me: > "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. Of course, but the WW1 and its aftermath (Palmer raids, the steel strike, etc.) weakened the movement. By the way, it's on _this_ level (class relations) where you are much more likely to see capitalists working to attain the same goal: even though they often are involved in rivalries with each other to cut prices and expand market shares at each others' expense, they tend to agree that it's a good idea to smash unions, cut wages, kick out the reds (including anarchists), etc. However, some "enlightened" capitalists disagree even with this, saying that unions and high wages promote social peace and encourage the creation of a domestic market, while tossing out reds undermines civil liberties for all (which might promote social peace). In some periods, these "enlightened" types (who think about the collective interests of the capitalist class more) have more political clout. In recent years (and during the 1920s), the "smash the workers" approach has tended to dominate. > 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. Again, the movement was really weak until the 1930s. Ideas alone don't make history: people have to put them into practice. To some extent, fear of the Bolsheviks encouraged more "enlightened" capitalist practices during the 1930s. But this was decentralized and involved a relatively small number of companies (the ones with "welfare capitalism" or company unions that went beyond being mere tools of management to be consulted on some decisions). On the political level, the main response by the capitalists to the Bosheviks in the US was to tighten the screws, throw out the reds, etc. > What about _Babbit_ ? what about it? I've only seen the movie (while Babbit himself shows up in the movie version of "Elmer Gantry"). I haven't read the book. me: > ... 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. I guess. They all face a similar situation (the lust for profits). But they also face a wide variety of situations, so that the _way_ that they implement their lust for profits differs and is often at cross-purposes, i.e., conflicting with other capitalists' lusts. > However, realistically, there were chambers of commerce galore, and > other organizations, clubs, college friendships, lion's clubs, kwanaz > [Kiwanis?] > 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. yeah, yeah, yeah. But that hardly explains how they came to a collective decision for the US as a whole, especially since there are a lot of fissures within the capitalist class (finance vs. industry, Democrats vs. Republicans, Microsoft vs. Apple, etc., etc.) and the general phenomenon of competition. If they were to do so, it would be via the government and related organs (like the Fed). Those institutions did not "decide" to push consumerism during the 1920s. Rather, the key decision was that the "business of America was business" so that the government should do absolutely everything that businesses wanted (especially those which had more economic and political power and were organized) _even if_ it conflicted with the long-term collective interest of business. It was a bit like a dry run of the Reagan or Bush2 eras. > 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. Why "naive"? It's hardly enough to throw (extremely mild) insults around. I think that many conspiracy theories are extremely naive, though perhaps not yours. Conspiracy theory does not simply say that sometimes capitalists or other powerful individuals form coalitions to attain mutually agreed-upon aims. This kind of theory usually works as follows: "There is a small group (an elite) that manages our society and makes decisions such as 'let there be consumerism' (or to assassinate JFK). If we could just replace that elite with a good elite or convince the current elite to follow better policies, everything would be better." This conspiracy theory typically ignores conflicts of interest and ideology within the elite, problems of getting enough information about what's going on outside of the elite's HQ, problems of communication of elite instructions down to the large numbers of underlings, the problem of insufficient incentive for the underlings to obey the elite, the difficulties of keeping the conspiracy secret, and the like. The conspiracy theorist typically sees the power elite as ruling society the way right-wingers used to see the CPSU central committee as running the USSR's society -- but miss the fact that the CPSU central committee couldn't and didn't run everything, not even the economy. Just as with our capitalists, the actions of the Soviet state implied tremendous numbers of unintended consequences. > 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. Don't corporations compete with each other a lot? Do GM and Ford usually make their long-term plans together? Even within the board of directors or top management of a corporations, there are often rivalries. > 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. The rate of profit generally was rising during the 1920s, especially in the "leading sectors," i.e., manufacturing, corporations, the urban sector. Look at my 1994 paper on the subject. Even when firms' leaders are conscious of the phenomenon of over-production, they are unlikely to have a Marxian analysis of it; they don't see it as the result of capitalism's "laws of motion." They usually lack any kind of macro vision of the political economy or, if they have one, are unable to act on that vision. That is, if they face overproduction, the incentive is to cut wages and prices, while jockeying for competitive advantage against other firms in the market. These behaviors may make matters worse, as wage and price cuts made the recession of the early 1930s worse. > Marxist economists have produced statements ffom business leaders that > demonstrate that they understand surplus value , too. I'm sure that many business types know that they're exploiting labor, but most see it as totally justified -- or they see it as the only alternative. Most importantly, few capitalists have enough power to do something like decide for the entire country that consumerism should take root and bloom. They might have wanted, for example, for the capitalist class to avoid cutting wages during the early 1930s (to prevent the intensification of the over-production). In fact, Herbert Hoover publicly argued against these cuts. But low profits and competition pushed them to cut wages anyway. -- 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
