I think there was another small event that occurred around the same time that confounds things a bit. An event which VERY heavily involved industrialists.

▲

smallmancontrov 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

WWII profiteering doesn't explain why the same middle class emergence happened in countries that got bombed to smithereens.

This is a labor power story, not a war profits story.

▲

9rx 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Funnily enough, there is a compelling argument that France adopting the 40 hour work week weakened its army and that is what encouraged Hitler to become aggressive. That small event might never have occurred without the 40 hour work week (albeit not the US 40 hour work week that the rest of the discussion is about).

▲

smallmancontrov 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Mmmhmm. Every little labor victory helps Hitler, dontcha know? You wouldn't want to help Hitler, would ya?

These arguments were omnipresent at the time but they suddenly faded away when Hitler got his ass kicked. I wonder why?

▲

9rx 14 hours ago | parent [-]

You might want to revisit the history books. WWII didn't help Hitler.

▲

smallmancontrov 14 hours ago | parent [-]

My point exactly: why do you think the anti-labor arguments that rhyme with yours went away when Hitler got his ass kicked?

	▲	9rx 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You shot who in the what now? What we do know is that the 40 hour workweek went by the wayside during the war. The US, for example, mandated a minimum wartime workweek of 48 hours in 1943. It would be quite reasonable to conclude that Hitler would have won if labor didn't take the loss. Presumably that is what you are expressing? I guess what you're struggling to get out is that those sayings were true and thus became adopted as common knowledge? It is the case that people stop talking about things that are already commonly accepted. If it weren't that way we'd be sitting around talking about 1+1=2 all day, every day. It still remains unclear what you think that adds to the discussion, though.