I
The question just requires some basic economics and an understanding of the interests of capitalism.
The New Deal was passed in the 1930's, when the Soviet Union was hella weak and despite radicalism among the American working class, support for communism was low. The Soviet Union itself was only able to defeat Germany in WW2 because of massive amounts of material aid provided by the USA. Remember that at the end of the war the USA had over half of the global industrial capacity. The Soviet Union and the rest of the eastern block still relied on loans from the west in addition to trade in order to survive, up until 1991.
Above the point was raised that the huge portion of the American economy devoted to military production in the post-war years has hurt the economy. This was responded to with the claim that said production hurt profits, but maintained capitalism. This is true, but also ignores an important point: Because what was being created was not new value, the workers were not producing surplus value for the economy (they were creating surplus value for their capitalist. Surplus value for the individual capitalist and the total national capital are different). As such, their wages were ultimately being paid out of the pockets of other workers and capitalists, and not out of the productivity of their labour and the capital they worked. Put another way, those workers, and the industry they were in, were a drag on the entire economy, and the wages of all workers. That drag was and is necessary to maintain US dominance, but the point is that maintaining US dominance drives down wages and conditions in the long run as money and machinery and labour is used up making tanks, not capital. Contracting production, not expanded reproduction.
About the claim that wages were pushed up because of countries removed from capitalist exploitation, that's simply not true. The export of capital to, and extraction of surplus value from the colonies/neo-colonies was tiny until the 1980's, and this was after the "neo-liberal" turn.
The high US wages in the post war period were a result of US economic dominance. As that declined, the ability of the capitalist class in the USA to pay higher wages declined, and so they paid lower wages (though some, like Kliman, reject this, and say that workers wages have slightly risen since the 1970's, but the expense of capitalists for a worker, and the amount that worker recieves in payment for labour can be different, as indeed it is in America). As the US economic dominance fell further, so did wages, which are still falling for workers.
After WW2, the Soviet Union was not a political, economic, or military threat to the USA. It could, and did, nibble around the edges, but could never hope to take on the USA and win. The US was not concerned about the SU winning. Rather it was concerned that if not stopped, it might someday win. But that was a military and political project outside of the USA. Inside the USA we do not need to use the USSR to explain the position of workers. We only need to look at how much the economy was able to pay, and the need of capital for workers.
I pointed this out in my post above, but I will say it again here: The workers movement does not wrest concessions from the state. It helps the state do what is in the interests of capitalism, but what may be against the interests of some, or even every capitalist. Higher wages and better working conditions, medical care, and education were needed because the expansion of industry required more workers, required smarter and more skilled workers, required workers to stay healthy, and if those workers were fired, it required that they not stay out of work so long they lose their skills.
American industry has declined. Not in output. America is still the most productive country on the planet, and is still producing more than ever. Though China is catching up. It is declining, however, in its need for workers. Massive new plants that require fewer workers than before, to produce way more than ever. We know this is how capitalism works: Higher productivity, so the cappie fires workers, and those workers have to hope that some other cappie is willing to hire. Well right now, cappies aren't. So since workers are not needed, and have not been needed, in increasing numbers since the 80's, then the reproduction of the working class has been under attack: lower wages, because they don't care if you can't eat. More expensive healthcare, because they don't care if you get sick now. Less, and more expensive education, because they don't need smart workers any more.
Compare this to China, where workers are winning higher wages, access to better healthcare, education, social services, and so on. The CCP isn't scared of workers looking to the USA as an example, rather those things are in the interests of Chinese capitalism. So there is no need to posit the Soviet Union as a boogeyman in the 60's.
The New Deal was passed in the 1930's, when the Soviet Union was hella weak and despite radicalism among the American working class, support for communism was low. The Soviet Union itself was only able to defeat Germany in WW2 because of massive amounts of material aid provided by the USA. Remember that at the end of the war the USA had over half of the global industrial capacity. The Soviet Union and the rest of the eastern block still relied on loans from the west in addition to trade in order to survive, up until 1991.
Above the point was raised that the huge portion of the American economy devoted to military production in the post-war years has hurt the economy. This was responded to with the claim that said production hurt profits, but maintained capitalism. This is true, but also ignores an important point: Because what was being created was not new value, the workers were not producing surplus value for the economy (they were creating surplus value for their capitalist. Surplus value for the individual capitalist and the total national capital are different). As such, their wages were ultimately being paid out of the pockets of other workers and capitalists, and not out of the productivity of their labour and the capital they worked. Put another way, those workers, and the industry they were in, were a drag on the entire economy, and the wages of all workers. That drag was and is necessary to maintain US dominance, but the point is that maintaining US dominance drives down wages and conditions in the long run as money and machinery and labour is used up making tanks, not capital. Contracting production, not expanded reproduction.
About the claim that wages were pushed up because of countries removed from capitalist exploitation, that's simply not true. The export of capital to, and extraction of surplus value from the colonies/neo-colonies was tiny until the 1980's, and this was after the "neo-liberal" turn.
The high US wages in the post war period were a result of US economic dominance. As that declined, the ability of the capitalist class in the USA to pay higher wages declined, and so they paid lower wages (though some, like Kliman, reject this, and say that workers wages have slightly risen since the 1970's, but the expense of capitalists for a worker, and the amount that worker recieves in payment for labour can be different, as indeed it is in America). As the US economic dominance fell further, so did wages, which are still falling for workers.
After WW2, the Soviet Union was not a political, economic, or military threat to the USA. It could, and did, nibble around the edges, but could never hope to take on the USA and win. The US was not concerned about the SU winning. Rather it was concerned that if not stopped, it might someday win. But that was a military and political project outside of the USA. Inside the USA we do not need to use the USSR to explain the position of workers. We only need to look at how much the economy was able to pay, and the need of capital for workers.
I pointed this out in my post above, but I will say it again here: The workers movement does not wrest concessions from the state. It helps the state do what is in the interests of capitalism, but what may be against the interests of some, or even every capitalist. Higher wages and better working conditions, medical care, and education were needed because the expansion of industry required more workers, required smarter and more skilled workers, required workers to stay healthy, and if those workers were fired, it required that they not stay out of work so long they lose their skills.
American industry has declined. Not in output. America is still the most productive country on the planet, and is still producing more than ever. Though China is catching up. It is declining, however, in its need for workers. Massive new plants that require fewer workers than before, to produce way more than ever. We know this is how capitalism works: Higher productivity, so the cappie fires workers, and those workers have to hope that some other cappie is willing to hire. Well right now, cappies aren't. So since workers are not needed, and have not been needed, in increasing numbers since the 80's, then the reproduction of the working class has been under attack: lower wages, because they don't care if you can't eat. More expensive healthcare, because they don't care if you get sick now. Less, and more expensive education, because they don't need smart workers any more.
Compare this to China, where workers are winning higher wages, access to better healthcare, education, social services, and so on. The CCP isn't scared of workers looking to the USA as an example, rather those things are in the interests of Chinese capitalism. So there is no need to posit the Soviet Union as a boogeyman in the 60's.