raghu wrote:
As I understand it, Ford more than doubled workers salaries in exchange for (1) a calm and productive labor force and (2) allegedly as a form of vendor financing to enlarge the market for his product. Do you seriously believe the workers would have declined such a salary increase?
Yes, I do. Whatever else Fordism means, from a macro point of view it includes labor conceding management's right to manage in exchange for higher consumption. However, in the US there were wide segments of the labor force that were not willing to concede to management the right to manage. That was a long battle and on capital's side the courts were a great help in forcing labor into "wage slavery." The Danbury Hatters case of 1908 is perhaps the best reflection of the role of the courts. The ruling culminates a long process of shaping the labor market and outlawing labor's independence in the economy. Boycotts and closed shops became unlawful while blacklists and "yellow dog contracts" were protected.
At that time, I am sure it seemed like a very worthwhile and progressive experiment. In hindsight we can see that the idea of "paying your workers enough so they can afford your products" has the characteristics of an unsustainable pyramid scheme but that doesn't mean it was forced upon workers at the time.
There were, no doubt, some segments of labor willing to accept subordination at work in exchange for consumerism. But even in 1913 this was not the majority of the labor force. From the wider point of view, mass production required mass consumption and in this sense Fordism might be seen as progressive. But if the US economy had not followed the mass production route (like some of the European economies had not) then mass consumption may not have been necessary. Perhaps some form of civic activity would have become more important in the lives of the working class. As artisans became workers, citizens became consumers. I don't think labor welcomed either of these changes.
