[lit-ideas] Marxi's influence in America
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 14:21:11 -0800
Robert,
Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that anything was settled just that the
matters were discussed. It's difficult for me to access evidence on that
subject at this point in my life. I studied those matters a long time ago
and no longer have my Marxist and Leftist libraries, but I remain convinced
of the matters I recall. How can I not unless presented with something
conclusively to the contrary? If someone later adopted polices that Marx
previously advocated it might be a coincidence, but it cannot be proved that
it is, and Marx was such an influential force I tend to discount the
coincidences. Also, I have read Marxists, better studied on the subject than
I am who take credit (for Marx) for many of these influences in American
life.
Here is another quote about Marx and the eight hour day. This one from
http://www.workers.org/cm/ch08.html
"Not less skillfully did the London delegates defend Marx's resolution
concerning the eight-hour day. In contradistinction to the French delegates,
they maintained together with Marx that a condition precedent to any further
efforts to improve and liberate the working class and without which all
efforts would be futile was a legislative limitation of the length of the
working day. It was essential to restore the health and the physical energy
of the working class -- the vast majority of each nation -- and also to
insure them the possibility of intellectual development, social communion,
and political activity. The Congress, on the recommendation of the General
Council, declared the eight-hour day as the legislative maximum. This
limiting of the workday to eight hours was one of the demands of the workers
in the United States. The Geneva Congress incorporated this demand into the
platform of the working class of the whole world. Night work was allowed
only in exceptional cases, in branches of industry and certain professions
definitely specified by the law. The ideal was the elimination of all night
work." [Italics added]
In the American labor movement in the early decades of the 20th century,
Marx's ideas were out there in the form of pamphlets and word of mouth.
Communists attempted to capture the American labor movement. Big Bill
Haywood organized a home-grown Marxist labor Union which was overthrown by
Hoover. The Communists never did very well here because our labor movements
were convinced that they could succeed on their own, and they did.
Thugs hired by Capitalist enterprises to break up unions and strikes and
intimidate or kill union leaders were extremely vicious. Business policies
were equally ruthless and vicious. I grew up in a union family. My father
was a member of the Operating Engineers. He drove a lumber carrier on the
docks in the L.A. Harbor. When I was going to college, I was a member of
the Teamster's Union and worked part time out of the Teamster's Hiring Hall.
Things were much mellower by that time, but I grew up knowing about Unions
and the ruthlessness of Big Business.
In modern times, businesses understand that "Parkinson's Law" is at work:
Businesses grow (in numbers) in direct proportion to the length of time they
have been in existence rather than in terms of the amount of work to be
done, so they all, if they are to remain successful have periodic "layoffs."
I worked in Aerospace for 39 years and "survived" a great number of them.
They were supposed to be based upon merit. That is, managers were told to
layoff a certain percentage of their workers, say 10%. The best workers
were to be retained. The manager didn't need to be told this, because the
best workers would make him look better than the worst workers. The workers
had an incentive to work hard to make sure they were never at the bottom of
a "totem poll" for they knew that another layoff was eventually coming.
There was a time when I was in my late 50s working on the C-17 and the
company modified the layoff philosophy slightly. The emphasis wasn't just
on the poorest performers. It also included the oldest and higher paid
workers. Since I was in that category I thought it likely I would be laid
off at that time, but the Air Force sent our management a formal letter
"viewing with alarm" the rate at which the experience level was dropping at
the company. If it dropped any further, our management was told, the Air
Force could not retain its current high degree of confidence in our ability
to design, produce, deliver and maintain the superior product they were
paying for and expected. Thus, I was not laid off after all.
Interestingly, and very much to the point, in the last few years before I
(voluntarily) retired (at age 64)I received very poor "merit" increases,
despite the fact that I was doing some very responsible work representing
engineering on a Change Review Board and getting glowing reviews by the
Managers familiar with my work. The management I technically worked for was
young (paid less than I was) and unfamiliar with what I did. I doubted they
could understand it. They said "The managers over there say you are the
best thing since sliced bread. We find that hard to believe." At the same
time my pay was not increasing very rapidly, my 401 was growing by leaps and
bounds as a result of Boeing stock increasing because of their ruthless
management practices (something investors are very fond of). So I was
suffering and benefiting at the same time.
Lawrence
-----Original Message-----
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Robert Paul
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 12:39 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Nation Building
Lawrence wrote:
> As we've discussed elsewhere, some Marxist ideals like the 8 hour
> working day have been incorporated into American Society. I believe
> the last time I mentioned this some scoffed, and thought it was
> FDR. I was basing my statement on having struggled through most of
> /Das Kapital /years ago. Here is Marx on the "Working Day."
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm
Lawrence, we did not 'discuss' this earlier. You asserted that various
social and economic benefits enjoyed in Western democracies were derived
from Marx, e.g. 'old age insurance,' the eight hour day. However, you
simply asserted this and provided no evidence at all that this was so.
I replied to you in brief detail. You did not reply, and write now as if
the matter were settled. The section from Marx you supply, interesting
as it is, is an analysis of the competing claims between workers (paid
by the hour or day) and their employers. It points out, quite reasonably
that the interests of these parties are going to be at odds. It does not
mention the eight hour day: it points out the reasonableness of limiting
the work day, in terms of mutual self interest.
"We see then, that, apart from extremely elastic bounds, the nature of
the exchange of commodities itself imposes no limit to the working-day,
no limit to surplus-labour. The capitalist maintains his rights as a
purchaser when he tries to make the working-day as long as possible, and
to make, whenever possible, two working-days out of one. On the other
hand, the peculiar nature of the commodity sold implies a limit to its
consumption by the purchaser, and the labourer maintains his right as
seller when he wishes to reduce the working-day to one of definite
normal duration. There is here, therefore, an antinomy, right against
right, both equally bearing the seal of the law of exchanges. Between
equal rights force decides. Hence is it that in the history of
capitalist production, the determination of what is a working-day,
presents itself as the result of a struggle, a struggle between
collective capital, i.e., the class of capitalists, and collective
labour, i.e., the working-class."
I think you may have forgotten, if you ever knew, how vicious capitalism
was during the time Marx wrote. Given that, it's surprising to me that
Marx was as temperate as he was.
Although it's clear that Marx believed that there should be a rational
constraint upon how many hours workers should be required to work, this
notion is not by any means peculiar to him and the push for an eight
hour day by the groups I mentioned earlier was not an outgrowth of
Communist doctrine. 'Eight hours for work, eight hours for rest, and
eight hours for what we will,' was the rallying cry of workers who did
not want their lives to be 'sweated from birth until life closes.'
Robert Paul
The Reed Institute
------------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts:
