Re: [OT] USA Elections
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 05, 2012
- 2961 views
The advent of capitalism was indeed a "liberal" event, bringing change and "liberation" from the economic and even social status quo. Centuries later, capitalism was the status quo, at least outside of Russia. By 1929, the United States and much of the world, had seen the ugly underbelly of laissez- faire capitalism. Capitalist exploitation of labor was so vicious that Slave holders in the antebellum South argued that their slaves were better off than the "wage slaves" in northern factories. Southern Slave holders were "conservatives" - most of their "capital" was invested in slaves.
Yeah...I'm not really very interested in what former slave owners thought about things. In fact, the 1920s were incredibly prosperous, and not just for the upper classes.
The problem is that free market capitalism almost always ends up treating labor as a necessary commodity. If the price of that commodity can be reduced then the price of the goods can be reduced and the less expensive goods will prevail in the market place.
That's a feature, not a bug! Ask the millions of Chinese who have recently moved out of the middle ages. Ask the people who shop at places like Walmart and have a better standard of living as the result of lower prices.
The New Deal legislation supporting the right to collective bargaining, increased the freedom and power of labor vis a vis that of the capitalist factory owners. Now, if you were/are a capitalist, most likely this reeks of incipient communism and oppressive government intervention.
Yes, the 1930s (and really, it started with Hoover...FDR just built on what he started) should have been enough to prove that when the government gets active and tries to make things better, it fails. Not unlike the other 20th century experiments in statism.
But, if you were a coal miner, who got paid in company script which could only be used in company stores, I dare say you would view government support of the "right" of labor to collectively bargain for better wages and benefits very liberating.
Not very liberating to collectively bargain for nothing. I'm not arguing that people weren't taken advantage of. But the Wagner Act was and continues to be a disaster.
Even though the term "liberal" has not always referred to an "active" government, that philosophy has been a part of the U.S. since the beginning of the republic. Indeed, the very reason the U.S. Constitution was conceived was in response to the need for a stronger central government which was more "energetic".
Whoa, there. Yes, more centralized than the Articles of Confederation, but that's not saying much. This is one of my favorite lines in the Declaration of Independenct, which seems ever more relevant today:
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our People, and eat out their substance.
Matt
