|
I pulled this out from a thread as an OP because I didn't want to threadjack.
There is a lot of talk here about "corporatism", and how we need less of that and more of what FDR and LBJ did. When I look at their administrations, I see Presidents who were "corporatists" to a level that would make Clinton or Obama blush.
The amount of corporate consolidation and increase in power during the New Deal and World War II is astounding. Industries went from having dozens and dozens of small regional players to generally two or three national players. The New Deal made IBM from a bit player in calculators to at its time the world's largest company. The Great Society essentially created EDS. The Communications Act which established the FCC also locked in AT&T/Bell as the sole provider of telephone service for half a century. For that time, Bell Labs functioned as our national laboratory of science, paid for by required contributions to a for-profit company. Their inventions and discoveries include things like the laser, UNIX, the transistor, the fax, information theory, and cosmic background radiation. All done by a lab owned by a private, for-profit corporation empowered by FDR to run the nation's telecommunication systems.
Social Security and Medicare cemented the role of the corporation as the sole "legitimate" employer in the US: because they were funded through corporate payroll levies, anyone who wanted to participate in these programs had to be employed by a corporation, to the extent that enterprises that were never before treated as corporations like doctor's practices and farms had to incorporate to not be shut out of them. The FDIC requirements for banks and the dual-chartering system for credit unions guaranteed that the for-profit banking system would not only dominate the co-operative banking model, but that the system itself would be dominated by large national players rather than small regional players. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic act did make food safer, but in a way that nearly immediately ended the small slaughterhouse and replaced it with large corporate meat-packing plants (to this day the FDA refuses to "waste time" inspecting slaughterhouses that are "too small", with the result that they have to shut down). When the Volstead act was repealed, what had before prohibition been a rich local variety of brewers was transformed by regulations from the newly-reconstituted ATF into the big three brewers of vaguely-beer-like Pilsners we still suffer with today (American beer has only in the past few years begun to recover from that), and the vintners fared even worse (Frank and Ed thank you for your support).
This is not post-facto revisionism: critics at the time complained that FDR was moving to a fascist planned-economy strong-corporate model (Huey P. Long, Father Coughlin, etc.; Churchill described FDR and Mussolini in the same terms, though they weren't criticisms). Google finds dozens of contemporary comparisons of FDR to Mussolini and almost no comparisons to Stalin. The National Recovery Act was contested (and found unconstitutional) as an example of excessive government collusion with corporations to plan the economy. Social Security was derided as a giveway from the bankers to the bankers. Even the TVA (and boy do I miss living in a TVA area) was a corporation owned by the Federal government, rather than a government agency (it was started by the Federal Government buying most of the then-bankrupt power suppliers in situ). In brief (too late!), we entered the Depression with a lot of moderately powerful corporations running the economy and we left it with the government having more or less chosen a much smaller number of much more powerful corporations and encouraging/mandating economic participation of everyone with those corporations. And it worked.
It is simply not the case that government regulation and coroporate power are at odds. Corporations that become powerful usually have done so because of the government. Monsanto would not exist without the USDA and FDA. Microsoft would not exist without the FCC and DoD. Every single field I can think of came out of the New Deal more strongly controlled by a smaller number of corporations compared to how they went in -- and SS and Medicare now required all Americans who wanted to retire and have health care to participate in the corporate economic model.
The very fact that "progressive" is being contrasted with "corporatist" seems blind to this aspect of the history of progressivism. Historical progressives wanted to ameliorate the corporate system and use it as a tool to produce more moral behavior (by their standards) among individuals.
Corporations have always been more powerful in this country than I would like. I don't think they're more powerful today than they were in, say, the 1950's, let alone the 1890's. For that matter, I think the biggest systemic weakness in our economy right now is that the corporate-dominated model that came out of the New Deal and WWII is no longer able to keep up with fully statized corporations/corporatized states a la China. That and the fact that the social contract that once existed was broken -- but it was broken because corporations were becoming too weak to maintain it, not because they got stronger. (Though that is too simplistic; changed SEC governance rules from the 1970's onward provided too much incentive for short-term thinking, and still do -- though those rules themselves were responses to an already-changing corporate culture that now had to fear foreign competition to an extent it had never had to before.)
Corporations do a lot of harm and a lot of good; they produce wealth and poverty (and, yes, less and less in between as time goes on). But FDR saw them as vitally important to the US economy, and pushed legislation that saved the corporations from themselves -- saved capitalism from itself, even -- and produced an economy that was more centrally controlled by a smaller number of larger corporations than before. And that was for all of its flaws a good thing, in the end.
|