Social and Psychological Preparation for War^*

Jules Henry

...continued from page 1

RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS. The most important relationship between business and government in the United States, or, rather, the reliance of the corporate community on government, began to take its present form during the Great Depression. Previously it was believed that the capitalist system was self-regulating, and this view, voiced by economists, was parroted, with certain avian embroidery of intonation and syllable, by famous sociologists like Pareto in Italy and by Talcott Parsons, Professor of Sociology at Harvard University in the United States. It is important to bear in mind the connexions between the illusions of the economists and those of the sociologists. Before the Great Depression nearly overturned the capitalist system in the United States, it was believed that depressions were, somehow, an expression of the inexorable operation of an eternal system, and that depressions always worked themselves out spontaneously. Depressions, it was believed, were nature's way of eliminating inefficient and weak firms, while leaving the field to strong, 'parent', companies, able to beget powerful offspring. The Depression, however, saw so many of the strong fail and threatened so many of the strongest, as month after month, year after year, the economy did not recover, while more and more businesses failed, that the corporate community was happy to seize the hand of government when it was extended in help. It was this vulnerability that created the new 'government underwritten society' in the United States; but which also served to mobilize the United States better than ever for war. It was primarily the threat of internal collapse that perfected the underlying structure of mobilization for war; and it is clear that without such mobilization the economy would have collapsed. As late as 1940, when the United States was starting to arm, a conservative estimate of the number of unemployed in the American labour force was 13 per cent, but by 1944 they had all been put to work and the total number of employed workers had increased by 35 per cent.¹² During the Depression, however, new legislation enabled labour to organize at a tremendous rate and World War II gave the American workers an unprecedented rise in living standard. Organized labour was brought into wartime government, and the Office of Production Management was headed jointly by William S. Knudsen of General Motors and Sidney Hillman of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers, a powerful, but rather conservative member of the CIO. The experience of World War II was not lost on the American labour movement: war meant jobs, plenty of money and good times. Today organized labour in the United States is an active supporter of the war in Vietnam; and it is among the most virulent internal antagonists of the Soviet Union.

INDUSTRY AND THE MILITARY. Since 1939 immense US Government expenditures for armaments, and, more recently, for space exploration, have increased the power of the great corporations and created many new businesses. The aircraft industry is largely dependent on orders for military aircraft. The entrance of numerous business executives into government service during World War II consolidated the intimate relationship between government and business. But the end of the consolidation was not yet in sight. What was needed was a marriage of the military to industry. Considering the fact that most of the national budget of the United States now goes for military purposes, it was only natural that upon leaving the armed forces, or the Department of Defense, military men should be eagerly sought as employees by business.

In July 1960 ... General Dynamics, the corporation having the largest per cent of armaments contracts (by dollars), had 27 retired generals and admirals on its payrolls. The total number of retired officers of all ranks employed by General Dynamics, however, was about 200. Its closest competitor was United Aircraft, with 171.¹³

All figures are probably low estimates. Meanwhile, we should not forget, of course, that Mr Robert McNamara, former president of the Ford Motor Company, is our Secretary of Defense and that an earlier one was Charles Wilson, President of General Motors.

I have outlined the organization of American industry that provides the social infra-structure for war. I have shown that the basis is, in the first place, the giant corporation with its ramifying network of plants, subsidiaries, and stockholdings that extend its influence throughout the nation and the world. I then pointed out how these corporations are linked to one another and organized into interest groups which are interlocked among themselves. I then described the process whereby the American corporate community, abandoning for ever the cry against government interference, became amalgamated with government, and I pointed out how the military has become part and parcel of American business. Given this structure, the traditional division of our society into business, government and military seems obsolete and illusory. Given this structure it is possible to mobilize American industry for war output almost instantaneously. It is not far-fetched to say that now, by its very nature it is in a constant state of mobilization for war.

Psychological factors

VULNERABILITY. While it is true that in all ages man has felt vulnerable, it is worth while to examine certain of the aspects of the feeling of vulnerability in the United States in order to understand how it contributes to readiness for war. I have pointed out that before the Great Depression it was assumed that the capitalist economy was self-regulating but that the depression experience destroyed that idea for ever in the minds of even the most bumptious economists, so that now all the 'talented' men of capitalist economies take the Keynesian theory of necessary government economic intervention for granted and instantly propose government measures whenever the economy seems to falter - which is now several times a year. The ordinary American, however, does not yet feel that the economy is to be trusted, for it has an unpredictable way of raising prices on him, throwing him out of a job or making his little investments and speculations vanish. The feeling of vulnerability in the United States is intensified by the increase in the number and power of socialist countries and by the fact that since the government-business-military complex cannot accept this as a tolerable fact of existence, they frighten the people.

The emergence since 1917 of this new socialist humanity has been accompanied by the disappearance or weakening of many capitalist powers, to the degree that, feeling beleaguered amidst the diminished strength of the capitalist world, America, according to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, 'has devoted a higher proportion of its gross national product to its military establishment than any other free-world nation. This was true even before the increased expenditures in Southeast Asia.

'We have had, over the last few years, as many men in uniform as all the nations of Western Europe combined - even though they have a population half again greater than our own.'¹⁴ The rise of socialism and the doubling of the number of violent revolutions since 1958 (also according to Mr McNamara) left the American corporate community feeling so vulnerable that it eagerly and successfully communicated its fear and hate to the American people through the mass media. The result has been, as everyone knows, a supine Congress and a public that gives support to whatever the American government desires to do any place in the world.

TERROR AND EUPHORIA. In the economic view there are, fundamentally, two types of consumption, consumption in the private and consumption in the public sectors of the economy. Consumption in the private sector refers to egoistic things - all that a person buys to make living possible and enjoyable - but extending also to business expenditures; while consumption in the public sector refers to things like roads, schools, armaments and so on, on which government spends money. All governments have to calculate how much can be exacted in taxes for consumption in the public sector, while the need for the taxes is sold to the people by a combination of public relations, scaring and coercion. Taxes to support the war in Vietnam are exacted through scaring Americans with communism. Although taxes for government expenditures compete with spending for egoistic satisfactions, the American system of taxation converts exactions for public expenditures into egoistic consumption because taxes return to the consumer through the higher wages, higher employment and elevated standard of living that result from the pouring of hundreds of billions of dollars into war industry. Since, in the United States, corporations and the rich are taxed most and taxes are not permitted to rise faster than income, the average John Doe finds himself better off during war. Thus the government, primarily through war and the graduated income tax, has produced such domestic euphoria that its public expenditures - primarily its expeditures [sic] for war and space - have the psychological effect of egoistic ones. Since it is fear - fear of communism - that makes Americans willing to pay the taxes for armaments in the first place, but since these taxes come back to them in good living, we can say that, literally, Americans grow fat on fear. What fear they might have of war is narcotized by good times. When we consider that, in view of Vietnam, the Russians have had to slow down expansion in the production of consumer goods in order to put more effort into the production of armaments, we see that one traditional psychological obstacle to war does not exist for Americans.

CONFUSION BETWEEN FRIEND AND ENEMY. During World War II Japan was our enemy, now she is our friend; the Soviet Union was our friend, now she is our enemy; Germany was our enemy, now part of her is friend, part enemy; France was our friend, now she is almost our enemy; Yugoslavia was our friend, now she is our friend one day, our enemy the next, as our foreign policy shifts. During World War II China was our friend, now she is our enemy. Before the war in the Middle East we were able to live comfortably with our anti-Semitism, now we see our government incomprehensibly on Israel's side; during World War II Italy was our enemy, now she is our friend - and so it goes. In the ordinary citizen the result of these wild fluctuations in the definition of enemy and friend can only be mental withdrawal, cynicism and a readiness to resign decisions to 'higher powers' and 'experts'. On the other hand such passivity in the presence of radical alterations in the definition of the enemy could take place only if we had handed over decisions to higher powers in the first place. The American's lack of involvement in anything but his standard of living and his family, plus a persisting feeling of vulnerability, make him accept easily any alteration in foreign policy. Meanwhile, I doubt that, in this, Americans are much different from the rest of the world called civilized.

In this connexion, we see the importance of short-run perceptions. It is as if modern man never committed his perceptual apparatus permanently to any definition. It is disquietingly like the perception of style. Style depends on short-run perceptions ; on the fact, for example, that though a dark tie may seem best with one's suit today, there is always present in the mind the reservation that this is not for ever, but only as long as some power defines it as style. I find something similar in the academic world. There is, for example, no commitment in anthropology or sociology to any point of view. Acceptance of contemporary theorists lasts, at the most, just about as long as they are alive. When they die, no one quotes them any more. Sometimes a theory lasts only a semester. While I do not consider acceptance or, rejection of a foreign power homologous with style or with acceptance of a social theory, I do believe that all three rely on a condition of contemporary perception - the withholding of commitment to any view of the world. This superficiality, this fundamental impenetrability of the soul, is due to the evanescent quality of modern life and to the basic depression of modern man.

THE INIMICAL FACTOR IN LIFE. A culture has never been found where there was not a permanent inimical factor that served to terrify and to integrate the people and to suffocate deviant opinion. In tribal life the inimical beings are monsters or spirits and outside enemies, defined by tradition as everlastingly dangerous to mankind or to the tribe or both. One is trained from infancy to accept these inimical ones as eternal and unchanging, and no one says they do not exist or that they are friendly or that their friendship can be won. The threat of the inimical stifles thought but also creates social solidarity.

In the contemporary world, as contrasted with the tribal, the inimical lacks traditional definition, and the group in power reserves to itself the right, and the power, to define who the inimical shall be. The definition, then, becomes part of the social system: lessons about the inimical are taught to elementary-school children; the mass media scream its name with appropriate invective ; the inimical becomes part of the legal system and it becomes incorporated into the economic framework. It becomes as inexorable as a primitive hallucination, and doubting it carries the same punitive social consequences. In the United States the inimical is communism. Incorporated into elementary-school readers and sociological tracts, frozen into supreme-court decisions and loyalty oaths, and consolidated further through embargoes on goods to communist countries, the communist bogy has the qualities of a tribal delusion. The delusion of the 'communist menace' represents the exploitation of man's primordial tendency to define some part of the universe as inimical, in order to prepare the American people for war.

FREEDOM, ENTERPRISE AND DOCILITY. When we consider the international structure of the American corporate community and the fact that the sun never sets on it, it is clear that 'free world' means the part of it that is free for American investment. It is for that reason that Spain, for example, is considered part of the 'free world'. On the other hand, when we realize that there is no owned American investment in communist countries, we comprehend why the communist world is not 'free'. Yet, when we know that the United States supplies heavy machinery which Italy is using in its Fiat installation in the Soviet Union, we understand, in part, why Russia seems 'freer' to us now than it used to be.

Americans are used to the expression 'free enterprise', yet it is clear from the outline of the structure of the American economy that the expression has no meaning at all. The tightly woven fabric of the American economy leaves little room for 'enterprise', and over the past several decades the type of person heading up large corporations has changed from the individual master builder to the long-time-serving, loyal and cautious executive, who is guided by his board of directors, underwriters, accounting and legal firms and research department. Nowadays corporations rarely fire anybody, even at the lower levels; as long as they are docile and fit the over-all gentlemanly pattern of operations, they are moved around in the firm until they find a niche. Decisions are very much by committee and not by individuals. All of this is well known and has been popularized in a penetrating book by William H. White, Jr, called The Organization Man.

Similar processes are at work in labour. The ideal American labour leader nowadays is not one who risks injury or death in a strike, but a careful negotiator, who is backed by a team of lawyers and researchers. The labour movement in the United States nowadays is very different from what management confronted in the 1920s, armed for deadly combat. Organized labour is probably the most contented segment of the American population; it has shifted from being the most revolutionary group to being the most conservative.

Along with these alterations in the structure of American political economy there has developed a vast, sheep-like docility in the population. Grazing on the grasses of affluence, the white American population is one of the most docile on earth. This is ideal psychological preparation for war, for docile people make excellent soldiers.

Let me summarize what I have said up to this point about the psychological factors that prepare for war. I have said that feeling vulnerable we are ever on the defensive. TV shows, for adults or for children, that portray individuals and nations under attack are the commonest programme. Meanwhile, as we are frightened into paying heavy taxes to 'save' ourselves and support our wars, we have a wonderful time, for taxes come back to us in increased income. So Americans grow fat on their fear and fear feels good, or, at least, better than it ever did before. It is hard to be against the war in Vietnam if your pay has gone up because of it. I referred to American docility and the readiness to accept as friend the nation that was a foe yesterday and to accept as enemy today the nation that was a friend yesterday. Since, in the United States, one is never threatened, really, by such erratic definitions, but finds, rather, that one's standard of living rises, why object? It is a law of learning theory that organisms tend to respond positively to reward. In the American experience, having enemies has been rewarding. The fact that some people have lost sons is of little consequence, for the personal detachment, withdrawal and uninvolvement of the American, his inability to feel for another person's bereavement, his concern only with what is close to him and with his standard of living, make him impervious to the sorrow of others. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the depressive core in the soul of the American population makes people turn away from the anguish of others, while brooding only on their own. I spoke, then, of the inimical factor in life, of the fact that in the modern, as contrasted with the tribal, world the inimical is selected by the group in power and of the fact that the perceptual functions of the people are shaped to suit this group's objectives. In modern times perception has rapidly evolved away from tradition-determined perceptions of the world to classdetermined determined ones and perception is manipulated by the mass media. So one acquires and puts off one's enemies and friends, one's ideas, one's opinions, and one's tastes somewhat as one changes style. Finally I pointed out the lack of sense in the words 'freedom' and 'enterprise'. The last point I take up is the psychological consequences of the disappearance from life of any real options, of any real freedom.

NO EXIT. It is clear that freedom exists only where there are real options ; where the individual, or a nation, in spite of its history, can make a choice that is not over-determined by the system. While it is unlikely that at any time man's choices were not over-determined; while it is unlikely that Homo sapiens ever had a local or international system that allowed him to invent new solutions to his old problems, I feel that never before have so many felt that they lived in a room with no exit. This results in apathy and withdrawal from life. Meanwhile the attractiveness of withdrawal is enhanced by the high-rising standard of living and the increased possibilities for good times, which narcotize all feeling, and by the extreme danger of going against the multitude. The knowledge that there are no options, the feeling of entrapment, the feeling that one can do nothing because there are no doors, makes its inevitable contribution to war ; for not only does it lead to ready acceptance of war as a solution to difficult problems, but it creates docility also. Man is everywhere chained to a system in which he perceives no new options. Yet there are - for the vast and radical political changes that have occurred in the past two generations prove that man can create new options where there seemed to be none.

_______________
Notes

¹²The American Business System, p. i34

¹³Quoted from my Culture Against Man, p. 105, fn.

¹⁴Address to The American Society of Newspaper Editors, as reported in the New York Times, 19 May 1966.

"Social and Psychological Preparation for War"
by Jules Henry
Originally published in The Dialectics of Liberation (Penguin, 1968)



How to cite a webpage