Wojtek
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
> CB: Yes, some of them were a while ago, but I'm suggesting that unique
> American national character is still shaped by American history. Also,
> the whole pioneer and Western cowboy culture stretches to the 20th
> Century. Cowboy movies and television shows were popular in the..."
>
>
> [WS:] I have a strong suspicion that our images of the "settler
> culture" is product of the 20th century propaganda and Hollywood-made
> mythology and have little resemblance of reality. I recall reading an
> article a while ago arguing that guns were not very popular among
> earlier settlers because they were expensive and unreliable, but the
> image of a gun toting settler was manufactured by gun industry and
> lobby after the Civil War. Needless to say that the NRA shitheads
> took exception to it.
>
> I think it is quite probable that settlers had highly developed sense
> of social solidarity, because without they would not be able to
> survive in a harsh and often hostile environment. However, settlers
> seldom wrote about their own experiences - it is jurnos and
> intellectuals of various stripes who did and these tend to pander to
> popular myths bending the truth in the process. Take the Donner Party
> for example. This is the story of enormous solidarity among people
> who found themselves in extreme conditions, but the press at the time
> trumped up the cannibalism trope because it was sensational. I
> recall reading an article (National Geographic?) saying that there is
> not much evidence of cannibalism in the Donner party - meaning that
> that there was some but not as wide spread as the press of the time
> portrayed it.
>
> Or take the smallholders of the time. These were extended family
> households not a mom, pop and 2 and 1/2 kids as modern mythology has
> it. Similar social arrangement elsewhere were associated with strong
> social solidarity bonds (cf. Thomas and Znaniecki study of peasant
> immigrants in the US.) So it is very likely that social solidarity
> bonds were strong among smallholders as well.
>
> And then there is Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc. that are also
> settler communities, but do not have such a strong individualistic and
> libertarian ethos as the US population does. Clearly, it must have
> been something else than "settler culture" that produced them. That
> something is, I argue pro-business propaganda and mythology permeating
> nearly every aspect of the US culture.
>
> As to your view of European history and claiming its similarity to
> American history - I think you are quite wrong about it, as many
> Marxists are. There were different configurations of class powers
> between lords and peasants, and different role that state played in
> those class relations, which led to different outcomes, e.g. England
> vs. France, Western Europe vs. Eastern Europe, etc. This has been
> hammered to death by Brenner, Moore, Skocpol, Rueschemeyer and others.
> A good place to start would be Brenner's long piece "Agrarian class
> structure and economic development in pre industrial Europe" (Past 7
> Present, 1982, 97:16-113.) where he contrast the development paths of
> England and continental Europe, and the edited volume "bringing the
> State In" (by Evans, Rueschemeyer and Skocpol.) Both publications
> offer strong historical evidence that the state in Europe was not a
> mere tool of landlords or bourgeoisie, but rather an independent actor
> balancing the power of different social classes.
>
> In any case, I would like to reiterate the fact that the US state has
> very different origins than European states - the former is a creation
> of the US bourgeoisie whose power and influence predates the state,
> whereas European states predate modern social classes and historically
> has had a much greater autonomy vis a vis social classes than the US
> state. This, I believe, set two different paths of institutional
> development that account for different political outcomes (strong vs.
> weak welfare state, for example) as well different cultures: the
> strong presence of pro-business libertarianism in the US vs.
> collective security preferences in Europe.
>
> Wojtek
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 3:56 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Wojtek S
>>
>> CB: Petit bourgeois Robinsonade, ideology generated continously in
>> capitalism...rugged individualism, _self_-reliance, alienation...
>> America has an especially virulent case of it perhaps related to its
>> historical settler state thingy as you suggest.
>>
>> [WS:] But this was a while ago, no? Besides, guys like Thoreau were
>> not settlers.
>>
>> ^^^^
>> CB: Yes, some of them were a while ago, but I'm suggesting that unique
>> American national character is still shaped by American history. Also,
>> the whole pioneer and Western cowboy culture stretches to the 20th
>> Century. Cowboy movies and television shows were popular in the
>> 1950's and 60's. Small farm freeholders, petit producers, family
>> farmers were generated for many generations after the original
>> settlers. There was no feudal landlords to take the land away from.
>> As to Thoreau, there were plenty of small farmers in New England for a
>> while , I'm pretty sure.
>>
>> The American gun fetish is rooted in the standard equipment of
>> pioneers and cowboys including to fight Indians.
>>
>> Ronald Reagan's announcer role in the television show "Death Valley
>> Days" was very emblematic of the transfer of this small freeholder
>> culture to Reaganism , anti-Gov'ment philosophy and now, the Tea
>> Party.
>>
>> ^^^^^^^
>>
>> My take on it is a bit different, more institutional. In Europe, the
>> state (monarchy) precedes the capitalist class and as such was the
>> "default" embodiment of what we today call "public interest" (its the
>> l'état, c'est moi thing.) The bourgeoisie (big and small) only
>> gradually chipped away this state hegemony on "public interest" but a
>> lot of that hegemony remained vested in modern state by default, so to
>> speak (cf. the French republicanism.)
>>
>> ^^^^^
>> CB: Yes, though I would say feudal lords and bishops preceded the
>> capitalist class. The monarchies were a transitional form between
>> feudalism and capitalism as kings helped the bourgoisie come to power
>> in many ways, including forming nations.
>>
>> ^^^^^
>>
>> In America, by contrast, the capitalist class - plantation owners and
>> industrialists precede the state. Not only did they found the US
>> state, but they crafted it in such a way that it was ideologically and
>> politically subordinate to the capitalist class, which by default held
>> the hegemony for "public interest" (if this term is appropriate here.)
>>
>> ^^^^
>> CB: Agree on the slavocractic capitalists as the leading section of
>> the first US ruling class. They were overthrown in the Civil War by
>> the newly rising industrialists.
>>
>> Early, the bourgeoisie were more in the manufacturer rather than
>> industrial phase of capitalism ( See Marx's distinction between these
>> in _Capital_). The Civil War marked the rise of industrial capital
>> and the takeover from the slavocracy as the dominant section of the
>> bourgeosie.
>>
>> At any rate, throughout this time there were masses of small
>> freeholders, as described in Marx's last chapter in _Capital_ on
>> colonialism.
>>
>> ^^^^
>>
>> The state chipped away some of that hegemony away (especially during
>> the Civil War), but by default a lot that hegemony remained vested in
>> "private initiative."
>>
>> In short, the American infatuation with libertarianism and private
>> initiative is rooted not in some purported "settler mentality" (if
>> there was ever such a thing) but in the blueprint of US
>> political-economic institutions crafted by plantation owners and
>> bourgeoisie that prioritize "private initiative" (i.e. the interests
>> of plantation owners and industrialists while paying lip service to
>> smallholders) before the state. This institutional blueprint changed
>> remarkably little in the US (vis a vis sweeping institutional changes
>> taking place in Europe and Asia in the same time) - which may explain
>> the popularity of ideological expressions of that institutional
>> blueprint.
>>
>> Wojtek
>>
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>>
>