[lbo-talk] Blog Post. The Road Beckons: Excerpt from Cheap Motels and a Hot Plate

[Carrol Cox]

I don't think we're  far apart on this. Language remains a real difficulty,
as I suggested in my brief remarks on "purpose" and "function." Legislatures
don't self-consciously think of themselves as operating in the interest of
Capital, nor is there some mysterious historical 'force' that makes them
automatically act as such. And yet most of the time they act _as if_ one or
the other were the case. 

Carrol

-----Original Message-----
From: lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org [mailto:lbo-talk-bounces at lbo-talk.org]
On Behalf Of Marv Gandall
Sent: Friday, October 04, 2013 2:13 PM
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Blog Post. The Road Beckons: Excerpt from Cheap
Motels and a Hot Plate

On 2013-10-04, at 1:04 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:


> Working-class interests are sometimes served, usually in response to
strong
> mass actions of workers -- but I don't think this is ever, really, "at the
> expense of others [i.e.capital].
> 
> For example. Social Security does, to some extent, serve the interests of
> workers, but it does _not_ do so at the expense of capital, as can be seen
> by comparing the present system to the Townsend Plan, which (perhaps)
> _would_ have been, to some extent, at the "expense" of capital. 
> 
> And sometimes what _seems_ to serve w-c interests actually contradicts
those
> interests: The Wagner Act was a disaster for the American Working Class.
The
> IWW had it right: No contracts, but we strike until management responds to
> our demands. And we go on strike again a day later if Management doesn't
> come across. Stanley Aronowitz is good on this.

I agree with your important point that working class reforms are typically
not at the "expense" of capital, and have argued along the same lines
previously. If sought-for reforms are a net loss for capital, the state will
ignore or, if necesary, repress the movements agitating for them rather than
accepting them in part and shaping them to fit the needs of the system. The
Wagner Act, for example, was a response to factory occupations, bloody
strike confrontations, and other forms of working class protest aiming at
securing union recognition and collective bargaining rights. The Social
Security Act was a very modest response to the demands of the mass Townsend
Act movement for old age pensions. The legislation in each case was meant to
take the steam out of the mass movements while boosting mass purchasing
power within tolerable limits set by the bourgeoisie.

Despite their limitations, however, I would call neither Act a "disaster"
for the American working class, unless it can be shown that the balance of
class forces was such that the trade unions could have sustained the kind of
combativity IWW tactics required and that the masses could have forced the
Roosevelt administration to adopt the Townsend Plan. I can't prove this nor
can you demonstrate the opposite, but that both Acts were widely welcomed by
the workers and their organizations suggests they saw something of value in
each and perceived them as the most which they could accomplish in the
circumstances. 

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk