III. COMMUNITY AND INVENTION Community has been the central timber of our national order since the Founding, or perhaps rather a sense of community aimed at developing community. In this sense, ' community ' must be understood as much as a process as a static state of existence. How ever early in our history the term ' E Pluribus Unum' was officially made use of, the concept has been there from the inception. It was expressed in the 'new race' Americans were to be in de Crevocour and in Franklin's warning that if we did not all hang together, we would all hang separately. One of the rudimentary notions to be developed in this exercise is the fleshing in of that conceptualization. The Declaration of Independence is a superb statement of this idea of community. In the course of its relatively short verbiage, there are no less than seventy-five references to the community of people in the colonies as a collective group. Most common are 'we' and 'us,' 'our,' 'they' or 'their,' sprinkled abundantly amidst a total of barely a thousand words. The entire tenor of the document is a collective statement, and while a great deal has been made of individualism in our culture and thought, it is the community that is speaking here. The 'station' which a 'people' is entitle to, the rights with which 'they ' are endowed, the derivation of governmental authority from the 'governed,' the right of the 'people' to abolish government, and enacted by the authority of 'them,' are but some of the more prominent examples of this. And the primary rationale behind the separation was the effort by the British to prevent the development of this 'people.' The population had been prevented from growing, a parasitic bureaucracy had been imposed which had functioned to 'eat out their substance,' 'their' trade had been cut off and taxed imposed without 'their' consent, 'they' had been plundered and ravaged, and 'they' had, along with 'their' lives and honor, pledged 'their' fortunes to the cause. The collectivity is inferred even when it is not expressly stated. Thus, as much as it was a political statement, it was at least equally an economic manifesto. No less so was the Constitution, as will be explored later in this examination. Most decidedly this is so in the enumeration of powers. Indeed, if it is possible, the latter is even more a conscious effort to create the mechanisms for community development by establishing the prerequisites for a national economy. And with the Establishment, the early efforts of government, both national as well as state and local, was to set concretely in place the necessary conditions for such development. The most important of these would probably be Hamilton's exercises in his trilogy of Reports as Secretary of Treasury. But as much as the institutionalization was an expression of an ideological system, the institutionalization functioned to foster a particular spirit of community in the nation. And it is not a misrepresentation to view a large part of the history of the Republic as a struggle to forward such objectives. That structure of institutions was designed to cultivate and to permit and engender the cultivation of that spirit and that actuality. To hold it to be less, to treat it all in purely jacobin democratic terms, is to do violence to the exercise. The thesis here revolves around that mutually supportive theme of institutionalization cultivating the spirit which would engender the development of the nation, and this is crucial to understanding the idea of community in America. The husbandry of those institutionalizations and that spirit are essential -- they were 'invented' for expressly that purpose. The examination of that invention, of that construct of the faith of that community, of that civil religion, is what is undertaken here. And, recalling the repeated intonations of the issue of civility expressed in the Declaration, it is precisely that spirit or faith that has animated our national struggle. "Anything else would be uncivilized. We do not need to 'invent' or 'reinvent' community, although we might well be concerned regarding the potential for its disruption or corruption. Far from rejecting 'the idea of community,' our history has been about the fight to sustain it. The misfounded assertion that it has been rejected in favor of the pursuit of individual goals, economic and political, of this people, is, in reality, a failed refutation of not only our spirit, but of the classical liberal and republican theory upon which it is premised. Our civil religion is the archetype of Tocqueville's 'social invention,' and he, indeed, made just that point. The explanation of all of that will be undertaken here, but something must be entered prior to that by way of consideration and elaboration and commentary regarding these notions of community and invention. Even though the examples employed by Phillip Abbott are of a somewhat different order than that under perusal here ( i.e. , telephones, penitentiaries, quilting bees, motels, and revival camps ), much of what he says , and particularly his typology of inventions, is of interest in understanding this species of mechanism. There are in Professor Abbott's SEEKING MANY INVENTIONS three kinds of inventions, and the distinctions he draws among them are applicable at whatever scope or calibre of device is being analyzed, from engineering and technological creations to those of social or political or economic institutions. The three nonmutually exclusive general categories he had delineated are generative, supporting, and transitional. (1) The first type of invention he describes as effecting 'momentous' change in our lives by the manner in which " ... they radically refashion our everyday existence; because they 'generate' whole systems of supporting institutions, and because they reorient systems of thought." (2 ) As at one level, the telephone invention he develops as an exemplar in the work represents such 'generative' inventions, "the basic institutions of human culture" may also be so identified at a more advanced level. The depiction of this variety specifically mentions religions in this category, and., acknowledging that one "need not accept Freud's account of the family as a generative institution " (3) to hold the family as representative, such systems have "spawned new institutions themselves and became the major units into which successive generations would organize their lives." (4) His characterization extends to examples including those two, but also legislatures. The social exchange which they engender, while it is not sufficient for community, is certainly necessary as a precondition. The telephone example, however, must be also looked to in regard to the 'transforming' function its usage, even as it possesses a 'supporting' role, too, undergirding existing communities and transforming them in the creation of a 'web' which operates as a 'psychological neighborhood,' (5) but such devices are relatively rare in their appearance. 'Supporting' inventions are described as 'common' in occurrence and as having been "thrown off, so to speak, by generative inventions," (6) appearing as a 'constellation' surrounding a 'parent invention.' These new inventions generate additional support groups upon which they may prove 'dependent' and be 'transformed' en route. Abbott suggests the motel as exemplary of this phenomenon. For the third form, he argues that they both produce new social forms and are sustained by yet others. The revival camp phenomenon is representative, but so. too, would be presidential nominating conventions. They 'celebrate contagion' whether they are political rallies or religious gatherings or festivals. (7) The consequences of such varieties of inventions may not always be easily traced, but can have substantive impact on society, and the non-mutual exclusivity of the categories, for Abbott, "reveal certain basic features in their development,"(8) an interrelationship and interconnectedness which leads him to the formulation of an 'invention matrix:' "An invention is part of a complex set of elements, each feeding upon the others ... [in] ... what seem to be the essential parts of the invention matrix: problem construction and a solution apparatus, a use community, a replication procedure, promotion groups, and invention linkages."(9) Arising from efforts at resolution of the perception of a problem, during which some "structures are seen as inadequate," a new invention is created, much in the manner of Thomas Kuhn's construction of scientific revolutions operates. In Kuhn, an anomaly is perceived as an existing theory fails at explanation, and a new theory must be developed either on the old or by way of an entirely new paradigm, although "unlike Kuhn's scientist ... the inventor ... embraces novelty."(10) "An avenue of public access" to any new invention, if a 'democratizing' characteristic, is nevertheless one which renders the issue moot were it not possible and probably present and active.(11) This is not crass commercialism in any sense, but rather the harsh realty of existence where some form of the generalized Darwinian axiom does operate. And, as with Abbott's first part of the matrix, this one, too, is eminently applicable to each of his exemplars. New inventions also require sponsors if a use community is to develop. The junto of Franklin is an ideallic type of this, taken from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY. The form really amounts to a 'cadre' organization. Abbott asserts that "A history of invention in America is in large part a looting of the activity of promotion groups in the marketplace and in social and political communities." (12) Modern advertising probably tries to hone this into an art form, but is must create, or there must be "an attitude of concern and common interest" (13) if the construct is to get very far along. And without 'replicative procedures,' the construction will probably be more that a curiosity or the existence of one which would soon become extinguished. (14) The author at this point makes what for this particular project is very important: "I have noted that our contemporary focus on technological invention shapes our approach to all invention. Sometimes that preoccupation is advantageous. One of the major breakthroughs of the industrial revolution was the invention and perfection of interchangeable parts. By creating a system in which component parts could be made in massive numbers and could be reliably uniform, the manufacturing process could be made vastly quicker and cheaper. Interchangeable parts, along with the factory system itself and the assembly line were inventions that created a new replication procedure for any technological invention. The existence of an economy based upon capital expansion was also an essential element of modern technological invention."(15) If the implications of that for the American civil religion do not appear obvious they should as this is revisited here. There have been those who have, as example, called, with Henry Ford, the factory the 'temple' of capitalism. But Dr.. Abbott's discussion makes another important observation here. The camp meeting religious revival made a profound change in Calvinist/Protestant doctrine as it swept the country side, and this was effectively a democratic crushing of an elitist tendency. He calls it the "doctrine of universal salvation."(16) And Abbott comments on the difference this made in society and its belief structure: " ... it is worth noting here that the camp meeting as an institution owed a portion of its success to the fact that it was a religious replication of the democratic norms, " (17) such that, " The camp meeting promised immediate conversion and salvation and, as such, represented a cultural adaptation of Protestantism to democratic trends in American society." (18) The impact of the camp meeting invention on the American society was to make religion 'a matter of individual choice.' The institutionalized ideology of the culture had altered the substance of the society. Terry Telfer, writing in Dickinson Studies (19) makes essentially this same point in reference to the development in Dickinson's poetry which is indicative of her movement away from more Puritanical attitudes as a result of the influence of revivalism, Transcendentalism, and Unitarianism such that an image of man as his own arbitrar through the development of the capacity for reason, a general trend which increased levels of civic concern, education and learning emerged.. As to the construct of our faith, Abbott is even more definitive. He argues that the inventions he has identified and the typology he built operating through the matrix he portrayed "are themselves the creation of more complex and larger sets of institutions" (20) which he has termed 'inventive communities' and which are, in his mind, the fundamental source of change of American society. He goes so far as "to suggest that it is in the context of the market that Americans invent and reinvent social institutions" and that it is "often in imitation of market mores and structures" that this is accomplished (although sometimes it is done by opposing them). That capitalism's history has been one of being an exceptionally productive inventive system, there seems little argument. Through most of our past, that it was the necessary foundation in economics of society has been widely accepted. George Gilden is sighted for his comment on the capitalist 'faith,' and while Gilden suggests that they are not motivated by greed but 'involvement' which is "impelled by their imagination, optimism, and faith,"(21) Adam Smith is not similarly convinced. Abbott would combine Gilden and Marx's view of the transforming character of capitalist society -- as illustrative of this invention community characteristic. He sees the inventions he has discussed as evidence of the actual 'liberating' capacity of the capitalist system. As we proceed through this argument, the idea of the institutional impact on society will be quite important. It is the 'inventive reorganization of society' (22) that marks capitalism in America in Abbott's study. 'Fordism,' though, takes the brunt of a good deal of criticism in the pages that ensue this analysis in Abbott, and it is somewhat disappointing. That is not to suggest that there isn't some validity to some of his critique; that some of the problems of alienation or subjugation of the workforce have created some bad conditions, but in general, it simply does not fit reality very well. The author longs for 'instant communities' (23) that are more human, even utilizing the AT & T slogan to typify them: Reach out and touch someone.(24) It's almost as if the thinking has 'slipped gears.' While capitalism does work, this argument does not so well. It works -- no apology necessary. The rising tide has lifted all the ships. In order to lift them further, the tide must rise further. It is as logical as it is allegorical, as this project endeavors to demonstrate. It is imperative in making such assessments that we do not put the cart before the horse. The very effort at redistribution toward 'fairness,' by siphoning off social surplus, slows the engines of economic activity, growth, and development, and leads to heightened disparity. That is not simply a dualism of allegory or a case of dueling metaphor, it is the essence of capitalism and economics. It was also somewhat understood in Marx, and was the major contribution of Rosa Luxemburg in her ACCUMULATION OF CAPITAL and DEVELOPMENT OF CAPITALISM IN POLAND. It is essential that the implications of the rate of profit be clearly understood. Were all the world's existing wealth to be redistributed equally among all hands, the material condition of the world's population would hardly be improved. We would all daily exist on the edge of subsistence and starvation. There simply is not enough wealth in the world. That does not support Malthus, however. It is not that there are too many people. The world is not overpopulated, it is underdeveloped. People are wealth, or at least they are the potential for wealth creation. Leaving aside the requisite that accumulated wealth is the basis for wealth creation and that such redistribution would eliminate therefore that possibility, the rate of social surplus is the key to understanding political economy. The representation of the ratio of social surplus to constant capital and variable capital does more than delineate the basis for expanded reproduction and sustained development in its increase, anyway. Where the category d, identified as debt service, socially nonproductive but generally necessary activity, taxation, and the like expands at the expense of social surplus from one phase of production to another, the basis for economic development is eliminated. But where it expands at the expense of the maintenance of existent plant and equipment (constant capital), the capacity of the economy to reproduce itself or to continue operating at existing levels is destroyed. This has been identified as autocannibalization. As it expands to take up wealth previously available for the wage bill (variable capital), the ability of the economy to sustain itself is likewise precluded. Such expansion of d is termed the primitive accumulation of capital. One need not look to Luxemburg or Trotsky to identify the economic system which autocannibalization and primitive accumulation typify. It can be found in the political economy of Hjalmar Schacht, the Nazi Finance Minister. Schachtian economics is what fascism is. Autocannibalization and primitive accumulation of capital by government policy is fascism. The variant of it under Mussolini was called corporatism, in its utilization of ostensibly 'democratic' forms of tripartite institutional forms of decision-making organs with representatives from business, labor, and government to implement such policy. But that is precisely also what Secretary of Labor Robert Reich calls his sundry schemes to reduce the ratio of social surplus, increase the tax level to support his redistributive policies, and hamstring business to the edge of profitability and beyond. When pressed on such matters, the retort is entered that what is proposed is 'friendly fascism' or 'fascism with a human face.' Of course, one would have difficulty convincing the Branch Davidians of that. As bizarre and even perverse perhaps as that cult may have been, it is hard to defend what occurred. And yet, they were but a handful of people. The Third World, saddled with similar economic destruction as described in forced reduction of the rate of profit under the nomenclature of 'development' is billions. As Detroit is turned into the Third World, it hardly seems 'friendly' or 'human.' And when the appendix to Clinton's 1995 Budget projects tax rates for Americans at an average of 82% not far into the next century , the implications of autocannibalization and primitive accumulation of an enforced falling rate of profit becomes quite clear. Neither is it any wonder that Clinton must pose a New Covenant as substitution for America's civil religion. The ideology of redistributive justice has itself become a virtual religion for its advocates, and one dogmatic beyond falsification. Yet, the negation of the categorical imperative this represents is far from an accomplished fact, and one good reason for that is precisely the faith examined here. A conclusion drawn by Professor Abbott for a "focusing upon ways in which the conditions for social invention can be established" has some merit. (25) Probably "social space must be won" by having it "wrested and torn away from economic and political institutions." But the real culprit in that scenario of is the burgeoning public sector with its drain on capital and run-away bureaucracy and dependency. The development of new invention will occur only to the extent that the albatross of governance can be thrown off freeing the creativity to engender and cultivate them. Corollary to this is the idea that public sector encroachment will also undermine existent forms. To the extent that other collectivist forms function to shackle such creativity, it is primarily the result of the malfeasance of government that this takes place. That cannot be taken to suggest that governance serves no useful purpose in such matters. There is most obviously the issue of public goods and infrastructure . The type of policy implemented in that pursuit is critical, however. Their husbandry by privatization is more efficacious than is top-down control. A good deal of the sterility that collectivist mentality breeds can only be overcome through development of human capital. And it would be sheer folly to seek to depose economies of scale for its own sake. Our existence rests not only on its continuance, but also upon its expansion. The excursion the author makes into the status of the family in America suffers similarly. (26) It has been precisely the governance we have been saddled with which has done it the most harm. Such policy, for example, has done to the black family what not even the travesty of involuntary servitude did to it. Many of the initiatives posed in the conclusion, such as structuring of 'borrowed time,' (27) face the same dilemna that the quest for family maternity leave threatened. For marginal firms, it may be the proverbial straw that breaks the camels back. If the driving force of development is decapitated, the resultant condition can hardly be expected to improve. Undercutting the ability of business, small or large, to make normal profit is not a tenable response. Nor is the holodeck vision of Tom Hayden helpful in the least. (28) The struggle can neither be waged nor won at the level it operates. Indeed, such struggle is functionally incorporated into a situation of competing over diminishing returns, which are all the more diminished by the resort to 'corporate liberalism.' Anarcho-syndicalism, whether in Gramsci or Hayden, has the same ultimate end point, corporatism -- the corporatism of Mussolini, the Schachtian economics of Nazism. Such panacea as solar power, corporate divestiture, community 'self-sufficiency,' all fit that model precisely. The call for 'democratizing' corporations demonstrates Hayden's blindness to business reality and economics. He clearly does not comprehend that the real power in corporate America often lies with middle management (see this thesis examined in Chandler's THE VISIBLE HAND). If it is true that Hayden has come to see progressivism as a key force toward his desired objectives, the emperor is indeed caught in a very revealing attire. Not that localized administration (29) cannot be a fruitful prospect, although one need only turn to Justice Taney's record to recoil at its horrors. The 'liberated zones' will quite lawfully more approximate medieval fiefdoms than anything else. Hayek's ROAD TO SERFDOM exposes such fallacy most forcefully, but that does not necessarily mean that the 'conservative' agenda which Abbott (30) seems to assail for its late discovery of such things as an aversion to bureaucratic plunder and blunder has the panacea, either. It is the case, though, that such efforts at social space can only be constructive of releasing creativity to the extent that they can push back the leviathan. Nor do these latter possess the condescending racism that exudes from either of the former pseudo-liberalisms, a condescension which is not, by the way, limited to that, but which extends to its general view of humanity in a most paternalistic and illiberal manner. As promising and useful for purposes of this project as Abbott's inventions and community classifications may be, the book is perforated from its inception with dilemna of the form just articulated. Most baffling may be the inclusion under the rubric ostensibly of liberalism of both the market system and the welfare state. (31) And yet, on balance, the essay must be seen as providing substantive foundation for this examination. Most basically, this would involve the utilization of the term invention itself as more than technological, reaching into the realms of politics, society, economics, and culture. Professor Abbott early marks the importance of such invention, emphasizing that few have done so. (32) Robert Nesbit is one of those "who has applied the concept of invention to political and social theory..." (33) and his notion of 'social invention,' though perhaps too broad, is a theory which fundamentally challenges determinist mind-sets. Any number of theories can be seen as placing such change "beyond human control." (34) At various places, he comes close to repeating what almost appears to be a free will argument. ( This is also an important aspect of the distinction which must be drawn between classical and 'contemporary' liberalisms). As will be made clear, there is no assertion here intended to counter the impact of willful actions. Regarding this differentiation, too, the structural functionalist concepts which play a significant role in this analysis implicitly do not preclude the role of individual exercise of their will. The contrast he posits between Rawls and Nozick demonstrates at least cognizance of the liberal dilemna, but also the importance of social invention in the development of society. (35) Abbott echoes the argument, nevertheless, for a mutually supportive causality between invention and ideology. (36) he also expresses concern about discontinuity, for as social inventions are endlessly in need of reinvention, this truncated picture would be devoid of much cross generational conduction of traditions. Abbott reminds the reader of the admonition of Burke in reference to the French Revolution: " By this unprincipled facility of changing the state so often, and as much, and in as many ways as their floating fancies or fashions, the whole chain and continuity of the commonwealth would be broken. No one generation could link with another.(37) The American civil religion conceptionalization under scrutiny here serves as a powerful web in closing that gap in our society, and it also functions to bridge the abyss between invention and ideology. It is a vital bind connecting institution and community. There is a necessity, especially in the nature of this disparate group called the United States, for civil religion as, in fact, a 'community-builder.' Abbott views the maintenance of such institutions or inventions as a key issue, acknowledging that the 'instant communities' which we strive for "can never really fully meet our needs." (38) It is consequently no leap at all from Abbott's community grounded in invention to a recognition of the role the 'faith' performs in the American context. Continue 1