[Pen-l] Taft-Hartley and the crisis

["McDonough, Terrence" <terrence.mcdonough@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I'd like to endorse Jim's dating below.  The postwar capitalist expansion cannot be regarded as simply an interruption in the working out of basic capitalist contradictions.  In passing I'd like to invite Jim to come out as an SSA theorist.

Regarding Taft Hartley, the causation did indeed run both ways.  The history of labour organizing in the 30's involves changes in labour legislation leading to stronger movements on the shopfloor leading to changed legislation leading to stronger movements on the shopfloor, etc.  This is the story behind Norris Laguardia, Section 7(A) of the NIRA, and the Wagner Act.  The no strike pledge during WWII set the stage for Taft-Hartley and Taft-Hartley set the stage for the capital-labor relations which consolidated in the postwar period.

Terry

Message: 25
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 2008 08:14:16 -0800
From: "Jim Devine" <jdevine03@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Re: Taft-Hartley & the Crisi
To: "Progressive Economics" <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Message-ID:
        <93dbbd490812160814m39dbed00sc31e20b3d2f22f05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Michael Nuwer:
> So why should the current crises be rooted in the passage of Taft-Hartley
> and not, say the passage of the Federal Reserve Act? (Or any other
> historical regression?)

isn't the crisis be rooted in the invention of credit by Grog, in 4,027 B.C.E.?

If I were forced to choose a date that started the process that led to
the current crisis, it would be August 6, 1979. That's when President
Carter appointed Paul Volcker to run the Fed. Of course, that was
merely the validation of the US shift from one "model" of economic
growth to another, from what Michael might call "corporate liberalism"
to what many call "neoliberalism."

The former "model" (or SSA or mode of regulation or stage) had already
been in crisis for about a decade: it had stopped working (i.e.,
stabilizing accumulation) so that the US saw serious balance of
payments problems that led to Nixon's abandonment of the link between
the USD and gold (and the whole superstructure of fixed
exchange-rates) and to squeezed profit rates and serious stagflation.
The "model" had to be replaced with _something_ and the capitalists --
including their financial cousins -- hit upon the accelerated one-side
class war of neoliberalism, a "modern" version of 19th century
liberalism.

The old "model" was that of US-centric growth bolstered by the
warfare/welfare state and resting on the US dominance in
manufacturing, finance, and the military realm. Despite the weak state
of organized labor -- and its steady weakening due to the gnawing of
the slow one-sided class-war of the period -- most workers were able
to share in the benefits of rising GDP. That's gone.

> Taft-Hartley didn't weaken the labor movement in the
> USA; the weak labor movement make Taft-Hartley possible.

It's likely that causation ran both ways.
--
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
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l