me:
> 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" ?
There are several other levels: (1) intra-class relations (within the
working class, within the capitalist class, within the intermediate
strata); (2) relations between men and women; (3) relations between
ethnic groups ("races"); (4) relationships between countries
(imperialism, competition among rich countries); etc.
In the current discussion, both between-class and within-class (#1 in
my list) relations are relevant. Neither of the main classes is a
monolith. Both involve elements of unity and elements of individuality
and competition. So the author of the article on consumerism should
look at the role of decentralized decision-making and competition, not
just some sort of collective decision.
This is especially so since in effect, _most_ "industrialists" decided
to fight increases in wages tooth and nail. The main reason why
consumerism was possible during this period was the extension of
consumer credit by _some_ capitalists.
CB: > Yes, the return to "smash the workers" predominating coincided
> with the fall of the Soviet Union.
That's one part of it. But the many capitalists were working toward
strengthening the "smash the workers" approach much earlier, as with
movement of capital from the Northeast US to the Southern US, etc. (Of
course, this example was a response to labor's weakness...)
Also, the USSR (during its main period, from the 1920s to Gorby)
didn't allow independent labor unions, either. In terms of class
relations, they were like the "enlightened capitalists" and their
1920s-era "welfare capitalism" in a lot of ways, combining "company
unions" (where the "company" was the state/party combine) and a
paternalistic welfare state.
> 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.
One might see benefits from toeing the Soviet line, but what were the costs?
In the end, this kind of cheer-leading led to the collapse of the CP.
In fact there were at least three of these collapses, after the
Hitler-Stalin pact, after Khrushchev's "secret speech," and after the
USSR fell. This last collapse was (almost?) total.
I said:
> 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 .
No-one said that the labor and socialist movements were "non-existent."
> 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.
My interpretation (and that of most labor historians I've read) is
that these 1920s movements were most effective at creating the basis
for the revival of labor and leftist parties during the 1930s, while a
lot of the 1920s effort was (as usual) marred by sectarianism,
ultra-lefitsm, etc.
me:
> They [capitalists] 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.
I don't see this perspective as "almost tautological." My perspective
is more of a set of questions than a set of predetermined answers.
> 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.
There is some room for agreement (at least in the short- or
medium-run) for cooperation between classes. That's the basis for
social democracy's successes in Western Europe between 1945 and 1980
or so, after all. Capitalists need someone to act as the adult,
settling disputes and preventing excessively childish behavior (as is
really obvious in the current financial mess). The social democrats --
using the threat implicit and sometimes explicit in mass labor
organization -- could act as the adult and manage capitalism much more
efficiently than the capitalists themselves typically do (cf. Dubya).
If shortened work-days go along with enough of a rise in wages, the
combination can create a larger domestic market while pacifying the
work-force. The demand effect works if capitalism is following the
"model" of the post-WW2 period (until the 1970s or so) which was
centered on serving the domestic market. (This is also the basis for
social-democratic success.)
I think it was Johanna Brenner who argued that the limits on the
working-day that Marx talks about in CAPITAL had the effect of
preventing capitalists from sinking their own collective boat by
over-working labor. (What's good for one capitalist can be destructive
to the whole class.) It was also good for labor.
me:
> 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 [a long list of various decentralized
capitalist organizations] sort of does explain it.
it doesn't explain how the capitalist class _as a whole_ comes to a
_collective_ decision for the country as a whole.
me:
> ... 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.
yes, the workers are divided too.
me:
> 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.
These are decentralized organizations that often compete. How do they
come to a consensus?
> 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
The problem is that most capitalists during the 1920s wanted to keep
wages down, not encourage consumerism.
me:
> 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 ?
in my paragraph above, it wasn't "promoting consumerism" that
conflicted with the long-term collective interest of business. What
most businesses wanted in the 1920s was not consumerism but prevention
of unions, high wages, etc. This conflicted with their own class
interest by _suppressing_ consumption, helping to create a situation
where the economy was prone to a dramatic collapse (1929-30).
Capitalists likely enjoyed the credit-based consumerism of the 1920s,
but suffered due to it during the 1930s (as consumers had too many
debts).
CB:
>> 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.
me:
> Why "naive"? It's hardly enough to throw (extremely mild) insults around.
CB: > How about ignoring the obvious ?
Just because _you_ think something is obvious does not mean that
everyone else thinks it's obvious.
> Saying that the capitalist class leaders don't "get together" deserves
> to be mildly insulted.
so anyone who disagrees with you deserves to be mildly insulted?
In any event, what I disagree with is the idea that capitalism works
primarily by capitalists "getting together." Yes, they do get together
(as I've said before), especially in the state, but they also compete.
The real world of decentralized capitalism does not automatically
produce a capitalist-class consensus. Sometimes, as in the late 1920s,
they sink their own boat.
Also, as I've said, I do not see consumerism as the main theme of the
1920s. It's more like an employers' offensive (like we've seen since
the 1970s).
gotta go.
--
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
