School of Historical and Philosophical Studies - Theses
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 1 of 1
-
ItemThe society of capital: an interpretation of the New Deal 1932-40( 1986)“Epimenides did not practice divination about the future; only about the obscurities of the past”. With this statement Aristotle gives us a rare glimpse onto the earliest origins of historical thought. The possibility of ‘divining the past’, which must sound quaint to modern ears, was quite familiar to Greek authors. Indeed, they believed that Historis was the daughter of the blind prophet Teiresias – almost as if to lay stress on the relation between present and future and its dependence on the past. Epimenides is said to have used his knowledge of the past to purify the souls of his contemporaries and allow them to act freely in future. This essay also is an exercise in historical interpretation: it is a divination of the past. The work of interpretation can only inform the actions of human beings; it cannot hope to determine them like any Philosophia Perennis. But interpretation is vital to those who wish history to remain a crucible of political action rather than to become a receptacle of sterile antiquities. The well known study by Theda Skocpol on the New Deal, among others, shows that it is possible even for a thesis of similar length to ours, wholly based on published sources, to make original contributions to this topic. Such studies are all the more defensible when applied to those periods that have been investigated in great detail and for which there is ample documentation. The New Deal – that is the period of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency that runs from 1932 to 1940 – has received much attention from historians, and theories have abounded as to its real significance. Their concern is understandable: the New Deal was a pioneering political response, however improvised and tentative, to the catastrophic economic crisis of the 1930s that swept away the old capitalist order with its self-regulating market and negative State. For the first time in its history, the government of the United States sought to regulate the capitalist economy, deploying for the purpose a vast array of administrative agencies that transformed it into a powerful centralized State. The problem with nearly all existing accounts of the period is that they run faithfully along the conceptual course set by capitalist relation of production – a fact not confined to the more apologetic works that highlight the ‘positive’ reforms of the ‘Roosevelt Revolution’, but extending to those New Left accounts that accuse the New Dealers of not going far enough. (From Introduction)