From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 08:56:00 EDT
Hi Anders. > And I think that empirically the development of wages in the Nordic > countries (espec. Norway and Sweden) after WW II can be interpreted to > support Ian's point. That is - when labour movement is strong - when > workers are free to form the wage system - there will be (and still is) a > strong urge for wage equalisation. The narrowing of wage differentials is > very marked from 1945 - 1985. And this was not the result of Nordic > "harmony" - on the contrary - in Norway we "lost" more workdays in the > thirties than any other European country - there was very hard class > confrontations. Same in Sweden. The post-WWII experience that you refer to in Norway and Sweden was a consequence of the deliberate strategy by trade unions to reduce wage differentials (i.e. 'wage solidarity'). The influence of the trade union leadership in the (social-democratic) government was also an important factor in determining state and corporate responses to these workers' struggles. While the historical experience that you refer to is real enough for these individual capitalist social formations, on what basis can you claim that there is a historical _tendency_ that there will be reductions in wage inequalities under capitalism as a consequence of workers' striving for equality? I.e. on what basis can you claim that there is a general tendency for wage equalization rather than a contrary claim that these experiences are the consequence of highly contingent factors associated with workers struggles in individual (and, in significant ways, atypical) capitalist social formations? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 16 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT