8 Comments
User's avatar
Ziggy's avatar

It reminds me of the recent press coverage of slaveholders' wealth after the Civil War. They had most of their property expropriated with the Fifteenth Amendment, but regained their social status and power within a generation. The class coherence of the wealthy is always a thing to behold.

CD James's avatar

Wow! Reminds me of how lucky I was to have had two amazing political science professors in college who elucidated much of this framework and started the lesson with a little puzzle: How was the Nazi Party able to arise from one of the most liberal democratic states of the time? I don’t think any of us realized that was the environment from which the Nationalist Socialist Party arose! They also mentioned that this was why the Nazis used the term “socialist” in naming their political party—cause everyone was a democratic socialist at the time (Haven’t fact checked this, but wouldn’t be surprising). Thank you for another stimulating conversation.

Glenda Burgess's avatar

This gave me chills, AT. The faces in the mirror—different names, same game plan across history.

Tomas  Alan's avatar

Have the top 0.01 percent income share and the composition accounted MEFO? Some historians claimed that those bills were never exchanged for Reichsmarks and were never paid off. If the factories cannot pay the workers with or or used those MEFO income. It might reduce the validity of your argument of increasing inequality, as the purchasing power of the controlled wage of those workers should not be diminished by the top 1%'s MEFO capital income.

GG's avatar

See Eric Villard "L'ordre du jour" (Prix Goncourt 2017) - starts with the 1933 Feb. 20 meeting

Thomas Weiß's avatar

„small minority“? I checked one of the first ones on the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuehne_%2B_Nagel

Renate Bridenthal's avatar

The Marshall Plan had no impact on postwar wealth accumulation?