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.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Ideology
First, a note on my use of the term "ideology": contrary to its more common meaning, a more theoretically effective way of defining it is as a framework for understanding the world, as well as the set of discourses (particular ways of talking about things) that support this framework. Since no one is able to perceive the reality surrounding them without first interpreting it according to some sort of framework, any mode of thought, belief, or philosophy may be properly termed "ideology."
In thinking about the role of ideology in general, or of particular ideologies, it is tempting to try to account for their origins. However, this is perhaps an impossible task. Empirically, what we can do is examine how ideology circulates, and what its effects are.
Ideology may be strategically used to support specific agendas. Ideology may also be sincerely believed. There are not two mutually exclusive options. Thus, a person may purposefully deploy an ideology to achieve certain ends, and believe it is true at the same time.
Ideologies are most successful when they are encapsulated in the form of sound-bites which can be easily detached from one context and applied to others. When sound-bites circulate and are brought into multiple realms of discourse, it creates linkages (in the form of analogies) among these different realms. When a particular ideology pervades many different areas of life and is easily repeated and brought into consciousness via readily-available sound-bites, the ideology appears as "natural" and "common sense." Furthermore, the more successful an ideology is at seeming "natural," the less likely it is to be questioned and challenged.
These properties of ideology make it a powerful tool for upholding the social order, particularly in the interests of those who benefit most from existing structures of inequality and domination. Consequently, ideology plays an important role in the maintenance of the capitalist system.
In thinking about the role of ideology in general, or of particular ideologies, it is tempting to try to account for their origins. However, this is perhaps an impossible task. Empirically, what we can do is examine how ideology circulates, and what its effects are.
Ideology may be strategically used to support specific agendas. Ideology may also be sincerely believed. There are not two mutually exclusive options. Thus, a person may purposefully deploy an ideology to achieve certain ends, and believe it is true at the same time.
Ideologies are most successful when they are encapsulated in the form of sound-bites which can be easily detached from one context and applied to others. When sound-bites circulate and are brought into multiple realms of discourse, it creates linkages (in the form of analogies) among these different realms. When a particular ideology pervades many different areas of life and is easily repeated and brought into consciousness via readily-available sound-bites, the ideology appears as "natural" and "common sense." Furthermore, the more successful an ideology is at seeming "natural," the less likely it is to be questioned and challenged.
These properties of ideology make it a powerful tool for upholding the social order, particularly in the interests of those who benefit most from existing structures of inequality and domination. Consequently, ideology plays an important role in the maintenance of the capitalist system.
Thursday, February 24, 2011
Capitalism is Inherently Unstable
One of Marx's most fundamental arguments is that capitalism is characterized by a number of inherent contradictions. Such as:
1. Increasing investment in technology reduces the rate of accumulation of surplus value (the amount of human labor in excess of the wages actually paid), and hence, profit. This is because technology reduces the proportion of human labor embedded in each commodity. Also, as technology develops, production cycles become ever more rapid. This means that there is a greater likelihood that any given technology will become competitively obsolete before the capitalist is able to recoup the cost of the investment (let alone profit from it).
2. The profit motive seeks to lower wages and expand demand. In other words, workers have less purchasing power, but are expected to buy more.
As a result of these factors, capitalism is subject to continuous cycles of expansion and contraction. Crises are inevitable.
In addition, for any person who wishes to start a capitalist enterprise, the risks and costs of initial investment become more prohibitive as capitalism develops, for the following reasons:
1. Increasing centralization of capital (monopolies, huge corporate conglomerates)
2. Expanding state interventions (subsidies, credit expansion, inflation)
3. Increasing personal, public, and private indebtedness (since personal and public "deficit spending" is encouraged in order to prop up demand)
State interventions and debt-fueled booms (bubbles) can only slow down the decline of capitalist accumulation for so long.
Ultimately, capitalism is difficult to sustain because, while the total value (corresponding to the total number of hours of labor available) remains fixed, an increasingly small number of people are enabled to draw upon a larger proportion of the pool, thus straining the entire system. If the pool is fixed there must be limits to the accumulation of wealth, while capitalist accumulation constantly strives to push beyond these limits. Capitalists try to sustain their profits in the face of this reality by driving unnecessary consumption and massive indebtedness: obviously not a viable solution in the long run.
Thus, capitalism is ultimately unsustainable.
1. Increasing investment in technology reduces the rate of accumulation of surplus value (the amount of human labor in excess of the wages actually paid), and hence, profit. This is because technology reduces the proportion of human labor embedded in each commodity. Also, as technology develops, production cycles become ever more rapid. This means that there is a greater likelihood that any given technology will become competitively obsolete before the capitalist is able to recoup the cost of the investment (let alone profit from it).
2. The profit motive seeks to lower wages and expand demand. In other words, workers have less purchasing power, but are expected to buy more.
As a result of these factors, capitalism is subject to continuous cycles of expansion and contraction. Crises are inevitable.
In addition, for any person who wishes to start a capitalist enterprise, the risks and costs of initial investment become more prohibitive as capitalism develops, for the following reasons:
- the shortening cycles of production mentioned above
- globally organized vertical integration (to be most efficient, you must have all stages of the production process under your control)
- following from the quickening pace of production cycles, the increasing importance of Research & Development (constantly finding new ways to out-do competitors) also raises the investment costs and potential risks (unfruitful research)
1. Increasing centralization of capital (monopolies, huge corporate conglomerates)
2. Expanding state interventions (subsidies, credit expansion, inflation)
3. Increasing personal, public, and private indebtedness (since personal and public "deficit spending" is encouraged in order to prop up demand)
State interventions and debt-fueled booms (bubbles) can only slow down the decline of capitalist accumulation for so long.
Ultimately, capitalism is difficult to sustain because, while the total value (corresponding to the total number of hours of labor available) remains fixed, an increasingly small number of people are enabled to draw upon a larger proportion of the pool, thus straining the entire system. If the pool is fixed there must be limits to the accumulation of wealth, while capitalist accumulation constantly strives to push beyond these limits. Capitalists try to sustain their profits in the face of this reality by driving unnecessary consumption and massive indebtedness: obviously not a viable solution in the long run.
Thus, capitalism is ultimately unsustainable.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Socialism is a Form of Capitalism
Socialism and communism are generally held as rival economic systems to capitalism, and more often than not, in the creation of economic spectra, are placed in complete opposition to capitalism. However, as far as socialism and communism have existed historically, this is not the case.
First, remember that in order for capitalism to succeed, some sort of regulation/manipulation of the market is necessary. The state has been, for the most part, the most important tool in achieving these ends. However, the way in which a particular such "tool" may be utilized in a given situation (i.e. the degree of state organization of production, types of market regulations pursued, state spending patterns, etc.) is determined by its relation to the world market as a whole. Thus, the level of state involvement in the market is an attribute of global relations and not a means by which to categorize isolated economic systems.
In socialist and communist nations, the state essentially acts as a large capitalist firm. Production is still rooted in wage labor and generalized commodity production. Participation in the world market still occurs, though certainly a different set of regional constraints are put in place via the state.
Take, for example, Russia. Prior to the Revolution, the economy of the Russian Empire rested primarily on a feudal-type system of labor and production. Industrialization was quite nascent and weak compared to its development within other imperial powers. The primary objective of the communist leadership after consolidating its power was to heavily increase its industrial base and "catch up" with the other powers. As the sort of industrialization pursued by the communist leadership is precisely the sort which constitutes the basis of capitalism, Russia, under communist rule, became more capitalist (in other words, expanded capitalist relations of production at the expense of non-capitalist ones).
Take, for example, Russia. Prior to the Revolution, the economy of the Russian Empire rested primarily on a feudal-type system of labor and production. Industrialization was quite nascent and weak compared to its development within other imperial powers. The primary objective of the communist leadership after consolidating its power was to heavily increase its industrial base and "catch up" with the other powers. As the sort of industrialization pursued by the communist leadership is precisely the sort which constitutes the basis of capitalism, Russia, under communist rule, became more capitalist (in other words, expanded capitalist relations of production at the expense of non-capitalist ones).
Thus, the types of socialism and communism that have existed throughout the last century are not alternatives to capitalism, but part of the capitalist system.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Capitalism is Inherently Global
National boundaries do not represent the natural limits of capitalism. All economic activity is ultimately determined by global market forces; the state merely provides regional constraints for global competition.
The actions of one state affects all others. For example, accumulation of wealth in the industrialized core only occurs at the expense of other nations, through relations of exploitation. Primarily, these relations involve unequal trade, creating dependency through specialization, and control of the economic policies of underdeveloped nations by the industrialized core via transnational organizations such as the World Bank and IMF. I will discuss this in much greater detail later. However, the most important point to bear in mind for the moment is that the global political-economic system is structured in such a way that resources and capital are constantly flowing from poorer countries to richer ones, creating an ever widening gap between rich and poor.
Consequently, limited motion is possible within the global hierarchy of wealth. For most underdeveloped nations, increased integration into the world market has resulted in increased poverty. For "semi-peripheral nations" (the handful of countries whose fortune lies somewhere in between the wealthy, industrial core and the destitute Third World), some movement in either direction is possible, but "economic miracles" are rare and often fragile. Socialism/communism, in so far as it limits integration into the global economy, protects nations from such exploitation, to a certain degree. Historically, if it has had any effect, it has mitigated the impoverishment of countries relative to others of an initially similar position in the global hierarchy of wealth. (Usually, the success or failure of socialist states is measured against the standard of wealth enjoyed by the industrialized core; however, this ignores the fact that the wealth of similarly positioned but non-socialist states has steadily decreased against the core. Hence, the comparison needs to be made against these latter states.) Furthermore, on a domestic level, the poorest classes have generally fared better within socialist nations than within non-socialist ones.
Another example of the way in which the economic policies and fortunes of one state affects all others is the fact that within the industrialized core, nations must constantly compete with one another to retain or expand their share of the world's wealth. Accumulation of wealth in one country always occurs at the expense of others. Since the decline of manufacturing profitability in the 1970s, economic growth has occurred primarily via manipulation of exchange rates and monetary policy. Thus, for the past few decades, all boom cycles have occurred directly at the expense of other countries rather than by increasing productivity and profitability. In this zero-sum game of global tug-of-war, upturns are short-lived and frequent crises are inevitable.
The actions of one state affects all others. For example, accumulation of wealth in the industrialized core only occurs at the expense of other nations, through relations of exploitation. Primarily, these relations involve unequal trade, creating dependency through specialization, and control of the economic policies of underdeveloped nations by the industrialized core via transnational organizations such as the World Bank and IMF. I will discuss this in much greater detail later. However, the most important point to bear in mind for the moment is that the global political-economic system is structured in such a way that resources and capital are constantly flowing from poorer countries to richer ones, creating an ever widening gap between rich and poor.
Consequently, limited motion is possible within the global hierarchy of wealth. For most underdeveloped nations, increased integration into the world market has resulted in increased poverty. For "semi-peripheral nations" (the handful of countries whose fortune lies somewhere in between the wealthy, industrial core and the destitute Third World), some movement in either direction is possible, but "economic miracles" are rare and often fragile. Socialism/communism, in so far as it limits integration into the global economy, protects nations from such exploitation, to a certain degree. Historically, if it has had any effect, it has mitigated the impoverishment of countries relative to others of an initially similar position in the global hierarchy of wealth. (Usually, the success or failure of socialist states is measured against the standard of wealth enjoyed by the industrialized core; however, this ignores the fact that the wealth of similarly positioned but non-socialist states has steadily decreased against the core. Hence, the comparison needs to be made against these latter states.) Furthermore, on a domestic level, the poorest classes have generally fared better within socialist nations than within non-socialist ones.
Another example of the way in which the economic policies and fortunes of one state affects all others is the fact that within the industrialized core, nations must constantly compete with one another to retain or expand their share of the world's wealth. Accumulation of wealth in one country always occurs at the expense of others. Since the decline of manufacturing profitability in the 1970s, economic growth has occurred primarily via manipulation of exchange rates and monetary policy. Thus, for the past few decades, all boom cycles have occurred directly at the expense of other countries rather than by increasing productivity and profitability. In this zero-sum game of global tug-of-war, upturns are short-lived and frequent crises are inevitable.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
The End of Poverty?
I just saw a documentary called, "The End of Povery?" I think it is one of the most accurate and thorough explorations of the cause of poverty that I have seen. I highly recommend it!!
State Power Is An Illusion
If power extends to all level of societies and does not exist in any single person or entity, and if government has only been appropriated to a limited degree by the state, how, then, are we to understand the state when we commonly think of it as a "container for power," the seat of government?
"The" state has a dual nature. First, it is a site of coordination (real or symbolic) and intersection of various institutions whose primary existence lies beyond the state. It is in this sense, also, that the state is not a source of power. For example, the activity of any health-related state agency only secondarily derives from the work of "outside" medical and public health institutions, both national and international.
Second, the state is a tool of enforcement of the regional boundaries (involving territory, resources, and citizenship) and constraints to competition that help to sustain profitability in the global economy. The explanation of this claim requires a slight tangent.
Capitalist producers increase their rates of profit by maintaining competition within certain bounds. Too much competition drives down prices below the level that is necessary for capitalist investment, while too little competition makes it difficult to maintain a rate of profit much above the total social average rate of profit (since this can only occur to the extent to which rivals can be forced below the social average rate of profit).
Uneven development (regional, sectoral, etc.), by creating inequalities, is a key means of regulating competition in this way. The state promotes regional unevenness in a global arena to enable profitability for some by:
1. Regulating imports and exports
2. Monetary regulation (interest rates, money supply, credit, international exchange rates)
3. Subsidizing national industries
4. Regulating wages and employment rates (and thereby, production costs and demand)
5. Financial/corporate regulation
The goals of such regulation include:
1. Expanding its share of the global market
2. Increasing exports
3. Decreasing imports
4. Reducing the relative value of the currency
Without state intervention, competition would render any sustained capitalist accumulation (and hence, investment in new technology) impossible. "The state" serves as a vehicle for erecting regional constraints to competition, and it is, furthermore, a vehicle that is managed and controlled by a spate of conflicting capitalist interests. In this sense, as well, the state is more of a tool than a source of power.
"The state," therefore, is not a unified whole. Its nature is heterogeneous and the foundation of its power is diffused beyond its bounds.
It does not make sense to speak of "bigger government" and "smaller government." If it refers to the scope of the governmental/regulatory functions of the state, the "size of government" is only a reflection of the expansion of governmental institutions in general, which extend beyond the state. If it refers to state budget/spending, this is a particular economic strategy, necessary to the development of capitalism. Moreover, since "the state" is not a single, unified object, it does not possess a "size" that can increase or decrease.
In sum, the nature and form of "the state" is only a reflection of other social-economic conditions and its power is derived from other social forces.
"The" state has a dual nature. First, it is a site of coordination (real or symbolic) and intersection of various institutions whose primary existence lies beyond the state. It is in this sense, also, that the state is not a source of power. For example, the activity of any health-related state agency only secondarily derives from the work of "outside" medical and public health institutions, both national and international.
Second, the state is a tool of enforcement of the regional boundaries (involving territory, resources, and citizenship) and constraints to competition that help to sustain profitability in the global economy. The explanation of this claim requires a slight tangent.
Capitalist producers increase their rates of profit by maintaining competition within certain bounds. Too much competition drives down prices below the level that is necessary for capitalist investment, while too little competition makes it difficult to maintain a rate of profit much above the total social average rate of profit (since this can only occur to the extent to which rivals can be forced below the social average rate of profit).
Uneven development (regional, sectoral, etc.), by creating inequalities, is a key means of regulating competition in this way. The state promotes regional unevenness in a global arena to enable profitability for some by:
1. Regulating imports and exports
2. Monetary regulation (interest rates, money supply, credit, international exchange rates)
3. Subsidizing national industries
4. Regulating wages and employment rates (and thereby, production costs and demand)
5. Financial/corporate regulation
The goals of such regulation include:
1. Expanding its share of the global market
2. Increasing exports
3. Decreasing imports
4. Reducing the relative value of the currency
Without state intervention, competition would render any sustained capitalist accumulation (and hence, investment in new technology) impossible. "The state" serves as a vehicle for erecting regional constraints to competition, and it is, furthermore, a vehicle that is managed and controlled by a spate of conflicting capitalist interests. In this sense, as well, the state is more of a tool than a source of power.
"The state," therefore, is not a unified whole. Its nature is heterogeneous and the foundation of its power is diffused beyond its bounds.
It does not make sense to speak of "bigger government" and "smaller government." If it refers to the scope of the governmental/regulatory functions of the state, the "size of government" is only a reflection of the expansion of governmental institutions in general, which extend beyond the state. If it refers to state budget/spending, this is a particular economic strategy, necessary to the development of capitalism. Moreover, since "the state" is not a single, unified object, it does not possess a "size" that can increase or decrease.
In sum, the nature and form of "the state" is only a reflection of other social-economic conditions and its power is derived from other social forces.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)