business leaders. Detroit has the Renaissance Club , for example. All the leading businesses in Detroit are part of it. They don't even hide the fact that they get together and make decisions on all important local issues. The Renaissance Club's leaders are television talk shows regularly discussing political and economic issues. There is the Detroit Economic Club that holds regular public forums, often with political leaders as the speaker. Nationally there is the National Association of Manufacturers. There are hundreds of such business associations. There are hundreds of trade journals, magazines. Crain's business, for example, has editorials, opinion pieces, letters to the editor every edition, and every significant political issue is much discussed. The major newspapers are of course big businesses themselves. There are thousands of paid lobbyists, many of whom represent multiple businesses or whole industries, such as insurance. All of this is out in the open, not counting the behind the scenes communications. The more I think of it , the evidence is patent and overwhelming of concerted decisionmaking on issues in class interest. -- 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
