The New Industrial State - 1960's America and Economics

Galbraith explored the economics of production in the 1960's looking in detail to how companies could exert their power and influence over the state - this was called The New Industrial State.

Galbraith and The New Industrial State: Galbraith illustrates in his book “The New Industrial State” that the base structure of American economics shifted to being controlled entirely by the state. Galbraith outlines other important power shifts over the years stating that the second shift in power has been building and swelling over the years and it is still in the making. Galbraith talks of the “techno-structure” of the New Industrial State. This outlines abandoning individualism and beginning to depend on 'experts' or other corporations, leading to a change in bureaucratic hierarchy - it is now about focusing on the group rather than the individual.

The United States of America in the 1960's: In the USA this meant that everything was to be made available pretty much on demand whenever needed. This meant that people would be encountering problems every day and be able to easily solve them with little to no hassle, which lead to a sort of routine falling into place - this is our first world society. We have all come to take things for granted; flowing water, instant access to the internet, education and the list goes on and on.

In Max Weber's version of this, the rise of bureaucracy people would start to be ruled by officials who gain their positions of power and authority by being pretty much amazing - charismatic for example, and then this bureaucracy would continue to rise and grow creating a massive hierarchy. Weber  argued that bureaucracy was a highly efficient way of administration, but did not believe that it was necessarily a great thing to have happened - for example there is now little room for personal expression because you start to follow these constricting rules of an organisation - this is bad for existentialists because freedom of choice and expression is everything, otherwise we are essentially being oppressed; no room for any other values.

Democracy is thought as a meritocracy - everything is morally the same and we are based on our merit only; the military industrial complex was based on this specific structure - there was a leadership model and people were not judged on their political affiliation. This system is technically aimless, it becomes essentially nihilistic and Heidegger predicted and named the 'pragmatic technological bureaucratic'  meaning that the corporations and people involved in this new industrial state are ran by an 'elite' or 'expert' if you will.

Keynes: Based on the principles of supply and demand  The New Industrial State would have been welcomed by Keynes - it is a controlled economy, but one that is meaningless; he makes of it what he wants. To Keynes, war is the best thing that can happen to an economy - during the depression, capitalism nearly came to an end because there was just no money circulating, the war got things moving, created a base need for everyone.

Contra: The managed society that Keynes suggested was opposed by Hayek, who predicted that it would ultimately fail - it would lead to high levels of corruption that everyone would be some sort of bureaucrat with their only goal being to vehemently strive for promotion, selfish gain and, of course, more power.