On Sep 3, 2010, at 2:49 PM, Eric Beck wrote:
>> also increases the relative bargaining power of labor against capital.
>
> True, but at a cost, no? Wasn't that power gained at least in part
> through domestic slavery, Jim Crow, and the exporting of higher levels
> of exploitation?
Those things came under intense attack during the Keynesian era. I don't see how they sustained the arrangement in any essentail way.
> As you've said in the past, the only barrier
> capitalism can't overcome is polarization. This bargaining power for
> *segments* of labor was made possible by its assent to capital's
> stratifications.
There were gains across the income distribution. Inequality lessened. When Keynesianism was undone, polarization increased. So this "segments of labor" business doesn't really hold water.
>> It's why capital hates Keynesian arrangements, and set out to bust them up
>> in the late 1970s.
>
> Those arrangements were under attack well before the 70s. Workers got
> tired of all bosses, union as well as corporate, not to mention
> fathers and husbands.
Keynesianism and the patriarchy were somehow mutually dependent?
>> but the ruling class doesn't see it that way.
>
> I can't imagine why we should be concerned with the way "the" ruling
> class sees things.
Yeah, there is something like a ruling class. Not always unified and coherent, but it's there. And it often has a better sense of the class struggle than the ruled.
Doug