Re: Re: The Prince

[Eugene Coyle <eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx>]

The era of "progressive reform" that Jim extols below after WW II also
contained the Taft-Hartley Act, which by itself explains the collapse, the
slow collapse, of the labor movement over the next fifty years.  What looked
like progressive reform was a wave cresting while below it the sharks were
seeing the feast.

Gene Coyle

Jim Devine wrote:

> >... LBJ & Nixon had to adopt some progressive domestic policy stances in
> >order to continue the wars abroad while deflecting & coopting the domestic
> >challenges to inequality.  As Machiavelli noted, the Prince can't afford
> >to fight two wars (at home & abroad) at the same time.  When the Prince
> >does not make enough concessions, domestic revolts may become a revolution
> >(e.g., WWI & the Russian Revolution).
>
> In general, the US has seen major surges of progressive reform during
> recent wars. World War II and the quick segue into the permanent Cold War
> helped produce a domestic working class with wealth (war-bonds), education
> (the GI Bill), and housing (ditto). My friend Phil Klinkner recently
> co-authored a book that argues that war and cold war have been a major
> source of progress in race relations between Blacks & Whites.
>
> Of course, war and cold war have also involved police repression (the Smith
> Act, the Truman-McCarthy era, COINTELPRO, etc.) The link between reforms
> and repression seems a more general phenomenon, as seen during the
> class-struggle period of the early 1900s when the capitalist elite allied
> with Samuel Gompers' AF of L in the pro-business National Civic Federation
> as that independent unions, the IWW, and Eugene Debs were repressed more
> and more. At the same time some of the opposition is bought off, the more
> independent parts are repressed. This occurs not only during external wars
> but also during internal class struggle.
>
> Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine