The College at Warfare and the Iceberg Technique

Whereas in search of previous sources discussing the "manpower channeling" insurance policies of the U.S. Selective Service (draft) in the course of the Vietnam battle, I uncovered a treasure trove of Nineteen Sixties essays on the military-industrial-academic complicated. The primary one which caught my eye was "The College and the Political Economic system" by James O’Connor. O’Connor later wrote The Fiscal Disaster of the State and based the journal, Capitalism Nature Socialism. "The College and the Political Economic system" appeared within the 1969 first difficulty of Leviathan, which was a successor to Viet-Report, enlisting lots of the latter journal’s key personnel.

I had some problem discovering a digitized copy on-line of the Leviathan difficulty however then it turned up on the previous standby, JSTOR, which has a pleasant assortment of different press literature. Additionally on JSTOR was the prospectus for Leviathan, chronicling its metamorphosis from Viet-Report to Leviathan. 

The final footnote in O’Connor’s article cites The Iceberg Technique: Universities and the Navy Industrial Advanced by none apart from Martin Nicolaus, whose "Unknown Marx" I’ve cited a number of occasions over the past 5 months, most just lately in "The Unknown Unknown Marx" in addition to the cumbersomely titled, "Proletariat and Center Class in Marx: Hegelian Choreography and the Capitalist Dialectic." which I cited in "Seeing the frowns on the jugglers and the clowns." O’Connor famous that Nicolaus’s "Iceberg Technique" shared his basic perspective that "faculties and universities represent 4 nice departments of the U.S. ruling class," encompassing manufacturing, merchandising, state bureaucratic social management, and imperialist rule.

Martin Nicolaus was an affiliate editor of Viet-Report and on the editorial workers of Leviathan. His "Iceberg Technique" was from a chat he gave in November 1967 at a convention on the college and the army on the College of Chicago.

Nicolaus described overt army analysis at universities as solely the tip of an iceberg: 

In our discussions in regards to the army and the colleges, what are we aiming at and what are we making an attempt to do? It appears to me that it is very clear that the military–the child burners and the individuals who examine methods to burn infants — are solely the highest of the tutorial iceberg. … If we do not see that the entire thing is oriented on the coverage stage towards specialization and destruction of people and induction of people into the commercial system, then it appears to me that our technique is just not going to get off the bottom. …

The technique now we have now, of getting individuals to see the little peak of army analysis on the high of the iceberg and blasting that does not appear to me to be sufficient.

Nicolaus didn’t lay out a method for tackling the entire iceberg however clearly his essays on the unknown Marx and the brand new center class had been geared toward grappling with what was wanted to know to develop such technique.

The transition from Viet-Report to Leviathan arose as editors more and more considered the necessity for "a extra refined understanding of American imperialism as a product of particular financial and social preparations" and "a extra coherent principle of revolutionary social change." The primary efforts on this route had been particular points in 1968 on "The College at Warfare," edited by Mike Klare, and on "Colonialism and Liberation in America," edited by Beverley Leman. The editors of Viet-Report, and subsequently of Leviathan, had been clearly following the iceberg technique advocated by Martin Nicolaus.

As I discussed in my earlier publish on André Gorz’s "Destroy the College," it takes an terrible lot of disposable time to amass a college diploma and much more disposable time to complete graduate college. Marx anticipated such a scenario when he noticed within the Grundrisse that:

"…the creation of surplus labour on the one facet corresponds to the creation of minus-labour, relative idleness (or not-productive labour at greatest), on the opposite. … In relation to the entire of society, the creation of disposable time is then additionally creation of time for the manufacturing of science, artwork and so on."

It was a concept that Marx thought "doesn’t belong right here" and he by no means subsequently developed systematically. However he did return to it briefly in Theories of Surplus Worth the place he speculated about an advance of productiveness such that "whereas earlier two-thirds of the inhabitants had been straight engaged in materials manufacturing, now it’s only one-third." If the output and work time had been distributed equally, he mused, everybody would have extra free time and time for "unproductive labour" that they selected. However that would by no means occur beneath capitalism. 

As Nicolaus defined, "[t]he contradiction resides in the truth that the distribution of disposable time can’t be equal as long as the capitalist system operates by appropriating surplus labor." Why? As a result of commodities, working time, and leisure are all created in response to the crucial of capital accumulating surplus labour. If that crucial was abolished THERE WOULD BE NO CAPITAL. So capital has to proceed to seek out methods of making disposable time, remodeling it into surplus labour, appropriating it, after which — someway towards all limits, perils, boundaries, fetters, and contradictions — circulating the excess in a manner that once more expands the manufacturing of surplus worth.

So what may occur if solely one-third of the inhabitants was straight engaged in materials manufacturing?

—except for the horde of flunkeys, the troopers, sailors, police, decrease officers and so forth, mistresses, grooms, clowns and jugglers—these unproductive labourers will on the entire have the next stage of tradition than the unproductive employees had beforehand, and specifically that ill-paid artists, musicians, legal professionals, physicians, students, schoolmasters, inventors, and so on., will even have elevated in quantity.

This isn’t to say that these "unproductive employees" produce no use values. They might even produce bigger portions of use values than the so-called productive employees. It’s only to say that they produce no surplus worth for accumulation by capital. For a conclusion to that thought, we could return to Marx’s "doesn’t belong right here" footnote:

Malthus due to this fact fairly constant when, together with surplus labour and surplus capital, he raises the demand for surplus idlers, consuming with out producing, or the need of waste, luxurious, lavish spending and so on.

Marx’s disdain is just not for idleness or consumption per se however for consuming with out working — for the truth that some need to work extra hours than essential to make sure that others can spend lavishly on luxurious and waste with out working in any respect. A brand new wrinkle seems for college college students when universities are not the unique protect of the rich. Aside from the rich and a lucky few, graduates must work extra of their post-university careers to repay scholar loans and to make up for the misplaced earnings of their scholar years. 

One can at all times rationalize longer hours with the excuse that the work is extra intrinsically satisfying. That is believable and presumably true in lots of instances. Is it true sufficient to offset the expertise of graduates who did not get the sort of job they anticipated and the revenue inequality between professionals and "unqualified" and precarious employees? It is a spurious query. The target Marx gestured at was not larger incomes or extra enjoyment. It was emancipation. Social and political emancipation. As Martin Hägglund argued in This Life: Secular Religion and Non secular Freedom, freedom is just not an summary absence of constraints on our actions however the presence of the likelihood to do what must be executed to meet our commitments to these we care about and to values we cherish. "…secular religion is the situation of freedom. … We’re free as a result of we’re in a position to ask ourselves what we ought to do with our time." Right here is the place I insert a plug for my Leisure to Attend to Our Non secular Enterprise through which I talk about Hägglund’s e-book and disposable time at size.

Gorz’s, O’Connor’s, and Nicolaus’s examinations of the college, in addition to our personal experiences, present that college students aren’t free to ask themselves what they should do with their time. These selections are made for them by admissions, course schedules, course outlines, assignments, majors, grades, diploma necessities. This routine is how their disposable time has been disposed of for them, to not serve God however to serve the financial system, the state, and the administration.