The history of this
young nation has known but a few transformational developments since its
revolutionary birth: the Civil War primarily, but also the New Deal reforms and
the broadening of civil rights in the latter half of the twentieth century. The
first transformation, the destruction of slavery, was the first and only change
that profoundly restructured property relations in the US.[i]
The New Deal, on the
other hand, expanded the human rights manifesto beyond the eighteenth-century
bourgeois deification of property and freedom of action, an expansion that
nonetheless remains contested to this day with the continual erosion of the
welfare state.
Where the New Deal
proffered the additional universal rights to a job, to belong to a union, to
food, etc.—what philosophers have come to call positive rights—the civil rights
movements of the twentieth century expanded the notion of a citizen to include
all those—women, former slaves-- denied by the so-called founding fathers, the
colonial elite.
Thus, the goal of
establishing a bourgeois republic was not completed for nearly two centuries
until the nominal full participation of women and African Americans was
achieved with universal voting rights. Yet within two decades after the
landmark voting rights legislation, any promise of popular and democratic
expression had been decisively dashed by the powerfully persuasive role of
money and media. The newer information and entertainment technologies afforded
the rich and powerful an overwhelming counter to the creaky machinery of
universal suffrage and the myth of voter autonomy. What the bourgeois republic
gave in opportunity, the opinion-makers took back with their consensus
factories.
Allergy to Theory
Without an
understanding of our nation’s history, without theories that weave together
events, without a broad and deep grasp of causes and effects, the past and the
way forward are mystifying and disorienting. More importantly, without an
over-arching theory that explains both the common and uncommon elements occurring
in the course of US
history, one can only despair at the future. Certainly no hope for altering
that course can come without that understanding.
But searching for
causes, making historical connections, and scrounging for general laws have
seldom known popularity with our fellow citizens. Some, like Professor Richard
Hofstadter, have attributed this allergy to theory to a long-standing
anti-intellectualism. But the US
overflows with intellectuals, both inside and outside of the universities.
Pundits of every stripe dominate the daily background noise, the written word,
and the sport of national politics; they may not be intellectuals to my liking,
but they are intellectuals nonetheless.
No, the problem is an
aversion to theory, an aversion born from both unique subjective and objective
features of US history. To a great extent, the dynamism of the young nation –
its continued expansion and shifting frontier, the influx of waves of
immigrants, the broken links with the patterns of European development, the
perception of unlimited opportunity, and a host of other “exceptional”
features—gave rise to the creed of American Exceptionalism, a view that the US
stands outside of the patterns of development shared by other nations. Put
simply, the US
is seen as making a new history apart from the old patterns; no theory is
necessary to explain that which remains unsettled and indeterminate.
From this stance of
unique, exceptional social, political, and economic development came adherence
to the philosophical framework of pragmatism and empiricism—a concern for the
practical and the immediacy of experience. In the US “theoretical” frame of
reference, it is the individual, and not the family, neighborhood, work
collective or any other social unit that stands at the center of the universe,
a posture reinforced and made imperative by the rigors and discipline of an
unfettered capitalism that trades on dissolving historically established social
ties and identities.
Except on those rare
occasions when Marxist or other collectivist theory-driven movements arise and
intrude, our intellectuals celebrate the individual and eschew recognition of
any laws of social, economic, and political development. Social life and its
history are merely a swirl of sentiments, decisions, accidents and spontaneity,
all guided by a quasi-religious sense of destiny.
An Example
A recent study
circulating among progressives on the Internet demonstrates the poverty of this
prevailing intellectual method in the US. Krishna Savani, a business
professor at Columbia University, and Aneeta Rattan, a psychology professor
at Stanford University,
have authored a paper “explaining” the wide-spread, counter-intuitive
acceptance of material inequality in the US. The paper’s title, while
couched in the academic idiom, clearly states their conclusion: “A Choice
Mind-Set Increases the Acceptance and Maintenance of Wealth Inequality.” That
is, the idea that outcomes are determined by choice and not circumstance,
privilege, advantage, or prejudice trumps the indignity or sense of injustice
people may have over material inequality. Thus, people are less likely to
attend to material inequalities when they believe strongly that life’s outcomes
are largely a matter of choosing wisely.
They conducted
experiments, the results of which showed that:
…highlighting the
concept of choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing
wealth inequality in
the United States,
more likely to underestimate the role of societal
factors in
individuals’ successes, less likely to support the redistribution of
educational
resources, and less
likely to support raising taxes on the rich—even if doing so would help
resolve a budget
deficit crisis. These findings indicate that the culturally valued concept of
choice contributes to
the maintenance of wealth inequality.
The professors’
conclusions neither surprise nor satisfy. Opinion polls show that US
respondents vastly overestimate their relative position in society; in one
poll, nearly two out of five believed that they are or will be in the top 5% of
wealth holders, a view that is patently irrational and impossible of fact.
Other polls demonstrate that US citizens have a vastly distorted picture of
wealth and income distribution in the US, an ignorance that also informs
their perception and valuation of inequality. While choice may be one element
in the conceptual framework that devalues social justice, there are many
others, including deception and simple factual error.
The radical
empiricism and theoretical meagerness of the Savani/Rattan study implies that
high estimation of individual choices is the decisive factor in the reluctance
of US citizens to tackle the explosively growing inequalities in the US. Though the
authors may not have intended it, the study leaves the pessimistic impression
that the worship of choice (the preference of weighing opportunity over
outcome) is deeply and perhaps intractably rooted in the US character.
As an example of
social science practiced in the US,
the study is impeccable: the numbers are transparent, the statistics are
significant, and the experiments are replicable. But as a basis for policy or
of robust understanding, the study is frustratingly spare and unhelpful.[ii]
Most importantly, the
study fails to answer the critical question: Would people really choose to place choice above other
social values if they were fully informed and unbiased? Or is their embrace of
the choice “mind-set” something foisted on them by tradition, peer pressure,
media, or propaganda?
Choosing to
Choose?
While millions of
dollars and thousands of hours could be spent rigorously identifying the
“mind-set” that allows citizens to shun policies that address wealth and income
inequalities, such an effort would get us no closer to understanding how this
mind-set came to be and how it can-- if it can-- be transformed.
But addressing these
questions is not a career track for scholars looking for appointment or tenure
at elite universities.
Since it would make
no sense, all things being equal, for people to freely and knowingly prefer a
value (freedom of choice) over other values (equality, for example) that are
clearly in their and nearly everyone else’s best interest, we need a theory and not merely an experimental
result to move forward. One such theory—the Marxist theory—invokes the notion
of a ruling class with its own
distinct and anti-majority interests. On such a theory, and in contrast with
the study’s barren empiricism, most people elevate certain values above their
own interests because still others, operating as a cohesive class, have the
desire and means to impose their values upon the rest of us. They could and
would, if necessary, impose their will through coercion, but they prefer to use persuasive mechanisms to achieve
the appearance of consensus.
The Marxist theory
takes it as axiomatic that the ruling class, enjoying a decided advantage in
wealth and power, will fully exploit that advantage; it will exercise its
wealth and power to market its own
interests to those with conflicting interests. The ruling class addresses this
project through the ownership of the means of mass persuasion and decisive
control of the instruments of governance. Thus, for a Marxist, the monopoly of
the media, the indirect, but decisive control of the educational system, and
the dominance of political voices and the options they espouse allow the ruling
class to plant, nourish, and harvest ideas among the masses, ideas that run
counter to the interests of the vast majority. One such idea, among many
others, is the notion that individual choice is threatened by any policy that
promotes egalitarianism.
The
“Consensus” Mechanism at Work
Since the end of the
Second World War, the US
ruling class has pressed its interests over all others by successfully raising
the specter of Communism, in the first place, and the threat of Islamic
Fundamentalism, today. Clearly, the anti-Communist hysteria was predictable as
a gambit by the ruling class since Communists did indeed threaten to overthrow
them. Subsequently, the success in portraying Communism as a threat to the
nation, freedom, religion, and any other real or constructed value, allowed the
ruling class to destroy any real domestic opposition and eviscerate the
militant trade union movement. In a real sense, the left and the trade union
movement in the US
has yet to recover from this thorough and successful project of mass
persuasion. And since the threat of Communism has lost its credibility at this
time, the US
ruling class saw the necessity of creating a new bogeyman in Islam.
Consolidation and
monopolization of the mass media has enabled the deceptions and fantasies that
were the building blocks of a false and alien world view shared by the majority
of citizens even against their own interests. As new technologies arose and as
they were more and more absorbed by giant monopoly media corporations, the
bounds of independent thought grew narrower. Even non-conformity became a
calculated and manipulated phenomenon. A casual examination of network news,
newspapers, and news services shows an uncanny similarity in coverage and point
of view. A closer examination shows that the common point of view nearly always
coincides with the point of view of elements of the ruling class; that is,
whatever diversity is found in the national dialogue simply reflects the
diversity of opinion among the ruling elite.
By purchasing the two
contesting major parties, the ruling class decidedly controls the electoral
arena in the US.
It is not necessary for the rulers to send instructions. By merely funding the
lobbying effort and shifting campaign contributions, the US ruling class
determines the limits of discussion and debate. As a result, a spectacle of
largely -- but not exclusively-- white guys with professional degrees,
expensive haircuts, near identical suits and ties, and flag pins gather to
decide the direction of the country. Few see the bizarreness of this dance of
puppets and even fewer recognize the puppeteers who pull their strings.
Theory and
Change
The theory advocated
here -- the Marxist theory -- has a long history back to its origins in the
mid-nineteenth century. The fact that it captures and explains the behavior of
many capitalist nations over many years bolsters its scientific credentials.
The fact that it accounts for wars, economic crises, oppressive governmental
acts, and massive transfers of wealth to the wealthiest – all counter to the
interests of the vast majority—attests to its robust explanatory value. Those
who have no theory have no explanation or answer for why a tiny minority can
shape the course of history without regard to the interests of the majority and
without resorting to coercion.
Rather than fueling
pessimism and fatalism, the Marxist theory offers a way out. The profound
economic crisis that surfaced in 2008 and continues unabated has damaged,
disabled, or slowed the consensus mechanisms that have been operating smoothly
and effectively for many, many decades; the mythologies created by these
mechanisms are crumbling; and the tight grip on the “mind-set” of the US population
is loosening.
While the political
expression of these changes is retarded by habit, peer pressure, and sheer,
naked opportunism, the underlying foundation of conventional political behavior
is eroding. Consider the following:
●All of the
institutions of governance are at all-time lows in credibility and confidence
according to numerous opinion polls.
●Similarly, sectors
of monopoly capital are viewed extremely negatively, especially the financial
industry.
●Likewise, opinion
polls show new lows for the credibility of the mass media.
●The idea that every
generation of US
citizens does better than its forebears is shattered. This has been a pillar of
American Exceptionalism.
●The axiom that
education is the key driver of occupational success is crushed in a vice of
fewer and fewer high paying jobs and escalating educational costs.
●Income and wealth
inequality is too apparent to hide or dismiss.
●Several generations
of young people have moved beyond the pollution of anti-Communism. The
socialist option now has credible showings in opinion polls, especially among
young people.
Though these seeds of
discontent are now deeply planted in the national “mind-set,” the ruling class
works feverishly to counter their growth. Nonetheless, they will burst through.
But we have no guarantee that the discontent will not be deformed by false
populism, appeals to nativism, and personality cults. Those waiting for
spontaneous risings may be shocked by what they get.
Instead, the moment
is ripe for intensifying the battle of ideas. When politics lags behind the
national sentiment, there is no better time to engage the ruling class and the
false prophets. Regardless of how the forthcoming election turns out, this
battle for shaping a genuine national interest remains. If we are serious about
transformational change, we must follow the path of the abolitionists who came
before. We must show the same persistence and zeal for our cause and not be
deterred by electoral sideshows, compromise, and maneuvering.
For a left largely
irrelevant to the outcome of the coming US elections, the moment to inject
new ideas—anti-capitalism, socialism---is now.
The pitchforks will
eventually come out; it’s only a matter of who they skewer.
i This is not to, in
any way, discount the most important new world re-ordering of property
relations: the wholesale expropriation of the property of the native
inhabitants.
ii
Despite their “rigor,” they expose their own theoretical bias by
contrasting acceptance of choice over taxing the rich to pay down the deficit.
It never occurs to them that paying down the deficit might be viewed as a bogus
reason to re-frame taxation!
Zoltan
Zigedy
zoltanzigedy@gmail.com
3 comments:
Your bullet list of eroding faith and trust in capitalist institutions also serves as an excellent explanation of the current mass tendency to cynicism.
That tendency makes more serious a fault of many socialist trends, namely, paucity of program. Too many brief descriptions of socialism for the United States do not offer basic, specific principles of operation of a new economy. (Invocations of "democratic planning" do not count.)
On the other hand, detailed policies that could make a fundamental difference in what capitalism delivers are plentiful -- without serious examination whether capitalism today could concede them. The usual bridge connecting the empty vision and the reformist illusion is a lecture about the need to organize a mass movement.
With his usual literary brilliance and clarity of thought, Zoltan addresses one fundamental problem that the US Left, including Marxists, habitually evade. I will formulate this problem in a stark way. It's easier for me since my fight is outside of this country. The question is: Is it realistic to expect that even a modicum of effort to weaken the United States as the main reactionary force of our time will come from inside the country, from the bowels of the beast? This is a very practical question. Our decision to side or not to side with our own nationalisms depends on the way we answer it. My answer to this is decisively negative. I believe that not a speck of change to the better can come from the political activity of US population and that the only change if at all will be in the direction of Fascism and Imperialism in their distinctly American inflections. I've come to this opinion from my study of US history, analysis of contemporary developments and not the least by reading thousands of comments by ordinary Americans in response to a wide variety of domestic and international issues. The roots of the problem are material: the privileged position of the United States in the post-ww2 world that nourishes the Great-American chauvinism, and its settlers origins that formed a certain self-perpetuating matrix. No progressive “subjective” changes, that is changes in the heads, can occur unless these material foundations are shaken to their core and destroyed. In short, this is a situation of “hopelessness” for living US Marxists. And it's been such for the entire post-war period. One way or another, all strange and ugly twists in the sad story of US Radical Left had to do with avoiding to face it. Indeed, to recognize this hopelessness is “subjectively” impossible, especially for the vanguardist Left. Yet, to recognize it would've done great service to resistance movements around the world as well as to the survival of the revolutionary tradition in US if only in the tiny segment of its population. Instead, we see the indecent spectacle of much of the US Left parading as the left boot of their imperialists around the world.
Charles' and Valentin's comments complement one another.
Charles addresses the lack of a popular and socialist program needed to fill the space between untenable reformism and socialism-as-slogan.
We need such a program (for example, like the excellent program in Charles' book), though Valentin suggests that it will not be enough given his tough, but fair understanding of US post-war history.
He passionately challenges the US left to demonstrate why anyone should believe that with or without a program US citizens will ever go beyond tacit concurrence with US imperialism or even slippage into the mire of fascism.
My only answer is that the efforts of a genuine US left (Marxist) do and will play a small, but significant role in a global struggle against imperialism. That is, our work is internationalist in character.
In the short run, we should have no illusions of its significance. I recoil at the arrogance of some of my fellow citizens who speak of our ending the war in Vietnam. That's nonsense-- the Vietnamese won the war! But we did have an important role in that victory.
In the long run, I believe that the objective, material deterioration of US living standards will make a movement and program attractive to many.
We shall see...
Post a Comment