From: Jim Devine 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: Surely, the industrialists were aware of the Red propaganda on reducing work hours. They were just as aware of the story of May Day in Chicago, and other sources of the idea as the Reds. So, thinking about it more, the industrialists probably did think of the "alternative", but as coming from their class antagonists. On the other hand, Sandwichman says that shorerwork day and more consumption go together. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: Weakened the movement, but that doesn't mean that the ideas were utterly removed from Brandeis' marketplace of ideas. ^^^^^ By the way, it's on _this_ level (class relations) ^^^^ CB: What's the other level ? Why isn't the author of the article on consumerism speaking on the level of class relations when she refers to "industrialists decided" ? ^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^ CB: Yes, the return to "smash the workers" predominating coincided with the fall of the Soviet Union. One wise aspect of the CP's support of the SU was that the US working class reaped many benefits from US capitalists concerned to keep US workers' eyes off of the SU. ^^^^^^ > 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. ^^^^^^ CB: The movement probably had an ebb and flow from the late 1800's through the 1930's. A google search will turn up more specifics. I doubt that it was non-existent in the 1920's . This particular demand for shorter work day was , of course, intertwined with other issues. The successes in reduction of work week, industrial union organizing, etc. later were in part built on some efforts in the 1920's. There was a lot of Communist and Workers' Party building in the 1920's, despite the Palmer raids, Sacco Vanzetti, the Whitney case. ^^^^^^ Ideas alone don't make history: people have to put them into practice. ^^^^^^ CB: Surely , the Marxists in the 1920's didn't think otherwise. They were studying Leninism, What is to be done , unity of theory and practice; party building is all about putting ideas 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. ^^^^^^ CB: Overall, it's almost tautological, but a pretty good inference, that as long as the capitalists continue to rule, they are more unified on issues with which they as a class have conflicts with the ruled working class as a class, no ? Whatever the conflicts between the capitalists, they hold a sufficiently unified front on critical class issues. On the other hand, Sandwichman seems to argue that shorter work days and increased consumption are not class antagonistic issues between the capitalists and the working class. That' kind of interesting. > 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, ^^^^^ CB: Yeah, yeah, yeah it sort of does explain it. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: Sandwichman argues that this was not only in the common interests of the capitalists , but of the working class. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Or via chambers of commerce, boards of trade, country club bs sessions, lions clubs, law firms, lobbyists. Madison Avenue would have served as a clearinghouse, or actually a locus of unity capitalist consumerist theory and practice. Evidently, Madison Avenue became metonymically representative of advertising in none other than the 1920's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madison_Avenue Advertising industry The term "Madison Avenue" is often used metonymically for advertising, and Madison Avenue became identified with the advertising industry after the explosive growth in this area in the 1920s. According to "The Emergence of Advertising in America", an online exhibit at the John W. Hartman Center for Sales, Advertising & Marketing History at Duke University, by the year 1861 there were twenty advertising agencies in New York City, and in 1911, the New York City Association of Advertising Agencies was founded, predating the establishment of the American Association of Advertising Agencies by several years. Among various depictions in popular culture, the portion of the advertising industry which centers on Madison Avenue serves as a backdrop for the critically-acclaimed AMC television drama Mad Men, which focuses on industry activities during the 1960s. In recent decades, many agencies have left Madison Avenue, with some moving further downtown and others moving west.[2] Today, only a few agencies are still located in the old business cluster on Madison Avenue, including Young & Rubicam and Doyle Dane Bernbach. However, the term is still used to describe the agency business as a whole and large, New York-based agencies in particular. ^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^^ CB: How did promoiting consumerism conflict with the long-term interest of business ? ^^^^^^^^ > 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. ^^^^^^ CB: How about ignoring the obvious ? Saying that the capitalist class leaders don't "get together" deserves to be mildly insulted . ^^^^^ 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." ^^^^^ CB: Actually, since the chambers of commerce , country clubs are well known, it isn't actually a conspiracy theory ,because, "conspiracy" connotes secrecy. They pretty much openly meet and plan. They aren't doing anything wrong or illegal, for one thing because they dominate the law making. I forgot to mention the trusts, cartels and syndicates of the early 20th Century, and which were certainly not busted out of existence by TR or the anit-trust laws. The above naive type you refer to seems to be a straw man here. I haven't heard too many people on any of these lists around here propose the type of thing you sketch. The Marxists around here generally support abolishing private ownership of the basic means of production, along the lines of Bolivarianism in Venezuela or a program like this one : http://www.cpusa.org/article/view/758. Who have you heard on this list say "If we could just replace that elite with a good elite or convince the current elite to follow better policies, everything would be better." I don't think the author of that articel on consumerism was proposing that. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: As I say, I don't see why promoting consumerism in the 1920's had to be secret, and in fact I think it was quite open. In general , as I said, the ruling elite is able to be substantially united on issues that are in fundamental conflict with the class it rules. That's almost "tautologically" or self-evidently true, by the definitions of ruling and ruled classes. When that becomes untrue, there will be a revolution. Also, the ruled class has to be more divided than the ruling class, roughly speaking. Divide and rule is a first principle of ruling. So, the ruling class may have internal conflicts but they are "less" relative to those dividing the ruled class. Like racism dividing the ruled class. I really can't think how problems of getting information outside of headquarters or instructions or incentives to underlings would prevent the capitalists in the 1920's promoting more consumption by the working masses. As came out of Sandwichman's post, raising wages , effective demand, was the most effective way to increase consumption. Henry Ford was paying $5 per day, famously, so they say. (I haven't checked the BLS stats). ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^^ CB: True I _can_ see a section of the extremely zealous anti-communist wing of the military industrial complex pulling off a secret coup d'etat and knocking off JFK for being soft on Cuba and the Arms Control treaty with the Soviets though. That would have been doable. And if Lee H Oswald wasn't a US spook I'll eat my hat. So, if he worked for the Company, it was an inside job. If it was an inside job, it was a coup d'etat. I am not saying LBJ was in on it. I think the larger "conspiracy" was in the coverup, "obstruction of justice" so to speak. The Warren Commission, which was _not_ in on it, probably decided that there would be more trouble, more instability, more damage to US image as an ideal democracy, if the heavies were exposed. So, I'm not really saying it was the main leaders of the capitalist class who planned it or really had anything to do with it except afterwards in the coverup. It was more like a rogue section of the National Security State. For that matter, given the role of Deep Throat, the ruling class may have had a hand in Nixon's removal. As has been pointed out many times, Nixon actually had a more progressive programs than anybody since. His negative tax thingy for the poor must have been hated by a lot of the ruling class. He also had affirmative action programs, price controls ( no ?), and detente. I can also see a concerted and successful effort by the leaders of the capitalist class boosting consumption as a habit in the 1920's. That wouldn't be running everything. > Their 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. ^^^^^^ CB: I think it is pretty well argued that they know ( or knew) how to price fix. I think there's some theory about leaders and followers. Sort of like partners in Bridge. They know how to signal each other. And actually, I don't see why they actually couldn't have intermediaries. And they are in a lot of the same social circles. They were united on such issues as emmission standards and other issues that they just had obvious objective common interests. Yes there are rivalries and competition within, but , as said earlier, the issue is what is the level of conflict internally _relative_ to the conflicts externally. That's internal /external between companies, and between the industry and the workers consumers. Of course, everything is falling apart in a "revolutionary" big way now, they that may unite them more than ever in their common disaster ( our common disaster for those of us in Detroit and Michigan) > 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. ^^^^^^ CB:Yes , but I mean they could remember the last time there had been overproduction of goods and falling profits. I guess it would be obvious that increase mass consumption was important for profits to continue to rise. ^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: Yes but Henry Ford said explicitly, I believe, that he was paying higher wages and pricing cars so that his workers could buy them. He didn't have to analyze the whole economy. Other capitalists could have seen the same thing with their products. ^^^^^^ 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
