The capitalist triptych.
A nation’s added value, its gross domestic product, is shared by the
different beneficiaries. The state takes taxes, labour receives wages
and social benefits, and capital claims rent, interest and profit.
This portioning is a political affair, as governments arbitrate who
gets what. Governments also decide the use axes are put to, whether
they go to labour or capital.
The oppositions inside labour are primarily because of ethnic and religious differences, and between management and workers. However, labour also confronts itself according to the sector of capital it is employed by. Capital, the property of the means of production, begins with the distribution of conquered land. Originally, land was the only means to produce wealth. But, with the development of trade, money and credit became sources of income and merchant bankers equalled the munificence of princes. Finally, with mechanization, the tools of production enriched their owners, to the point where industrial entrepreneurs outshone the money lenders and the land owners.
To produce value labour needs land, financing and machines. These are privately owned and expect rent, interest and profit, which are not necessarily evenly distributed. Capital is mobile and follows the best dividends. But this theoretical mobility has limits, and capital is split by conflicting interests. Those who own the land, and all it can produce above and below ground, despise the bankers and their “fiat” manipulations, and both groups feel far superior to the upstarts who get things done. These three groups make up the political spectrum, with land to the right, machines to the left and money in the middle.
The ownership of land generates a conservative ideology because, for most of history, it was considered the only source of wealth and employed servile labour. And even to-day… vid South African miners or Mexican crop pickers. Around 1850 in Manchester, cotton mill owners were not labour friendly (Capital I gives some horrific descriptions of working and living conditions in Europe at that time). They had a plethoric labour force, as people moved to the cities after being thrown off the land to make way for changing and more profitable forms of agriculture (the potato blight of 1845 brought starving Irish immigrants). But then the passage to America became affordable and the flow of new arrivals from a deserted countryside was reduced to a trickle. The sudden threat of insufficient labour brought morality to the fore, to sanctify progressive legislation on child labour, sanitation, housing and living wages. Another significant factor was the increasing level of skills required by the production process. Literacy, numeracy and increasing qualifications became necessary in most industrial activities. Capital invested in the production of goods and services needed healthy, educated and willing workers. For its own benefit it had to be socially conscious. Bankers are masters of the measure of exchange value, of the money that circulates throughout society, knowing no barriers and mediating most of human commerce. This universal function gives bankers a central role that excludes partisanship. Yesterday, they supplied aristocrats and monarchs with one hand, and the merchant or artisan bourgeoisie with the other. At present it is raw materials and industry, a position that is not always comfortable. In times of economic expansion they rise to the social pinnacle, but recession brings their downfall.
Capital is a three-headed beast, and this is reflected in politics. It explains the contradictory policies of governments as they swing to the conservative side, then to the liberal wing and back again, with a pause at Middle-Bank for every passage. Until quite recently, only property owners could participate in politics. As that property was usually land, it gave and advantage to the conservatives. Universal suffrage brought labour into the fray and, no doubt inevitably, introduced the demagogue. Promises win elections and only engage those who believe them. And, whatever the spin and the lies, labour’s only choice is the party of exploitation.
The oppositions inside labour are primarily because of ethnic and religious differences, and between management and workers. However, labour also confronts itself according to the sector of capital it is employed by. Capital, the property of the means of production, begins with the distribution of conquered land. Originally, land was the only means to produce wealth. But, with the development of trade, money and credit became sources of income and merchant bankers equalled the munificence of princes. Finally, with mechanization, the tools of production enriched their owners, to the point where industrial entrepreneurs outshone the money lenders and the land owners.
To produce value labour needs land, financing and machines. These are privately owned and expect rent, interest and profit, which are not necessarily evenly distributed. Capital is mobile and follows the best dividends. But this theoretical mobility has limits, and capital is split by conflicting interests. Those who own the land, and all it can produce above and below ground, despise the bankers and their “fiat” manipulations, and both groups feel far superior to the upstarts who get things done. These three groups make up the political spectrum, with land to the right, machines to the left and money in the middle.
The ownership of land generates a conservative ideology because, for most of history, it was considered the only source of wealth and employed servile labour. And even to-day… vid South African miners or Mexican crop pickers. Around 1850 in Manchester, cotton mill owners were not labour friendly (Capital I gives some horrific descriptions of working and living conditions in Europe at that time). They had a plethoric labour force, as people moved to the cities after being thrown off the land to make way for changing and more profitable forms of agriculture (the potato blight of 1845 brought starving Irish immigrants). But then the passage to America became affordable and the flow of new arrivals from a deserted countryside was reduced to a trickle. The sudden threat of insufficient labour brought morality to the fore, to sanctify progressive legislation on child labour, sanitation, housing and living wages. Another significant factor was the increasing level of skills required by the production process. Literacy, numeracy and increasing qualifications became necessary in most industrial activities. Capital invested in the production of goods and services needed healthy, educated and willing workers. For its own benefit it had to be socially conscious. Bankers are masters of the measure of exchange value, of the money that circulates throughout society, knowing no barriers and mediating most of human commerce. This universal function gives bankers a central role that excludes partisanship. Yesterday, they supplied aristocrats and monarchs with one hand, and the merchant or artisan bourgeoisie with the other. At present it is raw materials and industry, a position that is not always comfortable. In times of economic expansion they rise to the social pinnacle, but recession brings their downfall.
Capital is a three-headed beast, and this is reflected in politics. It explains the contradictory policies of governments as they swing to the conservative side, then to the liberal wing and back again, with a pause at Middle-Bank for every passage. Until quite recently, only property owners could participate in politics. As that property was usually land, it gave and advantage to the conservatives. Universal suffrage brought labour into the fray and, no doubt inevitably, introduced the demagogue. Promises win elections and only engage those who believe them. And, whatever the spin and the lies, labour’s only choice is the party of exploitation.
posted by le Lézard at 12:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home