What
is collapsing around us is the “settlement” that had seen the industrial
working class “integrated” as the engine of capitalist growth through the
institutional instrument of the money wage. What is evaporating, vanishing
before our very eyes is the relevance and legitimacy of “Labor” parties that
still cling to the “reduction” of living labour to dead objectified labour, and
therefore the “representation” of the economic system as an impartial objective
“mechanism” or machinery dependent on the “rational organization of labor” –
and therefore on the “neutrality” of the State-Plan in co-ordinating the
functioning of the system through the maintenance of legality and of the
competitive “level playing field”. The “fine-tuning” of Keynesian memory has
been blown away – smashed – in the eclipse of the Great Moderation. The central
banks – the ultimate Keynesian technocratic refuge of the bourgeoisie – that
had celebrated the stamping out of inflation, the coming of “price stability”,
now find themselves roasting in the inferno of “financial instability” fuelled
diabolically by the attempt to recycle the immense profits accumulated on the
blood and sweat of Chinese workers, helplessly tyrannized by the most brutal
dictatorship in size and truculence the earth has ever known, that swelled the
financial bubble that burst so spectacularly barely three years ago.
Capitalism
is in agony, and so is its “science”: we are here to administer its extreme
unction and perhaps to draft its post mortem. What dies with this stage of
capitalism (Minsky spoke of different “capitalisms”) is the ideology of Social
Democracy: the ideology of “Labor”. For “labor” is precisely what we must
fight. We must refuse to work. And we must refuse the “labor” that the
capitalist “employer” gives to us. It
is true: the employer “gives” labor! By accepting to work, we accept “labor” as
defined by capital. We rebel therefore principally against the “Labor” parties:
our party will be called “the Party Against
Labor”. Let us see why by returning to Max Weber, and only later to Keynes.
A specifically bourgeois economic ethic had
grown up. With the consciousness of standing in the fullness
176
of
God's grace and being visibly blessed by Him, the bourgeois business man, as
long as he remained within the bounds of formal correctness, as long as his
moral conduct was spotless and the use to which he put his wealth was not
objectionable, could follow his pecuniary interests as he would and feel that
he was fulfilling a duty in doing so. The power of religious asceticism provided him in addition with sober,
conscientious, and unusually
industrious workmen, who clung to their work
as to a life purpose willed by God.
Weber’s
attempt to locate the “spirit” of capitalism and therefore great part of the
historical origins of capitalism in
“the protestant work ethic” at the beginning of the bourgeois era as “a
specifically bourgeois economic ethic” must fail, and for reasons that are both
instructive and politically useful to us – us the “party against labor”.
Not
only is there a problem with historical
periodisation. The timing of the “protestant ethic” does not accord with the
rise of agrarian and then industrial capitalism in England
and Northern Europe in the early 1600s. Not
only is it a horrendous reality that, far from being “sober, conscientious, and unusually industrious workmen, who clung to
their work as to a life purpose willed by God”, the industrial proletariat
that was herded into vast urban centres in England from London to Manchester
and beyond resembled an army returning from a horrific war. Just read any
Charles Dickens novel and you will understand perfectly well how far from
reality Weber is here.
Weber’s
judgement is not just wrong but deprecable and contemptible in the extreme. His
sociological and theoretical work is motivated by the interests of his own
class, the bourgeoisie: and this is precisely why it is not sufficient to say
how wrong he was: it is very important “to get inside the mind” of one of the
sharpest and perspicacious and encyclopaedic political minds the bourgeoisie
has ever produced. It is symptomatic of his espousal of the point of view of
his class that Weber should put the cart before the horse both analytically (as
we are about to see) and historically by seeking to camouflage as a “religious
belief” – a “calling” – the vile and horrific practices of a class that to this
day seeks to glorify and rationalize its brutality in the name of scientific
objectivity.
Right
from the beginning of his monograph, Weber’s quote from Benjamin Franklin to
the effect that “time is money” brilliantly illustrates his misapprehension and
willful obfuscation: it was not because people “believed” through their
religious faith that “time is money” that a protestant work ethic developed.
Instead, it was precisely because “time had already become money” that the
bourgeoisie developed a religious apology for the enforcement of their
“bourgeois economic ethic” on the rest of society. (Cf. on this, the superb
study by EP Thompson on “Time and Work Discipline in the Industrial Revolution”
- http://www.4shared.com/document/s3K-9DQB/14564783-E-P-Thompson-Tempo-Di.htm
.) What Weber was attempting to do with the central thesis of the Ethik was nothing less than to rewrite
the truculent history of the rise of his class in Europe
and to cover it in sanctimonious ascetic self-righteousness.
But
there are also analytical reasons why Weber is as wrong as can be.
Protestantism could never serve as “a specifically bourgeois economic ethic”
for the very simple reason that it is founded entirely on “labour”: it is
therefore at bottom a profoundly socialistic
faith or belief or “ethos” whose highest theoretical economic expression is to
be found in the Classical Political Economy that reached its apex with David
Ricardo – after which it gave way to the Neoclassical (or marginalist)
Revolution which, as we will argue here, represents much more intimately “a
specifically bourgeois economic theory and ethic”. In disposing of the labour
theory of value, “the Marx of the bourgeoisie”, Eugen Bohm-Bawerk, the chief
artificer of the Austrian School, was both blunt and devastating: if “value and
interest” are solely attributable to “labour” and to “the theft of labour
time”, then competition for workers between capitalists should ensure that there
is no “profit” left at all!
Weber
himself acknowledges the inadequacy of “the protestant work ethic” as an
explanation for the mature stages of capitalism:
In Baxter's
view the care for external goods should only lie on the shoulders of the saint like
a light cloak, which can be thrown aside at any moment. But fate decreed that
the cloak should become an iron cage.
Since
asceticism undertook to remodel the world and to work out its ideals in the
world, material goods have gained an increasing and finally an inexorable power
over the lives of men as at no previous period in history.
To-day
the spirit of religious asceticism—whether finally, who knows?—has escaped from
the cage. But victorious capitalism, since it rests on mechanical
181
foundations, needs its support no longer.
Note
how Weber is talking merely of a “supporting role” for the protestant work
ethic in the origins of capitalism. But did the bourgeoisie really need this
“ethos” except as pure ideology? The question is worth exploring because it may
well be that the history of asceticism may still lead us to “a specifically
bourgeois economic ethic” interpreted in a sense very different from Weber’s.
Perhaps the biggest objection to Weber’s formulation of the problem is that he
seeks to present the work ethic as an attribute not just of the bourgeoisie but
also of the working class!
The Puritan wanted to work in a
calling; we are forced to do so. For when asceticism was carried out of monastic
cells into everyday life, and began to dominate worldly morality, it did its
part in building the tremendous cosmos of the modern economic order. This order
is now bound to the technical and economic conditions of machine production
which to-day determine the lives of all the individuals who are born into this mechanism,
not only those directly concerned with economic acquisition, with irresistible
force. Perhaps it will so determine them until the last ton of fossilized coal
is burnt. (p181)
Again,
Weber is confusing consumerism with the urge to work and save. Even at its
apex, the protestant work ethic had to do with “working and saving and investing” – not at all with
“spending and consuming”! In his ill-advised attempt to implicate workers in
the “work ethic”, Weber conveniently forgets the “ideological function” of that
ethic right from the beginning! Nor does Weber even attempt to explain how and
why the work ethic transformed itself from an autonomous motivational “calling”
to a “mechanical foundation”, to an “iron cage” (stahlhartes Gehause, steel-hard
casing) in which individuals are more “inmates” of industrial capitalism than free
agents or “entrepreneurs”. Weber has fallen victim here to the very “late
romanticism” – an echo of the Freiheit
(free will) of German Idealism – whose eclipse and demise Nietzsche had
announced and certified with unprecedented and perhaps since unequalled
clairvoyance.
“God
is dead!” – Nietzsche’s famous pronouncement - means also this: not merely that
“values” and Weber’s “calling” (Beruf) or “ascetic
ideal” have been “killed”, have “died”, as Weber seems nostalgically to
lament. Nietzsche’s phrase “God is dead” means above all the discovery, the
realization that the centrality of human “consciousness”, of the Ego, the Ich-heit, the “individual” and his Individualitat – that all these lofty
“idols” have been destroyed and an-nihilated (hence, nihilism) by the rise of precisely that “rational organization of
free labour”, that “rational Sozialismus”
that Weber identified!
There
is no Ent-zauberung (dis-enchantment)
for Nietzsche as there is for Weber! (Cf. K. Lowith’s study, ‘Max Weber and
Karl Marx’.) Nietzsche shows as conclusively as is humanly possible that the
“freedom” of the “individual” was a ruse from its Judaeo-Christian beginnings
through the “astute theology” of German Idealism, to the Nihilism of the late
nineteenth century that presaged the cataclysms of the twentieth! And it is as
revealing as it is surprising that Weber himself who more than any other social
theoretician and “scientist” documented and theorized the Rationalisierung should ultimately fall back on the notions of
“ethos” and “calling” to explain social developments such as the rise of the
bourgeoisie and capitalism that will inexorably
lead to the (precisely!) an-nihilation of “faith” and “calling” and “ethos” and
their en-casement, their
im-prisonment in the “mechanical foundations” of the society of capital!
Once
again, the question for us as for Weber should be NOT how the belief that “time is money” gave rise to
capitalist industry, but rather how the reality
of industrial capitalism – the wage relation, or “the organization of free labour
under regular discipline” – ensured the “reduction” of the experience
of time into the fetishistic accumulation of capital!
We need to isolate from asceticism,
therefore, those elements that support strategically the interests of the
bourgeoisie from those that support the interests of the working class. - Remembering
all the while, of course, that ideologies do not always work to the advantage
of those who devise them. Indeed, it is precisely the history and critique of
the concept of the Arbeit, the notion
of “Labour” from its early monastic version as labor to its Hobbesian and British empiricist version as “labour
Power” in Classical Political Economy, to the dialectical Askesis of German Idealism, and finally to the Neoclassical version
as the calculus of Lust und Leid
(Pleasure and Pain) that will reveal to us the separate, even superficially opposed (!), yet cognate philosophical and
conceptual origins of both bourgeois
and socialist ideologies.
We
need to find what Goethe called a Kontignation (Latin, contignatio, meaning architrave making
“different” concepts “con-tiguous”), a “passage-way” that leads us from Weber’s
genial political and sociological analyses to Keynes’s politico-economic
“science”. This is what we will do in our next intervention.
No comments:
Post a Comment