#marxists have different takes depending on the favour and the country and the specific time but those also were around before the web | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cathkaesque · 6 years

Link

Every now and then it is worth refreshing our understanding of our basic economic concepts. My aim with this piece is to reintroduce some of the building blocks of Marxist economics and show how these concepts can animate and explain some of the struggles that we face today. I hope that a discussion of these concepts and a demonstration of their relevance will pave the way for future discussions where we'll apply these concepts more concretely to struggles we're facing in Sheffield.

So, to start off, what is capitalism? Capitalism is a system of production for profit, characterised by private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism is not just buying or selling, or money and markets. These have existed for centuries, but the period that we call capitalism has only existed for the last 250-300 years. Capitalism instead is where money is spent in the pursuit of more money for its original owners. When money is invested in this manner, it is called capital, and its owners are known as capitalists.

So how do capitalists make their money? What trick do they perform to will more money into existence? We can answer that when we look at the commodity. A commodity is a thing, like a car, a house, or a pint of beer, which is bought and sold for money. It contains two parts - use value and exchange value. A use-value is simply that a commodity fills a need that people have. This is inherently subjective and can’t be quantified in the way exchange value can. Exchange value is, on the other hand, quantifiable and expressed as a price, and is the price a good could be exchanged for in a perfect equilibrium between supply and demand. According to the labour theory of value, this is determined by the average amount of labour necessary to produce the commodity, measured in time. Price is distinct from value, which is how value appears on the market, and is influenced by things like supply and demand.

Profit, or surplus value, is the difference between the new value that labour creates in the production process and the cost of the reproduction of that labour. Therefore profits, ultimately, represent the unpaid labour of workers appropriated by the capitalist class. To put it in more concrete terms, a production worker at Volkswagen needs to work for about 44 hours to produce value equivalent to his yearly wage – they will go on to work some 1,700 hours throughout the whole year. The difference between what the worker receives in wages and what the worker produces is the source of surplus value under capitalism, and the struggle over the length of the working day and wages earned for that day’s work at the heart of the struggle between the employing class and working class.

The Marxist focus on industrial production may seem a little out of place when looking at Britain’s post-industrial service economy. But the value that flows through Britain’s financial institutions is still tied to the exploitation of workers and the production of commodities. Capitalism has grown into an international system as corporate monopolies have outgrown their home countries. In order to recover from its last major crisis in the 1970s, capitalists in the imperial centres had to overcome an increasingly organised and conscious working class. To do this, capitalists fragmented their national industries and outsourced labour intensive tasks to third world countries, which had been opened up to capitalist exploitation following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the UK, the manufacturing sector has declined by 2 thirds since the 1990s.

Bourgeois economists in the World Bank often point to the industrialisation as the means for ‘developing countries’ to escape from poverty. However, today, industrial development of third world countries has become a lifeline for the decrepit capitalist economies of the first world. In The China Price, Tony Norfield recounts the story of a T-Shirt made in Bangladesh and sold in Germany by H&M at a price of 4 euros 95. H&M pays the Bangladeshi manufacturer 1.35 per T-Shirt, 28 percent of the final price. 40 cents covers the costs of raw cotton imported from the US, while shipping to Hamburg costs 6 cents per shirt. This means 95 cents of the price of this T-shirt remains in Bangladesh, to be shared between the factory owner, the workers, and the Bangladeshi government - the production of the T-Shirt therefore adds 95 cents to Bangladesh’s GDP. Meanwhile, the sale of this T-shirt in Germany expands Germany’s GDP by 3.54. 2.05 pays wholesalers, retailers, advertisers etc. H&M makes 60 cents profit, while the German state takes 72 cents through VAT. The Bangladeshi worker herself earns only 1 euro 36 for a 10-12 hour day, producing 250 shirts per hour. She receives an 18th of a cent of the final sale price.

The sale of a T-shirt made in Bangladesh in Germany adds more to Germany’s GDP than it does to Bangladesh’s. This transfer of value from South to North explains why imperialist countries such as Germany, and especially Britain, can sustain “post-industrial service economies” with huge shopping centres, advanced militaries, and rich banks and financial institutions with very little in the way of production. It also explains the enduring relevance of the Labour Theory of Value. Value is not a subjective thing, and the banks of Britain do not magic money out of thin air. In 2013, Britain had 1.8 trillion in foreign direct investments. It plays host to 34 of the world’s top 500 corporations. As a capitalist country it is second only to America in the international reach of its investments. Even in deindustrialised Britain, capitalism remains dependent on the exploitation of industrial labour, as out of sight and out of mind as it may appear today.

Here’s the text from the (updated) intro to Marxist economics talk I gave last night at the SP branch. It went down pretty well and injected some much needed Marxist analysis into the discussion (I’ll admit I have been frustrated lately at the dearth of Marxism in favour of the repetition of Labour Party talking points. I am worried the organisation is losing the independence from social democracy that attracted me to it in the first place). My hope is that this’ll open up opportunities for further discussions around the specific functioning in the future. It was also nice to write something again. Hope people find it useful!

#socialism #Marxism #capitalism #Socialist Party #trotting along

7 notes · View notes

barrieshannon · 6 years

Text

Queer life goes on after marriage equality

BARRIE SHANNON

This article originally appeared in the May Newsletter of the Newcastle University Postgraduate Students Association (NUPSA), linked here.

In December 2017, the Australian Parliament passed legislation that legalised marriage for same-sex couples. The feeling of watching this vote happen live was one of disembodiment. I felt as if I should have jumped out of my chair or begun crying, but I did neither. The pro-equality parliamentarians grinned, misty-eyed, and waved to the gallery, which was packed full of queer Australians, their friends and their families. They sang and waved flags, embraced each other and wept. I turned the TV off, sent a heart emoji to my partner, set aside my phone and exhaled.

What I had just witnessed was undoubtedly a very significant moment in our country’s history, and indeed in the history of our movement for recognition and legal rights. On an intellectual level, I understood the gravity of what just took place, but I felt too deflated to celebrate. In this moment, I had to take a while to contemplate whether this legislation passing on this day, in this specific way, was worth the months of emotional labour that had preceded it. To be honest, I’m still trying to figure that part out.

The vote in Parliament followed a voluntary postal survey on changing the law to allow marriage equality, and it took place against the backdrop of a sustained public debate on marriage. However, it was a debate that also captured a range of ‘related’ issues in its orbit, such as parenting, gender diversity, sex education and religion. But most of the time, it hardly felt that marriage was at the centre of the debate at all. The discussions happening within the media, in radio interviews and TV panel discussions, appeared to be stuck on sex education and the Safe Schools debate that Australian conservatives are perpetually transfixed on.

As is the trend with Australian moral panics about sexuality, the figure of the innocent, corruptible child was gratuitously deployed to convince the public that LGBTI people were a danger to children. The strategy was to muddy the waters and obfuscate the actual object of the debate, while appealing to our society’s well-meaning desire to protect and nurture children. The architects of these moral panics rely on the juxtaposition between their imagery of the vulnerable, impressionable child alongside the damaging stereotypical depictions of gay and transgender people as slaves to sexual deviancy and excess that unfortunately still permeate our culture.

Many ads run on TV during evening primetime lamented a hypothetical post-gender future in which young boys were physically forced to wear dresses to school by sinister gay ‘cultural Marxists’. Others expressed patronising concern about the welfare of children of same-sex couples who are denied their ‘right’ to both a mother and a father, while withholding that same level of concern from children in other family configurations. Other ads featured people who seemed genuinely terrified that marriage equality would result in them being prosecuted under the law for their views on gender politics, or for their adherence to their religious beliefs. The imagery in these ads was almost universally negative.

On the other side of the debate, pro-equality ads usually featured sunny, cheerful images of happy families, accompanied with messages and slogans promoting the ideals of freedom, happiness and inclusivity. It was, overall, a feel-good movement. In this respect, the two sides of the debate could not be more different in tone; and when faced with a choice between fairness or fire and brimstone, Australia decisively chose fairness. The final result of the campaign saw 61.6% of votes cast in favour of marriage equality. The ‘yes’ vote prevailed in 133 of Australia’s 150 federal electorates.

“...the two sides of the debate could not be more different in tone; and when faced with a choice between fairness or fire and brimstone, Australia decisively chose fairness.”

Reflecting on my feelings in the days and weeks that followed the Parliament’s legislation of marriage equality, I realised how heavy the weight of the campaign had been. It is a surreal experience to live through weeks of people debating your life with each other. Your identity, your love and your sexuality are intensely personal things, and yet for LGBTI people, these are seen to be fair game for analysis, critique and debate by people who have no frame of reference to understand what this feeling of scrutiny is like. The attitudes that underpin heterosexual Australia’s claim of entitlement to our personal lives and our narratives continue to influence public discourse about LGBTI issues.

This remains a concern as we turn our attention toward the deficiencies in how our social and political infrastructure provides for transgender and gender diverse Australians. Alarmingly, a lot of public sentiment, especially on social media, seems to suggest that marriage equality was seen by many people as the final step in making our society inclusive of LGBTI people. Now that we can get married, further debates involving gender diversity are portrayed as frivolous, or ‘taking it too far’.

This year, May 17 is the International Day Against Homophobia, Biphobia, Intersexism and Transphobia (IDAHOBIT). On this day, we seek to draw attention to prejudices and injustices perpetrated against people based on their sexuality, gender identity and intersex status. This is our opportunity to reflect on how our attitudes and our taken-for-granted social norms – whether they are deliberately oppressive or not – have consequences for LGBTI Australians.

This is just as important to reflect upon from within the LGBTI community as well. Marriage equality was a monumental shift in how same-sex relationships are recognised by the law, and by society. This change in our fundamental attitudes around who does and does not belong within our social institutions was unthinkable just a couple of decades ago.

It is therefore vital to remember that we stand on the shoulders of activists who have fought and bled for our right to demand this change. They took deliberate action to disrupt the restrictive norms surrounding gender and sexuality that are imposed upon all of us. And we have a responsibility to continue that legacy for future generations of LGBTI Australians.

There is still a lot of work to do before we see the liberation of queer people in Australia and abroad, and days like IDAHOBIT allow us to connect, reflect and organise for exactly this purpose. We can’t afford to stop the momentum we have built during the marriage equality campaign. Hearts and lives depend on it.

#marriage equality #media #auspol

4 notes · View notes

margdarsanme · 4 years

Text

NCERT Class 12 Sociology Chapter 3 The Story of Indian Democracy

NCERT Class 12 Sociology: Social Change and Development in India

Chapter 3 The Story of Indian Democracy

NCERT TEXTBOOK QUESTIONS SOLVED : Q. 1.Interest groups are part and parcel of a functioning democracy. Discuss. Ans. :

Interest groups are organised to pursue specific interest in the political arena, operating primarily by lobbying the members of the legislative bodies.

When certain groups feel that their interests are not being taken up, they may move to form an alternative party.

Democracy is a form of government for the people, by the people and of the people. In this system interest groups are formed for specific interest.

Interest groups are private organisation. They are formed to influence public policy.

These are non political systems and their main goal are to take care of their own interest.

Political parties are established organisations with the aim of achieving governmental power and using that power to pursue a specific programme. Different interest groups will work towards influencing political parties.

These organisations are regarded as movements until they achieve recognition.

The interest groups play a significant role in Indian democracy and they perform various important functions such as:

(a) Formation of Public Opinion:

Using various forms of propaganda and communication, they mould public opinion. To get goodwill of public opinion and change in administrative system in their own favour they use T.V., radio, Email and various forms of social media, twitter and face book.

(b) Function at the time of Natural Disaster:

These interest groups provide help during natural calamity like Himalayans Tsunami at Kedamath or earthquakes etc. By doing such social activities they get public attention and favour and they influence the government.

Q. 2. Read the snippets from the debates held in the Constituent Assembly. Identify the interest groups. Discuss what kind of interest groups exist in contemporary India. How do they function? Ans. :

Snippets from the debates

K.T. Shah said that the right to use full employment could and should be made real by a categoric obligation on the part of the state to provide useful work to every citizen who was able and qualified.

B. Das spoke against classifying the functions of the government as justiciable and non-justiciable. “I think it is the primary duty of Government to remove hunger and render social justice to every citizen and to secure social security…”. The teeming millions do not find any hope that the Union Constitution… will ensure them freedom from hunger, will secure them social justice, will ensure them a minimum standard of living and a minimum standard of public health”.

Ambedkar’s answer was as follows:

“The Draft Constitution as framed only provides a machinery for the government of the country. It is not a controversy to install any particular party in power as has done in some countries. Who should be in power is left to be determined by the people, as it must be, if the system is to satisfy the tests of democracy.

On land reform Nehru said, that social forces were such that law could not stand in the way of reforms, interesting reflection on the dynamic between the two. “If law and Parliament do not fit themselves into the changing picture, they cannot control the situation”.

On the protection of the tribal people and their interests, leaders like Jaipal Singh were assured by Nehru in the following words during the Constituent Assembly „ debates: “It is our intention and our fixed desire to help them as possible; in as efficient a way as possible to protect them from possibly their rapacious neighbours occasionally and to make them advance”.

Even as the Constituent Assembly adopted the title Directive Principles of State Policy to the rights that courts could not enforce, additional principles were added with unanimous acceptance. These included K. Santhanam’s clause that the state shall organise village punchayats and endow them with the powers and authority to be effective units of local self government.

T.A. Ramalingam Chettiar added the clause for promotion of cottage industries on co-operative lines in rural areas. Veteran parlimentarian Thakurdas Bhargava added that the state should organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modem lines.

Interest groups are people outside the government who support the political parties to gain favours from them when they are in power. These are private organisation formed to influence public policy. They are non political groups whose main aim is to uphold their own interest.Political parties are not political parties. In India interest groups adopt two methods i.e. to influence the legislative committees and to help people at the time of natural calamity.

In contemporary India ASSOCHAM, FICCI, Labour Unions, Student’s union,Farmers union, women’s organisations are example of pressure group and interest groups.

Q. 3. Create a ‘phad’ or a scroll with your own mandate when standing for school election.(This could be done in small group of 5, like a panchayat). Ans. :

Being member of school Panchayat we will focus on following areas:

Panchayat members will try to inculcate self discipline among students. Being students we will function as a role model for rest of the students.

Being co-educational school, we will create an environment where girls get respect

and security so that indirectly we will provide a solid base for a healthy society.

We will take care of developing a system, through which students develop habit of self study and special coaching for professional courses may be arranged in the school.

Panchayat will take care of special children and remedial teaching for them.

Panchayat will coordinate with the Principal and may function as a pressure group to take care of proper student-teacher ratio, admission policy of the school, proper uniform, distribution of mid-day- meal etc.

Panchayat will also coordinate with the Principal and Managing staff to take care of games, sports, co-curricular activities and use of technology in school education.

Q. 4. Have you heard of Bal Panchayats and Mazdoor Kissan Sanghathan? If not, find out and write a note about them in about 200 words. Ans. :

Bal Panchayat:

My school follows a prefectoral system. The school has four houses. ,From each house, the house masters and the house children elect five prefects on the basis of their academic performances, leadership traits and their antecedents regarding .contribution for the curricular and co-curricular activities of the house. The principal,teachers and 20 prefects elect head boy of the school. The head boy functions as a prototype of the school. He/she is responsible for discipline, school environment, curricular and co-curricular activities, social interaction particularly with the other schools and is accountable for student’s activities in the school. The head boy particularly coordinates with the principal, headmasters, and house masters with the help of 20 prefects and helps in proper functioning of school buses, maintenance of assets, school fields, taking care of school property and by and large school discipline.

Mazdoor Sanghathan:

In 1920, first All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) was established.

It was initiated by the congress but in 1929 hijacked by the communists.

Indian Trade Union Congress (INTUC) untraced by the congress, Hind Mazdoor Sabha organised by the socialists and Bhartiya Mazdoor Sabha linked with Bhartiya Janta Party earlier Jan Sangh.

These trade unions played a very significant role in the recruitment, wage policy, functioning, living conditions, hire and fire policy and by and large developing a political and social awareness among the workers. Kissan Sanghthan: India is a country of villages. Even today 75% of Indian population is living in villages and depends on agriculture.

Earlier this population was not politically aware with their rights. They were very much traditional and attached to their customs and rituals but due to congress and communists now the kissans of India are politically very mature, are aware with their strength and providing strong base to Indian democracy. This is very much proved in 2014 election when these peasants voted for a stable government breaking the caste, class and region bondings.

Pt. Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Vallabh Bhai Patel took initiates in 1936 congress session at Lucknow and All India Kissan Sabha was established but due to caste and class conflict it could not function. Later CPI activists took command of Kissan Sabha. Many Kissan organisations emerged in India after independence. The socialists established Hind Kissan Panchayat and instead the Kissan Sabha by Marxist. The communist party of India (Marxists) established revolutionary peasants convention in 1967. This organisation gave lead to Naxalbari movement in West Bengal.

Due to the motivative of Shri Raj Narain and Choudhary Char an Singh in 1978 formed the All India Kissan Kamgar Sammelan. Many politicians and farmers like Shri Mahinder Singh Tikkait tried to organise the Kissans of India but even now this peasant group of India is not a well organised pressure group.

Q. 5. The 73rd amendment has been monumental in bringing a voice to the people in the Villages. Discuss. Ans. : The 73rd amendment has been monumental in bringing a voice to the people in the villages because this amendment is related to the directive principles of the state policy and panchayati raj. The amendment is based on the principle of power of the people and provides . constitutional guarantee to the Panchayats.

Main features of the Act:

Recognition to Panchayats, as institutions of self government.

Panchayat’s power and responsibilities to prepare a plan for economic development and social justice.

Establishment of uniform 3 tier system of strong Panchayats at village, block and district levels for all states having a population of over 20 lakhs.

The Act provides guidelines for the structure powers and functions, finance and elections and reservation of seats for the weaker sections of the given area.

Importance of the Act:

It was a revolutionary step towards establishing grassroot democracy.

All the states have passed legislation on the basis of guidelines and provision of the amendments.

Because of this act Panchayati Raj System at grassroot level became a reality.

Q. 6. Write an essay on the ways that the Indian Constitution touches peoples’ everyday life, drawing upon different examples. Ans. :

Indian constitution has given a democratic system to all of us.

Democracy is a government for the people, of the people and by the people. It is not limited to political freedom or economic and social justice. It is also about equal rights to all respective of caste, creed, race and gender.

Indian constitution has established Secularism. We have respect for all the religions and all the Indians have fundamental right to have faith in their own religion. Indian constitution provides equal rights to minority communities by extending friendly relationship and all sort of support system to them.

India is a welfare state and a Sociologist patronise society. It is our duty to protect public and national property. We all have equal opportunities to make use of resources and put our best effort for economic development.

Indian constitution provides social, political and economic justice and equality to all citizens of India.

Therefore it is our duty to support the government to participate in activity of government programmes like population control, smallpox, Malaria or Pulse Polio Programmes. Food Security Bill, Right to Information (RTI), Right to Education (RTE) and efforts for women empowerment are few major efforts made by the government to strengthen Indian democracy.

from Blogger http://www.margdarsan.com/2020/08/ncert-class-12-sociology-chapter-3.html

#NCERT Class 12 Sociology

0 notes

floreal79 · 4 years

Text

Review of David Sainsbury’s “The Race to the Top”

In the Summer 2020 issue of the journal “Innovation Policy”, David Sainsbury, who among other distinctions, served as a minister for science and innovation in Tony Blair’s government from 1998 to 2006, has written an article (pp81-6) entitled “The Race to The Top”, examining the relationship between economic growth and technical innovation.

I have written some informal comments on this from a broadly Marxist perspective.

Comment #1 - is David Sainsbury a Marxist?

We talked about this, but I'd like to go over it again.

On "p82", near the top, we find:

"The value-added per person of a firm is the

selling price of the products produced per person less the

total material purchases used. It is an important measure

of the performance of a firm because the value-added

per capita of a firm is the money that is available to pay

the wages and salaries of employees and the dividends of

shareholders."

Let us say:

Selling price = "p" (per person employed)

Total material = "m" (per person employed)

Wages and salaries = "w" (per person employed)

Dividends = "d" (per person employed)

Then, what he is saying is: p = m + w + d "Equation 1"

Now, he uses the concept "value-added". Let's call this "v", and he defines it as:

v = w + d "Equation 2"

I think it's better to look at this differently, as "w" has much in common with "m", and important differences from "d": unlike a "dividend", but like "material", "wages" can never have a zero value (using "value" here in a mathematical rather than economic sense). Dividends can. The precise value of "w" is of course negotiable - but the same is true for "m", whereas the value of "d" is usually (if I understand these things), "discretionary". It is possible for "d" to have a value of zero - neither "m" nor "w" can usually ever have this.

(Incidentally, is there not a further quantity that he has missed from Eq 1 - a sum put aside for maintenance and investment [including R&D?], and which would reduce "d").

So, I think it would be better to look at "w" as having two component elements, one the "bare essential" required to keep the workforce capable of staying alive and fit to work, and the second a "discretionary" element that gives the workers some "disposable income"; so, let's say:

"Bare essentials" work payment = "w1" per person employed

"Discretionary" work payment = " w2" per person employed

and: w = w1 + w2 "Equation 3"

I think this is important, because "Equation 1" is now expandable to:

p = p = m + w1 + w2+ d "Equation 4"

BUT now "Equation 2" becomes:

v = w2+ d "Equation 5"

This is pretty much the Marxist concept of "surplus value", so important to everything else in Marxist theory. The employer ("capitalist") generally strives to reduce the value of " w2" in order to increase that of "d"; the worker ("proletarian") strives for the opposite. The "discretionary" nature of " w2" makes it subject to negotiation, industrial action, etc. This is the essence of the "class struggle" inherent to capitalist society.

The manufacturing capitalism of the mid-twentieth century appreciated the need for a good degree of accord with its workers, and was prepared to allow " w2" to take a larger share of "v"; this clearly means some diminution of "d". In the modern neoliberal capitalism, maximizing "d", and doing so in the shortest possible time, takes precedence over everything else, and a weakened "proletariat" has been unable to resist, and to maintain the level of " w2".

(The "post-industrial" economy has removed the mass work force of "old fashioned" industry, which in turn led to the falling power of collective bargaining. I also think that the collapse of Soviet Communism facilitated this weakening of the position of the proletariat)

Comment #2

Near the start of the second page ("p82") we find:

"But almost all these new jobs (26.7 million) were created in the

low-value-added service, or nontradeable, sector, including

6.3 million jobs in health care and 4.1 million jobs in

government service."

Further down that page:

"The United Kingdom’s economy over the period 1999–

2015 shows a very similar picture, with manufacturing

gradually becoming a smaller part of the economy and

low-value-added services becoming a larger part. And

because in 2016 the value-added of manufacturing was

£49 (roughly $66) per hour and that of low-value-added

services was £23 (roughly $33) per hour, the impact of

this shift on the UK’s economic rate of growth was very

considerable."

I'm confused! Where does the figure of £23 per hour come from when so many "low-value-added" jobs are in health care and government service? (I'm sure there's a good explanation, but I'd like an outline of it).

Comment #3

Bottom of p82: what is "spillover of knowledge in clusters"?

Comment #4

Also p84, second column:

"The third institutional failure leading to an erosion

of the ability of US firms to innovate and move into new

higher-valued technological sectors is the increasingly

short-term horizons of the nation’s financial institutions.

This has forced firms to concentrate on short-term profits

and financial engineering."

I certainly agree with this; in fact, I think this problem is probably also the cause of the first two problems he identifies, and this goes back to the comment above ("Second Problem", discussion of "d" versus "w2")

Comment #5

p85:

"No country that has gone from poverty to wealth has

done it through market forces alone. At the other end of

the spectrum, most economists who have studied national

economic growth policies would agree that countries that

have depended on picking specific firms, technologies,

or products have not been successful. Picking products

that are likely to be commercially successful, or picking

companies that are going to be profitable, requires deep

insights into market dynamics, competitive conditions,

and customer needs. These are capabilities that even the

best civil servants do not have. And once such decisions

are in the hands of government, they become subject to

the distortions of the political process, including pressures

from special interest groups and political constituencies".

I think this is what Deng Xiaoping was saying. But Deng, as a Marxist, could see the dangers of allowing the entrepreneurs to take control of the overall direction, which is what they have done, and created the problems that Sainsbury alludes to below. Deng's "Leninist" policies (vanguard party as the surrogate agency of the proletariat) has so far dealt with this quite well. My concern though is contained in that word "surrogate": how is continuity of this "surrogacy" to be maintained? There is always the risk that the "vanguard" will simply merge with the entrepreneurs and "neoclassical economics" will then take over. I am worried that no mechanisms can be seen to safeguard against this in China.

Comment #6

p. 86, penultimate paragraph:

"...policy-makers in these countries have to find

a way of remunerating the managers of their firms so that

they are incentivized to compete over the long haul. If

they are rewarded only for short-term movements in the

share prices of their companies, it should not be surprising

if they spend time manipulating those share prices with

share buybacks, rather than making long-term investments

in research and innovation."

The Marxist response to this is that for these rational arguments to hold sway, a change in the power balance of the class struggle will be needed. The "neoclassical economists" (if I have understood the term correctly) represent the interests of the modern "rentier" class of capitalists (hedge fund managers, etc). These people favour Brexit. The more traditional, manufacturing, capitalists find their viewpoint more closely expressed by the FT, and were opposed to Brexit. They are the old "one-nation" branch of the Tory Party that were so effectively vanquished by Johnson/Cummings in 2019[1]. The working class is now, in post-industrial, "gig economy" Britain, lacking any effective organisation, and negotiating power, and is being seduced by the sirens of populism, nationalism and worse.

Comment #7

(Referring to the same text as Comment #8) Sainsbury draws attention to the "manipulation of share prices .... rather than investments in research and innovation". In Comment #2, I referred to the omission of such "true" investment from Equations 1 and 4. Equation 4 (my preference) should be further expanded to:

p = m + w1 + w2+ d + r (where "r" is investment in R&D etc) "Equation 6"

Obviously, to increase "r", "d" must fall, and vice versa, leading to the situation that Sainsbury abhors in this text

[1]"One-nation Tories", the political expression of manufacturing capitalism, had learned that it was wise to allow "w2" to expand, to some extent, at the expense of "d". The reasons for this are complex, but the power of unionized workers was certainly part of it (see "Comment #2)

#neoclassical economists

0 notes

circlesfitness-blog · 7 years

Text

White anxiety

The rise of the black intellectuals

Fear can be caused by a lot of threats and often than not people are never knowledgeable of the best action to take when confronted by it. Different people deal with fear in different ways. When fear presents itself, the natural reaction is to either fight or flight. Even so there are school of thoughts that suggest that fear is nothing but an illusion, an emotion of nothingness. In this post I will be reflecting on the content of the course discussing my opinions about responses to and experiences of digital media as it relates to the cultural life. I will be looking specifically at ‘White Anxiety’ and I will substantiate my discussion with reference to examples from my own knowledge as well as from the course material. My blog will include links, memes, gifs, images and other digital content, as well as citations from academic books and articles to further support my point.

White anxiety is a term used to describe the fear and panic experienced by white people in contemporary South Africa. When talking about ‘White’ here we are referring to the structural notions of race and not necessarily people or individuals. The anxiety is mainly caused by the rhetorical discursive statements and ‘white talk’ repertoire of conversation amongst white South Africans. The sense is that they are permanently at risk, and under some sort of threat. Generally crime rates in South Africa are very high, and poor black people who live in rural areas and townships are the most susceptible to it. Statistically the idea that only white people are under threat or some sort of attack is unfounded and data does not back it up. White anxiety comes from the racial discourse from years of apartheid and colonialism “black South Africans suffered social and economic discrimination for many years under the apartheid regime. White South Africans occupied a position of privilege in the socio-economic arena by virtue of their colour” (Wambugu, 2005:57). That is no longer happening, and that is the true source of the anxiety.

According to Wambugu (2005) the tables turned in favour of the previously marginalised and racialized group when the apartheid regime was replaced by a democratically elected black government in April of 1994. The general fear is that black people can oppress them as apartheid did to black people. To some extent the fear has become some sort of a reality to them, according ‘white talk’, as in, instead of confronting the aftermaths of apartheid, let us redirect fear by distorting reality and cry foul. Well, Steyn (2001) as cited in Wambugu (2005) further states that in the new South Africa, whiteness is perceived as a disadvantage since the privilege that accompanied it has been suspended (Steyn, 2001 as cited in Wambugu, 2005). The manifestation of this frustration has turned into fear and distortion of reality. Hence they want to believe that they are under some sort of attack and their lives are at risk instead of addressing the impact apartheid had on black people.

Truth is, the power of whiteness seems to be diminishing with time and the dominance of whiteness is becoming unclear. The line is blurring out. Which means that white people are loosing control and power they’ve enjoyed in the past and that frustrates them in that all that privilege is no longer there for them to enjoy. The hegemonic power systems and policies such as apartheid are no longer there to help maintain their power. Their ideological ideas that whiteness is pure and classy are no longer dominant in black peoples psyche and that creates the anxiety. So within the digital space whiteness is trying to strengthen itself through discourse and displaying racial protests using ideological cross dressing. Examples online campaigns like #Red October & #BlackMonday. Even though a lot of them still enjoy the generational wealth gained from exploitation of black people.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, says that defence mechanism redirects anxiety by distorting reality. According to Freud, an individual’s feelings, thoughts, and behaviours are the result of the interaction of the id, the superego, and the ego (what makes up the personality of an individual). Santosa further explains that they are continually in conflict with one another. This conflict generates anxiety. If the ego did not effectively handle the resulting anxiety, people would be so overwhelmed with anxiety that they would not be able to carry on with the tasks of everyday living. The ego tries to control anxiety (i.e., to reduce anxiety) through the use of ego defence mechanisms. Furthermore Santosa states that defence mechanisms operate at an unconscious level. We are not aware of them during the time that we are actually using them. However, we may later become aware of their previous operation and use. Agreeably “fear is the screaming physical response to the threats of injury or to threats to survival, it is a response to the obscurity of the unknown. Or fear is an ideological formation, an affect we learn in response to cultural and political prompts” (Coole & Frost, 2010:158).

Indeed this anxiety is out of fear posed by cultural and political discourses. The ideological notion of whiteness and westernised ways of life seems to be diminishing a lot when it comes to black people in contemporary South Africa, particularly black intellectuals. Historically black intellectuals are key players in the transformation of the country, in his book Gerhart (1978) recounts events of historical importance, but primary emphasis is on the intellectual dimension of black political history and in particular on the interplay of ideologies which has marked the post-war era and which has brought many present-day African intellectuals to their current Black power perspective.

Robert Sobukwe is a major figure with an international reputation. Ditshego (2012) wrote in his article about how Sobukwe was totally against white supremacy and stated so in no uncertain terms, quoting Robert Sobukwe: “In Africa the myth of race has been propounded and propagated by the imperialists and colonialists from Europe, in order to facilitate and justify their inhuman exploitation of the indigenous people of the land. “It is from this myth of race with its attendant claims of cultural superiority that the doctrine of white supremacy stem” (The Star). Robert Sobukwe like Steven Bantu Biko are the black intellectuals who have inspired a lot of the rising intellectuals in contemporary South Africa today, and that I feel is what is most contentious with white people in South Africa. Black people are waking up to education and many of them building their own businesses and taking their rightful place in the economy of the country. They are no longer that submissive garden boy who slaves away all day in the sun or that submissive helper who is raising white people’s children, while her own children are left alone at home without their mother. Black people are now educated and informed and passing on the knowledge to other black people. There is a silent black intellectual movement.

The rising black intellectuals are unapologetically pro-black and understand what apartheid was and what it did to the black nation and swear not to go back there. The black nation is slowly and surely building a space where black people can flourish without the dependency on white people. For example Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF), rising South African political party, “members are expected to study and apply the theoretical line of the organisation being Marxist, Leninist and Fanonian philosophical thought and tools of analysis in a living way” (EFF online constitution), which means you have to be registered with a higher learning institution to be a member.

When it comes to business in relation to digital media. A lot of black businesses are using social media to promote and market their businesses and build a rich network of black intellectuals and likeminded ‘brownies’. Brownsense is one such platform for black entrepreneurs “it is about the promotion of Black business, creating an easily accessible database of Black owned businesses and professionals, and building and enhancing a community of like-minded people” (Brownsense). If ever there was a time for black people to stick together and pursue their dreams, it's now. Mzuzukile Soni, CEO and founder of Brownsense, shares why he created a platform that empowers and celebrates black business owners “SA is budding with young black entrepreneurs who have decided to take control of their financial freedom and are part of the ‘vukuzenzele’ phenomenon. Hashtags like #BlackExcellence and #unapologeticallyblack, have seen the deliberate celebration of black pride, something we reckon is long overdue” (Mbhete, 2016). Futhermore “With a membership of over 17 000, Brownsense is a growing platform that enables anyone who wants to buy black to do so. On the Facebook group, also named Brownsense, one will find black-owned businesses as well as customers who are in search of certain products or services” (Mbhete, 2016).

Initiatives like these are popping up everywhere around black communities, ideas of buying black are becoming an everyday narrative amongst black communities. Blacks are becoming more and more conscious of who they are and are expressing it through their everyday life in everything they do while also claiming their place in the economic landscape of South Africa through flourishing in business. White anxiety is just the heat felt from the rising black intellectuals. It is a defence mechanism that is meant to redirect by distorting reality and rather play victims instead of confronting the real issues underlying the aftermaths of apartheid and the impact it had on black people.

Bibliography

Brownsense. http://www.brownsense.co.za/.

Ditshego, S. 2012. Intellectual with a vision for Africa. The Star. February 29.

Economic Freedom Fighters. http://www.effonline.org/constitution.

Frost, S. 2010. Fear and the Illusion of Autonomy. In: Coole, D. & Frost, S. (eds) New Materialisms: Ontology, Agency, and Politics. Duke University Press.

Gerhart, G. M. 1978. Black Power in South Africa: The Evolution of an Ideology. University of California Press.

Mbhete, B. 2016. Brownsense founder on why he created a platform for black people. Destiny Connect.com. October 12

Wambugu, j. 2005. ‘when tables turn: discursive constructions of whites as victims of affirmative action in post-apartheid south Africa’. Psychology in Society 31, pp. 57-70.

Santosa, E. T. Theories Personality & Assessment

x��2^p