One obvious answer must be that Heilbroner never really considers communism as a serious alternative to capitalism, only socialism (and there’s a world of difference between the first two, but more on that later). What’s more immediate, however, is Heilbroner’s express purpose and the resulting focus: it is, after all, the dangers to the human prospect, the humanity’s very survival, that he’s concerned with; more so at any rate than with the complex problem of attaining social justice; and from this particular perspective, Heilbroner is not to be faulted. Which is to say that from the standpoint of meeting and responding to the listed challenges alone, he thinks both socioeconomic systems virtually indistinguishable (in the long run). To his mind, they appear to have more in common in the aforementioned respect than whatever it is that separates them. Consider, for instance, the following excerpt:
. . . the economic success of industrial socialism, in and of itself, has not brought a corresponding rise in general “happiness” or social contentment, much as with the mixed record of economic success and social disappointment of capitalism.
And right after,
I do not make this assertion to claim that industrial socialism has therefore failed: on the contrary, I imagine that in the minds of the majority of its citizens is has “succeeded,” to much the same degree as capitalism. Rather, I call attention to the situation within the industrial socialist world to stress the surprising similarity of outcomes between two otherwise widely different systems. Each has been marked with serious operational difficulties; each has overcome these difficulties with economic growth. Each has succeeded in raising its level of material consumption; each has been unable to produce a climate of social satisfaction. This leads to the suggestion that common elements of great importance [equally] affect the adaptability of both systems to the challenges of the human prospect.
Aside now from the fact that Heilbroner’s claim concerning the relative economic successes of both systems (circa 1974) merits a serious revision, everything else he says is pretty much on target. More importantly, however, in the immediately following paragraph he carries the ball further by identifying “these common elements as the forces and structures of scientific technology on which both systems depend for their momentum.”
This suggestion [he continues] would least seem to need supporting argument in explaining the ability of both systems to achieve economic growth, despite the malfunctions of the market in one case and of planning machinery in the other. All the processes of industrial production that are the material end products of scientific technology have one characteristic of overwhelming effect – their capability of enormously magnifying human productivity by endowing men with literally superhuman abilities to control the physical and chemical attributes of nature. Once an industrial system has been established – a historic process that has been as painful for capitalism as for socialism – it truly resembles a gigantic machine that asserts its productive powers despite the sabotage of businessmen or bureaucrats.
There only remains to trace “the common disappointments of [both] capitalism and socialism with regard to the achievement of ‘happiness’...to the presence of scientific technology and the industrial civilization that is built upon it...” and Heilbroner’s argument is well nigh complete. And once he pays lip service to conventional wisdom whereby the social ills and dissatisfactions “may have their roots in the capitalist ethos” in one instance, and in “the repressive political and social institutions” in the other; notice that Heilbroner is being evenhanded here. He is equally unimpressed with deficiencies in the area of social/economic justice (see above) as with human rights and freedoms, presumably the exclusive province of western-style democracies! He closes his argument with this superb passage:
. . . industrial civilization achieves its economic success by imposing common values on both its capitalist and socialist variants. There is the value of the self-evident importance of efficiency, with its tendency to subordinate the optimum human scale of things to the optimum technical scale. There is the value of the need to “tame” the environment, with its consequence of an unthinking pillage of nature. There is the value of the priority of production itself, visible in the care both systems lavish on technical virtuosity and the indifference with which both look upon the aesthetic aspects of life. 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. The malaise that I believe flickers within our consciousness thus seems to afflict industrial socialist as well as capitalist societies, because it is a malady ultimately rooted in the “imperatives” of a common mode of production.
And so here it is in a nutshell: It is “civilizational malaise,” marked by “the [unprecedented] presence of science and technology as the driving forces of our age,” that defines for Heilbroner the common denominator of all post-industrial societies, be they capitalist or socialist, newly-emerging or still extant and decadent. It is the same civilizational malaise that serves as the crucible in which modern-day societies are shaped and molded, as the general environment from which, in the process of so forming, they derive their essential characteristics. It is civilizational malaise that is the great leveler here, irrespective of the kind of socioeconomic system about to emerge, with the result that capitalism and socialism are virtually indistinguishable for him when it comes to either system’s capacity to adapt and respond to the external dangers facing us. And it is civilizational malaise again, so defined and understood, that is the ultimate source of those very dangers.
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.