Carrol Cox wrote:
> What specific kind of power do you have in mind? I think you are right, but
> "power" by itself doesn't name anything that _can_ be theorized.
>
> State Power
>
> Capitalist Power?
"Power" should be defined relationally, so that we have to clarify by
pinning it down to these two types. The types of power are different:
on the one hand, state power involves the ability to coerce, to force
the payment of taxes, obedience to state regulations, etc. (calling
Max Weber!)
On the other hand, capitalist power exists as a function of capitalist
society. A small percentage of the population (the capitalists)
controls the means of production ("capital goods") and thus access to
the means of subsistence (consumer goods). Those of us who don't
control a significant amount of the means of production (enough to
live a decent standard of living in current society without working
for a wage or salary) cannot get access to the means of subsistence
without selling our labor-power to the capitalists and submitting to
their authority during the work-day (and sometimes beyond). The
capitalists can thus get the majority to do more labor than is
necessary to produce the majority's means of subsistence, thus reaping
surplus-value (property income). As Marx said somewhere, the working
class pays the capitalists surplus-value in exchange for the ability
to live.
The two types of power do not correspond completely to two spheres of
society. The state is an employer of labor-power and can have the same
power in labor markets as the capitalists (though in the US, unlike
with state capitalism, typically it's not allowed to reap a profit).
Corporations (amalgamations of capital) can also coerce their
employees: if you don't do exactly what we tell you, you'll be fired,
enjoying a non-expense paid vacation in the reserve army of the
unemployed while trying to get a job with a "black mark" on your
resume.
The two types of power also depend on each other. The state couldn't
survive without a capitalist economy that produces enough
surplus-value that overhead (the courts, the police, etc.) and such
unproductive operations as foreign wars can be paid for. (Under state
capitalism, in which the government reaps a profit from its
operations, the state is less dependent on private capitalism's
prosperity.) Without state coercion protecting the property system and
its inequality, on the other hand, the corporations couldn't do their
business and induce the production of surplus-value that provides them
with profits, interest, and rent.
The populist vision of power -- as I understand it -- misses the
structural nature of capitalist power and sees it entirely in
instrumental terms, i.e., being wielded by a small powerful elite (the
richest capitalists + the state managers). The rich elite is in
cahoots with the government elite to coerce us. It's very much like
conspiracy theory and often involves explicit conspiracy theory. Even
without that kind of theory, the populist vision involves replacing
the current elite with a new elite, without changing the structure of
society.
--
Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own
way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
