Friday, October 14, 2005
Insane in the membr - er, sphere of social relations
Yesterday I posted about the earthquake in South Asia, and compared the measly dollars needed to the vast profits of giant corporations.
This kind of thing is pretty common on the left. And I'd imagine it drives right-wingers mad. They'd say, "You're comparing apples to oranges! Corporate profits have nothing to do with emergency aid! One's a key engine of economic growth, the other is charity!" And they'd froth a little.
On a small scale, this argument is correct. Profits collect in the private coffers of businesses, not in the donation boxes of Oxfam. Sure, there are ways of getting profits to charities, through government taxes. But the means of producing and distributing different types of wealth - profit or charity - are not the same.
However, more broadly, this argument is completely false.
Corporations and government (and, some might add, charities themselves) are part of the same capitalist system. And it is a system. Business and government might act separately, but they serve the same purpose: to circulate capital, and to accrue profits to the capitalist. They're in different spheres of the capitalist economy, but together they form a single ruling class.
The evidence is all around us. Operationally, the line between business and government is fluid: capitalists and technicians drift from one realm to another, becoming premiers and then corporate lawyers, or vice versa.
Politically, government always acts in the interests of business. Sure, governments sometimes do good things for citizens, like social programs, but only because people yelled loud enough to force them. If a government is taken over by working people, the capitalists and ex-politicians forget their differences and act as one, attacking or isolating that government. The Russian Revolution is, of course, the prime example of this. A government of capitalism will never oppose capitalists themselves when either are under threat. (We can get into 'relative autonomy of the state' later - but I think the idea of a ruling class demands, first of all, an understanding of how capitalists and government work together, not separately.)
Economically, both governments and corporations help capital to flow and accumulate. Governments pass laws that create better business environments. (Which usually means fewer restrictions on exploitation.) Capitalists fund and form governments, and invest their capital in government holdings. The line between the two is like looking at a road from an airpline: it disappears completely, the higher up you get.
Marxists argue furiously about how and when that line shifts: when governments work to help capital, and when they distance themselves. That's another debate. What I want to get across here, is that comparing relief aid to corporate profits is not apples & oranges. It's money - or capital, more accurately - that exists everywhere. It's a totality. It just shifts places. And socialists say it should shift to where people need it, not languish in the coffers of the rich.
More like reddish oranges...
This kind of thing is pretty common on the left. And I'd imagine it drives right-wingers mad. They'd say, "You're comparing apples to oranges! Corporate profits have nothing to do with emergency aid! One's a key engine of economic growth, the other is charity!" And they'd froth a little.
On a small scale, this argument is correct. Profits collect in the private coffers of businesses, not in the donation boxes of Oxfam. Sure, there are ways of getting profits to charities, through government taxes. But the means of producing and distributing different types of wealth - profit or charity - are not the same.
However, more broadly, this argument is completely false.
Corporations and government (and, some might add, charities themselves) are part of the same capitalist system. And it is a system. Business and government might act separately, but they serve the same purpose: to circulate capital, and to accrue profits to the capitalist. They're in different spheres of the capitalist economy, but together they form a single ruling class.
The evidence is all around us. Operationally, the line between business and government is fluid: capitalists and technicians drift from one realm to another, becoming premiers and then corporate lawyers, or vice versa.
Politically, government always acts in the interests of business. Sure, governments sometimes do good things for citizens, like social programs, but only because people yelled loud enough to force them. If a government is taken over by working people, the capitalists and ex-politicians forget their differences and act as one, attacking or isolating that government. The Russian Revolution is, of course, the prime example of this. A government of capitalism will never oppose capitalists themselves when either are under threat. (We can get into 'relative autonomy of the state' later - but I think the idea of a ruling class demands, first of all, an understanding of how capitalists and government work together, not separately.)
Economically, both governments and corporations help capital to flow and accumulate. Governments pass laws that create better business environments. (Which usually means fewer restrictions on exploitation.) Capitalists fund and form governments, and invest their capital in government holdings. The line between the two is like looking at a road from an airpline: it disappears completely, the higher up you get.
Marxists argue furiously about how and when that line shifts: when governments work to help capital, and when they distance themselves. That's another debate. What I want to get across here, is that comparing relief aid to corporate profits is not apples & oranges. It's money - or capital, more accurately - that exists everywhere. It's a totality. It just shifts places. And socialists say it should shift to where people need it, not languish in the coffers of the rich.
More like reddish oranges...
