The end of reforms

[southernmissfan]

I'd like some input on something I've been wondering lately. During the 20th century, roughly from the 30s through early 70s, America (and other advanced capitalist nations) went through a fairly significant period of reform, both economically and socially/politically. Since then, we have seen nearly all attempts at reform halted, and in fact many of the reforms and programs won in the past are now being scaled back, some to the point of elimination. I've read a little on the subject, and one explanation I gathered was that basically during such a period (like most of the advanced countries had during those decades), the capitalist system could afford such reforms, but now, in later capitalism, little new progress can be made and past reforms must be scaled back or eliminated. What is the reasoning behind this? What were the conditions that allowed workers to win reforms back then and what is different now? Do you think that the age of reform is in fact over?

I've considered a few answers to some of these questions. One simple point is that there's not much more they can offer. But of course that doesn't explain why existing reforms and programs are being scaled back and eliminated. I suppose you could say that it is putting a strain on the system, that governments are having a hard time paying for them (due to increased population and life expectancy, increased spending in other areas, etc.), and that some countries are dialing back reforms due to struggling economies (France and Germany come to mind). But I may be way off here.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

s.m.f wrote:I'd like some input on something I've been wondering lately. During the 20th century, roughly from the 30s through early 70s, America (and other advanced capitalist nations) went through a fairly significant period of reform, both economically and socially/politically. Since then, we have seen nearly all attempts at reform halted, and in fact many of the reforms and programs won in the past are now being scaled back, some to the point of elimination. I've read a little on the subject, and one explanation I gathered was that basically during such a period (like most of the advanced countries had during those decades), the capitalist system could afford such reforms, but now, in later capitalism, little new progress can be made and past reforms must be scaled back or eliminated. What is the reasoning behind this? What were the conditions that allowed workers to win reforms back then and what is different now? Do you think that the age of reform is in fact over?


Popular propaganda is that capitalism cannot afford social welfare programs anymore but it is basically reclaiming profits through tax cuts and turning government programs over to the private sector. I've been aware for a number of years that the Conservative movement propaganda is that government does poorly in administring social programs (being socialist in nature) and that big government is bad. These belief were taken from the Libertarians for their own use during the 1980's. Republicans and some Democrats get elected just to make sure social programs are administered poorly. If any are efficient they are eliminated. This is done so that private businesses can take up those programs for profit all from your tax dollars. The parasites of wage slavery are now exploiting the very taxes we glorified slaves pay into while, on the other hand, they get tax relief.

Also:I've considered a few answers to some of these questions. One simple point is that there's not much more they can offer. But of course that doesn't explain why existing reforms and programs are being scaled back and eliminated. I suppose you could say that it is putting a strain on the system, that governments are having a hard time paying for them (due to increased population and life expectancy, increased spending in other areas, etc.), and that some countries are dialing back reforms due to struggling economies (France and Germany come to mind). But I may be way off here.

Another good reason why the capitalist class has been scaling down social programs here and in Europe is because the Soviet Union no longer exist. The stradegy behind reforms was to keep the wage slaves happy and compliant and did not want them to turn on them. For years they cut back on their profit margins to make sure social programs existed and to pay better wages to workers. So, social programs are just reform acts to perserve capitalism and in no way were they socialist in nature. That is why the New Deal was created many years ago. Ronald Ray-gun began the assault on social programs because it was evident that the Soviet Union was on the brink of collapse which it did. IMHO!

[manic expression]

To me, this development was inevitable and always the logical outcome. Ultimately, it shows that reform and regulation can only delay consolidation of wealth under capitalism.

One question that we should answer is why reforms were undertaken in the first place. When I look at history briefly, I see a pattern: after sustained periods of inequity and blatant class warfare, the bourgeoisie are forced to make some concessions (oftentimes this occurs in times of crisis, such as the New Deal during the Great Depression). After the period of reform, the bourgeoisie resume their policies just as before, once again consolidating wealth into fewer and fewer hands.

Just briefly looking at American history: the robber barons in the late 1800's gave way to some reform in the progressive era; the progressive era was followed by the roaring twenties, which was basically lassaiz-faire(ish); the Great Depression necessitated reforms, while the post-war boom created an influx of wealth which established a "middle class" and basically left the cities to ruin (simplistic analysis), a bloc that protected its interests until the 80's; now, we see another period of bourgeois advances and increasing inequity.

Regulations are grudgingly taken by the bourgeoisie for a time, but this only allows them the ability to gather themselves in anticipation of new conflict and concentration of wealth.

As Marx said, the workers do, on occassion, win some victories, but these victories are always gradually overcome by competition and the logical conclusion of capitalism.

That being said, I think the analysis that capitalism could afford those regulations is plausible, but I should think about that theory more before commenting on it. At any rate, this is a very important topic because these developments, to me, are the doorway to a new period of revolutionary activity.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Good reply manic d but as you wrote: As Marx said, the workers do, on occassion, win some victories, but these victories are always gradually overcome by competition and the logical conclusion of capitalism.

Under capitalism workers do join hand-in-hand in demands for benefits, social programs and wages which are eventually taken away a generation or so later because the children don't know the real reasons for the demands to begin with. I see so many today who think that in order to survive and work they have to make consessions to the capitalist. Even trade unions turned red coat and made concessions as we have seen in the past years.

As to new revolutionary (I hate that term) activity...I don't think so. It is evident that the very things won for in the past are lost then re-won later. It is a loop that we have gotten ourselves locked into with no end in sight. I think the only remedy is when workers themselves realise that they control every aspect of the means of production. Its not about whose ideology to follow or how much Marx is known. But a universal awakening among workers. IMHO!

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 03:26 pm
Good reply manic d but as you wrote: As Marx said, the workers do, on occassion, win some victories, but these victories are always gradually overcome by competition and the logical conclusion of capitalism.

Under capitalism workers do join hand-in-hand in demands for benefits, social programs and wages which are eventually taken away a generation or so later because the children don't know the real reasons for the demands to begin with. I see so many today who think that in order to survive and work they have to make consessions to the capitalist. Even trade unions turned red coat and made concessions as we have seen in the past years.

As to new revolutionary (I hate that term) activity...I don't think so. It is evident that the very things won for in the past are lost then re-won later. It is a loop that we have gotten ourselves locked into with no end in sight. I think the only remedy is when workers themselves realise that they control every aspect of the means of production. Its not about whose ideology to follow or how much Marx is known. But a universal awakening among workers. IMHO!
Just to clarify, I meant that class conflict is becoming too much to bear and/or deny, and so the workers will have no choice but to take control of society and overthrow capitalism.

[southernmissfan]

Thanks for the replies so far. Certainly the reforms were never undertaken with a "socialist" motive, as they were simply concessions to the working class during particularly rough times of class struggle and served to dampen revolutionary consciousness and preserve the current class conditions (as both of you elaborated on). I think Manic's examples from American history illustrate this point well, and I actually had it in my mind when writing the initial post.

I think it's common sense to say that revolution will not occur until it is seen as the only viable option left for the proletariat. As long as the reform process has some credibility among and benefits for the working class, revolutionary class consciousness will not take hold. But I guess what I'm trying to get at is how/why does it all end? Does the give/take cycle continue until something happens (perhaps an imperialist war, or something like that) infuriates workers and elevates consciousness to the point where the promise of reform is rendered meaningless and seen as too little, too late? Or will the current trend of fewer and fewer reforms and cutting back of current programs continue and if so, why?

In essence, reform is a method of self-preservation for the bourgeoisie and by extension the capitalist system as a whole. The goal is to find out how the trend plays out.

[Janus]

Or will the current trend of fewer and fewer reforms and cutting back of current programs continue and if so, why?
Capitalists has shown to be quite ingenious at mutating in order to acclimatize with changing conditions in the world thsu extending capitalism's life span. However, there is a critical point for how much capitalists can concede; any period of reform is usually followed by a period of reaction as capitalists know that reforms can always be rolled back at a later point. Once capitalism has reached the end of its growth stage and faces problems with the falling rate of profit as well as market collapses, it is at that point that capitalism will no longer be able to deal with the demands of the people and parellel to this trend we will see the strengthening of the worker's movement and class consciousness which must result in a new society in order to deal with the people's demands.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

manic E. wrote:Just to clarify, I meant that class conflict is becoming too much to bear and/or deny, and so the workers will have no choice but to take control of society and overthrow capitalism.

Class conflict has ebbed and flowed for years here in the U.S. The Great Depression did spark awakening but the capitalist class was able to counter those trends. Now we see reforms being rolled back and often sighted as socialist in nature as I wrote before. The capitalist, as a class, understand what is at stake and have thought out policies with their think tanks and paying attention to trends among workers.

What I musing about lately...a lot of production jobs have been shipped to Third World countries from the First world. I am beginning to believe that behind this trend, other than exploiting cheap labor, would be the lowering of living standards in the First World and an increase in the standard of living in the Third World. The idea is not to make the two meet in the middle but to change places. After standards are raised and reforms are put in place and profits are made. After a number of years go by we would see the capitalist pulling back on reforms and shipping jobs back to their original countries who are now poor enough to be exploited as cheap labor. I don't know if what I wrote is true or not but I can see how a cycle of profits can be made from doing such a thing. What is made in Third world countries is sold here in the West at a high profit rate. But if roles were reversed in 50-70 years then products made here in the West would be sold back to those countries at a high rate of profit. Capitalist will preserve their system at any human cost.