Postwar worker demands and state reformist concessions drove each other in an escalating spiral

Evidence

By the time the armistice came into force in November 1918, these two groups were already moving in complement with one another. On one side, the working rank and fi le were galvanized by their hope for social reforms. State interventions to better these workers’ material conditions had spurred the workers’ sense of their rights, but also deeply frustrated them— the reforms that passed never seemed to match their emancipatory expectations. Reformists, meanwhile, were growing in number and in ambition— they felt pressure from below and were preoccupied with staving off a revolution. Th e more the workers demanded, the more the reconstructionists were ready to push for a new social order. In turn, these greater social reforms heightened workers’ aspirations to break from the system. — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 223

Categorization

  • XREF: This escalating workers-demands-versus-reformist-concessions spiral prefigures the familiar dynamic Mattei’s thesis will argue austerity was built to reverse — connects to the book’s overall argument and to scholarship on why 1918-1920 radical reformism failed. — connects to: Workers’ wartime indispensability empowered postwar demands to transform the economic system — Clara E. Mattei, Escape from Capitalism: An Intervention, 174; Postwar social tension forced state officials to concede citizenship rights to workers; State wartime intervention fused economic and political labor struggles. — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order: How Economists…, 374 (+3 more)
  • DEEPTHINKING: The claim that well-intentioned state reforms simultaneously raised emancipatory expectations and stoked revolutionary spirit — that appeasement can fuel rather than quell the demand to break the system — is a dense, counterintuitive mechanism worth sitting with.

Broader Connections