Regulating capitalism: The Taylor Society and political economy in the interwar period (original) (raw)

AI-generated Abstract

The historical narrative shows how during the 1930s the Taylor Society became an important component of the political and economic network that put forward a Keynesian strategy based on the expansion of mass consumption (and thus social purchasing power) via the intervention of the state. This network was critical of the corporatist program, embodied in the National Recovery Administration, in which that state would sanction cartellike arrangements among capitalists to reduce destructive competition, restrict production, and fix prices. This system of industrial self-regulation entailed minimal state intervention and a reduced role for the unions and the collective bargaining. The Keynesian strategy advanced by the Taylor Society and its allies, on the other hand, advocated an expanded and strong role for the state and unions in the political economy, along with macroeconomic policies that promoted social purchasing power and expanded mass consumption. During the "Second New Deal" the Keynesian elite entered the corridors of power and many of its members took key administrative positions in the welfare state. From these positions they attempted to shape the American political economy.

Capitalist Class Agency and the New Deal Order

Review of Radical Political Economics, 2013

In the United States the apparent crisis of neoliberalism has called forth nostalgia for the regulated capitalism of the post World War II era. In particular, radical economists’ thinking continues to be influenced by the notion of a “limited postwar capital-labor accord.” But a careful accounting of historial scholarship since the 1980s shows the stylized thinking found in social structures of accumulation (SSA) literature and radical political economy generally to be inaccurate and misleading: inaccurate because it creates an image of a golden age that never was, and misleading in that it suggests a politics of social cooperation rather than worker militancy. In this paper we show that capitalists as a class never accepted anything resembling such an accord.JEL classification: B5, J5, N32

The New Deal and American Society, 1933–1941

2021

The New Deal and American Society, 1933-1941 explores what some have labeled the third American revolution, in one concise and accessible volume. This book examines the emergence of modern America, beginning with the 100 Days legislation in 1933 through to the second New Deal era that began in 1935. This revolutionary period introduced sweeping social and economic legislation designed to provide the American people with a sense of hope while at the same time creating regulations designed to safeguard against future depressions. It was not without critics or failures, but even these proved significant in the ongoing discussions concerning the idea of federal power, social inclusion, and civil rights. Uncertainties concerning aggressive, nationalistic states like Italy, Germany, and Japan shifted the focus of FDR's administration, but the events of World War II solidified the ideas and policies begun during the 1930s, especially as they related to the welfare state. The legacy of the New Deal would resonate well into the current century through programs like Social Security, unemployment compensation, workers' rights, and the belief that the federal government is responsible for the economic well-being of its citizenry. The volume includes many primary documents to help situate students and bring this era to life. The text will be of interest to students of American history, economic and social history, and, more broadly, courses that engage social change and economic upheaval.

Lessons from the political economy of the New Deal

Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 2010

The New Deal produced a fundamental change in the structure of American government. The national government came to play a much larger role in the financing of social welfare programmes, while administration of the programmes was largely located at the states. Both the purely national and the shared 'federal' parts of the welfare system were characterized by impersonal rules. The political economy of how the rules came about and how the New Deal experience may have contributed to Americans changing their views on the danger of dealing with the national government is the primary focus. The paper closes with speculations about the possible effect of changing views on American participation in the Second World War after 1939.

Capitalist Class Agency and the New Deal Order: Against the Notion of a Limited Capital-Labor Accord

In the United States the apparent crisis of neoliberalism has called forth nostalgia for the regulated capitalism of the post World War II era. In particular, radical economists' thinking continues to be influenced by the notion of a " limited postwar capital-labor accord. " But a careful accounting of historial scholarship since the 1980s shows the stylized thinking found in social structures of accumulation (SSA) literature and radical political economy generally to be inaccurate and misleading: inaccurate because it creates an image of a golden age that never was, and misleading in that it suggests a politics of social cooperation rather than worker militancy. In this paper we show that capitalists as a class never accepted anything resembling such an accord.

The national economy: A Keynesian myth

1984

The ideology of the managed economy gave labour in the industrialized countries the illusion of control. It seemed that the national patch in principle could be controlled- full employment, rising real incomes and expanding welfare systems could all be attained by skillful direction of the State. The most extreme example of the ideology was in Eastern Europe, where workers were supposedly invited to exchange guaranteed material conditions... for a complete withdrawal from any political role. The decade of the seventies was most instructive in showing why that guarantee could not be offered. Not only was `socialism in one country ' impossible, so also was `capitalism in one country '.-Nigel Harris, Of Bread and Guns (1983), p. 237. • THE INTERNATIONALIZATION of capital re-emerged as an issue in the political economy of Britain during the mid-1960s, as politicians and trade unionists became aware of both the growing penetration by us firms in Britain's industrial econom...

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.