Impermanent Structures

Introduction

Is our current political economic system self-defeating? When building off the insight that Keynes gives us, it becomes painfully obvious the paradoxical nature of capitalism (Marx also observes this). But, unlike Keynes, Marx advocates for leaving the capitalist system to its own devices which according to him will eventually be its own unraveling. Keynes advocates for action within the system by creating economic levers that manage the inevitable concentration of wealth produced by the neo-liberal economic system.

This is a half measure that represents never healing a wound but endlessly bandaging it. While Marx’s solution of waiting around for capitalism to fall on its own sword is itself is a type of non action which ironically opens the door to indefinite continuation.

The proof is in the pudding, generations born into the world today have a seemingly precarious future due to the passivity toward the exploitative systems. Everyday that passes is another day where the world’s community potential is corrupted in structures that refuse to let go of power. They refuse to return political power to the community that now needs new structures. This methophorical kidnapping of the political by governments, corporations, and ne0-liberal economics leaves society in a stagnant position that privileges now corrupted structures that could be dissolved.

A great example of this is the military industrial complex which after WWII became a self-fulling and self-reinforcing institution. Corrupted and unwilling to return political power to the people once the war was won. Instead, as with all corrupted political structures it used its new found capacity to maintain an unprecidented modern military force for the sake of continuing its existence.

There are many examples of this. Social security is another program that has to be restructured and re purposed for the context of today. There is no reason to continue to provide for systems that are outdated and parasitic to the political economy of humanity. Political economy should be flexible and responsive with porous structures based on the solid foundation of temporal and spacial relations in the present.

The more general question being, how do we bring further attention to the academic work that all but proves that we are being duped by ourselves. And how is it that we pragmatize and destigmitize legitimate ideas that have been associated with Utopian socialist narratives?

It is important to continue to expand the visibility of critical theories not because there is a gap in the literature but because there is a lack of intersectional conversations happening within the critical sphere. There isn’t a unified message instead a plethora of authors with seemingly purposeful contradictions. Responding to each other instead of building a unified ask or voice. The work to change the political economic system is not one that needs more approaches but, one which seeks to tie what we already have. Building new structures that topple old ones and themselves made impermanent.

Literature

“The perfectly bureaucratized giant industrial unit not only ousts the small or medium-sized firm and “expropriates” its owners, but in the end it also ousts the entrepreneur and expropriates the bourgeoisie as a class which in the process stands to lose not only its income but also what is in finitely more important, its function (Schumpeter 119).” There are many authors that in one way or another allude to the same message. Marx uses the imagery of a forest of outstretched proletariat arms pulling capitalists into their midst as competition squeezes more and more people into the crowd of desperate wage workers. The main insight being that the capitalist economic system is one that over the long term places everyone against each other. Like a tournament bracket. Trying to force each other out of the entrepreneurial capitalist position and into ranks of workers. Simultaneously eliminating competition while increasing the availability of labor which in turns makes the cost of said labor cheaper due to the increased overall supply.

Additionally, “linear extrapolations into the future made clear however that continuing the Fordist/corporate liberal pattern of capital accumulation would exhaust the natural substratum of the mode of production” (Van der Pijl 124). Yet, there is a push to continue the very system described above. As a society we are unable to for a moment stop infighting to tackle the greater problem of mass inequality and wealth concentration. We can solve societal, moral, and ethical problems, but we must pragmatically approach the super structure that is the capitalist system. Because when the “World hierarchy is underlain by capitalist relations of production that determine an unequal control of world economic surplus” it becomes impossible to work outside of the capitalist system, recreating the system over and over again as a result of always being committed to working within it (Hinniebusch 214). What the literature needs is cohesion. Not on every issue but at the very least the blatantly obvious one. If the literature cannot use its progression to come together in some way then in line with its own predictions “People’s current and future life choices and possibilities will be locked into hierarchical and unfree capitalist social relations” (Lebaron and Roberts 19).

Between Marx, Keynes, and Neo-Liberal scholars there is a balance on the scales of critical thought. Positioning myself within the literature in this case in not saying that I agree more with any one of these perspectives but hold a critical lens to them as a comprehensive body of work. They need not be separate. The neo-liberal doctrine openly admits brutality but claims to do so out of necessity. Responding to a version of the natural human condition where equality only exists in nature and between equals of power. Keynes finds a sort of middle ground that accepts the current inevitability/dominance of the neo-liberal system but also, due to the deep philosophical contributions of socialist theory understands that capitalism cannot be left to its own devices.

Where do we go from there we ask? It seems that since Keynes, there has been a complete and utter halt in the application of critical theory to create real world solutions. In this void there has been a recapture of the political economic imaginary as a ruthless pursuit for neo-liberalism. Still, today we balance the economy with a Keynesian mentality. But it is slowly losing its prominence to corporatist solutions that promise redistribution through profit maximization. We know this is a paradox! The goal of a new position within the literature is to use the insights of Marx, Keynes, and neoliberal thought to engage with the world in practical ways that do not corner themselves into the solely academic sphere. The point is not to be a Marxist, Keynesian, or neo-liberal but to understand the interaction between the three. How they prerequisite and inform each other. There may be times where ruthless competition and capitalist expansion might be a valid strategy. The goal is to create impermanent political organizations that are action based and goal oriented with terminal dissolution timelines.

Argument

The current political economic system is inherently flawed and paradoxical to human life. Hypothesizing how can we destroy the obviously parasitic structures while identifying those which are currently in use and have contemporary value being the exercise allows for a ruthless examination of self-serving corrupted political structures.

As mentioned before a good example would be a re-evaluation of the military industrial complex. How does it serve society, what problems is it solving, what community needs are being met? Does it reproduce its own structure as a justification for its continuation?

The methodology is an exercise in identification through theoretical implementation and negotiation. It is grounded in community politics that requires action. A perspective that builds off and in reaction to historical and contemporary authors. To do this requires a return to respecting the concept of the political as community action. Nothing more, nothing less. It is not flashy or an exercise in a will to power. But, the opposite, the will to power as the ability to act with impermanence.

The political community can not be sequestered for indefinite time periods of time that end up removing humanity and its interests from the organizational structure. Organization for organizations sake is not enough. My method is to remove labels, remove boundaries and concentrate on action, community, and outcomes.

To exemplify this I continue with the example of military spending in the US. Every dollar spent should be justified as an attempt to solve a problem, respond to a community demand, or run the risk of being cut from the budget and reallocated to achieve the former and latter. Notice how solving a nation’s problem or responding to the requirements of national mythology are different. The state takes the community and re-frames it as a conglomerate that has nothing to do with anything besides the nation-state itself.

For example, if asked why do we need such a large military. The response is often something along the lines of achieving national security goals. But security for who? The nation-state is not real, it doesn't feel, breathe, or require care. It is supposed to be a tool for the people. Not the complete and separate abstraction of it. If a soldier dies for the “nation” who else besides the “nation” is served. His community lost a member, his mother a son, the economy a laborer, and his culture a member.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“We cannot predict the future concretely, but we can predict the past” (Wallerstien 389). The past has shown us over and over again how the exploitation of each other and the concentration wealth always leads to social unrest and economic turmoil. We should expect the future to be the same if the modes of production already identified as counter-productive and exploitative of human life remain in place partly due to the fragmented nature of critical theories.

Conclusion

A neoliberal in the morning, a Marxist in the afternoon, and a Keynesian in the evening. This being the mantra of those which wish to objectively interact with the world. Not with dead authors. The ultimate goal is to avoid allowing “governments to create a situation that carry with them their own definition of what task is necessary for society as a whole and make the underlying population accept it passively (Moore 416).” This is the greatest co-option and corruption of politics.

In today's world it is the norm and implicit expectation. The alienation of the subject of politics has become so ingrained in society that the very human input of politics has become a commodity like gasoline for a car. Thus, “The worker belongs neither to an owner nor the land, but 8,10,12 hours of his life, day after day, to the highest bidder...life begins for him where this activity ceases, at the table, in the public house, in bed” (The German Ideology Marx).

To make clear, this is not advocating for a Utopian vision of politics and society. There is no illusion that inequality, war, and conflict will continue to exist. The goal is to take power away from the curruported political structures as an omnipotent powers that supersede community to the point of destroying them.

The concentrated genocidal destruction of humanity is only feasible through the continuation of these outdated stuctures. A system with no humanity. The final solution of the Nazis as a perfect example of how a state can create a system of destruction that could never be achieved in its absence. The belief here is that power should be held at the bottom and brought into abstracted structures of power for temporary moments.

Adopting a more responsive, flexible, and transparent system that places power at the feet of those it is meant to serve is at its core of a decolonial argument. It doesn't have to be but, they are related. But, there is a hesitancy here to create a new labeled connection. This hesitancy stemming from the fear of restarting a dogmatic version of political economy that completely betrays the complexity of the subject matter. The point is to understand that labels and classifications are there not to divide in practice but to organize for use. Politics then being action at a specified time.

Works Cited

Hinnebusch, Raymond. 2011. The Middle East in the world hierarchy: Imperialism and resistance. Journal of International Relations and Development.

Joseph A. Schumpeter. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. Routledge, 2010

LeBaron, Genevieve, and Adrienne Roberts. “Toward a Feminist Political Economy of Capitalism and Carcerality.” Signs 36, no. 1 (2010): 19–44. https://doi.org/10.1086/652915.

Marx, Karl, Friedrich Engels, C. J. Arthur, and Karl Marx. 1972. The German ideology. New York: International Publishers.

Moore, Barrinton. “Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy” Part Three: 414-483.

Van der Pijl. Transnational Classes.

Wallerstein, Immanuel. “The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System: Concepts for Comparative Analysis.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16, no. 4 (1974): 387–415.