What are the social consequences of the monopoly capitalist economic stagnation B+S have shown in this book? Here is a description they use to open this chapter: “disorientation, apathy, and often despair, haunting Americans in all walks of life, have assumed in our times the dimensions of a profound crisis.” Work becomes meaningless, leisure becomes joyless, and the social fabric of communities is torn beyond repair. This is not to say that life under competitive capitalism was better, but B+S claim that, in their time, this social damage was only increasing. Present times show that they captured a social dynamic that has only continued to play out. 

Measuring such a broad and complex phenomena is extremely difficult, but B+S use cases like suicide and juvenile delinquency rates as markers for ‘social health.’ However, the overall complexity of this question leads them not to deeply compare historical situations. Rather, they rigorously define their present social circumstances, in all its ‘richness,’ to show how monopoly capitalist society, impossibly productive yet increasingly stagnant, prevents human beings from flourishing.  

During the 1960s, a trend claiming that America was ridding itself of poverty quickly reversed. This was emblemized in LBJ’s 1964 presidential campaign, centered on ‘the war on poverty,’ and a recognition that poverty in America remained a problem. From Marx, we know that capitalist economic systems always polarize societies, enriching some, impoverishing many more. But this fact has never been acknowledged by mainstream economists, who instead cling to capitalism as the ‘rising tide which lifts all boats.’ In addition to this polarization, there is the capitalist dynamic cultivating a ‘reserve army of labour,’ concretized in monopoly capitalism’s rising unemployment rates. 

These twin dynamics were held off by the wartime economy that cratered unemployment through the 1940s, until the end of the Korean War (1953). Capitalism’s proponents took this as an opportunity to gloat, saying that this was ‘capitalism as advertised.’ The good times would be endless. Then, technological improvements began eliminating many of the un/semi-skilled labour positions held by those most vulnerable, with unemployment on the rise again. 

With some Americans glorying in the 1950s boom, their affluence was matched by the shadow of poverty for many of their compatriots. And how is this poverty defined? Not by the relative comparisons used so often by capital’s ideologues. A poor Southern Black sharecropper can be better off than his counterpart in Brazil while still being in poverty. Rather, poverty is defined as the inability to meet the wants and needs stemming from the historical development and degree of ‘civilization’ in the country. In this way, our two sharecroppers in America and Brazil can both be in poverty, despite the fact that America is richer than Brazil, and even in spite of the fact that the American worker may have creature comforts (like a radio or bike) that his Brazilian counterpart doesn’t have. In this way, we see poverty as a lifestyle in which someone is unable to meet the necessary subsistence standards of their society. In 1959, this average standard of living (in cities) meant an annual income of $5,370 - $6,567, depending on the city. At this time, some 50% of Americans made less than this subsistence level. 

Another facet B+S examine is the state of housing in America. In 1960, 16.6% of dwellings didn’t have a private bathroom or running water. Nearly ⅔ were officially considered either ‘deteriorating’ or ‘dilapidated.’ This meant some 25.5M Americans lived in sub-standard housing. And as always in American contexts, every problem was magnified when it came to non-White populations. 45% of non-White people lived in a residence without a private bathroom or running water. At least half of the non-White population (based on estimates) lived in sub-standard housing. New York City had over one million people living in slums, with rat problems so bad that they resulted in hundreds of serious injuries, and several deaths from gnawing, each year. 

These were the circumstances after the supposed Post-WWII boom, at one of the heights of American capitalist society. Attempts at redevelopment were plagued with the graft, corruption, waste, and gentrification that always follows from publicly-funded, privately-profitable housing projects under capitalism. Due to the overrepresentation of non-Whites in slums designated for this type of redevelopment, Black workers and their families were always more likely to be thrown from their homes by it. Forced to find a new (still inadequate) home farther from family, friends, and community, this is how the fabric of non-White communities was destroyed by 'development.' Finally, development was always shaped by the profit motive. Instead of low-cost, sturdy, safe, reliable housing, the new housing units were inevitably either luxury units for the upper class, or another iteration of shoddy and dangerous units destined for decay or collapse. Rather than urban renewal, this was/is an ongoing land grab, and displacement of poor and racialized communities. 

Another key dynamic of post-War American society is suburbanization and the connected congestion of transportation systems. Moving to the suburbs (for those who could afford it) was the flip side of the ‘slumification’ of so much urban housing. In fact, the ‘middle class’ suburban home became the centerpiece of the 1950s ‘prosperity boom,’ an image which lasts to this day. Even this suburbanization was bifurcated. The true elites had their beautiful manicured suburbs. Lower/middle class suburban residents had homes that could be as poorly constructed as urban slum redevelopments. Additionally, this latter class, while technically home-owners, were constantly subject to the pressures/burdens of their mortgages, maintenance costs, repairs, etc. This often left them living paycheck-to-paycheck as before. 

While the suburban environment was healthier for workers and their families, transportation (almost always in a car along the highway system) became a glaring new problem. The growing importance of the automobile relative to the railroad is what enabled the development of suburbs in the first place. Highway construction followed close behind growing car ownership rates. The initial burst of freedom provided by the car evaporated as millions pursued the same possibility, clogging roads with traffic. Tolls, parking fees, and congested bridges and tunnels became an unavoidable aspect of American life.  

At the time of writing, a major element of capitalism’s self-defence was its ability to educate American youth. The hinge point of this argument was that the American education system was so effective and accessible that it made class differences irrelevant. That it ensured every child got the same access to a good education. Was this true, or just more capitalist propaganda? Getting behind the rhetoric involves B+S scrutinizing the relative resource allocation to this ‘education for all’ effort. 

In 1960, American total education spending was 5% of national income. At the same time, the USSR was spending 10-15%, with a national income half the size of the USA’s. This reflected a relative commitment of ~4-6x the investment per student in the USSR. American military spending was double its educational spending, as was spending on FIRE services, and advertising spending was 3x that of spending on public universities. All of this was at a time when American schools were 1.7M students over capacity, and 2M students attended schools in unsatisfactory condition. 50% of public teachers received less than a living wage. On the flip side, private school students (only 60-70k in total) received top teaching, in the best schools, before their ascendance into the American ruling class at elite private universities. 

In study after study, example after example, B+S show that what primarily determines a student’s academic performance and future is not intelligence or hard work, but the class of their parents. The flailing American education system failed to teach rudimentary subjects at the appropriate age. Illiteracy and other learning problems follow students to high school. Bachelor’s degrees lose their objective status as markers of academic achievement due to the continual drift of lower level material into higher level courses. Like all aspects of society, education stagnates horribly under monopoly capitalism. In yet another vicious cycle, monopoly capitalism prevents education from functioning as the source of social energy and economic dynamism that it could/should be, and was in socialist economic systems.