Friday 1 May 2020
THE STATE IN ECONOMIC THEORY - Part One
To which a scoundrel clings.
Property, as we are learning increasingly now
that it is concentrated in ever-fewer hands, is the exclusion of others from
what are unavoidably “social” human resources. Resources or “use values” are
“social” not in the sense that they are shared by “individuals” – by human
beings understood as “atoms” – but rather in the sense that they affect single
human beings in their very “being human” – just as the Ebola virus does not
afflict “individuals” but attacks us as specimens of the one species. Marx’s
discovery of the Doppelcharakter of
production in capitalism, contrasting the “use value” of human production with
its “exchange value” under capitalism, was meant to highlight the fact that
“use values” point well beyond the uni-verse
of “economics” with its “exchange value” toward the multi-verse of human being as Gattungs-wesen, “species-conscious
being”. That is why Marx thought Proudhon’s famous motto about “property” (more
than just an aphorism encapsulating Rousseau’s thesis in De l’Inegalite’) was so worthy of approbation – La propriete’, c’est
le vol! (Property is theft!). Yet even though the notion of property is so
obviously “legal” and requires of necessity the existence of a State apparatus
to enforce it, even Marx could conceive in his own “critique of political
economy” that it was possible to isolate the role of the State from that of
“property” or “the market” or “the economy” as an object of “scientific”
inquiry.
In what could only be the heightened
perceptiveness of a poet, Bob Dylan reprises Samuel Johnson’s saying that “patriotism
is the last refuge of the scoundrel” to bring together the existence of the
State, of the “re-public” or “public thing”, which is shared by all “citizens”,
which should be the acme of our sense of duty and devotion to it as the
objectification of our social existence – hence of our “patriotism” – and to
show how this becomes in reality “the last refuge of scoundrels” who end up
being made “kings” or members of Congress or Parliament because they own the
most “property” and therefore “steal a lot”, whereas it is those with the least
property – those who “steal a little” – who end up in jail! What this reveals
is that only “scoundrels” have every right to be “patriotic” – because the rest
of us have very little stake in the defence of the “public thing”, of the
“republic”, and therefore of the State!
The twin crises of the Ebola virus and of the
ISIS – two most virulent diseases that threaten our very humanity from opposite
ends, the microscopic and the macroscopic -; these twin crises bring
prepotently before our eyes what is the real “disease” of capitalist society:
the utter and devastating impossibility of true “patriotism” for those living
under the rule of the capitalist State. It is this collapse of the legitimacy
of the capitalist State as “re-public” that requires imperiously a re-assessment
of its role in economic theory so that we may elaborate a strategy of attack
against a “machine”, an “apparatus” that grows with its by-product monster
Frankenstein – the evil Chinese Dictatorship - more leaden and obsolescent,
corrupt and corrosive with every passing hour – and that finally, as in Hong
Kong right now, threatens our most basic needs for freedom and fulfilment or,
as in Mexico with the obscene hecatomb of our student comrades at the hands of
corrupt police and gangsters, threatens our very lives!
THE ROLE OF THE STATE IN ECONOMIC THEORY has
rarely been examined owing to the mistaken notion that the State is a political
structure or institution that is wholly “adventitious” or epiphenomenal or
superstructural and so entirely extraneous
to the reproduction of society, albeit not to its “foundation”. This seems
incongruous if not contradictory because, if indeed the State is essential to
the establishment of a society –
indeed, of the “re-public” -, then it seems odd that it should not play also an
essential defining role in the
constitution of the most basic “economic” categories and relations of that
“society” or “republic”. This peculiar
theoretical lacuna is due in part to the approach of classical political theory
to the State which sees it as simply being the collective noun for its
constituent building blocks such as the individual or the family household or
the tribe or the city and finally “the people”.
Because economic theory is exclusively
concerned with the production and exchange of goods and services between
“individuals” or individual “units” and not with the “reproduction” of society
as a whole – that is, not with the metabolism
of a society with its “environment” which would entail the analysis of
“economic” relations in the broader context of the “choices” selected by a society and its members
from virtually limitless options and possibilities -, for this very reason
economic theory has universally neglected the role of the State in the economy.
Yet, whereas economic theory sees
Politics as an intrusion in Economics, in reality it is economic theory that
wrongfully extrudes Politics from what it claims to be its “scientific” ambit.
By contrast, the notion of metabolism serves to restore the ineluctable element
of “choice” and “project”, and therefore of the Political, in the selection of
alternative social relations of production.
Owing to these twin misconceptions, aided and
abetted by the political interests and outright violence of the bourgeoisie,
economic theory has always emarginated the role of the State in “the market
economy” to that of mere “Police” – to that of a purely “administrative” body
that preserves or conserves and regulates the autonomous “natural rights”
obtaining between individuals historically and analytically in a societas naturalis that existed prior to the establishment of the societas civilis and the State, as in the
Lockean jusnaturalist version, - or else, as in the Hobbesian version, to one where
the State is instituted wholly contractually for individuals to exit the anarchy, lawlessness and
civil war of a hypothetical state of
nature. In the former case, the Lockean, the State acts merely as an arbiter – as an independent judge – to
adjudge and enforce the respective natural rights of individuals, which are
thought to be historically prior to and analytically independent of the State.
In the latter, Hobbesian case, the State is the actual founder of human
society; it undertakes a restauratio ab
imis of human society or erects a “total constitutional order” - so much so
that State and civil society are indistinguishable as status civilis as against the lawless state of nature or status naturae that preceded its
contractual foundation (v. Hobbes, De
Cive, X, I; or Rousseau, Le Contrat
Social, or consider Pufendorf’s “extra
rem publicam nulla salus”).
Yet even in the Hobbesian version of
jusnaturalism, where the State is actually the fons et origo of these “rights” (the status civilis of legal positivism), it is still not considered to
determine the substantive content, the “essence”, of economic categories. Thus,
in both versions, the State enforces these “rights” without actually
determining their content, which
supposedly arises from an autonomous “economic” sphere consisting of the
utilitarian needs and wants of individuals. In both cases therefore - and this
is the decisive point –, the economic sphere exists independently of the State in a fundamental historical and
analytical sense. Indeed, even the mechanistic Hobbesian state by institution
that could never be said to have existed historically on account of its extreme
suppositions threatens to become a state by acquisition in the Lockean sense
because once a civil society descends into civil war of the kind hypothesised
by Hobbes, then it will be impossible for humanity to escape or exit from that
State. Therefore, even for Hobbes there must have been a natural society that
preceded his omnipotent State.
Whereas in classical political theory the
State was identical with society
itself, either as the ethical dimension of being human (as with Aristotle’s zoon politikon, for which Politics is
the continuation of Ethics) or as the worldly embodiment of a divine or
transcendental Reason (as in Thomas Aquinas’s notions of animal sociale or animal
rationale), in modern theory the State is quite distinct from society either
historically as postdating a primordial pre-statal society or analytically by
virtue of the assumption that such a society devoid of all “statality” – either
a state of complete “anarchy” (Hobbes’s bellum
civium) or a societas naturalis (Bodin, Locke, Rousseau) – is indeed possible.
The “science” of economics became imaginable
only once the triumphant capitalist bourgeoisie seriously set up its central
political aim to confine the role of the State precisely to the perpetuation of
this false separation of the Political
from the Economic. This in turn
required the identification and isolation of a sphere of social life that is
not contaminated by “values” other than the Value of economic theory –
“exchange value”. The cardinal point to consider is that this “technical
neutrality” of the State had to proceed hand in hand with the destitution of
“individuals” of all Ethico-Political values and their reduction from
“citizens” to economic atoms whose activities could be calculated and measured
in isolation from one another so as to lend “scientific” economic Value to the
utilisation and production of social resources. But in fact and in reality,
this reification of human living activity – its reduction to “measurable”
labour-power - is a specific form of social violence perpetrated by the
capitalist bourgeoisie.
Even Marx, in his critique of political economy, sought to establish that in the
process of commodity production and therefore of economic value the capitalist
derives a profit by extracting surplus value from the labour-time “socially necessary”
to produce those commodities. But one source of surplus value that Marx
specifies arises from the fact that the capitalist does not pay workers for the
sociality of their “individual
labours” – for the fact that what are supposedly “individual labours” are in reality indivisible
aspects of social labour. Thus, in
his effort to present his theory in a scientific guise, Marx neatly obscures
what he clearly recognizes, that is to say, that it is impossible to specify
and calculate economic Value independently of the “sociality” of human living
activity – which therefore leads us inevitably to ethico-political values as the real matrix of economic value.
Marx’s discovery of the Doppelcharakter of production in capitalism, contrasting the “use
value” of human production with its “exchange value” under capitalism echoes
the ancient Aristotelian distinction between the oikonomia (the laws of the household) and the chrematistike (the speculation of finance). It was meant to
highlight the fact that “use values” point well beyond the uni-verse of “economics” with its “exchange value” toward the multi-verse of human values. That is why
Marx thought Proudhon’s famous motto - “property is theft” (more than just an
aphorism encapsulating Rousseau’s thesis in De
l’Inegalite’) - was so worthy of approbation. Yet even though the notion of
property is so obviously “legal” and requires of necessity the existence of a
State apparatus to enforce it, even Marx could conceive in his own “critique of political economy” that it
was possible to isolate the role of the State from that of “property” or “the
market” or “the economy” as an object of “scientific” inquiry. There are two
senses of the social category Value which reflect the Doppelcharakter of social resources identified by Marx. On one
side, we have Ethico-Political Value,
and on the other we have Economic
Value. Our thesis in this review of the role of the State in economic theory is
that these two meanings of Value are indeed inseparable – and that their
separation is only the product of the modern distortion of social and political
theory that comes with the rise of the capitalist bourgeoisie and of its
“science” par excellence – “economic
science”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment