Phil 2265: Social / Political Philosophy

Phil 2265: Social / Political Phil 2265: Social / Political PhilosophyPhilosophy

The (entire) history of Marxism in 120 min!

The Frankfurt SchoolThe Frankfurt School

Adorno, Horkheimer, Benjamin, Marcuse, Neumann, Kirchheimer, Lowenthal and Erich Fromm.

Jurgen Habermas

The actual school in Frankfurt disbanded in the face of Nazism and moved to NY to become The New School for Social Research.

The ProblemThe Problem

Why was Marx so incredibly right about capitalism, but so incredibly wrong about communism?

Others: Lukacs, Korsch, Gramsci– Lukacs forced to denounce his own views by

the Communists in the 30s– Korsch was kicked out of the German

Communist Party for refusing to do the same– Gramsci was ‘protected’ from these purges

because he was held in a fascist prison!

Bond with your kids via Bond with your kids via product ownershipproduct ownership

Bond with your kids via Bond with your kids via product ownershipproduct ownership

Bond with your kids via Bond with your kids via product ownershipproduct ownership

Personal relationships with Personal relationships with things… Economic things… Economic

relationships with peoplerelationships with people

Personal relationships with Personal relationships with things… Economic things… Economic

relationships with peoplerelationships with people

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…

Define yourself…Define yourself…(alternatively)(alternatively)

Define yourself…Define yourself…(alternatively)(alternatively)

And world peace through And world peace through sugary soda watersugary soda water

47 Starbucks in Beijing4 in Oman17 in Paris!22 in Instanbul (4 in Ankara)

Solutions?Solutions?

Broadly speaking, a psychological explanation:

+ =

Influences:Influences:

Built on the research programs of Max Weber & Lukacs:

RationalizationCommodity Fetishism

+ =

Reification

Why?Why?

Weber’s central contention was this: that capitalism is not just an economic system – it is not simply explainable in terms of the ‘impulse to acquire’.

It is something more: “a capitalistic economic action is one which rests on the expectation of profit by the utilization of opportunities for exchange, that is one (formally) peaceful chances of profit”

Capitalism, for Weber, is intimately connected to the Protestant ethos –it is more than an economic system, it is, at least partially, a religion.

The Frankfurt school sought similar explanations of peoples’ political and economic behavior – that is, in terms of psychological states and properties.

Marcuse sees people as dominated by ‘one-dimensional’ society – people have given up their autonomy, they willingly submit to the control – both economic and political - of others. Why?

Lukacs:Lukacs:

Commodity Fetishism: turning commodities into quasi-spiritual meaning-carrying entities through which we define our lives and find meaning.

Weber’s 2Weber’s 2ndnd contribution: contribution:

The ‘rationalization’ of bureaucracy: treating something that depends on human decision and is within human control as if it is not.(later)

ReificationReification

‘Reification’: from Lukacs – a synthesis of Marx’s commodity fetishism with Weberian rationalization. It occurs when something is treated in theory or practice as a marketable commodity (I.e. its use-value becomes its exchange-value)

Add to this Weber’s rationalization and…

Treating commodities as quasi-spiritual entities, and thinking that this is what they are objectively in and of themselves.

(that is, failing to recognize that this quasi-spiritual status is dependent on the way we treat these objects, not anything they are themselves).

So, how is all this So, how is all this supposed to work?supposed to work?

• Background:– Marx – Das Capital & Lukacs’

interpretation (commodity fetishism)– Weber ‘rationalization’– Lukacs and ‘reification’– Then, Marcuse (in brief) and an

example of the Frankfurt school’s reasoning: Adorno on Music.

Marx.Marx.

“A commodity is, in the first place, a thing outside of us that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another.”

But, in reality, commodities have properties other than those that satisfy wants – people collect them, venerate them, are loyal to them, and preserve them.

Where do these mysterious properties come from?

2 Key premises:2 Key premises:

1. In all states of society, the labor time that it costs to produce subsistence is necessarily of interest to all mankind.

2. From the moment that men in any way work with or for one another, their labor assumes a social form.

• Marx’s contention: – Science the special status of

commodities is above and beyond subsistence, the enigmatic character of commodities comes from this social form of production.

The equality of human labor is expressed in objects by the equal value of the products (If I take 2ce as long to produce a widget than you take to produce a fidget, a widget must cost 2ce as much as a fidget).

Thus, the relations between producers take on the form of relations between our products.

Therefore, a commodity is mysterious because:In it the social character of labor appears to be a property of the object itself. The relations between the producers to the sum total of their labor (that is, their products) is presented back to them as social relations between the products they produce. Therefore:“Products of labor become commodities – social things whose qualities are at the same time perceptible and imperceptible by the senses.”

The social relationship between commodities is analogous to the social relationship between ‘souls’ or ‘spirits’. They are productions of the human mind, yet appear to be independent beings endowed with life and entering into relations with one another and the human race in general.

1. Articles of utility become commodities only because they are products of the labor of private individuals or groups…

2. Since producers do not come into social contact with one another until they exchange their products, the specific social character of each producer’s labor doesn’t show itself expect in the act of exchange.

3. The labor of an individual is thus a prart of the labor of society only insofar as it is related in exchange with other products, and indirectly, then, to the producers.

4. Thus the relations connecting the labor of individuals are not direct social relations between individuals, but are material relations between persons and social relations between things.

5. And it is only in being exchanged that the products of labor acquire uniform social status – or value – distinct from their use-value.

6. And when products are produced solely for the purpose of being exchanged, then their exchange value must be taken into account before production.

7. Therefore, the products of labor, to the producer of those products, have value only insofar as they are desired by others, and since the products of labor are merely material expressions of the producers’ labor, the producers’ labor has value only insofar as it is desired by others (and, hence, the basis of wage-labor).

WeberWeber

The main question is “Why advanced capitalism only in the west?”

‘advanced capitalism’ = “The rational capitalistic organization of (formally) free labor” – this includes the separation of business from the household and the rationalization of bookkeeping.

1. Western capitalism is highly influenced by the development of technological possibilities.

2. And those technological possibilities were encouraged by certain social-culture mores (dissection, e.g.)

3. One of these social-culture mores of central importance is the particular law (i.e. the Magna Carta needed in Islam)

“Modern rational capitalism has need, not only of technical means of production, but of a calculable legal systems and of administration in terms of formal rules”

(If there were individuals in the country to whom the law did not apply – would you risk your hard earned money in an investment?)

4. When the rationalization of law comes into conflict with religion, religion usually wins (witness the development of biology in Hindu and Buddhist cultures, Islam in the modern world…)

5. So, there must have been something in the protestant, Calvinistic tradition that was amenable to the rationalization of law. (we talked about that…)

It is one of the fundamental characteristics of an individualistic capitalistic economy that it is rationalized on the basis of rigorous calculation, directed with foresight and caution toward economic success which is sought in sharp contrast to the hand-to-mouth existence of the peasant, and to the privileged traditionalism of the guild craftsman and of the adventures’ capitalism, oriented to the exploitation of political opportunities and irrational speculation.

The development of the spirit of capitalism is best understood as part of the development of rationalism as a whole and could be deduced from the fundamental position of rationalism on the basic problems of life (76)

6. So, capitalism is a feature of rationalization of society (which is intimately connected to religion).

1. It’s self-justifying2. It’s self-verifying3. It ‘takes on a life of it’s own’4. And it’s seen to be outside of human

control.5. It’s intimately connected with religion

LukacsLukacs

Central thesis: in developed capitalistic societies, the fetishism of commodities penetrates all spheres of social lifeThe factory is the model of all social

relationshipsThe fate of the worker is the fate of all

humanity

1. The world of commodity exchange is seen as the estrangement (alienation) of human activity and the de-activation of individuality

2. Reducing human labor to a commodity abstracts it and makes it interchangeable with other laborers – thus undermining individual choice, expression, thought, etc.

3. The worker is ‘mutilated’ “reduced to mere spectatorship, to mere contemplation of his own estranged activity and that of his fellows. He is emasculated.”

MarcuseMarcuse

Central question:

Why does the “comfortable, smooth and reasonable unfreedom” prevail in advanced industrialized society?

• “Comfortable”• “Smooth”• “Reasonable”

Marcuse – through extending the notion of ‘rationalization’ beyond the relationship between people and their products to people and what they consume, find this same emasculation in all spheres of human life.If the market is the model for the family, family

relationships are rationalized (they just happen)If the market is the model for education, students

are passive recipients, unable to choose or interact.

Etc…

“The facts directing man’s thoughts and actions are not those of nature which must be accepted in order to be mastered, of those of society which must be changed because they no longer correspond to human needs and potentialities. Rather are they those of the machine process, which itself appears as the embodiment of rationality and expediency.”

In more detail: to the extent that freedom from want is decreased, the ‘traditional’ freedoms of freedom of thought, autonomy and opposing political views are “being deprived of their basic critical function” in advanced societies that can satisfy our every want.

How?How?

Reduce the discussion and promotion of alternative political views to those within the status quo.

How?1. ‘non-conformity is socially useless’ and2. It is of great economic and practical

disadvantage.3. And, it threatens the smoothness of the

society as a whole.(Co-opting)

How did this come about?How did this come about?

Again: subsistence.Subsistence and liberty are not

necessarily amenable. The ‘freedom’ to starve, e.g.Recall Berlin- when faced with

starvation, people prefer security to liberty.

So, it should follow that:So, it should follow that:

Increasing the satisfaction of needs should increase freedom and liberty

Once everyone’s basic needs are met, society should be perfectly free and perfectly ordered.

But that’s Marx’s theory.And it didn’t work.

Technically:Technically:

The “end” of technological society: to render individual autonomy possible through the organization or an apparatus (automation and mechanization) of the satisfaction of our basic needs.

“In actual fact, however, the contrary trend operates: the apparatus imposes its economic and political requirements for defense and expansion on labor time and free time, on the material and intellectual culture.”

Therefore, society tends to be totalitarian- not in the sense of a terroristic political

organization, but rather in the sense of a “non-terroristic economic-technical coordination which operates through the manipulation of needs by vested interests.”

Society therefore precludes any opposition to the whole.

Note: this a bit strong – the premise that a system manipulates needs and is therefore totalitarian, he still hasn’t demonstrated that that society precludes opposition. But, if we charitably give him the notion of the co-opting of oppositional ideals, we get the strong thesis. And the strong thesis gives us:

The government of such societies can maintain and secure itself only through “mobilizing, organizing and exploiting the technical, scientific and mechanical productivity available to industrialized civilization” And this productivity mobilizes society. Therefore, to control the society, one only need control the apparatus or ‘machine’ of the economy.

What’s all this about the What’s all this about the Apparatus / Machine?Apparatus / Machine?

• Does Marcuse think we’re living in the Matrix or what?

No, it’s a basic assumption of Marx’s theory that the bourgeoisie controls the modes of production and the proletariat controls the means. ‘Modes’ are the way production happens (I.e. the big factories) and the ‘means’ are the labor by which the machines are run.

And remember: the power of the ‘machine’ is nothing more than the power of the people – we shouldn’t ‘reify’ it. That’s the fallacy most people make.

Thus, in order to be liberated, we have to recognize that the economic-political machine that zaps our autonomy is just a product of people. The work-world therefore becomes the potential basis for freedom. (notice the dialectical move here).

“Freedom” must be rethought. Economic freedom is not longer freedom to make

money (free market) it is freedom from the economy.

Political freedom is no longer freedom to participate in politics it is freedom from the political system over which they have no control.

And Freedom of speech (thought / conscience) is not freedom to speak, but freedom from the (marketing and manipulative) speech of others.

These ideals seem unrealistic only insofar as we have become alienated from our own needs to such an extent that we can’t even tell what our needs are (as opposed to our wants) let alone what it is that might satisfy our needs.

‘False’ needs are those that are imposed on the individual by particular social interests in his repression – the needs that

‘perpetuate toil, aggressiveness, misery and injustice’. The need to get to Baltimore 1 minute earlier

than you would if you got off my ass on 140.The need to drive a hummer.

The satisfaction of these needs is, in reality, unsatisfactory. Why? Because on some subconscious level, one knows that these needs are not one’s own.These needs are determined by external

powers outside of my controlNo matter how much I identify with them (in

fact, the more identify with them, the worse the problem), the development and satisfaction of these needs are the products of the society – which demands repression.