Antonio Gramsci
This is
the second in a series of three texts retracing the historical roots
of present-day economic institutions and class relations. The
previous post examined the institutional crisis of American society in the Thirties. It characterized the New Deal as an arrested
transformation of monopoly capitalism, in which attempts at
egalitarian reform were blocked by interest groups operating through
both major parties.
This text
explores the rise of state capitalism during WWII. It shows how the
redoubled technological and organizational capacity of the corporate
state was able to generate a global political economy maintained by
force of both money and arms, but also based on the new social
compact that emerged from the depression and the war. To analyze this
global political economy I’m going to use the concept of hegemony,
as developed by Antonio Gramsci. I’ll extend that concept to
international relations, following the lead of Robert Cox in his book
Production, Power and World Order.
As a communist seeking change through the development of productive forces, Gramsci was fascinated with the rationalization of labor proposed by Frederick Taylor, and with its ideological expression in the pronouncements and industrial policies of Henry Ford. “In America rationalization has determined the need to elaborate a new type of man suited to the new type of work and productive process,” he wrote in Americanism and Fordism. A characteristic kind of leadership arose at the point of production: “Hegemony here is born in the factory and requires for its exercise only a minute quantity of professional political and ideological intermediaries.”
As a communist seeking change through the development of productive forces, Gramsci was fascinated with the rationalization of labor proposed by Frederick Taylor, and with its ideological expression in the pronouncements and industrial policies of Henry Ford. “In America rationalization has determined the need to elaborate a new type of man suited to the new type of work and productive process,” he wrote in Americanism and Fordism. A characteristic kind of leadership arose at the point of production: “Hegemony here is born in the factory and requires for its exercise only a minute quantity of professional political and ideological intermediaries.”
Gramsci defines hegemony as “the ‘spontaneous’ consent given by
the great masses of the population to the general direction imposed
on social life by the dominant fundamental group” – a consent
which, he remarks, is “historically caused by the prestige (and
consequent confidence) which the dominant group enjoys because of its
position and function in the world of production.” A productive
hegemony can extend from the national to the international scale.
Gramsci asks: “Do international relations precede or logically follow fundamental social relations?” His answer: “There can
be no doubt that they follow. Any organic innovation in the social
structure, through its technical-military expressions, modifies relations in the international
field too.”
Gramsci
saw assembly-line manufacturing as an attempt to achieve a higher and
more disciplined order of society. Ford himself – representing a
populist strain in the US industrial elite – would be no more than
a passing phase. It was up to the working classes to “find for
themselves an original, and not Americanized, system of living,
to turn into freedom what today is necessity.” Yet
it was clear that the new productive potentials could easily fail to
produce a revolution with an explosive character like that of France
in 1789. Instead they could merely update the existing distribution
of power, or at best, open up a drawn-out process of passive
revolution in which progressive vanguards and reactionary forces
would vie for hegemony. The first two Roosevelt administrations were
marked by exactly such a struggle. It was resolved to meet the
urgencies of World War II. Keynesian Fordism was the technical and
military response to the challenge of the Great Depression. Its
international expression gave rise to the world order of the postwar
period.
Warp
Speed
In July
of 1940 Keynes declared: “It seems politically impossible for a
capitalist democracy to organize expenditure on the scale necessary
to make the grand experiment which would prove my case – except in
war conditions.” For a decade, Keynes had been arguing for a purely
monetary strategy: massive counter-cyclical expenditure on employment
would serve to fuel “effective demand” for industrial products,
creating multiplier effects for every dollar spent and thereby
priming the economic pump. Planning was not an issue for him. In
wartime practice, however, planning took a technocratic form that
allowed the corporations to meet national priorities while setting
the conditions for their own spectacular postwar growth.
Even
before the declaration of hostilities, Detroit began retooling with
astounding speed into the “Arsenal of Democracy” that Roosevelt
called for in a radio address. Gramsci did not live to see it, but
the practical and ideological importance of the Ford Motor Co. within
US society now became obvious. Its single Willow Run plant produced
8,685 B-24 bombers in the course of wartime operations. On one hand,
Ford stood for the entrepreneurial innovations of the 1910s-20s: the
assembly-line process, scientific management, high wages, the
education of the workforce and the stimulation of effective demand
for industrial products via advertising, public relations and
consumer credit. On the other, he represented national production
capital with global reach: the company’s technological advances had
pushed it toward massive exportation, then to the establishment of
foreign subsidiaries across the planet. Under the imperatives of
multi-theater warfare these strengths were channeled into a
corporate/military order, which included rationing of materials,
control of strategic supply chains, cost-plus contracts and no-strike
pledges by labor unions. The independence of the maverick
entrepreneur was subsumed by what J.K. Galbraith later analyzed as
“the technostructure.”
The
central planning of the economy that Roosevelt’s National Recovery
Administration had failed to achieve would now be carried out by
“dollar-a-year men” dispatched by the corporations to Washington
and the Pentagon. The characteristic figure is Charles Wilson
(“Electric Charlie”), a CEO of General Electric who served on the
War Production Board from 1942-1944. He undercut the policies of his
boss, a New Dealer named Donald Nelson, who from 1943 onward had
begun trying to reorient production to civilian ends. Instead, Wilson
forged closer ties with the military. He was later appointed to head
the Office of Defense Mobilization during the Korean War. The
“permanent war economy” (a concept attributed to Wilson himself)
became a major component of what we now conceive as Fordism.
As part
of the same process, the innovation system of American industry took
a quantitative and qualitative leap forward. Historians of
technology, focusing on forty-to-fifty-year “long waves” of
economic development, have shown that major crises of capitalism
produce large backlogs of inventions which cannot be industrialized
during the years of economic contraction, but which subsequently
provide the technological basis for a new wave of investment. In
the case of the US during WWII, this accumulation of inventions was
intensified by the drafting of pure scientists into the war effort
under the banner of “operations research,” which has been defined
as “the effective use of scarce resources under dynamic and
uncertain conditions.” Unprecedented sums of federal money were
funneled to laboratories, which initially tended to be under direct
government control. However, as David Noble shows in his book Forces of Production, professional groups quite rapidly secured the “autonomy
of science” for corporations and major universities, while keeping the military contracts. In this way,
“big science” was born.
Bell Labs - Telestar 1 - 1962 |
The
results were prodigious: radar, nuclear fission and thermonuclear
weapons, as well as the experiments in coding, information transfer
and feedback that gave rise to computers and the unified
socio-technical theory of cybernetics. The science-fiction of the
postwar period – right up to the prime-time image of “Federation Starship
Enterprise” – expresses the magnitude of this transformation. Far
from merely perfecting the assembly-line process, the US version of
Fordism would be characterized by continuous revolutions in
production technology, extending to fields such as plastics and
synthetic fabrics, electronic communications, jet propulsion, space
exploration, etc. From the Manhattan Project in wartime to the
civilian research of Bell Labs – the scientific arm of AT&T, a
giant corporation recognized by the state as a "natural monopoly" –
US society would become technological to the core, with a consequent
rise in levels of education and a continuous expansion of the
application of science (including social science) to industry,
administration, civil life and consumption. Here, and not in simple
manufacturing, lay the sources of that prestige which, as Gramsci
understood, stems directly from the forces of production.
New
World
Given the
US economic position at the close of the war – with 65% of global
gold reserves at Fort Knox – it was inevitable that American policy
imperatives would trump those of Keynes at the global economic conference of Bretton
Woods in 1944. Keynes sought a neutral, collectively managed world
monetary standard and a financial architecture to curb the power of
creditor nations. The Americans wanted to collect their due from
wartime debtors like Britain, whose imperial financial system would
soon be dismembered through the negotiations over the payback
requirements of the US Lend-Lease program. More broadly, the State
Department aimed to dissolve the rival trading blocs that had emerged
after the collapse of the British gold standard, and to create a vast
free-trade zone or “Grand Area” in order to secure not only
supplies of raw materials, but also markets large enough to absorb
the surplus product of American industry (including industrialized
agriculture). The IMF and the World Bank, both created at Bretton
Woods, were needed to circulate the capital for this free-trade
regime. Negotiated exchange rates between all participating
currencies and the dollar, itself backed by gold, would lend
stability to the new monetary order centered on the US.
Yet the
international financial institutions were only part of a larger
project, which had engaged American civic ambition in a whole range
of more-or-less feasible attempts to create a global government. In
1943, the liberal Republican Wendell Willikie published a bestseller,
One World, which urged the foundation of a transnational
democracy as the most effective response to communism – an idea
taken up from 1945 onward by the World Federalist Movement. And in a book
called And Keep Your Powder Dry: An Anthropologist Looks at
America, also published in 1943, Margaret Mead penned the
following, entirely characteristic phrase: “We must see this war as
a prelude to a greater job – the restructuring of the culture of
the world.” Exactly this idea was expressed by an extraordinary map
of the “New World Moral Order” (1942) which rationalized all the major
land masses into coherent continental blocs structured according to
the US federal model.
For a larger version click here |
The
unification and rationalization of geographical space was not the
wild fancy of an obscure cartographer, nor the right-wing conspiracy
theory that it appears to be today. Instead it was the object of
deliberate wartime planning. In a study of the State Department
archives entitled Imperial Brain Trust, Laurence Shoup and
William Minter detail the recommendations of high-ranking members of
the private-sector Council of Foreign Relations, who had been
directly inducted into the Roosevelt Administration to carry out
postwar economic planning. One passage is worth quoting at length:
A July 24, 1941, memorandum to the President and Department of State outlined the Council's view of the national interest, describing the role of the Grand Area in American economic, political, and military policy. The memorandum, numbered E-B34, summarized the Grand Area concept, its “meaning for American policy, its function in the present war, and its possible role in the postwar period.” It began by stressing the basic fact that the “economy of the United States is geared to the export of certain manufactured and agricultural products, and the import of numerous raw materials and foodstuffs.” The Economic and Financial Group had found a self-contained United States-Western hemisphere economy impossible without great changes in the American economic system. To prevent alterations in the United States economy, the Council had, in the words of group member Winfield W. Riefler, “gone on to discover what 'elbow room' the American economy needed in order to survive without major readjustments.” This living space had to have the basic raw materials needed for the nation's industry as well as the “fewest possible stresses making for its own disintegration, such as unwieldy export surpluses or severe shortages of consumer goods.” The extensive studies and discussions of the Council groups determined that, as a minimum, most of the non-German world, the “Grand Area,” was needed for “elbow room.” In its final form, it consisted of the Western hemisphere, the United Kingdom, the remainder of the British Commonwealth and Empire, the Dutch East Indies, China, and Japan itself.
The
German world was added to this geographic calculation when it became
apparent that the US would win the war. By the same calculation,
China, North Korea and other countries would be considered “lost”
to free trade when they adopted the communist system. Thus the
hegemonic struggle was carried out by force of both money and arms.
But how could this global economic and military system be
internalized by common people? What were the ideals and emotional
appeals of the “New World Moral Order”?
Its key
institutional expression was the United Nations, a classically
Rooseveltian creation. Indeed, the UN Declaration of Universal Human
Rights is directly inspired by the “Four Freedoms” speech that
justified aid to the Allies in the period before Pearl Harbor.
Freedom is the perfect ideal for a free-trade regime – however
unequal that free trade may be. But UN idealism could be taken
seriously because of the presence of US occupation troops across the
world, and because of postwar investment programs, particularly the
Marshall Plan for the reconstruction of Europe. At stake was what
Roosevelt’s successor, Harry Truman, called a “Fair Deal” for
the non-Soviet world. In The Logic of World Power, Franz
Schurmann describes the transformative effect the Fair Deal was
intended to produce:
The essence of the New Deal was the notion that big government must spend liberally in order to achieve security and progress. Thus postwar security would require liberal outlays by the United States in order to overcome the chaos created by the war. Aid to... poor nations would have the same effect as social welfare programs within the United States – it would give them the security to overcome chaos and prevent them from turning into violent revolutionaries. Meanwhile, they would be drawn inextricably into the revived world market system. By being brought into the general system, they would become responsible, just as American unions had during the war... America had spent enormous sums running up huge deficits in order to sustain the war effort. The result had been astounding and unexpected economic growth. Postwar spending would produce the same effect on a worldwide scale.
Truman
was not a charismatic politician like Roosevelt, but a classic
tool of corporate interest groups. His role was to functionalize the
New Deal for the needs of the Cold War political economy. This meant
fusing UN idealism with George Kennan’s grand strategy for the
containment of Soviet communism. The result, in Schurmann’s
interpretation, was an operational ideology, which was
concrete, trustworthy and predictable for all free-world subjects to
the extent that it was indistinguishable from the tremendous built
environment of the Cold War security state. Every Arctic radar
station, every nuclear carrier in the Pacific, every academic
contract signed with what Eisenhower would later call the
“military-industrial complex” was necessary to make the Cold War
ideology tangible, workable, successful.
In fact the industrial economy of Japan was rebuilt, not with a large-scale aid program like the Marshall Plan, but with a flood of heavy-equipment orders to Japanese industrialists for the needs of the Korean War. NATO contracts served a similar function for European heavy industry. US planning, containment of the Soviet Union, and Grand-Area economic growth were one and the same. The restructured world order gave corporate monopoly capitalism its full technological and military expression. The passive revolution of Keynesian Fordism had been extended to the global scale. The US had created a new, historically unique version of Britain’s former free-trade system or “liberal empire.”
In fact the industrial economy of Japan was rebuilt, not with a large-scale aid program like the Marshall Plan, but with a flood of heavy-equipment orders to Japanese industrialists for the needs of the Korean War. NATO contracts served a similar function for European heavy industry. US planning, containment of the Soviet Union, and Grand-Area economic growth were one and the same. The restructured world order gave corporate monopoly capitalism its full technological and military expression. The passive revolution of Keynesian Fordism had been extended to the global scale. The US had created a new, historically unique version of Britain’s former free-trade system or “liberal empire.”
Home
Front
The
passive revolution succeeded internationally because it had first
succeeded in the US. The existence of New Deal institutions like
Social Security and unemployment insurance, as well as the underlying
principle of expanded government intervention in the economy, gave
legitimacy to the social democratic welfare states that were created
in Western Europe, Japan and other industrialized countries. Social
democracy implies the withdrawal of certain fundamental human
relationships from the pressure of competitive markets. This was done,
initially, under the protective umbrella of the GATT negotiations
(General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade), which held off the
pressures of free trade during reconstruction, up to the complete
liberalization of Western European currency exchanges in 1958. Thanks
to the social democracies, welfare – and not warfare – is usually
taken as the hallmark of Keynesian Fordism.
The
welfare states were not everywhere the same, however, as
Esping-Andersen has shown in his classic study, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. The Scandinavian countries developed a model of
universal welfare provision, while Austria, France, Germany and Italy
worked out a complicated state-corporatist approach that administers
benefits according to the individual’s specific sector of
employment. The US, like Britain, exemplifies the “liberal” or
“residual” approach, where most of the programs are “means
tested,” ie reserved for the impoverished and indigent. The
implicit claim is that the citizens of a prosperous society do not
need state assistance. Once collective bargaining had been instituted
in the US by the Wagner Act of 1935, both health care and retirement
pay were mainly provided by the corporations themselves. They
resisted universal coverage schemes and sought to keep keep control
over the large financial flows implied by such programs. Until
Kennedy and Johnson sought to revive the New Deal coalition by a
massive expansion of welfare, the administration of effective demand
– and the pacification of labor struggles – was left largely to
the major employers. Their approach must be analyzed in the realms of
both production and consumption.
First,
how did the manufacturing corporations respond to the challenges that
industrial unionism posed to the drive system of the 1930s, which
tended to reduce all workers to homogeneous semi-skilled labor placed
beneath the control of machines on the assembly line? On the one
hand, it is well known that from WWII onward, collective bargaining
was gradually focused on wage/productivity trade-offs, where workers
abandoned any input into the organization processes in exchange for a
share in productivity increases. This gave management a free hand to
restructure the workplace in ways that reduced conflict. Segmented labor in a dual economy replaced the drive system.
Within
the “core” or “monopoly” sector – which included defense
industries as well as sophisticated consumer manufacturing,
engineering firms and raw-materials processing – tasks were
organized into a hierarchical career ladder that advanced toward
greater degrees of labor autonomy. The very forms of the technologies
used in the factories were calculated to serve this managerial
strategy, which satisfied workers’ ambitions by dividing them from each other. A
split emerged in the core sector itself, between high-paying jobs with employment stability and
full benefits, and relatively stable, but lower paying jobs with less
benefits. Competition between firms was limited
by the cost-plus contracts of the state or by the classic barriers to
entry erected by oligopolies. So-called “administered prices”
(fixed by tacit or explicit accord between the major players) gave
the corporations enough financial leeway to plan over five to
ten-year periods, and to retain employees despite the short-term
fluctuations of the business cycle.
The other
half of the dual economy can be seen (ironically, in the context of
free-market ideology) as the “competitive sector,” consisting of
basic manufacturing, parts suppliers, distributors, light
construction, food processing, etc. Here, salaries were thin,
benefits and stability were negligible and the prospects for any kind
of labor autonomy were non-existent. The disciplinary function of the
industrial reserve army – ie, unemployed masses striking fear into
workers’ hearts – was replaced in the full-employment society by
the undesirability of work in the competitive sector, which was also
heavily racialized and gendered. The clear status difference of these
“shit jobs” gave yet more encouragement to the loyalty of the
well-paid white male Anglo-Saxon workers of the monopoly sector.
For
mass-manufacturing companies such as the automobile makers, however,
it wasn’t enough to plan production. Consumption too had to be
rendered predictable. The innovations of GM under Alfred P. Sloan in the Twenties
and Thirties were now extended to all the major branches of industry.
Yearly styling, consumer credit furnished by the corporation itself
and planned obsolescence were the norms. The suburban home emerged as the
ideal site of consumption, where automobile ownership was strictly
necessary. The invention of the television, another major consumer
product, allowed for a perfect fit between the stimulation of a
generalized Hollywood-style romantic desire and continuous exposure
to finely calculated product lines. The Neilsen ratings provided
feedback information on consumer preferences, complemented by
sociological motivation surveys. The Freudian advertising consultant,
Ernst Dichter, developed his Strategy of Desire, based on the
presumably universal urge to move upwards through the status
hierarchy via the acquisition of symbolic attributes. The Keynesian
goal of escaping underconsumption through the stimulation of
effective demand took on a libidinal meaning for the corporate
marketing departments, which attempted to bring their messages to the
very core of the human psyche through the use of depth psychology.
Thus the passive revolution culminated in a society of intense
behavioral conditioning on the job and massively organized seduction
on the weekend. Strict labor discipline found its recompense in the
proliferating fantasy worlds of the commodity.
Social-democratic
theory conceived the provision of social rights (or what the French
sociologist Robert Castel calls “social property”) as
state-supported means of access to fundamental use-values: child
care, education, health services, intellectual debates, cultural
experiences, recreation and the attentions required for a dignified old age. What this did,
institutionally and not anarchically, was to open up heterogeneous
temporalities, or if you prefer, distinct life moments, in which
human potentials could be explored and enjoyed in their own right. In
more thoroughly capitalist societies, industrial and financial
planning reaches deeply into all these areas of human experience,
commodifying them for profit. In the postwar US only one sector,
education, was organized in a broadly social-democratic fashion. Is
it any wonder that education became a major source of the revolt
against the Keynesian-Fordist organization of society?
Hegemony’s
Ruins
The
argument is often made that American radicalism in the Sixties was
defined by LSD: a psychoactive molecule produced by a European
multinational, initially distributed in the US by the CIA, and
massively used, particularly in universities, to take apart
behavioral norms and explore alternative forms of consciousness. I’d
place that unlikely love triangle second to another, more important
one: the Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Power Movement
and the Tricontinental alliance of Third-World liberation parties and governments.
The social contradictions that brought these formations together and
simultaneously ripped them apart began advancing toward a climax in
the year 1966. But those contradictions were precipitated, from 1960
onward, by the Democratic Party’s attempts to combine the welfare
and warfare models of Keynesian Fordism.
The 1960
election, between John F. Kennedy and the Republican Cold Warrior
Richard Nixon, was very close, with the former winning by only 0.17%
of the popular vote. Kennedy, who was in some respects an idealist,
saw the black civil rights movement as an invitation to revive the
New Deal coalition, not through activism on the streets, but through
formal democratic and administrative processes. The result was the
largest expansion of the social budget since Roosevelt, redefining
what we now call “liberalism.” It began under Kennedy in the
areas of unemployment insurance, Social Security, urban renewal and
tax breaks for home ownership. Johnson’s election in 1964 along
with landslide Democratic victories in Congress gave rise to the
“Great Society,” including the War on Poverty, Medicare and
Medicaid, Pell grants and low-interest loans for education, the
National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities, public
broadcasting programs and still more spending for transportation and
urban renewal. Legislation was passed in favor of women and
minorities, including the Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 1968 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus labor and environmental laws.
Attempts were also made to “fine tune” the economy through
carefully timed injections of Keynesian counter-cyclical funding,
which were calculated to smooth out the ups and downs of business
cycles. All that paralleled the deepening involvement in Vietnam. A
generation of young people were being asked to dream of a better
world and to wake up in a military nightmare.
The
history of SDS is fascinating, but let’s go quicker. In 1966 the
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee, a southern civil-rights
organization then led by Stokely Carmichael, broke ranks with its
white allies from the north (mainly SDS) and began a push for Black Power. SDS
affiliates, many of whom were directly threatened by the draft, took
that as an invitation to radicalize themselves along the lines of the
nearby Black Panthers and distant Third World movements, from the
Viet-Cong to the Palestinians and Che Guevara. The hypocrisy of
Johnson’s Great Society became unbearable to large numbers of
people. The New Left historians Gabriel Kolko, James Weinstein and
William Appleman Williams constructed a genealogy of “corporate
liberalism” going back to the very origins of monopoly capitalism
in the 1890s. A New Left fellow traveler, the libertarian Murray
Rothbard, coined the phrase “the welfare-warfare state.” By
1966, draft cards had already begun burning in earnest.
The
libertarians would go on to attack the New Deal coalition from the
right, eventually contributing (with a little help from the Koch
brothers) to the rise of neoliberalism. But they could never have
been so successful if traditional Democratic liberalism had not first
been discredited from within, both by the blacks whom it claimed to
be rescuing from discrimination and poverty, and by its future cadres
who had joined SDS. The New Left and the Black Power movement now saw
the US free trade regime as a contemporary form of imperialism. Minorities in the US began referring to themselves as “Third World peoples.” Che
Guevara might as well have been speaking directly to them, as well as the white radicals, when he
declared in his message to the 1966 Tricontinental conference: “Not
for a long time shall we be able to know if President Johnson ever
seriously thought of bringing about some of the reforms needed by his
people – to iron out the barbed class contradictions that grow each
day with explosive power. The truth is that the improvements
announced under the pompous title of the ‘Great Society’ have
dropped into the cesspool of Vietnam.”
(if the video doesn't work check it out on Vimeo by hitting the logo)
The Fordist hegemony ended where it began, in Detroit, in the summer of 1967. Two black soldiers, just back from their tours of duty, were celebrating their return with a group of revelers in a clandestine after-hours bar, known as a “blind pig.” The cops raided the joint and roughed up the vets and their friends. A typical racist incident turned into one of the largest and most destructive riots in American history. Enraged blacks became snipers, firing hunting rifles from the roofs of apartment buildings. It went on for three days while the city burned. Johnson sent in Army troops. More soldiers just back from Vietnam were faced with a guerrilla uprising in the cradle of the American auto industry. Similar scenes were repeated later that summer in Newark, then in over a hundred cities around the country in 1968 after the murder of Martin Luther King. The US was changed forever. New Deal liberalism had taken a decisive blow. The passive revolution was finally over. Few people under sixty are able to imagine the atmosphere of looming civil war that brought Richard Nixon to power and made him the most reactionary president in US history. Yet hegemony’s ruins can still be seen, with your own eyes, in the city of Detroit, which in 2013 has fallen under the control of an Emergency Financial Manager appointed by a neoliberal governor.
Science
fiction was the characteristic literary genre of the American postwar
period, marked by the invention of the computer, the atom bomb, the
moon lander and color TV. In 1966, the state-capitalist version of
science-fiction came to the little screen, in the form of Star
Trek. Later on it would provide the imaginary figure for a new US
military program, Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, known as
“Star Wars.” But 1966 was
also the year that Philip K. Dick wrote his great sci-fi novel, Do
Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? More intimately than Debord’s
Society of the Spectacle, this novel asked what psychic
life was becoming under the pressure of relentless efforts to turn
citizens into the human vectors of an industrial need to generate
both disciplined labor and the desiring energies of effective demand.
At the
close of the Keynesian Fordist era, a dystopian vein opened up at the
heart of technocratic modernism. Gramsci’s “new
type of man suited to the new type of work and productive process”
had turned out very differently than hoped, over the forty-year
course of a passive revolution unfolding at global scale.
Today, if we want to redefine what “progressive” could mean in
the context of the present crisis,
we have to remember not just full employment and the most
positive aspects of social democracy, but all these legacies of
Fordism.
It seems to me that the force of this very detailed argument lies in its presentation of the historical specificity – and perhaps singularity – of the genesis of the Fordist global order. The quotation from Gramsci in the beginning nicely sums up the major premise: “Do international relations precede or logically follow fundamental social relations? There can be no doubt that they follow. Any organic innovation in the social structure, through its technical-military expressions, modifies relations in the international field too.” Therein lies the main thrust of the argument: “Fordism” was the outcome of a passive revolution in which the productive power of scientifically and technically supercharged labor processes were harnessed in the service of, first, the war machine, and second, the imperative to realize the massive amounts of value it was producing by the war's conclusion, notably by the installation of the permanent war economy and the military-industrial complex.
ReplyDeleteIf it is true that international relations follow from transformations in the “technostructure” of capitalism, then it would seem to me to suggest that the transition beyond the current crisis could also be understood as a kind of passive revolution. The current globally intertwined organization of the productive forces cannot be dismantled or abolished without really unimaginably bad consequences, so our only option is to go forward from here. At the same time, those productive forces already spin an international web of relations that forms the economic and financial infrastructure of the global economy – the global banking system, the huge multinational corporations, and international organizations like the IMF and World Bank that attempt to oversee the whole operation. The current moment is a more auspicious time for organized left political action than the precarious situation facing people in the 30's in the sense that economic autarchy, Fascism, and global war doesn't appear to be an imminent threat, and so it is less easy for nationalist hysteria and chauvinism to co-opt progressive tendencies. But on the other hand the “nerve center” of the international capitalist order is much more obscure a presence in the lives of most people today than it was then. The question is how can some kind of democratic or public control be built up and exercised over this productive apparatus in a way that would entail an exit from the indefinite, general stagnation that we find ourselves in? It seems to me that this would be the real meaning of “social democracy” today: not a return to what has been lost, but a reinvention of the concept on a much higher level atop the productive foundations that link the world together. A “social democracy of socially necessary labor-time” would maybe be the right formulation.
It goes without saying that any movement or tendency that has the capacity to move in such a direction would build on the lessons of the past, including the chauvinistic and exclusionary bases of the first iteration of Fordist social democracy, and would consciously attempt to combat them. How successfully this can be done is ultimately a political question, but a big part of laying the basis for political success in this area is crafting a vision that explicitly integrates the lessons of the past into present practice in order to consciously shape the future.
"The question is how can some kind of democratic or public control be built up and exercised over this productive apparatus in a way that would entail an exit from the indefinite, general stagnation that we find ourselves in?"
ReplyDeleteYes, achieving democratic control over a complex social process, that's exactly what I'm driving at. And I totally agree with your final point about the necessity of crafting a vision of how we arrived at present conditions. In my view, most debates today fall doubly short of the question as you just formulated it. First, because they do not apprehend the new productive apparatus itself, which is vast and complex. And second, because they are not able to grasp the existing structures of steering and control: an entire logic of privatized governance that's expressed in many different ways, not just through economics but also philosophically, morally, legally, scientifically, administratively, etc.
What I call Neoliberal Informationalism emerged in the 80s and 90s out of the internal contradictions of Keynesian Fordism, and as a point by point transformation of its major axioms, which had entered into crisis after 1968. The new hegemony is based on a radical transformation of the productive forces and of their corresponding organizational forms, basically through computerization. As in Gramsci's day there was a kind of utopian aura to it, promising new human potentials. This time, however, the technological and organizational change was accompanied step by step with a new operational ideology that rapidly permeated the state and social institutions. That's a major difference from eighty years ago.
As in the Thirties, we've again reached a point where the productive organization of capital has broken entirely away from the basic requirements of social reproduction. There's an institutional crisis. We need to tame these wildly and dangerously productive forces (which themselves are in no way stagnant) and embed them in new social structures. Unlike in the Thirties, though, the state-capital nexus is now very strong. Despite the popular anti-state rhetoric they have taken on, the neoliberals of the 1940s and 50s clearly recognized that there was no retreat from the vast expansion of state powers. What they aimed for, and ultimately achieved, was the reorientation of those expanded powers toward their ends.
The most amazing thing in this regard is the neoliberal approach to money, which has nothing to do with the discipline of the gold standard preached by a traditional Austrian like Von Mises (who is Ron Paul's hero, by the way). Friedman taught that the state must manipulate the money supply, shrink it or grow it as needed; and that's what Volcker, Greenspan and Bernanke have done. This capacity to create the very stuff of human motivation - money - could be used to build a new kind of social democracy. Instead it has been used to reinflate the banks and the asset markets. That's the neoliberal bet. I believe it was called "dynamic stagnation" in one of Walker's earlier posts. It is not likely to work over the medium term. We are probably going to see other proposals coming from other places (Europe, China, Japan, Latin America). They all will have to deal with the global division of labor and its globally entwined management. In this country, we too should be coming up with serious counter-proposals.
So anyway, thanks for a such detailed comment. You definitely caught my drift!
It has been really enjoyable and also rewarding to return to this text and reread it at the suggestion of my comrade Paul A. It's a real privilege to have writing of this quality and insight as part of our conversation. I was timely, too, because we've been discussing reformulating the way in which we've presented some of these ideas on the blog, in particular wide-ranging and rather vague concepts like 'Fordism,' and 'neoliberalism.' I want to thank our friends like Paul C. for pushing us on this issue and inspiring us to refine and sharpen our language.
ReplyDeleteI'm struck at how vividly this piece captures the driving force of the technological, industrial, and social innovations of the Fordist period as they pushed through the devastation of the immediate post-war period, a devastation that was very salutary from the perspective of potential growth, and into the supposedly idyllic years of quickly expanding consumerism before the whole volatile constellations of economic, political, and cultural forms self-destructed. This idyllic period of post-war consumer society remains a lost golden age in our social imagination as the time when capitalism functioned as it should, entirely ignoring the reality that, as another friend recently pointed out to me, the functioning of capitalism in this period with high, sustained growth and the seemingly inexorable incorporation of formerly excluded humans and territory into the heart of the capitalist production system--and I would certainly include the Soviet Union and China in this description--is by any reasonable standard of judgement the historical anomaly.
It is vital to remember that this system spawned opposition nearly everywhere, an opposition that often phrased its critique explicitly in terms of the inadequacy of this economic growth to the higher aspirations of human freedom. That fact in itself should give pause to anyone uncritically praising the accomplishments of state capitalisms in this period. I fully agree with your conclusions about the dystopian heart of the Fordist era, but what I see as the highest and most promising production of that time was not full employment or an unprecedented promise of social equality, but the critical consciousness that emerged from this dystopia, especially as seen in the most promising moments of the New Left and its related groups. That is not to say that it could have been possible without full employment or a relatively high degree of social equality, but rather to argue that this consciousness that regarded the fruits of a highly developed consumer society and still demanded something qualitatively better was the most vital production of this configuration of capitalist society, not just a gravedigger, but a harbinger--seemingly--of something new and better.
That is to say that I don't see this era as merely a certain organization of productive technologies and political forms, but more importantly as a set of ideological, political, and imaginative possibilities that existed under the constraints of a certain horizon of possibility. As you've pointed out, 'Fordism' may very well be an inadequate way to refer to the particular configuration of the capitalist totality that this era was, since the concept that I'm trying to sketch is not exhausted by the conditions of capitalist accumulation, but also contains the antagonistic forces generated through the contradictions of that system of accumulation. To the extent that we seek to use the Fordist era as a historical metaphor for a possible future, we are trying to point to a situation in which just such critical antagonistic forces capable of conceptualizing and establishing democratic control over the global productive apparatus can be unleashed. In this regard, we are presently quite impoverished. It is enough of a stretch for us to conceptualize the global productive apparatus let alone to begin establishing democratic control over it. The basic conditions of capitalist production seem ontologically given and entirely beyond reach of intentional, political attempts to bring them under rational control.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the contradictions of capitalist society in the Fordist period generated immense oppositional impulses, the full implications of these impulses could not be manifested within this social configuration. One thing I would like to add to your account of Neoliberal Informationalism is a specification of forces that pushed beyond the limits of the Fordist era. While it is beyond dispute that startling advances in computer technology were essential for this regime of accumulation, I would also argue that no technology is invented before its time, before the social and political conditions for its application to the process of accumulation are in place. For example, I think it is clear that we have the means to develop the technological "solution" to climate change, even if it doesn't exist concretely at the moment. All that is wanting is the will to devote the necessary resources to researching the necessary technologies and perhaps more importantly to more efficiently engineering existing technologies to produce greater yields, and then to implement these technologies throughout the globe. But this cannot be accomplished lacking a political solution to the carbon bubble that represents a volatile explosive in the heart of the global economic system, as well as numerous lesser political barriers such as the ability of corporate influence to protect particular interests in the economy.
So where did the vision come from that allowed for the revolutionizing of society and production along neoliberal lines? There's no simple answer to that question, but I think we must acknowledge that much of this vision came from the left itself. For example, Nancy Fraser has argued that second-wave feminism's key critiques of the family wage, economistic understandings of oppression, and the welfare state, became themselves disempowering limitations on the ideological and imaginative possibilities existing under neoliberalism. It would be easy to extend this analysis to the critiques launched by groups demanding liberation on the basis of racial or ethnic identities and to the prevalent critiques of cultural conformity.
This is meant in no way to demonize the anti-systemic movements of the middle of the 20th century, or to minimize the extent to which feminism and identity politics have increased some forms of freedom for real human beings, but rather to clarify the nature of how social change is accomplished. It is important to understand the conditions that led these anti-systemic movements to misperceive the nature of capitalist society in such a way that their attempts to remedy its problems led rather to a new arrangement of the same fundamental elements of living and accumulated dead labor time. Such an attempt would have to focus on the social conditions that informed this faulty understanding of capitalist society rather than on the inadequacy of the ideas themselves, so as to not be an exercise in overdetermined idealism.
ReplyDeleteFor the present time, I believe that the struggles to watch are the ones that have some leverage in returning capital investment to areas that can at least incidentally enrich human lives and capacities. Bangladeshi workers have just won a 77% increase in their minimum wage through vast, aggressively orchestrated mass strikes and production stoppages. They have leverage within the system because they are producing goods vital to the global supply chains that are now the backbone of the accumulation, such as it is. Their gains have the potential to go well beyond a slightly more adequate standard of living (still far below what is considered a living wage, of course) to increase their capacity to make further demands of their employers, and ultimately of those controlling the higher levels of the supply chains.
It seems harder to say what the best course would be in rich countries, but struggles around adequate employment, sustainable infrastructure, and possibly also around demands to establish a system for paying the work done on increasingly "ephemeral" commodities like software will be important. As I've argued elsewhere, what may be the most important factor is the extent to which groups engaged in these struggles are able to overcome their national boundaries to unify their efforts and to reverse the political and economic dynamics of the current global division of labor. And any gains, once won, must be defended through institutionalization. Obviously, competition at "the bottom" i.e. between countries with the lowest paid workforces could reverse potential gains if they are not protected at the political level, possibly through reshaped international institutions dedicated to channeling investment into impoverished countries rather than extracting value from them. Assuming this is possible, the rising waters made possible by the incorporations of billions of now excluded Asians and Africans into the productive system would raise all boats, making possible demands for equality and freedom on a truly global scale.
If this admittedly incredibly optimistic scenario seems in some ways to hearken back to the conditions of the Fordist era, then I hope that the strongest link would not be in its promise of full employment or equality, because while these things hold the potential to raise billions of human beings out of grinding poverty, they are also promises that are extended with one hand and taken with the other. Not to mention the fact that they do not come freely in the first place. Rather, I would hope that this future could ultimately produce an oppositional consciousness capable of grasping the deadly absurdity of the persistence of the demand for socially necessary labor time amidst almost unimaginable productive powers. On the basis of such a consciousness we would finally have the possibility of the emergence of a transformative political movement capable of ending capitalist society once and for all with the abolition of class, nations, and labor itself.