Marxist Analysis of 1920s America

[Redistribute the Rep]

So, for English class we're reading Fitzgerald's "Great Gatsby" (if you aren't familiar it's basically about these rich careless assholes). So anyway, I'm trying to understand how one would apply historical materialism to this time period. Fitzgerald touches on the distinctions between the "old rich" aristocracy and the "new rich" bourgeoisie. So I guess that represents the shift from feudalism to capitalism? But I'm kinda confused because I never really thought of there being a feudal aristocracy in the United States, I feel like that applies more to Europe. So I guess I just need help understanding the material conditions of this time period. Any thoughts?

[Red Economist]

The mode of production is not homogenous and neither is a ruling class, but can have sub-groups. I think Fitzgerald might be making the distinction between capitalist landowners ('old rich') and the new industrial or financial capitalists ('new rich') within the same capitalist class, the latter emerged particularly after the 1870's because their was a period of acute monopolization around then and their position was consolidated during the 1920's (arguably as "finance capital", the fusion of industry and banking).
As far as I know, the term "feudalism" is not applicable to the United States, though the colonial era may well have had some feudal aspects, but not enough to be considered the dominant mode of production as in the case of Europe.

[Bala Perdida]

Ah. I read that book last year! I hate the glorified wealthy lifestyle that people took from it!:mad:
Anyways, from my understanding the US basically started out as a polyarchy-feudalistic system. Early on it had slaves, servants, peasants, workers, merchants, plantation owners, and so on. All the qualities of a feudalist system, with the illusion of the people being represented. Since the US revolution was carried out by wealthy merchants and plantation owners, they started to quickly develop a bourgeoisie. The bourgeois cause was further helped since the revolution was heavily inspired by classical liberalism and the right to property, laissez faire, etcetera. This was further strengthened by the fact that only wealthy land owning males could vote.
Eventually, with all the exploitable resources in the US the north quickly industrialized and the divide became increasingly bourgeoisie and proletarian. A similar thing happened in the south, except it was more agricultural for most of the 19th century.
By the turn of the century they basically had a capitalist society as described by Marx. Throughout the change, the land owners, merchents, and machine owners became the owners of the factors of production. They had immense wealth for decades by the turn of the century. By the 1920's bankers, oil businesses, and new factory owners had also established their wealth. These bourgeoisie mentioned all composed the so called "old money". Privilege and wealth was an established common place for the families and generation of "old money", and their wealth was gained through "legitimate" means.
The 1920's is also a famous era for vices, especially because of the prohibition causing a flourishing black market in the vice scene. I'm not sure if this is a term we use, but the "new money" is what I call the black market bourgeoisie. The black market bourgeoisie get their money through "ilegitimate" or illegal means. Throughout the book it is heavily implied that Gatsby is an alcohol trafficker/smuggler. These black market bourgeoisie, like Al Capone, where popping up across the country during the prohibition. Since few operations where organized and influencial, like the Italian crime families, most of the individuals that became black market bourgeoisie where seen as young, reckless, and temporary. The disorganized black market bourgeoisie also brought in less money than the more organized and normal bourgeoisie, which is why Gatsby is mentioned to be renting his mansion rather than owning it.
The generations brought up bourgeoisie, heavily differed in manners from the newer black market bourgeoisie. It's this difference and rivalry between the two that I think is depicted in "The Great Gatsby", rather than the class struggle. Although, it does give a glimpse of the class struggle, especially since Tom (the old money bourgeoisie, not sure about the name) cheats on his wife with a proletarian who cheats on her husband. This has fatal consequences for a character at the end. Last year I didn't think much of it, but now that's my favorite part. Jajaja
I hope this helps, and answers your question.

[Jimmie Higgins]

So, for English class we're reading Fitzgerald's "Great Gatsby" (if you aren't familiar it's basically about these rich careless assholes). So anyway, I'm trying to understand how one would apply historical materialism to this time period. Fitzgerald touches on the distinctions between the "old rich" aristocracy and the "new rich" bourgeoisie. So I guess that represents the shift from feudalism to capitalism? But I'm kinda confused because I never really thought of there being a feudal aristocracy in the United States, I feel like that applies more to Europe. So I guess I just need help understanding the material conditions of this time period. Any thoughts?

Hi,

To be honest, this was not one of my favorite books that we had to read in High School. They basically taught it to us because Fitzgerald is a prominent figure and the book is culturally closely associated with the spirit of that era. The US 20s are usually characterized in pop-history as a carefree time of prosperity and frivoulous passtimes; and then this is contrasted with the seriousness of the Depression era (which was really just as frivilous if you see the majority of the kinds of movies and entertainment that came out... later things got darker with the rise of the NAZIs and war between powers).

There are lots of aspects of that era in the US that could be discussed in a materialist view though - are there particular aspects? I mean I think for the book (and I don't remember the details, so this will just have to be general) the "party-atmosphere" is most likly a reflection on the prosparity enjoyed at the top of society in a country that came out on a winning side of the World War without any real damage and in a much stronger industrial and imperial position. The US went from being a power in the Americas to being one of the top powers in the world. The labor unrest and growing radicalism in the early part of the centrury was momentarily repressed, the IWW was more or less broken, Anarchists were rounded up, the Socialist Party wasn't as popular, and the Left wing radicals of the IWW and socialists who would later become the basis for the CP were still divided and not able to make many inroads, though there were some major labor struggles in the applatchian region, etc. Along with political repression, the KKK re-emerged as a mainstream and large organization in the 1920s and hung out with Congress. In short, the ruling class was feeling pretty good in the 1920s.

Culturally this was reflected by a lot of optimism of the "anyone can make it" sort and there was a sort of entrepunureal evangelicalism going on where making money (rather than just having it, being born with it) was cultrually see as a virtue in a much more widespread way. That's what I think is being refelected in Gatsby: it's not "old money" aristocracy vs. "new" bourgeois money: it's just old family capitalist money (WASPs, old families and rich-people networks) vs Industrial new money made by businessmen.

I'm not sure if this is exactly reflected in the text, but my guess is that Gatsby being a gangster also reflects some post-war unease: like present prosperity that looks so nice and innocent was only made possible because a whole generation of Europeans were killed in trenches.

As I remember there are class tensions reflected in the book, but I don't think they are material in basis. It's more like tensions among rich people about new vs. old money... new money uses this wealth to try and buy itself into the culture of old money, but can never really fit in; possibly middle class tensions about "illegitimate" wealth of the idle rich, etc. This doesn't mean that you can't do a marxist/materialist reading of the material... I just think it's not going to be directly reflected in the ways class and wealth are shown in the book.

[Redistribute the Rep]

Thanks for the replies, comrades.

I was reading Lenin's The State and Revolution today, and he said


The imperialist war has immensely accelerated and intensified the process of transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism"

What does he mean by this? I don't understand the difference between these or how he connects WWI to this transformation. Does the Great Gatsby exemplify this transformation? Or is he more referring to Europe?

[ComradeOm]

What does he mean by this? I don't understand the difference between these or how he connects WWI to this transformation. Does the Great Gatsby exemplify this transformation? Or is he more referring to Europe?Here Lenin is referring to the emergence of war economies. That is, the move from the pre-war economies of imperialism (ie 'monopoly capitalism') to a situation whereby the state (ie 'state monopoly capitalism' or simply 'state capitalism') is the primary driver and actor in the economy.

In short, WWI saw an abandonment of the pretence of laissez faire philosophy as the state in the war countries largely took over the direction of the economy. It set targets for industry, handled rationing/distribution and generally looked to mobilise the nation's economic resources for the war effort. For example, in the US the Ford assembly lines were put to use producing trucks, boats and aircraft engines for the military. Lenin saw this as a further development of the imperialist economy - one bent towards war and directed by the state.

Ultimately of course the war ended and state economic controls were relaxed. The 1920s saw a return, at least in part, to the pre-war economic freedoms and there was no major economic institutional legacy. (The state did not disappear so easily following WWII, with the rise of European planism.) The exception was Russia where the NEP period did see a genuine form of state capitalism emerge - a market economy largely directed by the state.