sign in sign up
<<
Home , Late capitalism

Adorno on late Totalitarianism and the welfare state

Deborah Cook

In his appraisal of mass societies, Theodor W. Adorno shall assess Adornoʼs position in light of contemporary briefly discussed those changes in Western economies criticisms that have been levelled against his work. that had helped to transform the earlier liberal phase This evaluation of Adornoʼs work is not only necessary of ʻfree marketʼ capitalism at the turn of the twen- to correct the secondary literature; it will also provide tieth century. Responding in part to these changes, the opportunity to flesh out Adornoʼs ideas about governments legislated into existence social welfare the relationship between the state and the economy institutions and agencies that quickly became more – ideas which, though sketchy, nonetheless implicitly or less permanent fixtures in their liberal democratic occupied an important place in his work as a whole. states. Even as he recognized that the welfare state In addition, these ideas may help to reframe histori- had alleviated some of the inequities caused by capi- cal and theoretical considerations about the role that talism, Adorno was also concerned about the loss of democratic political systems have played, and might individual autonomy and spontaneity that seemed to yet play, in capitalist economies. accompany its emergence. He was very critical of the increasingly oppressive extension of bureaucratic Pollock and Neumann on the Third Reich state agencies into the private lives of individuals, During the 1930s and 1940s, Pollock tried to account warning that state control might reach totalitarian for what was being viewed as a new development proportions, even in purportedly democratic countries. within the capitalist economies of the West. With Observing that individuals were growing more and the command economy of the Third Reich, and the more dependent on the state as its powers increased, of the United States (represented by and noting their often servile deference to the rule of the New Deal), a qualitative shift had taken place such ʻexpertsʼ and technocrats, Adorno feared that individu- that the earlier liberal phase of capitalism had been als would relinquish the independence which serves as superseded by either totalitarian or non-totalitarian a necessary condition for resistance to repression and (formal democratic) variants of . Prod- economic exploitation. uction and distribution in the economies of these and A number of commentators have misleadingly other countries were increasingly being taken under maintained that Adorno viewed the welfare state as direct political or state control. Acknowledging that a variant of what an associate and co-worker at the industrial and managers continue to play an Institute for Social Research was calling ʻstate capi- important role in the newer phase, Pollock nonetheless talismʼ. Simply put, with his state capitalism thesis, maintained that the profit motive had been supplanted Friedrich Pollock alleged that the command and mixed by the power motive in command or mixed economies. economies of the 1920s and 1930s marked the ʻtransi- Of course, profits still accrue to producers under state tion from a predominantly economic to an essentially capitalism, but they can now often be made only when political eraʼ.1 Initially, this state capitalism thesis will goods are produced in accordance with the ʻgeneral be contrasted with Adornoʼs own view of twentieth- planʼ of a state or political party. Pollock further century liberal democracies. Later in the article, I believed that by establishing wage and price controls,

16 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) the state also succeeded in controlling distribution economicsʼ.5 On Neumannʼs assessment, the National either through direct allocation to consumers or via a Socialist economy had two general characteristics: ʻpseudo-marketʼ that served to regulate consumption. it was ʻa monopolistic economy – and a command Pollock recognized that his thesis was not new; economyʼ, a conjunction for which Neumann coined a number of writers had already studied the ways the term ʻtotalitarian monopoly capitalismʼ. In other in which liberal economies had increasingly come words, the German economy under the Third Reich under the control of the state. At the same time, he was ʻa private monopolistic economy, regimented by also admitted that his state capitalism thesis could the totalitarian stateʼ.6 Recognizing, then, that aspects not be verified empirically in every respect. Con- of a command economy had been put into place, structed ʻfrom elements long visible in Europe and, Neumann proceeded to examine the extent of the to a certain degree in Americaʼ, the thesis was meant German stateʼs intervention in the economy, taking to serve only as a model, a Weberian ʻideal typeʼ.2 into account the stateʼs direct economic activities, its Moreover, although ʻthe trend toward state - control over prices, investments, profits, foreign trade ism was growing … in the non-totalitarian statesʼ, and labour, and the role of the National Socialist Party.7 Pollock thought that relatively little work had been He concluded that economic activity in the Third devoted to understanding the democratic form of state Reich had preserved much of its former autonomy. capitalism; a more comprehensive model still needed However, owing to the way in which the economy to be constructed for it.3 Additional research was had been monopolized by large industrial and business also required to determine whether democracy could concerns, profits could not be ʻmade and retained survive under state capitalism. While control over the without totalitarian political powerʼ.8 This is allegedly economy might remain in the hands of a small political what distinguished Nazi Germany from other Western group or faction, Pollock speculated that, in the long states (though, given the growing monopoly on capital run, could be carried out more or in these other states, one has to wonder why totalitarian less democratically. political power arose only in Nazi Germany). Pollockʼs thesis generated some controversy among Commentators on this debate between Pollock and his co-workers at the Institute for Social Research. Neumann often maintain that Adorno simply adopted One of these was Franz Neumann, a lawyer and Pollockʼs state capitalism thesis in his own analyses of administrator for the Institute who later worked as an developments in the West. For example, Helmut Dubiel economist for the United States government during believes that both Adorno and Max Horkheimer sided World War II. In his Behemoth – which offers a with Pollock, adapting his argument to their assess- detailed analysis of economic conditions under the ment of changes in the development of capitalism.9 Third Reich – Neumann launched a qualified attack David Held agrees with Dubiel; and like Dubiel, Held on Pollockʼs view that Germany could be described as also refers to Dialectic of Enlightenment by way of state capitalist. He argued that Pollockʼs state capital- substantiation without quoting relevant passages from ism thesis actually amounted to the claim that there this work in order to support his view.10 Nevertheless, was no longer any freedom of trade, contract, or Held also points out that Horkheimer and Adorno investment under National ; that Germanyʼs expressed ambivalence about this thesis in their later market had been abolished; that the German state had work. Referring to Adorno, Held notes that, ʻThough complete control over wages and prices, eliminating the main principles which underpin his view of capital- exchange ; and that labour was now appropriated ism are compatible with Pollockʼs position, a reading by a ʻpolitical actʼ.4 Neumann called this thesis into of essays like ʻGesellschaftʼ [Society] (1966) and question, showing that the National Socialists had no ʻSpätkapitalismus oder Industriegesellschaft?ʼ [Late economic theory of their own, and rejecting the idea Capitalism or Industrial Society?] (1968) suggest … that Nazi Germany was organized along corporat- that while Adorno thought that class conflict and crisis ist lines. He also demonstrated that can potentially be managed, he did not think that they and private control over capital had been retained in would necessarily be managed successfully.ʼ11 Hitlerʼs regime. In his recent work on Neumannʼs and Otto Kirch- At the same time, however, Neumann did concede heimerʼs critique of the liberal under that, in Nazi Germany, ʻpossession of the state machin- the welfare state, William Scheuerman also refers to ery … is the pivotal question around which every- Dialectic of Enlightenment (again without quoting it thing else revolvesʼ. And, for Neumann, this was ʻthe directly) to substantiate his claim that Horkheimer and only possible meaning of the primacy of politics over Adorno adopted Pollockʼs state capitalism thesis in

Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) 17 order to explain both the ʻtotally administered worldʼ capitalism thesis – even as an ideal type. Although the in non-totalitarian countries and ʻthe Nazisʼ success authors write in their introduction that individuals have in overcoming all the tensions that had plagued earlier become ʻtotally devalued in relation to the economic forms of capitalismʼ.12 Theoretical and political differ- powers, which at the same time press the control of ences subsequently emerged between Neumann and society over nature to hitherto unsuspected heightsʼ,15 Kirchheimer in the eastern United States, and Pollock, they do not claim that these economic powers have Horkheimer and Adorno in the West – differences been taken under state control. Moreover, throughout that ended in the break-up of the original Frankfurt the main body of the text, Horkheimer and Adorno School. In his own assessment of Adornoʼs work, were largely concerned with describing the impact of Douglas Kellner makes a similar point: ʻAlthough an ostensibly apolitical capitalistic economic ʻappara- Pollockʼs theses were sharply disputed by Grossmann, tusʼ on the individual. It is the primacy of the economy, Neumann and the more orthodox Marxian members of not of politics or ʻstate capitalismʼ, that looms largest the Institute …, in various ways Horkheimer, Adorno in their analysis. and Marcuse built their theory of the transition to a Contrasting the ruling ʻcliques which ultimately new stage of capitalism on Pollockʼs analysis, while embody economic necessityʼ16 to the general directors developing their Critical Theory of contemporary (Generaldirektoren) who execute as ʻresults … the old society from this vantage point.ʼ13 law of value and hence the destiny of capitalismʼ,17 What is surprising about Kellnerʼs interpretation of Horkheimer and Adorno imply that the former operate Adorno is that Kellner also recognizes that Adorno was more or less independently of the latter, and that eco- highly critical of Pollockʼs thesis. In a letter to Hork- nomic (not political) laws govern both. In their chapter heimer, cited by Kellner, Adorno wrote that Pollockʼs on the myth of Odysseus, the authors coin the phrase essay ʻwas marred by the “undialectical position that ʻtotalitarian capitalismʼ (totalitärer Kapitalismus)18 to in an antagonistic society a non-antagonistic economy refer to the socio-economic conditions which they had was possible”ʼ.14 Adorno maintained that Pollockʼs described earlier as late (spät) capitalist.19 Horkheimer thesis failed to take into account the crisis-ridden and Adorno never used the phrase ʻstate capitalismʼ in nature of capitalism in the 1930s. In fact, Pollock their discussion of prevailing conditions in the West. had argued that the newly politicized economic order Moreover, economic factors – not the allegedly politi- could respond to all the problems that had arisen in cal control of the economy by the state or by political the earlier liberal phase and resolve successfully all the parties, as in Pollockʼs state capitalism thesis – occupy economic difficulties it might confront – albeit possibly the better part of their attention. only through totalitarian means. In what follows, I There are, however, two passages in Dialectic of want to present Adornoʼs own discussion of the more Enlightenment which might lend credence to the claim salient features of late capitalism (or the phase of that Adorno and Horkheimer adopted Pollockʼs thesis. capitalism that succeeds its liberal ʻfree marketʼ stage). In their discussion of the culture industry, the authors I shall begin by examining Adornoʼs earlier work and make passing reference to the emerging welfare state then present some of his later ideas on the connections in non-totalitarian countries, where ʻmen in top posts between the economy and the state in the West. maintain the economy in which the highly-developed technology has in principle made the masses redundant Adorno and Horkheimer on as producersʼ.20 This somewhat ambiguous passage ‘late capitalism’ could be used to substantiate the interpretations cited In Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer and Adorno earlier. In a later remark in their notes and drafts on wrote that life under capitalism was becoming com- the punitive techniques employed by ʻfascismʼ, Hork- pletely administered, taken under control by various heimer and Adorno assert that the National Socialists agencies, organizations and institutions in the West. punish both the body and the ʻsoulʼ. In this, ʻfascismʼ They used the phrase ʻtotally administered worldʼ differs from what the authors (following Alexis de to describe conditions in the newer economic phase, Tocqueville) call ʻbourgeois republicsʼ, which gener- and warned of their oppressive effects. Yet it is not ally punish the ʻsoulʼ alone. Horkheimer and Adorno immediately apparent that the authors thought that explain that under fascism, ʻThe concentration of administration in Western states was state capitalist in control over all production brings society back to the character. In fact, there are few passages in Dialectic stage of direct rule. When the market system is abol- of Enlightenment which confirm the view that Adorno ished in a nation, intervening intellectual operations, and Horkheimer simply adopt wholesale Pollockʼs state including law, also disappear.ʼ21 There is no ambiguity

18 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) in this passage. In contrast to bourgeois republics, the National Socialists exercised direct physical and psychological control over German citizens as they took control of the means of production. Neumannʼs arguments notwithstanding, the authors believe that the power motive had superseded the profit motive in Nazi Germany. It is, however, important to stress that Horkheimer and Adorno distinguished ʻfascismʼ in this regard from non-totalitarian states. If Nazi Germany could be described as state capitalist in Pollockʼs sense of this term, the authors refrained from describing other Western states in this way. In a 1942 essay, ʻReflexionen zur Klassentheorieʼ (ʻObservations on the Theory of Classesʼ), Adorno makes similar claims about the relationship between , 1998 the economy and the state in the West. Although he does remark on the growing ʻliquidation of the economyʼ22 in his ʻObservationsʼ, Adorno continues to stress its primacy. He never explicitly agrees with Pollock that state control over the economy is character- istic of the newer phase of capitalism. Observing Cleaning Machine # 1 the emergence of a new oligarchical ruling class in many Western states, Adorno argues that this class has disappeared ʻbehind the concentration of capitalʼ, Andy Fisher, which has reached such a ʻsize and acquired such a critical mass that capital appears as an institution, state capitalism thesis, he would have been obliged as an expression of the entire societyʼ.23 Owing in to qualify carefully the idea he expresses throughout part to the concentration of capital, then, the ruling his work that, under the guise of exchange value, the class was becoming ʻanonymousʼ, making it much market system has been extended to virtually all areas more difficult to identify those in control. Here again, of human life, promoting reification. And he certainly Adorno describes the capitalist economy as ʻtotalitar- would not have stated so baldly in a 1965 essay that ianʼ, and its totalitarian character is due largely to the ʻ[p]rofit comes firstʼ in mass societies.25 lack of under monopoly conditions. In Behemoth, Neumann had observed that, ʻIf However, it should also be noted that Adorno did one believes that Germanyʼs economy is no longer speak of ʻthe immediate economic and political com- capitalistic under National Socialism, it is easy to mand of the great [der Großen] that oppresses both believe further that her society has become classless.ʼ26 those who support it [the ] and the workers Paraphrasing Neumann, one could also state that if with the same police threat, imposes on them the Adorno had believed that non-totalitarian states were same function and the same need, and thus makes it no longer capitalist, it would have been easier for virtually impossible for workers to see through the him to deny the existence of classes. Yet Adorno did class relation.ʼ24 In this passage, Adorno suggested that insist on the continued existence of classes in these power in mass societies is wielded by both economic states – as is clear from his remarks in ʻObservations and political agents – though he did not explicitly on the Theory of Classesʼ. Although the subjective claim that the former had been subordinated to the awareness of belonging to a class had diminished, latter. In fact, in most passages in this essay, the and the composition of classes in mass societies had reverse seems to be the case: politics follows the lead changed, ʻthe division of society into exploiters and of economic developments (including changes in the exploited not only continues to exist but gains in force relations of production). Adornoʼs view that economic and strengthʼ.27 The bourgeoisie, which once consisted factors continue to be primary in mass societies (or at of relatively independent entrepreneurs, lost much of least as primary as political factors), is bolstered by its economic power as the earlier liberal phase was his claims about reification and the continued existence transformed by the concentration of capital (and the of classes. If Adorno had actually adopted Pollockʼs resulting decrease in competition). This led to the

Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) 19 formation of a new mass class comprising both the Although David Held is correct when he claims that middle class and the workers. On Adornoʼs account, there is an ʻambivalenceʼ in Adornoʼs later work with this change in the composition of classes under the regard to Pollockʼs state capitalist thesis, this ambi- later phase of capitalism confirms Marxʼs prediction valence is not confined to the later work. about a society stratified into a ʻfew property owners Adornoʼs ʻambivalenceʼ appears again in his and the overwhelming mass of the propertylessʼ.28 response to Ralf Dahrendorfʼs criticisms of his ʻLate These ideas about the continued existence of classes Capitalismʼ essay. For Adorno, there could be little are repeated throughout Adornoʼs work. In his 1965 disagreement that mass societies were tending towards essay, ʻSocietyʼ, for example, Adorno maintained that political domination. Adorno also explained that this ʻsociety remains class societyʼ,29 because ʻthe differ- growing political control over the economy in the ence between the classes grows objectively with the West was itself the outgrowth of economic conditions. increasing concentration of capitalʼ.30 Three years later, If this economically driven trend towards political in ʻLate Capitalism or Industrial Society?ʼ, Adorno domination continued, and ʻpolitical forms of contem- clearly linked his analysis of classes to the idea that porary society were radically compelled to follow the economic forces are primary. He claimed that if economic ones, contemporary society would, to put one were to assume that mass societies are industrial it succinctly, steer directly towards forms that are rather than capitalist in character, this might suggest defined meta-economically – that is, towards forms that mass societies had become ʻso thoroughly domin- which are no longer defined by classical exchange ated by unanticipated technological developments that mechanismsʼ.36 Yet Adorno did not believe it was the notion of social relations … has by comparison inevitable that this tendency – and he emphasized lost much of its relevance, if it has not become illu- here that he was speaking explicitly of a tendency, as sory altogetherʼ.31 By contrast, if, as Adorno believed, opposed to a fully realized state of affairs – would be relations of production are paramount (and forces of realized fully in every state. Only if it were, would production are ʻmediated by the relations of prod- a state capitalist reading of the ʻtotally administered uctionʼ) then the industrial society thesis is not true worldʼ be substantiated. Hence Scheuermanʼs remarks in all respects because the capitalist system still pre- about the administered worldʼs totalitarian political dominates.32 Recognizing that it had become difficult character are not confirmed by Adornoʼs assessment to apply Marxist criteria to existing conditions, Adorno of prevailing conditions in the West. nonetheless asserted that, judging by the criterion At the end of his essay on late capitalism, Adorno of ownership of the means of production, the class offers a number of equally brief but interesting remarks relationship was most obvious in North America.33 about the factors responsible for state intervention in the However, Adorno did concede that there was economy. He describes such intervention as ʻimmanent some truth to the claim that political control over to the systemʼ – a form of ʻself-defenceʼ.37 Since he the economy is growing. The idea that ʻcontrol of immediately preceded this remark with a discussion of economic forces is increasingly becoming a function relations of production (or class relations) under late of political power is true in the sense that it can be capitalism, Adorno could be understood as implying deduced from the dynamics of the system as a wholeʼ.34 that state intervention (in the form of a mixed economy Expressed as a general tendency, then, state power is or state planning) represents a defence against class gaining ground – and, by implication, Nazi Germany conflict. If this implication is correct, Adorno appears becomes paradigmatic of trends that are more or less to take up the view that state intervention was initiated latent in other Western nations. Yet Adorno strongly – at least in part – as a response to social conflicts limits this claim about political domination in non- (real or potential). While this view is problematic totalitarian countries when he adds that there are – and I shall explain why later in the article – it is a also ʻcompelling facts which cannot in their turn fairly common one. For Adorno, state intervention in be adequately interpreted without invoking the key the economy serves to counter the threat arising from concept of “capitalism”ʼ. As Adorno continued to those ʻas yet unrevolutionized relations of productionʼ argue: ʻHuman beings are, as much as ever, ruled and whose power is ʻgreater than in the pastʼ.38 dominated by the economic process.ʼ Consequently, ʻNow as much as ever, the societal process produces The logic of state intervention and reproduces a class structure.ʼ35 The state capitalism Citing Hegelʼs Philosophy of Right, Adorno maintains thesis is thus confirmed only in light of very general that the relationship between the state and the economy (economic) trends or tendencies in mass societies. is a dialectical one. For Hegel, the state is the dia-

20 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) lectical outcome of the interplay of laws and interests in civil society (bürgerliche Gesellschaft) where indi- viduals satisfy their particular needs and interests by way of exchange in the economic system (and through other forms of association). Intervening in civil society ʻfrom the outside with the help of the policeʼ, the state ultimately ends by sublating the economy.39 Here the ʻpoliceʼ – which, for Hegel, included public authorities concerned with alleviating poverty – helps the state to ʻactualize and maintain the universal contained within the particularity of civil societyʼ by mediat- ing between private relations (the family) and the state. The control exercised by the police ʻtakes the form of an external system and organization for the , 1998 protection and security of particular ends and interests en masse, inasmuch as these interests subsist only in this universalʼ.40 By means of the ʻpoliceʼ, then, the universal interests of the state succeed in prevailing over the particular interests of civil society, including economic interests. Cleaning Machine # 2 However, Adorno did not claim that this Hegelian account of state intervention in the economy could be used to describe existing conditions in non-totalitarian Andy Fisher, mass societies. Correspondingly, he implicitly rejected the application of Pollockʼs state capitalism thesis to independent of market mechanismsʼ.43 Aided by the such conditions: police and the military, and abetted by public authori- If it has long been argued on the basis of inter- ties (such as state welfare agencies and institutions), ventionism and, even more, of centralized planning, the state begins to assume greater economic func- that late capitalism is far removed from the anarchy tions under a system of total administration. Yet this of commodity production and is therefore no longer growing trend towards political domination has never capitalism, one must respond that the social fate been fully realized in most Western states. Continuing of individuals is just as precarious as it was in the past. with his interpretation of Hegel in his response to Ralf Dahrendorf, Adorno writes that by ʻevoking powers Pointing to critics who have shown that the liberal from out of itself – the so-called and market never worked in the way its liberal apologists policeʼ – civil society attempts to ʻfunction integrallyʼ claimed – that it was never a truly ʻfreeʼ market so as not to ʻfall to piecesʼ. Although Hegel saw this – Adorno thinks it ironic that this critique of ʻas something positive, in the mean time we have has been ʻrevived in the thesis that capitalism is not learned most thoroughly from fascism … what the 41 really capitalisticʼ. In contrast to this thesis, Adorno renewed transition to direct domination can meanʼ.44 not only argues that the economic system has survived Hegelʼs account of the transition to political domina- owing in part to state intervention; he also claims that tion helped to explain changes transforming liberal such intervention has actually served to ensure the capitalism in one Western country: Nazi Germany. continued primacy of the capitalist economy: ʻWhat This account – which sees the state backed in part by is extraneous to the [socio-economic] system reveals the terrorist tactics of the police and military – thus itself as constitutive of the system, even the political had a limited application, even though, once again, it tendency itself. With interventionism, the resistive could also serve to explain totalitarian tendencies in 42 power of the system is confirmed.ʼ other Western nations. At the same time, Adorno also reiterates the remarks In these other nations, the widening gap between he had made earlier in the essay when he acknowl- property owners and the propertyless was one of the edged that state intervention tendentially confirms ʻthe factors responsible for state intervention – in the form of of capitalismʼ. It does so because ʻthe social security and the limited redistribution of telos of state intervention is direct political domination (but also, one might add, in the form of bureaucratic,

Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) 21 police and military control). Adorno thus implied that that there were other, deeper, causes for this retrench- state intervention was initiated in part in order to stave ment, Van der Wee cites growing world criticism as off radical or revolutionary class conflicts. However, one of these causes – including the the idea that the welfare state represents a political among the critics of the welfare state. Adorno and his response to real or potential class conflict is somewhat colleagues acknowledged that the technical civilization problematic. On Christopher Loweʼs account of the which was supposed to achieve in socialist development of the ʻbig governmentʼ characteristic of societies was in fact attained by the mixed economies the welfare state, the latter did not originate primarily during their postwar development into welfare states. in the ʻneed to solve social problemsʼ but rather ʻin the Yet this technical welfare civilization had little or no need to establish the institutional conditions and forms emancipatory potential and in fact tended to alien- for the accumulation, re-investment and organizational ate rather than satisfy. Moreover, it integrated the control of the capital gathered as markets were unfet- working class totally into its value system, so that teredʼ. In short: ʻCapitalism created big government in the traditional social basis for revolution was lost. order for government to help create the conditions for Lastly it created an educated elite which, through the expanded capital.ʼ45 co-operation between the bureaucratic state apparatus The economic historian Herman Van der Wee and the technostructure of big business, was able to agrees with the main lines of Loweʼs assessment. establish and perpetuate its own power.51 Before World War II, the state had been intervening in the economy not to solve social problems, but Technology and Utopia to ʻensure that profits and incomes were restored to Van der Weeʼs assessment of Critical Theory can be orderly levelsʼ.46 After World War II, John Maynard contested on a number of grounds. It is certainly not Keynesʼs policy of ʻfull , social security, the case that critical theorists believed ʻtechnicalʼ income redistribution, and mutual co-operationʼ was civilization per se would achieve ʻutopiaʼ. Further- adopted in many Western countries as a means to more, the influence Van der Wee ascribes to their the end of economic growth. Although the form and critique is highly questionable – was this critique degree of state intervention never conformed entirely really one of the deep ʻcausesʼ of the return to ortho- to what Keynes had recommended, the policies of dox ? Van der Wee is certainly right to this British economist did help to encourage earlier point out that critical theorists had strong reservations trends. To varying degrees, postwar countries like about the welfare state. However, he fails to note Britain, Sweden, the United States, France and Italy that their criticism is dialectically inflected. This is ʻwent over to economic planning in order to be able to especially true of Adornoʼs work. In ʻLate Capitalism specify extra-high growth rates and ensure they were or Industrial Societyʼ, for example, Adorno wrote: ʻIn achievedʼ.47 Moreover, such intervention was supported the highly industrialized parts of the world it has been not only by left-wing political parties concerned with possible – at least, Keynes notwithstanding, as long as social and economic inequalities; parties on the right new economic disasters do not occur – to prevent the and centre themselves ʻdefended the principle of a most blatant forms of poverty.ʼ Yet Adorno also added sizeable extension of government intervention into that the highly bureaucratized Keynesian welfare state economic life, and they gained considerable support had cast a ʻspellʼ over its citizens – a spell that ʻis from industrialists, bankers, and intellectualsʼ.48 strengthened by greater social integrationʼ.52 Given Van der Wee also observes that the tendency developments in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, towards state intervention in the economy appears Adorno was understandably critical of the tendency to be reversing itself. Keynesian theory assumed towards state control over the economy. Such control ʻoptimally sized firmsʼ and ʻa competitive marketʼ.49 ʻnecessarily reinforces the totalitarian tendencies of But, as mixed economies developed in the West, the the social order, and is a political equivalent for and growth of multinationals (and the resulting decline adaptation to the total penetration of the market econ- in competition under monopoly conditions) called omyʼ.53 Moreover, as this control grows, individuals these assumptions into question. Recent economic become increasingly dependent on state institutions for conditions are substantially different from the ones the satisfaction of their needs – especially when they Keynes originally described. After the 1974–75 eco- require protection against uncertain or crisis-ridden nomic crisis, ʻthe enthusiasm for planning and central economic tendencies. Writing about Nazi Germany, consultation waned and most governments turned back Neumann had already explained that what accounted to the concepts of orthodox monetarismʼ.50 Explaining for the general acquiescence of individuals to political

22 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) domination were pre-existing economic and politi- cal factors: ʻNational Socialism did not create the mass-men.… The transformation of men into mass- men is the outcome of modern industrial capitalism and of mass democracy.ʼ Monopoly capital and mass democracy had ʻimprisoned man in a network of semi-authoritarian organizations controlling his life from birth to deathʼ, and transforming ʻculture into propaganda and saleable commoditiesʼ.54 Similar economic and political conditions also explained acquiescence to the welfare state in other Western countries. If citizens view themselves as passive clients of the welfare state which often robs them of their autonomy and human dignity, Adorno thought this reaction was ʻmarked to the last detail by , 1998 the conditions under which they liveʼ.55 For Adorno, pre-existing economic conditions (in particular, the growing monopolization and centralization of capital, and the extension of the exchange principle to areas of life that had formerly been immune or resistant to it) were the primary factors shaping individual reactions Cleaning Machine # 3 in non-totalitarian Western countries. In addition, the bureaucratic organization of democratic states, which had long preceded the creation of the welfare state, Andy Fisher, also had a role to play in fostering attitudes and responses to political domination and dependence on with which the masses are nevertheless kept in line, the state. While a truly free society would not be able require a degree of concentration and centralization to dispense with political and economic administra- which possesses not only an economic, but also a tion, in mass societies ʻadministrations have tended technological aspect, for instance – as the mass media under constraint towards a greater self-sufficiency and exemplify – the technical possibility of controlling independence from their administered subjects, reduc- and coordinating [gleichschalten] the beliefs and atti- ing the latter to abstractly normed behaviorʼ.56 tudes of countless people from some central location Once again, it was largely the potential threat of – something which requires nothing more obtrusive totalitarianism that motivated Adornoʼs critique of the than the selection and presentation of news and news welfare state. In the Soviet Union, ʻthe desire for more commentary.ʼ59 rapid economic growth … brought about a dictatorial Although he continued to support the Marxist view and austere administrationʼ.57 And, of course, despite that the economy is the primary ʻmotorʼ driving his- the economic ʻsuccessesʼ of Hitlerʼs regime, its control torical developments, Adorno could nonetheless not over the economy had been accompanied by growing ignore the tendencies towards political domination in physical and psychological control over its citizens. non-totalitarian countries. His brief and often indirect Serving as a largely unexamined end-in-itself, without criticisms of state control over individuals often serve reference to the needs and interests of the population to supplement his criticisms of the reifying effects at large, the goal of economic growth for its own of capitalism. Conceding in ʻObservations on the sake had been reached with equally irrational means: Theory of Classesʼ that the living standards of most totalitarian dictatorship. In less totalitarian socie- workers had improved under late capitalism, Adorno ties, the tendency towards political domination also also acknowledged that the ʻbloody dehumanizationʼ pointed ʻin the direction of objective irrationalityʼ.58 of earlier forms of economic oppression and exploita- The all-too-obvious defects in the tion had ʻfadedʼ. But if it is true that, with the end of have served to legitimate increasing state control not such dehumanization, the ʻfigure of the worker who only over the economy but also, by extension, over citi- comes home drunk at night and beats up his family zens. Such control is unflinchingly reinforced by the has become extremely rareʼ, it is now also the case culture industry: ʻThe methods of centralized control that ʻhis wife has more to fear from the social worker

Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) 23 who counsels her than she does from himʼ.60 The always relied on the state: through laws which created administrative apparatus of the welfare state contrib- ʻcorporate, collective institutions of capital investment utes to less overt – and for that reason, all the more and mobilizationʼ, as well as through ʻthe legal forms powerful – forms of dehumanization that take over of financial institutions and instruments, of market where economic exploitation leaves off. mechanisms such as stock and commodity exchanges, The latest form of dehumanization is manifested of laws and court decisions, limiting unionization by in economic and political powerlessness. Arguing workers, and of police and military forces to defend that poverty had been alleviated in the West ʻso that the property of the wealthy and the emergent corpor- the system would not be torn apartʼ, Adorno none- ationsʼ.65 Moreover, notwithstanding his important theless insisted that the theory of impoverishment analysis of the new mass class in Western states, had actually been confirmed by such powerlessness: Adorno failed to identify emerging areas of conflict the proletariat and the bourgeoisie were now almost which are not entirely class-bound (even though such completely dominated by the ʻsystemʼ.61 Individuals conflicts are often far more bound to class than their in the new mass class had become ʻsimple objects of protagonists are prepared to admit). administration in monopolies and their statesʼ.62 In Such areas of conflict are said to arise within ʻcivil part a consequence of those socio-economic condi- societyʼ. Apart from his brief reference to Hegelʼs tions that had brought the welfare state into being, notion in ʻLate Capitalism or Industrial Society?ʼ, the impotence of individuals with regard to the system Adorno did not give critical consideration to the non- gives them little choice but to conform with prevailing market and non-state organizations and associations standards, stereotypes and modes of behaviour, and that also comprise civil society. Although civil society to comply with the dictates of that ʻexpert opinionʼ ʻis always on the verge of extinctionʼ under totalitarian to which political administrations themselves defer. dictatorships, it has not been extinguished completely in In ʻCulture and Administrationʼ, Adorno wrote that, Western states. As John Keane writes, ʻThe persistence rather than ʻmaking conscious decisionsʼ, individuals of (ailing) representative democratic mechanisms, the tend to ʻsubjugateʼ themselves ʻto whatever has been concrete possibilities of legally establishing independ- preordainedʼ. Spontaneity also declines ʻbecause total ent associations and movements, and the ongoing planning takes precedence over the individual impulse, tensions between capitalist and state bureaucracies predetermining this impulse in turn, reducing it to the – among other factors – ensure that these systems do level of illusion, and no longer tolerating that play of not ʻconvergeʼ with their Soviet-type counterparts.ʼ66 forces which was expected to give rise to a free total- However, even though he acknowledged that Western ityʼ.63 In another essay, ʻIndividuum und Organisationʼ, states had not succumbed completely to totalitar- Adorno targeted bureaucratic organization in general ian tendencies, Adorno was very sceptical about the (be it in the welfare state or industry). As it invades potential for radical resistance to prevailing economic private life either directly or indirectly, such organi- and political conditions (and it is doubtful that Adorno zation ʻradically threatens people because it always would have considered the demands of new social tolerates less freedom, immediacy and spontaneity and movements to be ʻradicalʼ). He seemed to overlook the tends to reduce those who are essential components democratic potential that some contemporary writers in society to simple atomsʼ.64 Adorno often used the claim to find in the civil societies of the West. In phrase ʻcogs in the wheelʼ to describe individuals in fact, the culture industry often confirmed Adornoʼs the totally administered world. worst fears: social integration was being fostered at an alarming rate, compromising the possibility of resist- The question of civil society ance to the totalizing tendencies of the administered Despite these remarks about the damaging effects of world. the welfare stateʼs administrative apparatus, Adornoʼs Once again, for Adorno, it was the dominance of critique of the welfare state is extremely sketchy; it the exchange principle – and not of the political system also involves generalizations that cannot always be – that was largely responsible for undermining the substantiated and that sometimes limit the force of potential for resistance in the West. In arguing against Adornoʼs arguments. It is to be hoped that the newer Adornoʼs views, then, it is not sufficient to point to the left-wing critiques of the welfare state will be able existence of formally democratic political institutions, both to learn something from Adornoʼs analysis and to or to the possibilities of legally instituting non-market surpass it. Like Pollock, Adorno also underestimated and non-state organizations and associations. Since the degree to which capitalist economic systems had Adorno believed that individuals in the West had

24 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) fallen under the spell of the exchange principle, what Notes needs to be shown is either that Adorno was simply All translations from texts for which the German edition is wrong about the primacy of economic factors and their cited are by the author. effects on individuals, or that the economically engen- 1. Friedrich Pollock, ʻState Capitalism: Its Possibilities and dered ʻspellʼ is much more limited in its effects than Limitationsʼ, Studies in Philosophy and Social Research, vol. IX, no. 2, 1941, p. 207. Adorno claimed. While Adorno concurs with Keane 2. Ibid., p. 200. that political systems in the West are not entirely 3. Ibid., p. 223. totalitarian in character, Keaneʼs view of the welfare 4. Franz Neumann, Behemoth: The Structure and Practice state as ʻundermining the commodity formʼ, thereby of National Socialism, 1933–1944, Octagon Books, New 67 York, 1963, p. 222. weakening its ʻgrip on civil societyʼ, is questionable 5. Ibid., p. 260. when it is recognized that the lionʼs share of the lives 6. Ibid., p. 261. of citizens in the West is exhausted in activities of 7. See ibid., p. 293. production and consumption which serve the economic 8. See ibid., p. 354. 9. Helmut Dubiel, Theory and Politics: Studies in the system either directly or indirectly. Keane also fails Development of Critical Theory, trans. Benjamin Gregg, to recognize that the welfare state itself primarily MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London, 1985, p. 81. serves economic functions that are largely consonant 10. David Held, Introduction to Critical Theory: Horkheimer to Habermas, University of California Press, Berkeley with the interests of the owners of the means of and Los Angeles, 1980, p. 63. production. And, unlike Jürgen Habermas, who now 11. Ibid., p. 64. generally rejects Adornoʼs views about the primacy 12. William E. Scheuerman, Between the Norm and the Ex- of the economy, Keane does not take into account the ception: The Frankfurt School and the Rule of Law, MIT Press, Cambridge MA and London, 1994, p. 124. fact that the equality of citizens formally guaranteed 13. Douglas Kellner, Critical Theory, and Moder- by the welfare state has been achieved ʻonly at the nity, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore price of autonomyʼ.68 MD, 1989, pp. 62–3. Haunted by the memory of Nazi Germany, and 14. Ibid., p. 78 15. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, Dialectic of wary of the totalitarian tendencies visible in other Enlightenment, trans. John Cumming, Continuum, New countries in the West, Adorno was understandably York, 1972, p. xiv. less convinced than many contemporary writers that 16. Ibid., p. 37. 17. Ibid., p. 38. Western states would continue to leave spaces open 18. Ibid., p. 55. for dissent and radically transformative action. More- 19. Ibid., p. 54. over, the tendencies towards political domination that 20. Ibid., p. 150. Adorno observed might well impede (or, at the very 21. Ibid., p. 228. 22. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻReflexionen zur Klassentheorieʼ, least, arrest) the development of both formal democ- in Soziologische Schriften I, Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt racy and more participatory forms of government am Main, 1972, p. 385. concerned with satisfying the needs and interests of 23. Ibid., p. 380. all individuals. In his private remarks to Horkheimer 24. Ibid. 25. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻSocietyʼ, trans. , about Pollockʼs state capitalism thesis, Adorno wrote Salmagundi, vol. 3, nos. 10–11, 1969–70, p. 148. that, in contrast to Kafka, who ʻrepresented the 26. Neumann, Behemoth, p. 365. bureaucratic hierarchy as hellʼ, Pollock himself had 27. Adorno, ʻReflexionen zur Klassentheorieʼ, p. 377. 28. Ibid., p. 380. succeeded in transforming hell ʻinto a bureaucratic 29. Adorno, ʻSocietyʼ, p. 149 (translation altered). 69 hierarchyʼ. Although Adornoʼs scattered criticisms 30. Ibid., p. 150. of the welfare state occasionally appear to corroborate 31. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻLate Capitalism or Industrial Soci- a more nuanced version of Pollockʼs hell-become- ety?ʼ, in V. Meja, D. Misgeld and N. Stehr, eds, Modern German Sociology, Columbia University Press, New hierarchy thesis – inasmuch as tendencies towards York, 1987, p. 232. political domination can be found in non-totalitarian 32. Ibid., p. 242. states – far more important in Adornoʼs work were 33. Ibid., p. 236. the underlying economic conditions responsible for 34. Ibid., p. 237. 35. Ibid. the creation of the welfare state. For Adorno, the 36. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻDiskussionsbeitrag zu “Spätkapital- Charybdis of welfare state administration and control ismus oder Industriegesellschaft?”ʼ, in Soziologische was unquestionably overshadowed by the Scylla of Schriften I, p. 583. 37. Adorno, ʻLate Capitalismʼ, p. 244 (translation altered). reification and ʻmassificationʼ under late capitalism. 38. Ibid., p. 243. To circumvent the political whirlpool, one must first 39. Ibid., p. 244 (translation altered). When Adorno speaks bypass the economic monster. of the state as intervening in the economy ʻfrom the

Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998) 25 outsideʼ, he adds that such intervention is also ʻa part of 56. Adorno, ʻSocietyʼ, p. 151. societyʼs immanent dialecticsʼ. By way of explaining the 57. Adorno, ʻLate Capitalismʼ, p. 243. apparent paradox, Adorno refers to Marx, for whom the 58. Ibid., p. 237. revolution of relations of production was at one and the 59. Ibid., p. 243. same time ʻcompelled by the course of historyʼ and ʻef- 60. Adorno, ʻReflexionen zur Klassentheorieʼ, p. 389. fective only through an action qualitatively differentiated 61. Ibid., p. 385. from the unity of the systemʼ (ibid., p. 244; translation 62. Ibid., p. 386. altered). 63. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻCulture and Administrationʼ, trans. 40. G.W.F. Hegel, Philosophy of Right, trans. T.M. Knox, Wes Blomster, Telos 37, 1978, p. 105. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1976, p. 152. 64. Adorno, ʻIndividuum und Organisationʼ, pp. 443–4. 41. Adorno, ʻLate Capitalismʼ, p. 244 (translation altered). 65. Lowe, in his unpublished response to Belkinʼs ʻThe Left 42. Ibid., pp. 244–5 (translation altered). and Limited Governmentʼ. 43. Ibid., p. 245. 66. John Keane, ʻIntroductionʼ, in Civil Society and the 44. ʻDiskussionsbeitragʼ, p. 584. State: New European Perspectives, ed. John Keane, 45. Christopher Lowe, in an unpublished response to David Verso, London and New York, London and New York, Socialist Belkinʼs ʻThe Left and Limited Governmentʼ, 1988, p. 5. Forum, June 1996. 67. Ibid., p. 7. 46. Herman Van der Wee, Prosperity and Upheaval: The 68. Jürgen Habermas, Between Facts and Norms: Con- World Economy, 1945–1980, trans. Robin Hogg and Max tributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy, R. Hall, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los trans. William Rehg, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1996, Angeles, 1986, p. 283. p. 418. 47. Ibid., p. 35. 69. Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History, 48. Ibid. p. 287. 49. Ibid., p. 315. Theories and Political Significance, trans. Michael Rob- 50. Ibid., p. 320. ertson, MIT Press, Cambridge MA, 1994, p. 282. 51. Ibid., p. 334. 52. Adorno, ʻLate Capitalismʼ, p. 239. 53. Adorno, ʻSocietyʼ, p. 151. 54. Neumann, Behemoth, p. 367. 55. Theodor W. Adorno, ʻIndividuum und Organisationʼ, in Soziologische Schriften I, pp. 451–2.

Day conference

POST-CONVENTIONAL RELIGION: FEMINISM, ETHICS AND SPIRITUALITY

Philippa Berry, Daphne Hampson, Luce Irigaray, Danah Zohar

Saturday 23 May 1998 10.00 - 17.30

ICA 12 Carlton House Terrace, The Mall, London

Tickets £20 (concessions £15) from box office 0171 930 3647 after 20 April

26 Radical Philosophy 89 (May/June 1998)