09-10-2012, 03:22 PM
(This post was last modified: 09-10-2012, 04:53 PM by FireIceTalon.)
Reading some of these posts, I'm not sure you guys (in particular you, comrade shoju) understand the role of the State and how it works in conjunction with and to maintain social relationships in Capitalism. I'll break it down for you.
The very presence of the state is reliant on the separation and division of peoples into classes, as an organ exercising the predominating interests of its ruling-class. These interests are fundamentally rooted in material developments and historical circumstances which, believe it or not, DO require a state. The state and the market are not polar opposites operating independently of each other, nor is it a question of one dominating the other and bending it to the other’s will. The market is exploitive, regardless of what anyone here believes.
Putting aside values, let’s look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism produces a variety of goods and services not according to human need, but according to the profitability of commodities and their subsequent fetishization in relation to economic relationships and concepts of value. The role of the market is not to meet human demand, but to extract from this process of production, and distribution profit. Profit, then, supersedes social need; and it subjects the latter to the intrinsically chaotic nature of the market. In addition, this also turns not only goods and services into commodities, but the workers themselves also become commodities, through division of labor and alienation.
The state does not arise independently of these circumstances, but in conjunction with the historical and economic developments of the market. While political and media pundits speak endlessly about the natural dichotomy of the market and the state, the two overlap quite a bit - and do so naturally. A market must encourage growth and expansion if it is to continually profit from the extractive properties of private capital. This requires a state, a military, and the means of guarding against competitive foreign interests. Thus you have clashes, skirmishes, and war - not as an expression of the moral failure and inherent ambition of humanity, but as an example of market expansion edging out the competition. WWI, WWII, and various other armed conflicts are certainly results of the inner workings inherent in the functioning of the market. This is why I never understood the utopian vision of Libertarians (and many Democrats also), who are apologists for Capitalism but are anti-war, a paradox. After all, war is good, and ultimately necessary, for the expansion of Capital.
Capitalism creates and perpetuates the very antagonisms that weaken and expose it to periods of instability. More concretely, it subjects the vast mass of society to the demands of an economy reliant on a continuous stream of profits in order to sustain and expand itself. This throws the working-class, itself a product of capitalist market relations, into opposition with those reaping the benefits from their collective labor: the ruling class. Such a conflict necessitates the creation of a police force capable of subduing the restive movements of labor, the perpetuation of artificial divisions to keep workers separated along racial and religious lines (among others), and a body that can oversee and exercise this process - the state. The state legitimizes Bourgeois law, because it has to: without it, Capitalism would fall on its face almost immediately. It does not exist on its own merit or because it is an efficient economic system, it exists through state force and deceit.
Privatized safety nets are a result of personal idealism with little to no basis in basic conditions. The market does not operate according to human need, but profit. Why do you think banksters, lobbyists, and politicians constantly rail against “entitlements”, social nets like social security, medicare, and other programs? Why do you think Obamacare received such fierce backlash and pushback from the medical-pharmaceutical complex? Lobbyists for the insurance industry weren’t happy until it became clear their profits wouldn’t be on the chopping block - in fact, Obamacare expands profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies (but that’s another topic).
Let’s look at some examples of the private market at work: in cities where figures are nominated and installed by businesses (like Detroit), conditions have worsened, schools closed, evictions skyrocket, charter schools replace struggling public ones, entire communities live without electricity or running water, and political “representatives” are wholly responsible for ensuring each devastating cut be carried out. This still happens where the institutions remain in state hands, but situations like what’s happening in Detroit and elsewhere are pushed through by unaccountable financial figureheads with startling rapidity. This is because, as I’ve highlighted above, markets are dictated by the profitability of commodities (goods and services), not the needs of society. It’s not a matter of good vs. bad, crony vs. “free” market capitalism, or the market vs. the state or any other so-called Idealist paradigm - these are irrelevant factors that find little to no basis in the material realities confronting societies for centuries now.
At the end of the day, changing the laws wont do a damn thing - that is wishful thinking at best, complete misunderstanding of the role of the state in Capitalism at worst. If it were that simple, these problems would have been gone ages ago, and I wouldn't be typing this post. The working class and the ruling class have diametrically opposite interests - and they cannot be reconciled. The ruling class is who makes the laws, and of course, they are going to make laws that preserve and expand their class interests. Capitalists try to justify their system by saying it is simply 'natural law' - but history has shown it is anything but. Ultimately it produces very corrupt, unstable, hypocritical markets and racist social divisions (as a necessary element to its continued existence).
The very presence of the state is reliant on the separation and division of peoples into classes, as an organ exercising the predominating interests of its ruling-class. These interests are fundamentally rooted in material developments and historical circumstances which, believe it or not, DO require a state. The state and the market are not polar opposites operating independently of each other, nor is it a question of one dominating the other and bending it to the other’s will. The market is exploitive, regardless of what anyone here believes.
Putting aside values, let’s look at the cold hard facts: Capitalism produces a variety of goods and services not according to human need, but according to the profitability of commodities and their subsequent fetishization in relation to economic relationships and concepts of value. The role of the market is not to meet human demand, but to extract from this process of production, and distribution profit. Profit, then, supersedes social need; and it subjects the latter to the intrinsically chaotic nature of the market. In addition, this also turns not only goods and services into commodities, but the workers themselves also become commodities, through division of labor and alienation.
The state does not arise independently of these circumstances, but in conjunction with the historical and economic developments of the market. While political and media pundits speak endlessly about the natural dichotomy of the market and the state, the two overlap quite a bit - and do so naturally. A market must encourage growth and expansion if it is to continually profit from the extractive properties of private capital. This requires a state, a military, and the means of guarding against competitive foreign interests. Thus you have clashes, skirmishes, and war - not as an expression of the moral failure and inherent ambition of humanity, but as an example of market expansion edging out the competition. WWI, WWII, and various other armed conflicts are certainly results of the inner workings inherent in the functioning of the market. This is why I never understood the utopian vision of Libertarians (and many Democrats also), who are apologists for Capitalism but are anti-war, a paradox. After all, war is good, and ultimately necessary, for the expansion of Capital.
Capitalism creates and perpetuates the very antagonisms that weaken and expose it to periods of instability. More concretely, it subjects the vast mass of society to the demands of an economy reliant on a continuous stream of profits in order to sustain and expand itself. This throws the working-class, itself a product of capitalist market relations, into opposition with those reaping the benefits from their collective labor: the ruling class. Such a conflict necessitates the creation of a police force capable of subduing the restive movements of labor, the perpetuation of artificial divisions to keep workers separated along racial and religious lines (among others), and a body that can oversee and exercise this process - the state. The state legitimizes Bourgeois law, because it has to: without it, Capitalism would fall on its face almost immediately. It does not exist on its own merit or because it is an efficient economic system, it exists through state force and deceit.
Privatized safety nets are a result of personal idealism with little to no basis in basic conditions. The market does not operate according to human need, but profit. Why do you think banksters, lobbyists, and politicians constantly rail against “entitlements”, social nets like social security, medicare, and other programs? Why do you think Obamacare received such fierce backlash and pushback from the medical-pharmaceutical complex? Lobbyists for the insurance industry weren’t happy until it became clear their profits wouldn’t be on the chopping block - in fact, Obamacare expands profits for pharmaceutical and insurance companies (but that’s another topic).
Let’s look at some examples of the private market at work: in cities where figures are nominated and installed by businesses (like Detroit), conditions have worsened, schools closed, evictions skyrocket, charter schools replace struggling public ones, entire communities live without electricity or running water, and political “representatives” are wholly responsible for ensuring each devastating cut be carried out. This still happens where the institutions remain in state hands, but situations like what’s happening in Detroit and elsewhere are pushed through by unaccountable financial figureheads with startling rapidity. This is because, as I’ve highlighted above, markets are dictated by the profitability of commodities (goods and services), not the needs of society. It’s not a matter of good vs. bad, crony vs. “free” market capitalism, or the market vs. the state or any other so-called Idealist paradigm - these are irrelevant factors that find little to no basis in the material realities confronting societies for centuries now.
At the end of the day, changing the laws wont do a damn thing - that is wishful thinking at best, complete misunderstanding of the role of the state in Capitalism at worst. If it were that simple, these problems would have been gone ages ago, and I wouldn't be typing this post. The working class and the ruling class have diametrically opposite interests - and they cannot be reconciled. The ruling class is who makes the laws, and of course, they are going to make laws that preserve and expand their class interests. Capitalists try to justify their system by saying it is simply 'natural law' - but history has shown it is anything but. Ultimately it produces very corrupt, unstable, hypocritical markets and racist social divisions (as a necessary element to its continued existence).
https://www.youtube.com/user/FireIceTalon
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)
"Your very ideas are but the outgrowth of conditions of your bourgeois production and bourgeois property, just as your jurisprudence is but the will of your class, made into law for all, a will whose essential character and direction are determined by the economic conditions of the existence of your class." - Marx (addressing the bourgeois)