Myths about Communism and Capitalism

Someone sent me this article, and I think it's worth a read. I believe I have raised some or many of these points in my blog; however, it is nice to get them from someone who can write more eloquently than I can.  

http://www.salon.com/2014/02/02/why_youre_wrong_about_communism_7_huge_misconceptions_about_it_and_capitalism/

Hactivism: The Nonviolent Revolution

It’s hard to be a cynic. I do appreciate the fact that it prevents me from occupying myself with ultimately futile activities. However, cynicism can too easily turn into hopelessness, which begets apathy. I don’t want to be apathetic. How do I reconcile my ideals and my desire for social change with the reality that the ideologies and relationships that constitute power permeate every single aspect of life, including institutionalized movements for change? Including revolutions?

I am opposed to violence. Violence is a function of structures of inequality. It is the basis of patriarchy and slavery and capitalism. Yet, is it possible to transform our world without violence? How?

I don’t believe in the “political process” – whatever that means in reality. There is no boundary separating corporate and financial interests from the institutional apparatus of sanctioned violence and social coercion that is the state. Trying to re-shape the system from within the system is like trying to dry yourself off in the shower. When is the last time that a boycott or a petition created lasting, meaningful social change? Even the protests that constituted the so-called “Arab Spring.” What is fundamentally different in Egypt or Tunisia or Libya, aside from greater poverty and more weapons floating around? Yet, if I take violence and politics off of the table, what is left?

I have long held that technology would be the “creation of the system that ultimately destroys the system.” I have talked a bit about the potential of the internet, in particular, to subvert and escape global capitalism. Yet, I have never given too much thought to hacking, as an aggressive action against the system. It’s getting hard to ignore these days. For one thing, we now live in a world where cyber attacks and cyber security are a solid reality. We have WikiLeaks providing us with classified documents. And we have groups like Anonymous, who hack corporations, governments, and other groups to make social/political statements.

We don’t need weapons to dismantle capitalism. Its entire infrastructure is digitally based, and totally vulnerable to cyber attack. We don’t need to engage in endless debates about the nature of power and the government, trying in vain to convince people that democracy is a sham. Hackers can pull away the curtain and show us who’s really back there and what they are doing.

The only problem is that, currently, hactivists tend to be stuck in the old mindset. They employ a “rights” framework and fight for isolated “freedoms.” They protest against particular governments – governments that are under the thumb of industrial powers, no less – without seeing the larger forces that are responsible for the actions of these governments. Overall, they retain a very reformist attitude, and they are not able to keep sight of the larger picture: the particular articulation of capitalist relations, liberal discourses, bureaucracy, and governmental power that orders global and local social structures.

Hactivism could be a very effective nonviolent form of resistance. It just requires a very clear definition of the enemy, and a will to complete transform society.

Why I'm Not Voting

This is the one day of the year where people feel no shame about encroaching on strangers with personal questions laden with implicit moral judgements.  I lost count of how many times random people asked me if I'd voted yet. Equally irksome, I spent the entire day listening to trite sermonizing on the importance of voting. Of course, I never told anyone I wasn't planning to vote. That offense is ranked, I think, slightly below pedophilia, and I am not prepared to destroy my reputation.

Why does voting fill people with such a sense of pride? Why is it justified on moral terms? After all, most any close-minded ignoramus, misanthrope, or psychopath can go to a local high school gym and bubble in a scantron. Any person can vote with the most self-interested, destructive, hateful ends in mind. Following dominant logic, someone who voted for George Wallace purely on account of being racist still performed a noble deed. Why is the value of voting never questioned? Voting is a hallowed sacrament in modern societies because it serves an important ideological purpose: sustaining illusions of progress, enlightenment, self-determination, and empowerment in the midst of historically unprecedented conditions of oppression.

The brainwashing has been quite successful, aided of course by the blunting of most people's capacities for critical thought.  Anyone who believes our education system and national media are eroding in effectiveness need to think again.  They are doing their jobs very well.

1. People either do not consider the fact that campaign rhetoric does not predict real actions, or they deem this fact to be ultimately irrelevant.

2. People do not realize that important decisions are shaped by external factors and institutional constraints, and NOT by a person occupying an office; they are ignorant of the continuity across different presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican (the Obama administration was a continuation of the Bush administration, which was a continuation of the Clinton administration, and so on.)

3. People are not phased by the limitation of having only two viable options (in most cases); the fact that these choices have been selected for them by party leaders and corporate kingmakers is of no concern; and the frustration they feel that these options do not reflect their own interests and desires does not give people pause.

Let me emphasize this point. Voting is a selection between two corporate-sponsored options that will both serve the same corporate-driven interests. Voting allows people to participate in their own oppression. What shelters this reality from popular recognition is the spectacle of political campaigns.

Campaigns serve two key functions:

1. They camouflage reality (i.e. the fact that the candidates are not fundamentally different) in order to persuade people that they have a "voice" (whatever that means...). Campaigns create the illusion of variety and choice.

2. They set the terms of public discourse. The hegemony of modern thought is constituted by a complex of ideologies and discourses that is structured around two oppositional nodes.  Campaign rhetoric is critical to the process of redefining the bounds of modern discourse and reorienting the nodes to suit changing circumstances. In essence, the debates, stump speeches, and ads serve to determine what sorts of things the public thinks and how they talk about it, and equally important, what they cannot think and say. The heart of public discourse, the structured opposition, is created by distorting the significance of small details, thereby allowing many significant matters of foundational importance to fly under the radar as "givens" and thus effectively block them from reaching the level of conscious reflection. The domain of popular consciousness is entirely saturated with inane, trivial details. As a result, most people are not able to think critically about social reality. The liberal/conservative dichotomy actually curtails freedom of thought more than it represents any real flowering of opinions.

Real change goes beyond the political process. It radically transforms all institutions, economic, political and social. I'm not going to thank the people who voted today. I thank all the people who refuse to accept the "options" that are given to them, who take the time to think past the sound bites with which they are saturated, and who will not compromise what they know is right.

Progress or Dystopia, Part 3

Democracy

Then there is the argument that, whatever flaws our current system may have, at least we are freeing ourselves from the shackles of tradition and tyranny. Democracy is spreading around the world. Surely, no one can deny that the formation of modern democracy is a marker of human progress.

What’s really at work here is another case of “loaded words.” Sometimes, using particular terminology may hinder a thorough reflection on the realities of a situation. It is clear, if one looks beyond the façade of elections and representatives, that the only form of rule that exists is oligarchy. The average citizen in this modern world, no matter to which country she or he belongs, does not have any say whatsoever in how society is organized or how it functions.

It’s a wonder that a country like the U.S. can even sustain the illusion of any sort of real participation. People can choose between two candidates that have been pre-selected for them by party elites and corporate donors, and with whom they may have very little in common. People in the U.S. often lament that fact that neither candidate really represents their views or talks about the things they feel are important. Yet, for some reason this does not give anyone pause about the U.S.’s status as a democracy, or to rethink the idea of democracy in any critical way. How is it empowering to go into a high school gym every few years and bubble in the name of someone who doesn’t really represent your views? What kind of “voice” is that really?

Then, there is the matter of campaign rhetoric versus reality. Stated views – in fact, the entire structured opposition between (or among) the parties – often have little to do with actual policy. I have presented evidence on numerous occasions of the continuity between presidential administrations in the U.S., regardless of political party. It does not matter whether a Republican or Democrat is in office. And it does not matter what any candidate’s or party’s official views are; those views bear very little resemblance to what actually happens. (The fact that a Republican governor – and now presidential candidate – enacted such a similar healthcare plan to the current Democratic president, despite all of the polarized rhetoric that has come to characterize the issue, only goes to show that the rhetoric itself is more for show than anything else.)

In fact, the people who are elected into office are largely irrelevant. All of them merely exist to sustain an illusion of representative democracy, and, in actual fact, always carry out the agenda of the global elite. The people who pull the strings and call the shots do not change and are not affected by elections. Elections are scripted, flashy and designed to distract people from what is really going on before their own eyes.

As I have argued before, the seeming lack of democracy in other countries is merely a result of poverty, with its concomitant difficulties in sustaining the necessary ideological infrastructure.  Like technology, the enjoyment of civil rights tends to be limited mostly to the well-to-do (globally speaking).  It is a benefit that exists only by virtue of a system that simultaneously deprives others of many comforts and securities.  Of course, for those of us who are fortunate enough to live in such conditions, it is nice to be able to voice our opinions without fear of retribution.  The other side of that coin is, the ideological infrastructure that makes this condition possible also ensures that we live in ignorance.  The question is then, is it better to know the truth and not be able to say it with impunity, or to be completely in the dark, but still able to say whatever you want?  I would also argue that "freedom of speech" is honored only so long as it is not threatening.  Julian Assange can tell you that.  And, of course, modern democracies always have recourse to "emergency powers" (one benefit of being at war) and means of legalizing all manner of abrogations of supposedly guaranteed constitutional rights.  If you live in the U.S., for example, you can be surveilled in any number of ways, detained without any probable suspicion, and denied rights of due process.  Just ask Muslims.  Or black men.

A constitution does not guarantee that people will be treated without prejudice, or that their privacy will be respected.

And voting does not change who is in power. It does not alter the basic structure and functioning of society. It only serves to legitimate the system. No one has any more voice in today’s society than they would have had at any other time in history. The only difference is that we are now less likely to see what is really going on, and more likely to continue in our delusions that we, the people, have the power.

Freedom and the Necessity of Coercion

I had a conversation with someone a few days ago which relates to my argument (from my previous post) that "freedom" is a problematic term that, in its use, glosses over a complex social reality.

We were discussing associations - groups that supposedly exist for no other purpose than a specific need common to its members.  In particular, we were talking about how associations will raise the price of their products (publications, certifications, dues, etc.) while members complain about the burden of the costs.  Our debate hinged on the question of whether members should have any say in the matter (or whether the solvency of the association is more important).

I provocatively asked, "Well, don't the members have a right to run their association into the ground, if they want to?  It is THEIR association, after all.  It exists for them."

The response:  But these associations MUST exist.  Otherwise there would be no professional ethics, regulations, standards.... no way to ensure that people keep their knowledge up to date.  It's like the federal government. Most people wouldn't pay taxes if they were given a choice.  Plus, people don't agree on what they want.  I would pay more in taxes for defense spending; you told me you wouldn't pay anything.  So you can't let people decide what they want for themselves because society wouldn't be able to function that way.

Now, obviously complete anarchy in a society like ours would be a disaster.  And in general some degree of social coercion is necessary.  That's why the term "freedom" is not very helpful for a nuanced understanding of social life.

The issue is, then, the means and ends of social coercion.  It is also the type of society that necessitates certain (undesirable) forms of coercion.  It is important to remember that most of us live in societies that are large and lack clear boundaries (globalization).  We operate in a system that is structured by forces that redistribute the majority of wealth toward a handful of people.  So, if I don't have any say in how my tax dollars are being used, that is not an evil because I have to bow to communal interests; rather it is an evil because the allocation of my tax dollars is being dictated by the agenda of an insanely wealthy ruling class, whose decisions do NOT benefit either me or society as a whole.

I understand that in a large society like that of the U.S. it would be impossible to have a true democracy (assuming, that is, that we have any democracy at all, which I would dispute).  Rather than resigning ourselves to current conditions based on that fact, though, shouldn't we think about whether or not large societies are really beneficial to most people?

And going back to associations.  Yes, I understand that when groups of people work together that some sacrifice and compromise is necessary.  But associations exist within a context of a stratified, exploitative capitalist system.  When prices of membership and membership benefits become too high, then it becomes a barrier to participation, further exacerbating the stratification of society.  We have developed a society in which the costs of basic social necessities (medical care, education, etc.) rise at astronomical rates, and become prohibitively expensive for a critical number of people.

You can throw your hands up and say "it's the market," or "it's the industry," or "that's what it takes to live in society."  But really, that is what it takes to live in this society.  And there is no reason why we should not be able to critically evaluate the particularities of our current system, and weigh the harms against the supposed gains of social progress.  As always, I just wish this was something that could be discussed or thought about.  It seems that the really interesting questions can never rise to the level of conscious consideration and debate.

Independence Day

Today I have been and will continue to be bombarded by emotional displays of patriotism.  I will hear "God bless America" more times than I can count.  The people around me will discuss their appreciation for democratic values and the freedom that we enjoy.

Freedom is a loaded word - that is, a word that is employed more for the purpose of stirring up emotional reactions than to denote any meaningful reality.  What does "freedom" actually mean?  In the case of the U.S., freedom is generally synonymous with representative democracy and capitalism.  However, representative democracy is a form of oligarchy, and capitalism runs on slavery and exploitation.  If one looks at material reality, the conditions to which the term "freedom" are generally applied render the word absolutely meaningless.  We're dealing with Orwellian linguistics here.

But, we have freedom of the press!  Yes, anyone has the ability to publish official narratives and mainstream viewpoints, without impediment.  Of course, there are many issues (particularly related to global affairs) where you will only find one perspective in any American media source.  Alternate points of view are nowhere to be found... except in foreign newspapers.  And try to publish anything that the Powers That Be find truly threatening - say, start a site called WikiLeaks - and you will be hunted down like Osama Bin Laden.

But, we do not jail and torture dissidents!  Or.... do we?  Arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens is permissible by law, and torture does not seem to be beneath us either. Heck, we can just send a drone over to annihilate someone who is saying things that bother us.

But we have freedom of religion!  No one is forcing me to pray, or go to church, or wear a veil.  Now, if you happen to be Muslim, you just have to put up with a little surveillance here and there, and probably should plan to always be detained at the airport.  And you may be ridiculed and called a terrorist by everyone around you.  No big deal.

Well, at least the state isn't telling us what to buy and where to work.  Good point.  The small number of mega-conglomerates who control the production and distribution of most consumer goods tell us what to buy and where to work.  That is so much better than the state.

Well goshdarnit, at least I don't have any King George telling me what to do and making me pay taxes on my tea.  If only power were vested in a single individual.  Revolution would be SO MUCH easier!  Get rid of the King, and restore power to the people!  But that is not how it worked in 1776, and that is not how it works now.  The King is a symbol, and democracy is a symbol, both used to legitimate what is actually an oligarchic social reality.

The American Revolution was NOT a case of people rebelling against a tyrant and fighting for their freedom.  It is a case of structural transformations and adjustments, spearheaded by capitalist interests, for the benefit of capitalist interests, and to the detriment of every common person.  You don't even need to look at Canada to realize that the Revolution was of little consequence.  It followed from the internal logic of the capitalist system - the birthing pains of the emerging world order.

Now, I will not be waving any American flags today.  Not because I hate America.  (I generally do not direct my emotions toward symbolic, intangible objects.)  But because patriotism is simply a euphemism for nationalism, and nationalism is a form of state manipulation of emotions, which is often paired with racism/xenophobia.  

I would prefer to celebrate universal, trans-national values.  Peace, tolerance, equity.

Democracy Doesn't Create Wealth

And... now for part three of the "I Told You So" series.

As I was listening to a report this morning about the continued economic woes (e.g. high unemployment) in Tunisia, despite the new democratically elected government, I was reminded of a post I wrote about dictatorships and democracy, in which I argued that dictatorships are a result of poverty rather than a cause.  I insisted that democracy is nothing more than a discursive tool employed by those who are wealthy enough to erect the requisite physical and ideological infrastructure to sustain its illusion.  And I predicted that supposed democratization in the MENA region would not bring about prosperity, so long as the capitalist system remained in place.

I told you so.

Democracy and Capitalism

The title of this post is also the title of a recent On Point episode.  It begins by questioning:  "Is Democracy up to the challenges of this century? Is Capitalism? We’ll look at two great pillars, and the questions now around them."

As the episode began, I was excited to hear a mainstream news outlet actually addressing these questions.  However, as things progressed, particularly when Gideon Rose began to speak, it was clear that no one was willing to really question the taken-for-granted ideas about our political economic system.  It became the same old line about "our system is really great, or at least the best we can hope for, but we just need to make some tweaks to make it work better."  Yawn.

Gideon Rose asserted that, if we could just somehow get things to work the way the did in the Good Old Days (1950s and 60s) then more wealth would be generated and it could be spread around to level inequality and alleviate poverty in the U.S.  This line of reasoning very well demonstrates the myopia and Americentrism that pervades the thought of most economists.  Things may have been going well in the U.S. (and the other industrialized powers) in the post-WW2 period, but that does not mean that capitalism was creating and spreading wealth on a global scale!  In fact, the rest of the world (even if one excludes the communist world) was mired in poverty as a direct result of the global relationships that enabled expansion in the industrialized centers.  Income inequality was much more polarized on a global scale.  So yes, the 1950s-60s were great times... if you ignore the rest of the world.

In this vein, Rose and Kupchan both seem to think that globalization is a recent phenomenon.  It may be more visibly now in the first world, as corporations have moved their manufacturing operations to other parts of the world in order to exploit cheap labor and resources.  People in the U.S. and Western Europe are suddenly angry that "their" jobs are being sent elsewhere.  But, capitalism has always been a global system.  In the post-WW2 era and earlier, manufacturing in the U.S. and Western Europe depended on the cheap raw material inputs from other parts of the world, which were obtained under conditions of colonial/neo-colonial exploitation.  The citizens of the first world, furthermore, depended for their high standard of living on the unequal global exchange relationships that allowed them to purchase, with money representing a small fraction of their own labor hours, commodities whose actual production required a far greater number of someone else's labor hours.

Furthermore, Rose and Kupchan never seem to consider why the Great Capitalism of the post-WW2 era didn't last for more than a couple decades.  Was it just that people got bored and wanted to try something new, as if an economy were a pair of shoes?  If this form of capitalism was so great, why was it not preserved?  In truth, the conditions of the post-WW2 era could not be sustained because of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, that transformed a period of great economic expansion, through the the workings of its fundamental logic, into a period of great economic stagnation.  Specifically, the revolutions in production (assembly line technology, mechanization, transnational organization), which are responsible for the economic boom enjoyed by a fraction of the world's population, also laid the groundwork for its own demise.  Production was proceeding at a scale that far outstripped actual human needs, and profitability plummeted. Everyone became Keynesians and tried to manufacture demand to keep up with the unnecessarily ballooning supply.  Result:  increased consumerism, accelerated cycles of production (i.e. things become obsolete much more quickly so that people are constantly having to buy new stuff), private and public indebtedness, bombardment by advertisements and corporate sponsorships...  As it turned out, trying to artificially manufacture demand never solved the problem of overproduction; profitability was never restored and now everyone is saddled with massive debts.

Precisely for this reason I would say, contrary to Rose and Kupchan, that capitalism does not come in different forms.  It comes in one form (whose basis is wage labor and generalized commodity production), with varying levels of state involvement and approaches to social welfare depending on ever-fluctuating circumstances determined by capitalism's underlying and unchanging logic.  The state is an instrument of the capitalist class, and so it is used strategically to respond to changing environments and maintain the general conditions that are necessary for capitalism to function.

Rose says that, among the members of the Occupy Wall Street movement, it is the smart ones who want to return to the capitalism of the 1950s-60s.  I can only find that statement arrogant and offensive.  Wouldn't the smart ones be those who are able to think outside the bounds of dominant ideology?

Book Review: The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion

In Our Time:  The Chamberlain-Hitler Collusion by Clement Leibovitz and Alvin Finkel

The basic premise of this book is that the Western powers, particularly Neville Chamberlain in England, did not simply “appease” Hitler. They were actively trying to create an alliance with him, even after the outbreak of war, and thus let him do as he please in Eastern Europe. The authors argue that hysteria about communism and antipathy toward the Soviet Union shaped foreign policy agendas, in which the Western powers attempted to provoke a German invasion of the Soviet Union, ideally leading to the downfall of the communist nation. The authors further contend that Western elites had favorable views of fascism and dictatorial regimes, such as the Nazis, and had no qualms about supporting or making agreements with them.

Now, on the whole, the book was quite repetitive. And the authors had a clear bias: they were quite sympathetic, on the whole, to Churchill and other “non-appeaser” conservatives, to liberal political parties and, of course, social movements. They championed the idea of “democracy,” and did not seem in the slightest adverse to war. The bottom line for them was that the Western powers should have used force and begun to rearm immediately in order to prevent German expansion.

I think their distinction between “democracy” and “fascism” obscured more than it clarified. In fact, my previous argument about democracy and dictatorships applies here as well. I also do not agree with their attitudes toward military action (being a pacificist). I have argued before that violence is systemic. It is generally considered a moral/ethical conundrum whether violence is justified to prevent further potential violence. However, if the source of violence lies, ultimately, in the system itself, then I would say the answer to any kind of violence is not more violence, but rather the dismantling of the entire system. Hitler would have been powerless if not for the capitalist interests which sought investment opportunities in Germany’s rearmament, if not for the nationalist ideology that comes part and parcel with the modern system of nation-states, and if not for the racist tendencies embedded in both.

While I do think this book “tows the line” in many respects, I also think there is something useful to be gleaned from it. The evidence provided by the authors counters the common view that the modern era of capitalism and neocolonialism began post WW2. In fact, this book shows certain trends already taking root prior to the war: for example, the neo-colonial strategy of trying to indirectly intervene in other countrys' affairs; or, as the authors point out, the capitalist penchant for undermining popular movements and supporting dictators, all under the contradictory cover of “democracy.” It seems, in fact, that all WW2 did was transfer hegemony from Britain to the U.S.

The Role of Education in a Capitalist Society

It is not easy to answer the question, "What is the purpose of education?"  There are so many competing ideas about what education should be.  Furthermore, the history of the development of the institutional apparatus that has become the modern education system is incredibly complex.  However, from a historical materialist perspective, neither the "should" nor the "was" directly explain what is.  The past may provide the materials, and ideology may affect the nuances, but only current conditions (relationships and structures) can account for the role that education actually plays in late capitalist society.

Perhaps the most important and most obvious use of education is its provision of vocational training. Particularly in late capitalist society, many jobs require complex skill sets.  The existence of public and private educational systems, as opposed to apprenticeship and other forms of on-the-job training, shifts the cost of training from the employer to the employee (either directly via private institutions or indirectly through the tax-funded public school system).  Thus, regardless of whether they are public or private, educational institutions serve as a means of reducing labor costs.  Public education may be viewed as a subsidy of the cost of labor.

The second most salient role of education is as a means of "indoctrination," or, in my own preferred terms, transmission of ideology.  Knowledge is not neutral. Human knowledge is never a transparent reflection of reality.  One can only make sense of the world by organizing it according to some framework for interpretation.  In the process of transmitting knowledge, one must also impart and reinforce a particular interpretive framework (ideology).  Educational institutions, in concert with the media, inculcate members of society with ideological frameworks that legitimize, even romanticize, the social order:  most notably social contract ideology, neoliberal ideology, the ideology of progress... the idea that capitalism = free markets = AWESOMENESS.  Or democracy = liberty = SO GREAT I COULD KILL PEOPLE FOR IT.

But not only is this ideological management a means of generating consent, it also places limits (by reducing variability and making certain things taken for granted) on the diversity of beliefs and opinions held by a large portion of the population.  During the early 20th century, amidst rising tides of immigration and heightened class conscious, education was overtly used for "assimilation."  Although the use of this term in reference to education has waned, the assimilative role of education persists.  Assimilation is more powerful than consent.  A large body of shared beliefs and perspectives makes the general population much easier to manipulate and control.  For example, when something new arises, novel arguments can be fashioned from the communal knowledge base which serve to garner new types of consent.

Another important, though slightly more incidental, effect of formal education is its contribution to the social division of labor.  Some argue this is THE function of education.  However, I believe that social reproduction can occur in other ways, and that the formal education system just arbitrarily happens to also be useful for these purposes.  The idea here is that the educational system "resonates" with upper/middle-class culture (as that is who maintains the system).  This causes lower status students to become alienated, achieve less, and settle for lower skilled, lower paying jobs, while more privileged students, already primed for schooling, acquire a body of "symbolic capital" (see Pierre Bourdieu), including tastes, manners of speaking, literary/artistic knowledge, etc. that marks them as members of "higher society" and gives them access to strategic connections, better paying jobs, and political influence.  And it appears that all of the latter are acquired through merit (educational achievement) rather than inherited status.

An additional ancillary benefit of education is that it has produced an entire economic sector which can be mined and exploited by capitalist interests (that is why businesses have involved themselves more with education after the crisis of overproduction set in).  It also allows both parents to pursue employment outside of the home while their children are cared for during the day.

Of course, others involved in the educational system have contributed to the particular form it has taken, the manifold details of its existence, in the service of goals that are not actually forwarded by education.  Those goals include the use of education

-as preparation for democratic citizenship
-as a means of nurturing the holistic development of each child
-as a mechanism for eliminating social inequalities (if educational achievement gaps can be closed, then all children will have the opportunity to "lift themselves out of poverty")
-as a tool for inciting awareness of social problems along with development of critical thinking skills (activist educational researchers encourage students of oppressed groups to learn more about why they are oppressed so that they can challenge the system)

The first two are, in my opinion, too vaguely defined to ever be attainable.  The third is impossible because achievement gaps are only a shadowy effect of the brute conditions of poverty, and cannot serve as a point of entry for such deeply pervasive structural problems.  The fourth is not a totally unrealistic goal.  However, the forces that are aligned in opposition to such projects seem insurmountable.  And so far the system has not been challenged.  Thus, while these four goals have had some influence on the course that modern education has taken, they do not explain its actual material relationships to other institutions and social processes.

Bearing all of this in mind, I will attempt in the next series of posts to describe some pivotal moments of the last few decades of educational history.

Corporations and Individual Rights

The recent court ruling to give pharmaceutical companies the same rights to free speech that pertain to individual citizens makes me feel like it might be time for another series of discussions on health. For now, however, I will just make a few comments in response to this case.

Before getting to my first real point, I will start off by saying that, of course, I think pharmaceutical companies have sacrificed the general welfare for personal profit. The privileges that they retain (with support of the federal government), including monopolies and price-fixing, have rendered drugs unaffordable for many people in the world. In underdeveloped nations, in particular, populations are subject to epidemics of diseases like AIDS, while life-saving drugs remain out of reach solely due to prohibitive costs.

I think that it is also true that, in circumstances where people can afford to pay, pharmaceutical companies promote the use of drugs far beyond what is necessary. The rise of antiobiotic resistant bacteria stands as a good example of how detrimental this practice can be.

However, all those considerations aside, does it stand to reason that, as is argued in this particular case against the pharmaceutical companies, they are solely responsible for the promotion and use of unnecessary drugs? Certainly pharmaceutical companies bear a lot of the responsibility. But what about the doctors? I can think of multiple cases from personal experience alone (and I am a generally "healthy" person who stays away from doctors) in which doctors have encouraged me to take an expensive name-brand drug even when much cheaper generics were available. I do not believe any of these doctors were directly persuaded to do so by pharmaceutical advertising (explaining what seems to be the more plausible reasons, however, would require divulging too much unnecessary information about my health).  One doctor even tried to set my mind at ease by telling me there was a good discount and the insurance company would be bearing most of the cost anyway.  I also bet there are also people out there who would choose to get name-brand over generic even without doctor/pharmaceutical encouragement just because part of them still believes that a more expensive name brand must be better.

This whole situation kind of reminds me of the controversy over cigarette ads put out by the tobacco industry.  True, advertising and marketing may exacerbate the ills of late capitalism and certainly promote gratuitous consumption of products.  However, these practices are not the root cause of the problem; they are mere symptoms (to use a popular metaphor).  Attacking corporations for advertising is like treating pneumonia with aspirin.  Overproduction and overconsumption (which drives advertising/marketing) are fundamental characteristics of the development of capitalism and the contradictions which this development tries to overcome.

The other and perhaps more important issue, then, is the granting of individual rights to corporations. This, too, does not concern me. Corporations already enjoy "rights" and privileges far exceding that which is granted to ordinary citizens. To enshrine this state of affairs in the law is to simply be transparent. If anything, this is beneficial, because blindness leads to complacency.

The concept of individual rights is nothing more than rhetoric.  True, it has social implications and it is useful but in and of itself, it has no social referent.   It is empty.  The concept of rights was born in the realm of the hypothetical/philosophical and migrated into the domain of the political, where its primary use is to fabricate the illusion of democracy (an issue I have already discussed at length).  Thus, "rights" is a word used to make arguments, but not a social reality.  Occasionally the "rights" concept is used to challenge structures of domination by those who are oppressed; however, the challenge could easily be made without any such concept of "rights." Furthermore, the very concept of "rights" used to challenge the oppressors may be also used by the oppressors in return to coopt resistance movements, calm hostilities, and divert actions toward activities that maintain the status quo. Therefore, while the concept of "rights" may be used in power strugges, the concept itself is merely incidental to these struggles - the material with which these wars are waged, but not their driving force.

In the end, it does not matter what sorts of symbolic "rights" are granted to corporations.  The fact of the matter is that corporate interests (not necessarily unified) are the state, are the legislator, are the justice system.  Since the framework of "human rights" holds these very institutions responsible for the enforcement of rights (in fact, the only rights that can exist are those that can be protected by state and trans-statal legal apparatus), then "rights" can only exist in so far as they are guaranteed by dominant corporate interests - the very forces that exploit, alienate, and de-humanize a broad swath of humanity.


So that is why I say "who cares?" to the issue of corporations being granted individual rights:  because they are the guarantors of individual rights, and in that sense, already above individual rights, at a systemic level.

More On Ideology

In order to respond to the question posed at the end of my last post, it is necessary to look at the topic of ideology in a little more depth.

I noted in my first post on this subject that the word "ideology" need not always be inflected with the quality of being "false" or "distorted." Rather, I use the term in the more general sense of being a "point of view" - albeit with a distinct relationship to particular human institutions and social structures (therefore, not just any random opinion that a person happens to have).

That being said, I recognized before, and I think it is important to emphasize again, that ideology very well can be a purposeful distortion of a perceived reality, for the express aim of encouraging desirable attitudes and behaviors. This strategy is often pursued through the creation of ideal types, in order to obscure the nature of reality.

Thus, we hear:

-monopolistic entities extolling the virtues of the "free market" and competition.  Capitalists desire open competition only when they, individually, are exempt.   In other words, they all wish to monopolize monopolies.   Furthermore, the idea of the "free market" and the illusion of an equal playing field are useful to sustain the inequalities that are necessary for (as well as a consequence of) capitalist gain.  Hence, while capitalists do not abide by "free market" values in principle or in actual fact (profit would be minimal and unsustainable), they find it useful to promote neoliberal rhetoric and policies in order to sustain conditions that actually defy neoliberal principles.  The "free market" has never existed, but it is very useful to pretend it does.

-imperial powers invoking "democracy" to justify unilateral military action.  Once again, "democracy" is merely a strategy that some dominant groups can afford to employ in order to channel potential resistance to their rule into activities that support it.  The state has never existed for the purpose of keeping peace or protecting individual rights.   It has always been a tool for dominant groups to maintain inequalities and control the distribution of resources.  The concept of "democracy" conceals global and national power structures.  The equation of "democracy" with the ability to vote and express dissenting views is an ingenious way of creating the illusion that democracy actually exists.   Furthermore, the strength of people's emotional attachment to the idea renders it an easy way to justify all sorts actions (including the death of civilians in wars that further capitalist aims).  The United States' efforts to support democracy around the world only appears sporatic and inconsistent if one accepts the surface explanation for these acts.

-those in control of repressive state machinery celebrating "liberty."  The concept of "liberty" works in much the same way as "democracy."  The emotional attachment to "liberty" may even be a bit stronger.  If one really thinks about it, though, the concept of "liberty" becomes nonsensical.  What does it mean?  It is empty, vapid.  Clearly complete and absolute freedom is undesirable (we conceive of this hypothetical situation as the epitome of chaos).   Submission to rules is a requisite for the existence of society.   Is the issue then which rules and how many rules we should have to follow? These are complex questions, and the concept of "liberty" does not even begin to address them.   If anything, the concept prevents us from asking these questions, diverting our attention elsewhere so that we never fully examine the foundations of our society.

When ideology is viewed in this light, the United States' cultivation of Islamophobia and the inconsistency of this action with actual U.S. relations with Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Islamist groups, may become more understandable.

The creation of "enemies," internal and external, is widely useful.   It is obvious how this tactic diverts attention, responsibility, and blame... in addition to the fact that fear is a wonderful motivator.  Islamophobia is only the latest incarnation of this longstanding tradition.  Since some Islamist groups are questioning the basis of U.S./Western hegemony, turning the tables and portraying Arabs/Middle Easterners/Muslims/Islamists (usually undifferentiated) as irrational, unpredictable, uncivilized enemies of "modernity" undermines valid critiques of global political/economic structures of dominance. Therefore, as one would expect, Islamophobia serves a dual purpose.

Food Inc.

After receiving a couple of enthusiastic recommendations for the film, Food Inc., I had to see it. I heartily recommend it myself, and I think it illustrates several points I have been trying to make regarding the inherent nature of capitalism:

Overproduction
The result of production directed toward profit rather than actual human need.   Food Inc. details how government subsidies of corn and soy have yielded a surfeit of these crops, which are not necessarily the most nutritious sources of calories.  Rather than shifting production toward other, more nutrient dense crops, we instead devise ways to manipulate the chemical components of corn and soy and recombine them so that they serve as the basis of most of our food products.

Monopolies
The hallmark of capitalism.   Limitations to compeititon are necessary for accumulation of wealth. Capitalism takes these limits to a new level.  Over the past decades, fewer and fewer corporations have gained control over an ever expanding share of the world market.  Food Inc. reveals how a handful of corporations have come to control the food industry, despite the increasing variety in actual food products.   For example, a single corporation is aiming to control 100% of meat production in the U.S., and they are not too far off.

Related to monopolies is the concept of intellectual property, a topic which I will revisit in much greater detail sometime later.   For now, I will simply point out that the purpose of "intellectual property" is not to protect or encourage innovation; it has always been a means of creating monopolies.  Food Inc. demonstrates this to great effect with the example of the patenting of genetic material in seeds.

Progress?
Food Inc. provides a good counterpoint to the hegemonic image of "progress." As I have argued before, technological innovation and industrial efficiency are a double-edged sword. In the case of agriculture and food, Food Inc. reveals how mechanization and industrialization are responsible for deteroriating diets, contaminated food, exposure to new pathogens, antibiotic resistance, and environmental degredation.

Conquering disease?
I argued in my first (yes, there will be another) series on health that the perception that we are conquering death and disease is patently false.  Food Inc. shows how epidemics, diseases, and other health threats have been created by the forces of modernity.

Curtailment of Liberties
I have also argued that there is no such thing as a "free" society. At least, not among the modern system of nation-states and colonies. Capitalist interests not only limit the freedom of the market, but other freedoms as well. That is why "democracy" is an illusion. Two cases in point, as shown by Food Inc.

Number one, Food Inc. provides an example within the area of agriculture and food safety of the way in which the governmental functions of the state and supposedly "private" capitalist interests are actually intertwined. The idea that there is a separation between "business" and "government" is pure ideology.

Number two, Food Inc., with its discussion of "veggie libel" and lawsuits pursued by the meat industry, also shows how the protection of personal liberties is constrained by capitalist interests. We have freedom of speech... unless it threatens corporations.

My one critique of the film is that the producers are quick to jump on the "organic" bandwagon, giving such enterprises very one-sided support and abandoning the critical lens employed throughout the rest of the film.  If the organic enterprises are owned by the same corporations responsible for all the horrors described in the rest of the film, then why would their profit-driven practices not affect the organic industry as well?

All in all, though, very worthwhile and eye-opening.

Book Review: 1984 by George Orwell

I decided some time ago that I wanted to review this book on my blog, simply because it is such an iconic portrayal of the political and economic issues that dominate the contemporary world. In some ways, this work is incredibly prescient. To be sure, it is probably one of the most frequently quoted works of literature of the twentieth century.  At the same time, this novel embodies some fundamental misunderstandings and creates a number of false oppositions which I believe deserve some discussion, as they have attained the status of taken-for-granted dogma.  In particular, Orwell ascribes some characteristics to totalitarian/socialist states which, rather than being the end point of some slippery slope away from capitalism/democracy, are actually endemic to capitalism/democracy.

Disclaimer: it has been a while since I read the book, and it is fairly long, so this is not a comprehensive evaluation of the work, by any means!

Let me start by acknowledging the strong points of 1984. There are two areas, in particular, where I believe Orwell hit the nail on the head. Most significantly, his concept of a "permanent war" was incredibly predictive of the rise of the military-industrial complex and the use of military interventions and military spending as a means to increase demand and facilitate economic growth. According to Orwell, large-scale production for the arms industry allows those in power to keep the working class busy, without having to create demand for what is produced (i.e.  allowing the workers to buy more and raise their standard of living) since all that is produced is eventually destroyed. The working class becomes more productive but still makes do with the bare necessities. Ernest Mandel, in Late Capitalism, made a similar argument regarding the role of the permanent arms economy that has developed following WW2.  Mandel, however, sees the rationale less in any direct concern for the conditions of the working class (lower wages/standard of living is only advantageous in so far as it raises profits margins for the capitalists), but rather in capitalists' need to find another outlet for investment if they are to maintain profitability.   Remember the general principle that continued investment in a profitable enterprise decreases its profitability.  The advantage of the new investment in the armament industry is that it creates demand by forcing the working class to finance it through tax dollars. Thus, even in this case, Orwell overlooked the way in which the "permanent war" derived from the inherent principles of capitalism itself.

A second strength of 1984 is the way in which it demonstrates the power of language, and in particular, the relationship between thought and language. This is a topic that has been endlessly pondered and debated among linguists, anthropologists, linguistic anthropologists, philosophers, and literary critics. Although there are widely diverging opinions on this subject, most would agree that language is neither neutral nor natural. It is not natural because it is an arbitrary social convention: for example, the word "tree" could just as easily mean "rock" if we decided it was so.  There is nothing about the sound "tree" that is inherently connected to the physical object to which it refers.  Language is not neutral because the words one chooses always convey a point of view.  The existence of words themselves entail a specific way of categorizing the world which is never the only means of doing so.  How one categorizes the world (the language one uses) will, then, affect how one views and interpret the world.

 Orwell is absolutely correct that relationships of power involve strategic use of language to influence consciousness and generate consent.  Yet, Orwell also misses the mark here.  First, even while he acknowledges the political use of language, he still seems to uphold a naturalist perspective of language, in which there are "correct" and "distorted" uses of words.  For example, Orwell assumes that the word "peace" has one "correct" referent in the real world, regardless of social usage (he doesn't seem to countenance the idea that meanings are arbitrary and can shift and change).  If conventional use of the word "peace," however, changes or broadens to include circumstances that previously would not be accorded such a label, it is not the original concept itself that is disturbed, but merely the word, the symbol.  The real question is, if a concept has no word to refer to it (through shifts in language use) does that concept suddenly cease to exist, and can it never be brought back into existence?

Because he does not allow for the fluidity of meaning, Orwell's view on the politics of language amounts to something like absolute control:  the powers that be essentially brainwash people by forcing them to adopt new forms of language use.  In reality, however, meaning can never be controlled and manipulated that effectively; one cannot prevent the multiple interpretations, misunderstandings, and resignifications that make resistance a perennial counterpart to power.  Most problematically, Orwell seems to think that the "manipulations" of language he describes are a problem endemic only to totalitarian states.  Yet, one need only look at the United States to find examples of Orwellian abbreviations (CENCOM, USSTRATCOM, etc.) as well as the application of words to circumstances that contradict their own meaning (the "free market").

This last point is illustrative of two major weaknesses of Orwell's work. First, the book is premised on certain fundamental oppositions between socialism and capitalism, democracy and totalitarianism, which I have already argued are false distinctions (follow the links to see those discussions).  It is clear that many of the trends Orwell describes are already present in the capitalist, democratic world, and it is much more due to the inherent nature of these systems themselves, than in any movement toward anything else.

Second, Orwell's fallacious construction of the relationship between language and power is symptomatic of his more general mischaracterization of the nature of power, the state, and government (once again, follow links to view my previous discussions of these issues). Orwell presumes that power is centralized in a single person (Big Brother) or group of people (the Party), and in a single institution (the state). This contradicts the principle that power is without a unified center or source, and is most certainly NOT monopolized by the state. Just look at the criticism leveled at Facebook and Apple for their invasions of privacy!  If anything, a non-unified group of corporations has become our "Big Brother."  More radically, using these technologies we have all become each other's "Big Brother."

To this end, Orwell also misunderstands the way in which power works. He views power primarily in terms of direct, coercive and restrictive force, while overlooking the more subtle, consent-based and productive strategies that can achieve more spectacular results. Power relationships have extended their reach not primarily through the use of police, surveillance, imprisonment, and torture. To the contrary, power relationships have extended themselves inward, penetrating consciousness in a manner that allows the subject to act freely.  Strategies of power encourage behaviors, and they do so without force.  (Following from my last series of posts, consider how images and discourses about "health" promote consumption of diet products, gym memberships, and pharmaceuticals, just as they more generally shape personal eating habits and behaviors.)  Recall my argument that the difference between dictatorship and democracy is the extent to which democracies are able to use wealth and other resources to build phsyical and ideological infrastructure to reduce reliance on coercive mechanisms of control.  Coersion is less effective, and if this were the sole base of power, as in the world of 1984, there would most surely be an uprising.  (Just witness events in MENA right now.)

However, Orwell justifies the scenario by portraying the workers as too uneducated and ignorant to recognize their own interests and challenge the system.  This is a third weakness in his work. Orwell severely underestimates the capabilities and consciousness of the working class, even when denied an education and saturated with propaganda.  One need only look at historical and anthropological evidence to see that this hypothetical scenario has no empirical justification.  Nationalism and propaganda do work, but only to a certain extent.  At some point, when conditions become harsh enough, a breaking point will be reached.

Orwell's neglect of the most common mechanisms of power also prevents him from foreseeing the type of imperialism that eventually emerged in the post-WW2 era.   It is not, as in the past, an imperialism based primarily on military violence and direct force, though this is the nature of Orwell's "permanent war."  In contrast, imperialism today is more often a matter of manipulating social and economic polices via transnational lending organizations, multinational coporations, and foreign development aid programs.  The generation of consent through the spread of neoliberal ideology, and the creation of a guise of "humanitarian" motives, have become extremely effective ways of maintaining control without violence or coersion (although the latter do still have their place, and may also appear under the guise of "humanitarian" motives!).

Thus, the most harmful aspect of 1984 is the way in which it encourages us to look for power in places where it does not reside ("Big Brother," particular forms of government) and to ignore all the relationships of power in which we ARE enmeshed, in increasingly subtle ways.

The MENA Protests

In my last post I asserted that the difference between dictatorships and democracies is a difference in degree and not in kind. State repression and violence are tied to overall conditions of poverty and lack of infrastructure.

What does this mean for MENA? Will these revolts truly end in a flowering of democracy in the Middle East?

Probably not. The root of the problem in that region is not dictatorship, per se. It is a history of colonialism and continued capitalist exploitation that has resulted in the destitution of a vast majority of the population. (Subject of part 3.)

The problem, as I see it, is that the revolts are not being directed at the real locus of oppression: capitalist imperialism. I am truly excited by the energy and commitment to change that is rippling across the region. Revolution is truly needed at this point. However, I just hope that energy can be harnassed and transformed into a global struggle to demolish the pillars of capitalist, neocolonial domination.

If the revolts remain relatively localized struggles to replace heads of state and other government officials, I fear that nothing will change in the end.

Dictatorships and Democracy

I have wanted to touch on recent events in the Middle East/North Africa for some time now, but I almost don't know where to start. Certainly there is a lot of history related to global capitalism and imperialism that contextualizes these events. However, I think I would prefer to start at a more theoretical level and extend my earlier discussion of state power toward a discussion of democracy and dictatorships.

If you don't care to read my earlier posts, here are some key points:

1. There is only one "form of government": oligarchy. If one is referring to control over the means of legitimate state violence and the ability to create and enforce the law, this always (and can only) lie in the hands of a select few. Even in a system of representation, ultimate decision-making abilities are always monopolized by a handful of people.

2. Power is a property of relationships, which extend beyond the state. The state is not a locus or source of power.

3. The state is merely a tool of various (sometimes conflicting) capitalist interests that control the state apparatus.

It follows that there is no fundamental difference between a "democracy" (like the U.S.) and a dictatorship. Clearly, however, there is some difference. Yet, contrary to common perception, it is a difference in degree and not in kind.

In effect, "democracy" is a strategy for managing dissent that is available to nations enjoying a certain amount of wealth and infrastructural (both physical and ideological) development. By allowing people to feel as though their voices are heard and their actions have influence, "democracy" quells frustration with the system at the same time as it channels energy and actions into practices that ultimately support the system, all while creating a smokescreen to cover up the power relations that are really at play.  When people are allowed to participate in "fair" elections, lobby their congressional representatives, speak their minds on the radio or in blogs, and criticize the government without fear of retribution, people are less likely to see need for full-scale change in the current social order, even as they are being exploited. They are more likely to believe that things just need to be "tweaked" and reformed; they are more likely to believe that they live in circumstances that, while not perfect, are probably the best they can hope for; they are more likely to believe that the state exists to uphold the common good.

Thus, "democracy" is an excellent means of maintaining the status quo. If everyone could use this tactic, they probably would. Yet, there are significant barriers to the accessibility of this option.

Wealth
Democracy is expensive. Many underdeveloped nations simply cannot afford to set up polling stations, invest in voting equipment, hire election officials, and take all the necessary steps to prevent fraud. Furthermore, the elections that occur in the U.S. (not sure how this compares to other countries) require a HUGE amount of wealth and resources from those who are campaigning and their associated political parties. Additionally, wealth is a requisite for development of the infrastructure that supports "democracy":

Physical infrastructure
This includes what is normally placed under the heading of infrastructure: roads, transportation, communications, public works, etc. It also includes social welfare programs and non-profit organizations (a small investment, far less than what is gained via exploitation, to ensure that people believe democracy is "working for them" and supporting their goals), and most importantly, it includes bureaucracy. There are many ways in which bureaucracies contribute to the illusion of democracy, most notably the fact that if people are able to gain employment through the state or interact on a daily basis with other "ordinary" people who represent the state in this way, the state is more likely to appear "of the people" - more anonymous and diffuse. Bureaucracies also allow agendas to be carried out in more indirect and covert ways. (For example, if certain FDA regulations are designed to support and subsidize particular agricultural industries, it is easy to employ the research of a number of public health officials and scientists to create a faux rationale for the regulation that addresses the "public good": and most of the people involved in the decision and its execution would honestly believe that is the case. Cogs in the wheel don't always know in what direction the wheel is spinning!) Finally, just as wealth supports physical infrastructure, physical infrastructure supports ideological infrastructure.

Ideological infrastructure
Partially, the ideological infrastructure consists of hegemonic ("natural" or "obvious" to the point of being unquestionable) ideas. This may include the concept of "founding principles" of the nation (usually involving freedom/liberty.... essentially meaningless terms if one looks at reality); notions of "nationhood," national unity, land rights, patriotism, loyalty, and citizenship; other ideas derived from social contract ideology - that power is located completely in the government, which, in turn, represents the will of the people; and components of neoliberal ideology - that "government" and "business" are distinct entities, that "capitalist" societies possess free markets, and that anyone can make it if they work hard enough and play by the rules of the system. These hegemonic ideas are cultivated primarily by the educational system (an important piece of physical infrastructure), political rhetoric, and the media, all mutually reinforcing one another. So, for example, to mobilize people to engage in warfare in defense of capitalist interests (which are ultimately antithetical to their own), all one needs to do is invoke discourses of patriotism, nationhood, and liberty. Interesting how every war seems to be about "defending our liberties," right?

Ideological infrastructure also involves "organized disagreement." What better way to create the illusion of "democracy" than to populate all sectors of society with diverging points of view? Thus, in the U.S. we have Republicans and Democrats; we have Fox News and MSNBC; the Drudge Report and the Huffington Post; the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal; anti-war protests and Tea Party rallies; the Open Society Institute and the Heritage Foundation. And people feel like they have options, that their choice of political leadership will shape the direction of the country, and that they participate in a "free marketplace of ideas." Yet these seemingly diametrically opposed points of view are grounded in the same fundamental assumptions (some of which are the hegemonic ideas described above) that work to uphold the social order. Any points of view which could seriously undermine the status quo are militantly squelched (and that is why Marxism is derided as "radical," "subversive," and "obviously wrong"... it is not as acceptable to be a Marxist in the U.S. as it is to be a Democrat or Republican, and it was not even legal to be a communist at certain points in our history.) People like to think it makes a differences whether they elect a Democrat or a Republican, but in reality there have been more significant changes in policy within presidential administrations than between them. For example, Reagonomics was implemented at the end of Carter's term, and Reagan himself, several years into his own tenure, took up a military Keynesianism which has continued to the present, through both Democratic and Republican adminstrations.

Therefore, in neither dictatorships nor democracies do people have the power. All states take actions to curtail civil liberties when they face some sort of "threat" to their legitimacy. The big difference is that states with more robust infrastucture do not feel as threatened as often and consequently are able to limit these actions compared to the classic dictatorship. And since infrastructure requires wealth, it is no coincidence that dictatorships are most common in the poorest countries in the world (in addition to the fact that starving people are less likely to be pacified by appeals to "liberty" and "patriotism").  Certainly, it is more comfortable to live under a "democracy" than a dictatorship, even if one has no real power, but that is just one of the many advantages of living in conditions of great wealth.

What, then, of this notion of a "power vacuum"? In truth, it is an infrastructural vacuum. Dictatorships are most likely to emerge out of infrastructural ruins: for example, that which is caused by war. (No coicidence, then, that Hitler appeared in the ravages caused by WW1....).

And what does this mean for the MENA unrest? Subject of my next post.

Social Contract Ideology

One important ideology (though not the most important ideology) structuring common perception of the political-economic order is that of the Social Contract.

Contrary to the notion of power that I have been using, Social Contract ideology treats power as something that is centralized in and wielded by the state, with the consent of its citizens, and is exercised primarily via direct force and/or the rule of law.  The state, for its part, possesses discrete boundaries and is coincident with a "public realm."  Wealth, in this view, derives from property (the protection of which is the primary function of the state) and its acquisition is atomistic rather than relational, such that wealth in itself begets further wealth.

Social Contract ideology is often combined with nationalist ideology, which presupposes that the human race is naturally divided into a number of discrete units (nations or ethnic groups), which should ideally form the basis of state-territorial boundaries.

Social Contract ideology legitimates the social order in a number of ways.  Most significantly, it ignores social structures and forms of power other than the state and sovereignty, and thus conceals real sources and means of domination.  The power of a state, in turn, is seen by the citizenry as deriving from their own consent, for their own benefit and protection (and in a democracy they may even believe they have ultimate power), obscuring the fact that the state is merely a tool employed by the capitalist class in the service of capitalist interests.  The aims and interests of the capitalist class, moreover, are easily construed as "the public good," even as they disadvantage and endanger the majority of the population.  As a corollary, whenever a state is perceived to act in a manner contrary to the public good, this is construed as an isolated abuse of power which can be rectified, and does not call into question the nature of the state in general.

Additionally, Social Contract ideology has enabled the construction of political spectra constituted by discrete "forms of government," often including oligarchies, monarchies, dictatorships, democracies, republics, and anarchy.  This supposed range of options conceals the reality that there is only one type of rule (the rule of the few over the many:  oligarchy), and that the only political difference is the way in which domination is exercised and maintained (which is, itself, merely a function of particular socio-economic circumstances).  Thus, citizens of supposed "democracies" operate happily under the illusion that they live in the best and freest conditions possible, and are too complacent to really challenge the social order.