There’s a scene at the start of Preston Sturges’ Sullivans Travels (1941) in which John L. Sullivan, an action star who wants to make “important” social-problem films, describes an action fight scene in his movie as an allegory of Capital and Labor. The joke is now multilayered. It’s funny because Sullivan’s film is simply an action film, not an allegory. It’s a satire of the pomposity, supposed or real, of “serious” cinema of the time and of rich people who want to imagine themselves oppressed. And from our perspective today, the whole notion of a battle between Capital and Labor, as reified and distinct entities, seems incongruous, making Sullivan seem even more a buffoon.
That, at least is the only explanation I can come up with for odd misreadings like the one Brad DeLong and Max Sawicky point out in the Washington Post. The short item wonders why wages have lagged behind economic growth, inflation and productivity gains. “Doesn’t the Washington Post have anyone who knows about profits?” Brad asks.
Maybe they don’t, but the issue is also ideological. There’s a notion that since the historical conditions and ideological mindset that produced the Capital vs. Labor of Sullivan’s day is outdated (i.e. since unreconstructed Socialism is dead), that one can’t possibly frame economic questions as a class conflict between capital and labor, even if in fact that’s exactly what’s going on. As Brad has pointed out, the changing distribution of national income (which held roughly 30 percent to capital, 70 percent to labor for much of the latter half of the 20th century) is one of the big stories of the day.
No comments have been added to this post yet.