Continued from Part One
For all intents and purposes, capitalism and socialism are indistinguishable. That’s the gist of Heilbroner’s argument for the primacy of socioeconomic arrangements over the political ones in the post-industrial societies. For the remainder of this article I’ll try to unpack Heilbroner’s paradoxical argument and expose the underlying rationale.
From the get-go, Heilbroner forgoes making his case by arguing from any particular example of capitalism or socialism, past or present. On the capitalist side of the ledger, he lists such diverse variants of the economic system in place as those exhibited by the United States, England, Sweden, the Netherlands, and Japan. Although it may be tempting to single out the US as the typical capitalist nation, Heilbroner points out, and quite rightly, that certain contemporary features typically attributed to a capitalist system in general as endemic – for instance, racism, militarism and social neglect – “are not to be found in like degree in all capitalist nations..., [whereas they may well be] discoverable in non-capitalist nations such as the [former] Soviet Union.”
Likewise with the socialist nation-states. Aside from the former Russia (and many of its then-satellites), we could point to the former Yugoslavia or, however briefly, to Czechoslovakia as hosting another major variant of the socialist order, both featuring, as Heilbroner called it, a “socialism with a human face”; or even to the kind of socialist order that has already emerged or is likely to emerge (don’t forget, it’s the 1974 perspective!) in the underdeveloped world. (Latin America is the most fertile ground, and Chile, Venezuela and Bolivia are the prime examples.)
It is therefore unwarranted, Heilbroner argues, to look to the United States or to its presumed arch-rival, the Soviets, as representing capitalism or socialism either pure or proper, unless we do so strictly “by virtue of...[their] size, power, or global dominance.” To do so, however, would be to ignore the very considerations just raised: there’s just too much variance to go around to regard either dominant form as “typical”; it may well be an aberration, a caricature of what capitalism or socialism either could be or was meant to be, end of story. So no, concludes Heilbroner, we can’t argue with any degree of confidence by examining the individual cases, but only by considering the ideal types. Hence his rudimentary definition of capitalism as:
. . . an economic order marked by the private ownership of the means of production vested in the minority class called “capitalists,” and by a market system that determines the incomes and distributes the outputs arising from its productive activity...[and] a social order characterized by a “bourgeois” culture, among whose manifold aspects the drive for wealth is the most important...[and of socialism as] an economic system [which prides itself on at least partial] replacement of private property and the market with some form of public ownership and planning.
Since, by and large, the difference between the two systems seems to turn on the ownership of, and the rights to, the means of production, including the disposition of the accumulated surplus/profit, one would think that Heilbroner might consider it a relevant enough distinction to run with. It is all the more significant, therefore, that he does not, and so we must ask, Why not? What other consideration(s) could possibly weigh heavier for him than the act of implementing a dictum from what seems Marx’s own playbook?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dr Dreadful
Heilbroner's surprise that the same conditions could be found regardless of whether the countries concerned were nominally capitalist or socialist might have been lessened had he considered that both of these economic systems are invariably run by humans.
2 - Anarcissie
They are also predominantly authoritarian. The idea of socialism ('the ownership and control of the means of production by the workers') as something to be implemented by a government is especially dubious.
3 - roger nowosielski
I'm not certain, Dreadful, he's surprised: in any case, I didn't mean to leave that impression. Consider the following quote:
"Can we expect an industrial socialist society, be it characterized by authoritarian or by democratic government, to weather such a transformation more easily than a capitalist society, 'private' or state? I doubt it. Both socio-economic systems are committed to a civilization whose most striking aspect is based on more than than the resistances and inertias of vested interests that we find throughout history when established models of production become obsolete. It is also founded on a political consideration, namely whether any society can bring about alterations of this magnitude through the
conscious intervention of men, rather than by convulsive changes forced upon men."
The transformation Heilbroner refers to has to do with the following question:
"... whether we are unable to sustain growth or unable to tolerate it, there can be no doubt that a radically different future beckons. In either eventuality it seems beyond dispute that the present orientation of society must change. In place of the long-established encouragement of industrial production must come its careful restriction and long-term diminution within society. In place of prodigalities of consumption must come new frugal attitudes. In these and other ways, the 'post-industrial' society of the future is apt to be as different from the present-day industrial society as the latter was from its pre-industrial precursor."
4 - roger nowosielski
@2
Precisely. Heilbroner's major weakness: he can't fathom the possibility of a solution (even on a local level) to the kinds of problems facing humanity other than within the confines of nation-states.
5 - Anarcissie
Heilbroner was mainly active in an era when anarchistic ideas were simply not taken seriously by persons of his class, culture and respectability.
6 - roger nowosielski
You're running ahead of me, of course. Even so, his dismissal of the "political solution," and the reasons for that, should be instructive even for today's thinkers of Marxist-anarchistic persuasion (as per a number of previous comments by troll and Les Slater). I'll play out the tension between the economic and the political for as long as possible (like in a good chess game) until the air is clear at last.
7 - roger nowosielski
@1, Dreadful
I'd like to pick up on a latent sub-theme which seems to drive this remark: "...invariably run by humans" is the clue.
Although not quite as explicit, it does seem to reverberate the idea expressed by Christopher Rose on another thread (perhaps he can provide the link, as I can't seem to locate it), whereby the notion of a radical change (of the whole system) -- "ethos" is another term -- seems to be linked to, and made contingent on, a change in leadership.
Any comments on this, Chris, Dreadful? -- for my notion of leadership, and of how it figures in, is different. Essentially, I see it as an expression of the prevailing ethos (rather than merely forging it anew).
Of course we need fresh voices out there, but I think they're most effective in the formative stages (as in our upbringing of children, for instance). But what you and Chris seem to be saying: ... if only humans were "better," then ... (fill in the blanks).
8 - Anarcissie
Well, I was making an excuse for Heilbroner. His framework or mindset was not challenged within his environment in his more active years. The Sixties and its aftermath(s) seem to have washed over him with little effect.
9 - roger nowosielski
I think you're right 'bout that if "the Sixties" mean for you the popularization of anarchistic thought. Does being anti-Establishment come to the same thing? Was that the message of The Power Elite? Somehow, I think most of the protesters still believed in the government, in a "better" government.
Was Heilbroner as "liberated" as the French intellectuals of his time, Sartre, Camus, etc? Of course not. Still, for an American man of letters an
10 - roger nowosielski
cont'd
... and a representative of his class and culture he was (although one can detect a patronizing tone). Even the very idea of putting both capitalism and socialism on the same footing, as both riddled with relative successes and failures, short of being a card-carrying Communist, was a novel idea for an American intellectual.
11 - Igor
Capitalism and communism are more alike than different. They are the Cain and Abel of human political manias. Brothers, born of the same milieu. You get to choose which is Cain and which is Abel.
They are not even a distinct dichotomy since between them they are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. They really are brothers.
12 - Dr Dreadful
Roger, I just meant that Heilbroner's observation that capitalist and socialist systems seem to end up sharing certain distinctive features can be accounted for because certain desires and behaviours are common to all humans. A change in leadership can effect some retooling, usually minor, but radical change is either going to take a long time with many intermediate steps (cf. our pre-agricultural ancestors vs. our post-industrial selves), or require a significant external forcer (e.g. a large asteroid impact, supervolcano eruption or invasion by a hostile force).
13 - roger nowosielski
We agree, then, if by common desires and behaviors in this case mean a desire for comfort, for more material goods, etc., all the things, in other words, which drive industrial and technological development;
and on two: that any radical change, if it's to happen abruptly, is not going to come about as a result of "any conscious intervention of men, [but] rather . . . by convulsive changes forced upon men." (#3
14 - Cindy
Civilizational malaise, another description of "dominator hangover".
I like these bits best:
Each has succeeded in raising its level of material consumption; each has been unable to produce a climate of social satisfaction.
All these values manifest themselves throughout bourgeois and “socialist” styles of life, both lived by the clock, organized by the factory or office, obsessed with material achievements, attuned to highly quantitative modes of thought " in a word, by styles of life that, in contrast with non-industrial civilizations, seem dazzlingly rich in every dimension except that of the cultivation of the human person.
A lot to think about.
15 - Igor
@9-Roger: The Power Elite? C. Wright Mills?
From out of the past...
16 - roger nowosielski
Indeed, Igor.
Yes, Cindy, and that's from the mouth of an arch-conservative.
17 - Cindy
I think if one looks at some of the worker owned factories, the 'domination hangover' can be relieved.
I don't think it is of necessity the fact of industrialization, I think it is the relationships created by industrialization.
Thus, a change in the relationships can leave one with a tile factory that supports human happiness and enriches the spirit of human connectedness.
See FaSinPat (short for Fábrica Sin Patrones, in English: Factory without bosses), the current name of the worker owned factory in Argentina that used to be Zanon Ceramics.
Heart of the Factory (2008)
Corazón de fabrica (original title)
In 2001, the economic crisis in Argentina hundreds of factories closed. But Ceramica Zanon workers, decided to take their jobs and began to produce and manage the factory themselves. No bosses or bosses. In these years had to overcome boycotts and violent eviction attempts. But with the support of the community of Neuquén, became the most important reference of recovered factories.
Virna Molina and Ernesto Ardito were living inside the factory in 2005. Creating a documentary film that analyzes direct recording from the privacy of each situation, the operation of a factory without bosses. With a further close, with great sensitivity film and tense climates, the viewer enters the world of human conflict, organizational and political group as that of another worker.
But the film does not dwell on the situation, but more widely immerses us in an analysis of contradictions, achievements and problems of coexistence who move to any human organization. (source)
CORAZON DE FABRICA (Heart of the Factory), with English subtitles, a link I got from the filmmakers' site.
18 - roger nowosielski
Yes, this connects with Marx's concept of alienation (from the fruits and pleasures of one's labor) and with Durkheim's concept of anomie. But given the conditions of "labor for hire," there is no meaningful relationship to speak of, and lives are indeed being run by the clock and the factory or office.
19 - Cindy
Happy Valentine's Day to everyone.
20 - roger nowosielski
Great postcard, Cindy
21 - Cindy
The Double Slit Experiment
That will blow you away, Roger. We will talk after. There is more than philosophy or psychology or economics or postmodernism or social construction of reality and narrative. There is quantum physics.
That is partly my focus as well as other videos I have listed for you. I hope you will go back and watch them as they relate to our topic and are not just thread decorations :-).
Anyway, I look forward to talking to you after you have absorbed that easily comprehended but amazing to comprehend experiment.
22 - roger nowosielski
OK
23 - Cindy
So Roger,
The things I am looking at are reinforcing and informing our topic, but from a perspective that is coming from biology and physics.
In case you lost track of the links I posted before, here is a link to a video lecture by Robert Lanza on Biocentrism.
In the first 3 minutes you will see how this enriches all that we have discussed about the social construction of reality and adds another dimension--the possibility that the entire universe does not arise from a physics accident, but that it arises from our consciousness.
The book: Biocentrism: How Life and Consciousness are the Keys to Understanding the True Nature of the Universe
Orchestrated objective reduction (Orch-OR) is a perspective on the non-duality of consciousness, again along the lines of reinforcing the ideas we have been dealing with.
24 - roger nowosielski
Will make a deal with you, Cindy. If you re-read the articles numbered 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87 (see this link) in the listed order and try to get a general sense of where I'm going with all this, I'll look at your material and offer an observation or two.
OK?
25 - Cindy
I will be happy to reread your articles, Roger. However, I cannot make any "deal".
Look at what I have provided you, for your own edification or not at all, at your option. Perhaps you would not find cutting edge theory in scientific thinking that supports your philosophy or importance. I need no comments. These are gifts.