Joel, have you written about this. I would like to learn more.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 07:04:53PM -0400, joel blau wrote: > One of the best indices of how the New Deal both addressed and defused > the mass movements of the 1930s is the way that its social welfare > programs turned people into "clients," rather than full-fledged > "citizens." Although people who were poor (ADC), unemployed (UIB), or > old (Social Security) were now enfranchised in this newly constituted > welfare state, their status as "clients" > marked them as subordinate and retained a distinct whiff of welfare as > little more than organized state charity. > > Joel Blau > > Michael Nuwer wrote: > > Jim Devine wrote: > >> On 10/9/07, Michael Nuwer > >> <nuwermj-/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> In my view it was not the industrial capitalist who understood the > >>> relationship between mass production, high wages and mass > >>> consumption. I > >>> think it was the new deal state, in the 1930s, that pushed this piece > >>> onto capital. > >> > >> and it was the Bonus March and a lot of other mass struggles (sit-down > >> strikes, etc.) that pushed the New Deal state to do anything it did > >> that was worthwhile. > > > > I don't disagree, but I do wish to emphasis that the New Deal state did > > not implement or adopt the demands of the mass struggles. It implemented > > something different. > > > > The specific issue that I'm emphasizing in this thread is that these > > struggles were not only, or primarily, demanding a share of the benefits > > from a mass production economy. Significant parts of the labor force > > were not yet "prisoners of the America dream," to borrow a phrase from > > Mike Davis. > > > > Throughout the period from 1880 to the 1930s important parts of the > > working class struggled for something which never emerged. And, for > > sure, that struggle was not for a piece of the modern mass consumption > > pie. > > > > It was only after labor's alternative (trade-union autonomy) was > > closed-off by the courts and statute that industrial pluralism could, > > and did, emerge. American capital was forced to make compromises to > > labor under this newly emerging system, but these compromises in no way > > threatened the primary prerogative to manage the production process or > > to determine the social division of labor. > > -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
