This article develops a class conflict model to describe the process of corporate relocation and deindustrialization in a Marxian context. While others have identified that class conflict plays a role in this relocation, the intent here is to explore how class conflict shapes deindustrialization. To achieve this, this article defines direct and indirect class conflict, rooted in the concept of class-interested behavior, as key mechanisms driving deindustrialization. In either case of class conflict, when deindustrialization proceeds, capital prevails over labor. In developing the initial steps of a framework with which to analyze deindustrialization, it examines historical examples in the United States from 1940 to 1980 across different industries, to show how this process works in practice.
BattistaJ (2022) A new timeline for deindustrialization: The movement of auto corporations in the US and Detroit. Essays in Economic & Business History40: 84–113.
2.
BattistaJ (2023) Deindustrialization of Detroit: The push of organized labor. Labor History60(5): 631–652.
3.
BattistaJ (2024) Deindustrialization of Detroit: The costs of movement. Essays in Economic & Business History42(1): 1–14.
4.
BluestoneBHarrisonB (1982) The Deindustrialization of America: Plant Closings, Community Abandonment and the Dismantling of Basic Industry. New York: Basic Books.
5.
BoyleSE (1974) A Reorganization of the U.S. Automobile Industry. A Modest Proposal to Obtain a Competitive Industry for Motor Vehicles. (Prepared for and Presented to the Committee on Antitrust and Monopoly of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate. Governmental).
6.
BravermanH (1974) Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century (Anniversary edition). New York: Monthly Review Press.
7.
BrodyD (1993) Workers in Industrial America: Essays on the Twentieth Century Struggle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8.
ChatterjeeI (2016) Beyond the factory: Struggling with class and class struggle in the post-industrial context. Capital and Class40(2): 263–281.
9.
CobbJC (1982) The Selling of the South: The Southern Crusade for Industrial Development, 1936-1980. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University Press.
10.
CowieJR (1999) Capital Moves: Rca’s Seventy-year Quest for Cheap Labor. New York: The New Press.
11.
CowieJR (2012) Stayin’ Alive: The 1970s and the Last Days of the Working Class. New York: The New Press.
12.
CowieJRHeathcottJ (eds) (2003) Beyond the Ruins: The Meanings of Deindustrialization. New York: ILR Press.
13.
EdwardsR (1980) Contested Terrain: The Transformation of the Workplace in the Twentieth Century. New York: Basic Books.
14.
MarxKEngelsF (1848 [2015]) The Communist Manifesto (Original work published 1848). London, England: Penguin Classics.
15.
FineLM (2003) The ‘fall’ of reo in Lansing, Michigan, 1955-1975. In: CowieJFHeathcottJ (eds) Beyond the Ruins: The Meanings of Deindustrialization. New York: ILR Press, pp. 44–63.
16.
GlynASutcliffeB (1972) British Capitalism, Workers and the Profit Squeeze. London: Penguin Books.
17.
GordonD (1977) Class struggle and the stages of American urban development. In: PerryDCWatkinsAJ (eds) The Rise of the Sunbelt Cities. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
HollowayJ (1991) Capital is class struggle (and bears are not cuddly). In: BonefeldWHollowayJ (eds) Post-Fordism and Social Form. A Marxist Debate on the Post-Fordist State. London: Macmillan.
20.
KoistinenD (2013) Confronting Decline: The Political Economy of Deindustrialization in Twentieth-century New England. Gainesville, FL: University Press of Florida.
21.
LichtensteinN (2002) State of the Union: A Century of American Labor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
MontgomeryD (1979) Workers’ Control in America: Studies in the History of Work, Technology, and Labor Struggles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
NevinsAHillFE (1963) Ford Decline and Rebirth, 1933-1962. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
25.
NilssonEA (1994) Capitalists’ institutional agenda, class conflict spillover, and the last instance. Review of Radical Political Economics26(4): 23–54.
26.
OlsenE (2010) Class conflict and industrial location. Review of Radical Political Economics42(3): 344–352.
27.
SelfRO (2003) California’s industrial garden: Oakland and the east bay in the age of deindustrialization. In: CowieJFHeathcottJ (eds) Beyond the Ruins: The Meanings of Deindustrialization. New York: ILR Press, pp. 159–180.
28.
ShaikhA (1978) Political economy and capitalism: Notes on Dobb’s theory of crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics2(2): 233–251.
29.
ShaikhA (1980) Marxian competition versus perfect competition: Further comments on the so-called choice of technique. Cambridge Journal of Economics4(1): 75–83.
30.
SugrueT (1995) Forget about your inalienable right to work: Deindustrialization and its discontents at Ford, 1950-1953. International Labor and Working-class History48: 112–130.
31.
SugrueT (2017) The damning mark of false prosperities: The deindustrialization of Detroit. In: HornerJT (ed.) The Straight Detroit. San Diego, CA: Cognella Academic Publishing, pp. 45–75.
32.
SugrueTJ (1996) The Origins of the Urban Crisis: Race and Inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
33.
TsoulfidisLTsalikiP (2005) Marxian theory of competition and the concept of regulating capital: Evidence from Greek manufacturing. Review of Radical Political Economics73(1): 5–22.
