Here’s the link to my notes for Wednesday’s lecture.
I’m sorry that we didn’t get a chance to run through the entire chapter today. In the future I’ll budget our time more wisely and we’ll cover more ground.
As I said in seminar, the entire Norton text is required reading for this course. The main reading schedule only indicates specific chapters for lecture, but be assured every chapter is necessary. Go to the American Civilization page for a recommended schedule of Norton readings.
If we’re to grasp the stakes of the fifty years from Reconstruction to the Red Scare we’ll need to consider the ways that major social changes impacted ordinary people at the most basic levels: how they worked, played, related to one another, etc. To that end, you could do worse than peruse an earlier entry on this blog, Pittsburgh, ca. 1907 and/or this excerpt from my dissertation:
Any narrative seeking to generalize about the transformation of the United States from Reconstruction to the Palmer Raids would likely emphasize a favored trope of American historiography– the inexorable tightening of society, the increasing rigidity of a social order embedded in the inflexible necessities of gargantuan economic forces.
Good news for CSU administrators making more than $200,000 a year. A bill introduced by Leland Yee which would have frozen pay increases for the wealthiest employees of the California university system during economic hard times– an effort to share the burden of cuts– has been killed in the state senate thanks to the tireless efforts of lobbyists. CSU spends $1.1 million on its own in-house lobbyists annually and just this June it was revealed that CSU chancellor Charles Reed hired still more of them– Capitol Advocacy LLC, and Sloat Higgins Jensen & Associates– companies which were kept on retainer at a cost of $400,000 even when they were not actively engaged in lobbying efforts. The cherry on top: at a time when it is projected that 40,000 students will NOT be attending CSU in the coming years, classes are being dropped, fees are rising by 20% (after a 10% bump in May), and thousands of actual educators have been not rehired (i.e., have been fired) due to budget constraints Reed retained the firms without bothering to implement a bidding process.
Wednesday I lectured in a somewhat coherent fashion on the relevance of the Communist Manifesto for the study of US history and culture. Let me recapitulate the most salient aspects of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels’ pamphlet (which, as I said in class, is globally the most significant political tract ever published).
The CM opens as a ghost story: the “specter of communism” has appeared, frightening the owners of capital, those Marx calls the bourgeoisie, a French term for capitalists. Why would capitalists be frightened of communists? According to Marx, because the latter are dedicated to the absolute overthrow of capitalism– in a word, revolution.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. At one time the bourgeoisie itself was a revolutionary class, destroying the old order of feudalism and building a new system based on private property and investment.
The first section of the CM is primarily concerned with history, and to that end Marx gives us a model of historical change, a theory of history that would eventually come to be known as “the materialist conception of history.” In another text Marx had claimed that
“We do not set out from what men say, imagine, conceive, nor from men as narrated, thought of, imagined, conceived, in order to arrive at men in the flesh. We set out from real, active men, and on the basis of their real life-process.”
At issue here is a philosophical principle, one which holds that in order to understand the world– and, indeed, to change it– we must begin not with our ideas about things but those things themselves. The study and criticism of history, then, is above all concerned with material forces: how people subsist and reproduce themselves through their labor, the movement of populations, the rise of new technologies, etc. Who we think we are and what we think we are doing are outgrowths of our basic material condition, a product of the way that society is organized. Marx encapsulates this idea with the assertion that
“The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.”
What follows is a brief and pungent history of the fall of feudalism and the rise of capitalism, “the modern bourgeois society [which] has sprouted from the ruins of feudal society,” a transformation that, far from dispelling the antagonism between classes, has, in fact, simply deepened those contradictions. As the bourgeoisie grows in size and power, so does another class, the proletariat, which Marx describes as those “who live only so long as they find work, and who find work only so long as their labor increases capital.” Proletarians “must sell themselves piecemeal, [they] are a commodity… and are consequently exposed to all the vicissitudes of competition, to all the fluctuations of the market.” The bourgeoisie own, and by owning increase their wealth. The proletariat own nothing but their capacity to labor, which they are compelled to sell as a commodity in order to survive.
Note that for Marx one of the watershed events in the rise of capitalism is the “discovery of America” and the ensuing extraction of massive amounts of wealth from the western hemisphere which was then funneled directly into Europe. We talked about this development in passing on Wednesday, and it bears repeating: the production of raw commodities such as tobacco, sugar, tin, silver, cotton, etc. with slave labor essentially built the great cathedrals and cities of Europe. The opening of what was at that time called “the antipodes” for intensive agriculture and mineral exploitation provided an incredible boost for early capitalism, ultimately creating fortunes which would be invested in new technologies and fueling the industrial revolution. Let’s be clear: America was indispensable to the development of global capitalism.
New forms of labor arose and new ways of organizing that labor, from the closed shops of “guild-masters” to the advent of manufacturing centers. The character of work changed: the division of labor separated different activities in the productive process. Work became more specialized. If at one time a craftsman might, for instance, build an entire chair himself, in the new system one worker might lathe the chair’s legs while another wove its seat and yet another assembled the finished parts.
As these changes in labor transpired, a world market was rapidly emerging, an example of which might be the triangular trade. New transportation and communication technologies emerged, such as steam power and, in the 19th century, telegraphy.
Yet this new economic system was rife with contradictions and depended on ceaseless transformation:
“Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.”
A key characteristic of capitalism, then, is an unending ferment, what Joseph Schumpeter identified as a dynamic of “creative destruction.” That principle of constant change is related to another core trait of capitalism: the absolute necessity for growth. As local resources are depleted new sources of raw materials must be obtained. As local markets are saturated, new markets must be created or conquered in order to absorb surplus. The expansion of trade begets new desires:
“In place of the old wants, satisfied by the productions of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and self-sufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction….”
Now this last passage might sound something like globalization, and indeed it is. Globalization is a process that has been operative since at least the opening of the Silk Route, one that was massively amplified by the industrial revolution and later phases of capitalism.
The development of capitalism over the last 400 or so years, Marx continues, has led to unprecedented demographic changes, to urbanization, to a world-system of economic power in which those nations which are most developed dominate those which are less developed. Capitalism has changed the political character of countries as well, leading the State to centralize its powers and to codify laws, in effect creating governments which reflect the values and ideals of the bourgeoisie.
Yet the capitalist mode of production– in perpetual agitation, constantly expanding, establishing creative powers that dwarf the abilities of all prior civilizations– is prone to crisis. Recessions and depressions follow periods of unprecedented economic growth. Fortunes are made and lost. Whole sectors of the economy become redundant. Industries are plagued by over-production. In order to escape these crises the bourgeoisie must remake the economy, locate new markets, intensify the exploitation of old ones, adjust wages, develop new technologies.
In the coming weeks we’ll be studying a period of history known to scholars as the Gilded Age and Progressive Era (also identified with the unfortunate acronym GAPE). The industrializing landscape of burgeoning American cities were the scorched earth of maturing, late-nineteenth century capitalism. The awesome productive powers of that rapidly consolidating economic system were accompanied by some of the worst depredations of which capitalism is capable. It was in these years that ideas about the relationship of the State to its People were formed. Should Americans be left to struggle individually or did the government have some obligation to intervene on behalf of the most vulnerable? Was capitalism synonymous with the national identity or character? Was democracy at the risk of subversion because of economic inequalities? The ways that ordinary people approached such questions will, I think, give us a fuller understanding of the past and insight into our own historical moment.
Fifty years ago this month Jazz genius Miles Davis released Kind of Blue. Have a listen:
Did you catch that? Every cut was a first take. You can find tracks from Kind of Blue on youtube. I recommend “So What”.
Bonus track: John Coltrane’s “Giant Steps”:
Here’s an on-line version of the constitution. Remember, the assignment calls for you to read the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments. Be sure to bring a hard copy to lecture.
Today in seminar I wanted to play this song by way of an example of how culture travels over time and across space. Wu Tang Clan fans will recognize this track.
So much of the culture that we produce and consume these days appropriates past cultural artifacts and practices. Recall that the whole notion of “retro” is a very recent invention. More importantly, what does this phenomenon tell us about the state of culture in the contemporary world?
Print out the first two sections of the Communist Manifesto and read them. Be sure to bring your copy to class on Wednesday.
Here’s a fantastic interview by Bill Moyers with the creator of The Wire, David Simon. Of particular note is his idea of what others have called “surplus populations“– the 10 or 15 percent of Americans who are irrelevant to the national economy and thus treated as such: confined to the poorer neighborhoods, hedged in by police, kept out of sight.
Income inequality in the United States is the highest it has ever been. The wealthiest 10 percent of the country now possess almost half of all income in the United States. The graph below shows that the richest .01 percent of the population has 6 percent of its income.