Tom O'Lincoln red_sites at
Tue Oct 3 17:23:53 MDT 2000

> > An increase in the rate of exploitation provided for by smashing workers
> > organisations.

Einde O'Callaghan replied:
>The bourgeoisie may have smashed the workers' organisations in large
>parts of Europe but this doesn't fit the situation in the USA, which is
>what Tom is talking about. In the USA the level of working class
>organisation at the end of the 1930s was at highpoint after the
>organisation drives of the CIO.

Yes -- although I did foolishly paint myself into a corner by asking about
Germany specifically. :-) There is undoubtedly room for both explanations,
though. What I'd still like to pin down -- and I'm willing to be enlightened
if I'm wrong -- is whether comrades really doubt that arms spending (or any
massive increase in government expenditure) can TEMPORARILY create boom
conditions. If so, then the rearmament drive in the late thirties would be
an explanation for why the depression ended. If not, then many events need

For example, it's generally assumed that the Vietnam war created increased
growth in the late sixties/ early seventies -- even though profit rates were
already coming under pressure by then.  This boom cannot be explained by the
smashing of workers' organisations, since industrial militancy was in fact
rising dramatically. The boom came unstuck after an inflationary spiral, and
I do not suggest that government spending can solve the problems of

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

More information about the Marxism mailing list