Re: European Union

[Andrew Wayne Austin <aaustin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2 Jun 1998, Dennis R Redmond wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Andrew Wayne Austin wrote:
>
> > 	(1) Do you think that the modifications made to the US economy
> > 	following the Great Depression, and institutionalized following
> > 	World War Two, strengthened or weakened the position of the US
> > 	ruling class and the capitalist mode of production?
>
> Weakened. In the Twenties unions were weak, controls over capital
> nonexistent, workplace conditions were barbaric, and business could do
> (and frequently) did anything it damn well pleased.

Before the depression, the socialist and communist movements and parties
were strong, the worker movement vibrant. There was a strong intellectual
culture, with socialist thought widely read and appreciated. The
underlying economic conditions of the capitalist economy in the 20s were
teetering, inequality of wealth was about at the point it is today. The
ability of workers to purchase the products they produced was falling
farther behind. People were angry, alienated, and in many quarters
revolutionary. This unsound economy unraveled during the world economic
crisis. The ruling class was in one of their weakest positions in US
history and they faced a serious threat from the left for the first and
last time (at least to this point). Elites were conscious of this, and
with heavy funding by business and government interests, they began
developing means for mass thought control and political and economic
programs and theories that would save the capitalist system, imperialism,
and strengthen the emerging international bourgeois over against the rest
of the world. During the Depression, the ruling class faced a real
bifurcation point, and the capitalism way of life was in real jeopardy.

With the New Deal in place, and the institutionalization of class
struggle, capitalism was not only restored, but it flourished.
Unprecedented stability and growth followed World War II. Socialist and
communist organizations were devastated, marginalized, communists and
socialists were purged from the labor movement. The labor movement, under
the governance of a conservative, patriotic, and reactionary leadership,
became an arm of capitalist mode of production. The ideology of the Cold
War and consumerism, and the new means of mass indoctrination spurred in
the Twenties and perfected in the second World War, sapped the majority of
their capacity for critical reason: the art of the manufacture of
consensus reached its pinnacle. The military-industrial complex emerged
and became a dominant feature in our society. The ruling class
orchestrated a shift from apartheid to racial hegemony to strengthen the
position of the historical bloc. By the end of the 1960s, a police state
had emerged with a vastly expanded prison-industrial complex. The position
of the ruling class was far and away superior in this time than during the
1920s.

Even a cursory comparison between the pre- and the post-depression era
shows that the ruling class and the capitalist mode of production was
greatly strengthened during the post-depression era. Not only were they
strengthened, but opposition to capitalism was virtually erased. It wasn't
until the second half of the 1960 that a noisy minority was able to rise
up and pester capitalism, and they would be put summarily down, their
leaders murdered or locked up, order restored by a shift to the coercive
mechanisms of the capitalist state and by the full frontal assault of the
business class in the 1970s and 1980s.

Where I think you err is mistaking the varying degree of relative autonomy
of the capitalist state from the shifting dominance of bourgeois fractions
for a measure of weakness and strength. During the 1920s, the relative
autonomy of the state from powerful bourgeois fractions was by degree much
less than it was following the depression. The state was openly announcing
its pro-business stance, and pursuing open policies of enriching the
bourgeoisie. But this does not mean the ruling class was stronger, just
that the state was more instrumental in its character. Following the
depression, and particularly following the second world war, the relative
autonomy of the state increased by degree considerably. Economic power was
dissimulated, and elements of the business class went underground, moving
into powerful business and security associations and organizations. But,
again, this does not mean the ruling class was weakened. It just means
that the capitalist state became more autonomous from powerful bourgeois
fractions. It had to to meet the requirements of the era. During this
period the worker movement was institutionalized, co-opted, and eventually
marginalized (today, under 1 in 6 workers is unionized). The ruling class
was greatly strengthened, and the infrastructure was so powerful that they
have now been able to walk away from the accords, devolve social welfare,
and shrink the relative autonomy of the state from key bourgeois fractions
and still maintain hegemonic control. Of course, the state is much more
coercive now, as well, another sign of their (over)confidence.

> After WW II, powerful unions redistributed income from the rich to the
> poor, the welfare state blossomed (though not as much as the warfare
> state), and many sectors of the economy -- from home ownership to mass
> education -- were radically democratized.

If you look at the distribution of wealth during this period, you will see
that its did not change dramatically, but rather the policies did not
permit increasing income inequality as they had before. With government
intervention in the economy, increasing neo-imperialist activities, a
wildly successful step over the raw imperialism of the pre-World War II
era, wealth pouring into the country, the building of the Grand Area,
the rebuilding and retooling of the Great Workshops of Europe and Japan,
and the military-industrial complex, the economy was growing
astronomically; so while wealth was distributed more equitably (in
historical terms and by US standards), the capitalist class was making out
big time. Thus the ruling class was not only strengthened through their
hegemonic activities, but also through the massive amount of wealth they
were accumulating from the increasing organic composition of capital,
monopoly arrangements, expansion of world markets, stability, and
government funding.

Another error you make is in seeing gains in wages and rises in living
standards and social welfare, etc., as evidence that the ruling class was
weaker. By incorporating the two questions into a false dilemma you
generate a false interpretation of this history. These two questions, and
this was why I separated them out for analytical clarity, are not mutually
exclusive, nor are they necessarily negatively related, that is, just
because one goes up it does not mean the other must go down. This is
possibly because you analyze the development of the US capitalist state
and economy in isolation and as a static equilibrium, thus you assume that
life getting better for workers and the poor means that life must have
gotten skinny for the wealthy and the middle class. Your conclusions
indicate this logic. But the economy something like tripled during 1950
and 1970, and it did so because of the development of the world system and
the relations of the US with the rest of the world. The other problem is
that your "empirical" characterizations of these periods are just not
accurate.

> Social Security, employer-paid health insurance, Medicare...  big biz
> fought like mad dogs against all this socialistic stuff -- and lost.

Some bourgeois fractions fought this (particularly labor intensive
competitive industries). But the capitalist state, particularly during its
more autonomous phases, does not work for particular bourgeois fractions.
The capitalist state reproduces the capitalist mode of production. The
short term interests of various bourgeois fractions, if put into practice
by the state, would, like they did in the 1920s, wreck the capitalist
system. Only the capitalist state, and monopoly and forward-gazing sectors
of the economy, who did not struggle like mad dogs against government
policy, have the capacity to consider and organize the long-term interests
of the capitalist class. Eventually these mad dogs, after the
infrastructure of hegemonic domination had fundamentally structured the
masses of the US social formation, did some to power and were able to push
back these things they always hated. But they were a minority force during
the 1950s and 1960s.

Your characterization of the capitalist state in the 1950s as a democratic
tower captured by leftists and besieged by the wild dogs of capital is,
how should we put it, astonishing?

> Now big biz is, of course, trying to destroy all these
> hard-fought gains, and succeeding to a frightening degree; the political
> power of we working folks has spiraled downwards in this country, just
> like our real wages. The EU, alas, appears to be on the same royal road to
> ruin.

This is a necessary adaptation to the imperatives of the global economy.
The capitalist state is never for the workers. Therefore, when the times
comes that the state must respond to economic needs differently, it will.
You idealize the state in this period and generally.

> > 	(2) Do you think that the modifications made to the US economy
> > 	following the Great Depression, and institutionalized following
> > 	World War Two, raised or lowered the living standards of US
> > 	citizens in general?
>
> Raised, obviously.

Yes, of course, and this, in part, explains both the growing power of the
capitalist state, the growth and stabilization of the capitalist mode of
production, and the expansion and intensity of US hegemonic domination at
home and abroad.

The correct answers to the two questions are: the ruling class was
strengthened and the subaltern classes saw their living standards and life
chances rise during the period in question.

Andy