Capitalism and its defenders
maintain dominance through the ‘material resources’ at their command,
especially the state apparatus, and their productive, financial and
commercial enterprises, as well as through the manipulation of popular
consciousness via ideologues, journalists, academics and publicists
who fabricate the arguments and the language to frame the issues of
the day.
Today
material conditions for the vast majority of working people have sharply
deteriorated as the capitalist class shifts the entire burden of the
crisis and the recovery of their profits onto the backs of wage and
salaried classes. One of the striking aspects of this sustained
and on-going roll-back of living standards is the absence of a major
social upheaval so far. Greece and Spain, with over 50% unemployment
among its 16-24 year olds and nearly 25% general unemployment, have
experienced a dozen general strikes and numerous multi-million person
national protests; but these have failed to produce any real change
in regime or policies. The mass firings and painful salary, wage,
pension and social services cuts continue. In other countries,
like Italy, France and England, protests and discontent find expression
in the electoral arena, with incumbents voted out and replaced by the
traditional opposition. Yet throughout the social turmoil and
profound socio-economic erosion of living and working conditions, the
dominant ideology informing the movements, trade unions and political
opposition is reformist: Issuing calls to defend existing social
benefits, increase public spending and investments and expand the role
of the state where private sector activity has failed to invest or employ.
In other words, the left proposes to conserve a past when capitalism
was harnessed to the welfare state.
The
problem is that this ‘capitalism of the past’ is gone and a new more
virulent and intransigent capitalism has emerged forging a new worldwide
framework and a powerful entrenched state apparatus immune to all calls
for ‘reform’ and reorientation. The confusion, frustration and
misdirection of mass popular opposition is, in part, due to the adoption
by leftist writers, journalists and academics of the concepts and language
espoused by its capitalist adversaries: language designed to obfuscate
the true social relations of brutal exploitation, the central role of
the ruling classes in reversing social gains and the profound links
between the capitalist class and the state. Capitalist publicists,
academics and journalists have elaborated a whole litany of concepts
and terms which perpetuate capitalist rule and distract its critics
and victims from the perpetrators of their steep slide toward mass impoverishment.
Even
as they formulate their critiques and denunciations, the critics of
capitalism use the language and concepts of its apologists. Insofar
as the language of capitalism has entered the general parlance of the
left, the capitalist class has established hegemony or dominance over
its erstwhile adversaries. Worse, the left, by combining some
of the basic concepts of capitalism with sharp criticism, creates illusions
about the possibility of reforming ‘the market’ to serve popular ends.
This fails to identify the principle social forces that must be ousted
from the commanding heights of the economy and the imperative to dismantle
the class-dominated state. While the left denounces the capitalist
crisis and state bailouts, its own poverty of thought undermines the
development of mass political action. In this context the ‘language’
of obfuscation becomes a ‘material force’ a vehicle of capitalist
power, whose primary use is to disorient and disarm its anti-capitalist
and working class adversaries. It does so by co-opting its intellectual
critics through the use of terms, conceptual framework and language
which dominate the discussion of the capitalist crisis.
Key Euphemisms at the Service of the Capitalist Offensive
Euphemisms
have a double meaning: What terms connote and what they really
mean. Euphemistic conceptions under capitalism connote a favorable
reality or acceptable behavior and activity totally dissociated from
the aggrandizement of elite wealth and concentration of power and privilege.
Euphemisms disguise the drive of power elites to impose class-specific
measures and to repress without being properly identified, held responsible
and opposed by mass popular action.
The
most common euphemism is the term ‘market’, which is endowed with human
characteristics and powers. As such, we are told ‘the market demands
wage cuts’ disassociated from the capitalist class. Markets, the
exchange of commodities or the buying and selling of goods, have existed
for thousands of years in different social systems in highly differentiated
contexts. These have been global, national, regional and local.
They involve different socio-economic actors, and comprise very different
economic units, which range from giant state-promoted trading-houses
to semi-subsistence peasant villages and town squares. ‘Markets’
existed in all complex societies: slave, feudal, mercantile and early
and late competitive, monopoly industrial and finance capitalist societies.
When
discussing and analyzing ‘markets’ and to make sense of the transactions
(who benefits and who loses), one must clearly identify the principle
social classes dominating economic transactions. To write in general
about ‘markets’ is deceptive because markets do not exist independent
of the social relations defining what is produced and sold, how it is
produced and what class configurations shape the behavior of producers,
sellers and labor. Today’s market reality is defined by giant
multi-national banks and corporations, which dominate the labor and
commodity markets. To write of ‘markets’ as if they operated in
a sphere above and beyond brutal class inequalities is to hide the essence
of contemporary class relations.
Fundamental to any understanding, but left out of contemporary discussion,
is the unchallenged power of the capitalist owners of the means of production
and distribution, the capitalist ownership of advertising, the capitalist
bankers who provide or deny credit and the capitalist-appointed state
officials who ‘regulate’ or deregulate exchange relations. The
outcomes of their policies are attributed to euphemistic ‘market’ demands
which seem to be divorced from the brutal reality. Therefore,
as the propagandists imply, to go against ‘the market’ is to oppose
the exchange of goods: This is clearly nonsense. In contrast,
to identify capitalist demands on labor, including reductions in wages,
welfare and safety, is to confront a specific exploitative form of market
behavior where capitalists seek to earn higher profits against the interests
and welfare majority of wage and salaried workers.
By
conflating exploitative market relations under capitalism with markets
in general, the ideologues achieve several results: They disguise
the principle role of capitalists while evoking an institution with
positive connotations, that is, a ‘market’ where people purchase consumer
goods and ‘socialize’ with friends and acquaintances. In other
words, when ‘the market’, which is portrayed as a friend and benefactor
of society, imposes painful policies presumably it is for the welfare
of the community. At least that is what the business propagandists
want the public to believe by marketing their virtuous image of the
‘market’; they mask private capital’s predatory behavior as it chases
greater profits.
One
of the most common euphemisms thrown about in the midst of this economic
crisis is ‘austerity’, a term used to cover-up the harsh realities of
draconian cutbacks in wages, salaries, pensions and public welfare and
the sharp increase in regressive taxes (VAT). ‘Austerity’ measures
mean policies to protect and even increase state subsidies to businesses,
and create higher profits for capital and greater inequalities between
the top 10% and the bottom 90%. ‘Austerity’ implies self-discipline,
simplicity, thrift, saving, responsibility, limits on luxuries and spending,
avoidance of immediate gratification for future security a kind of
collective Calvinism. It connotes shared sacrifice today for the
future welfare of all.
However,
in practice ‘austerity’ describes policies that are designed by the
financial elite to implement class-specific reductions in the standard
of living and social services (such as health and education) available
for workers and salaried employees. It means public funds can
be diverted to an even greater extent to pay high interest rates to
wealthy bondholders while subjecting public policy to the dictates of
the overlords of finance capital.
Rather
than talking of ‘austerity’, with its connotation of stern self-discipline,
leftist critics should clearly describe ruling class policies against
the working and salaried classes, which increase inequalities and concentrate
even more wealth and power at the top. ‘Austerity’ policies are
therefore an expression of how the ruling classes use the state to shift
the burden of the cost of their economic crisis onto labor.
The
ideologues of the ruling classes co-opted concepts and terms, which
the left originally used to advance improvements in living standards
and turned them on their heads. Two of these euphemisms, co-opted
from the left, are ‘reform’ and ‘structural adjustment’. ‘Reform’,
for many centuries, referred to changes, which lessened inequalities
and increased popular representation. ‘Reforms’ were positive
changes enhancing public welfare and constraining the abuse of power
by oligarchic or plutocratic regimes. Over the past three decades,
however, leading academic economists, journalists and international
banking officials have subverted the meaning of ‘reform’ into its opposite:
it now refers to the elimination of labor rights, the end of public
regulation of capital and the curtailment of public subsidies making
food and fuel affordable to the poor.
In today’s
capitalist vocabulary ‘reform’ means reversing progressive changes and
restoring the privileges of private monopolies. ‘Reform’ means
ending job security and facilitating massive layoffs of workers by lowering
or eliminating mandatory severance pay. ‘Reform’ no longer means
positive social changes; it now means reversing those hard fought changes
and restoring the unrestrained power of capital. It means a return
to capital’s earlier and most brutal phase, before labor organizations
existed and when class struggle was suppressed. Hence ‘reform’
now means restoring privileges, power and profit for the rich.
In
a similar fashion, the linguistic courtesans of the economic profession
have co-opted the term ‘structural’ as in ‘structural adjustment’ to
service the unbridled power of capital. As late as the 1970’s
‘structural’ change referred to the redistribution of land from the
big landlords to the landless; a shift in power from plutocrats to popular
classes. ‘Structures’ referred to the organization of concentrated
private power in the state and economy. Today, however, ‘structure’
refers to the public institutions and public policies, which grew out
of labor and citizen struggles to provide social security, for protecting
the welfare, health and retirement of workers. ‘Structural changes’
now are the euphemism for smashing those public institutions, ending
the constraints on capital’s predatory behavior and destroying labor’s
capacity to negotiate, struggle or preserve its social advances.
The
term ‘adjustment’, as in ‘structural adjustment’ (SA), is itself a bland
euphemism implying fine-tuning , the careful modulation of public
institutions and policies back to health and balance. But, in reality,
‘structural adjustment’ represents a frontal attack on the public sector
and a wholesale dismantling of protective legislation and public agencies
organized to protect labor, the environment and consumers. ‘Structural
adjustment’ masks a systematic assault on the people’s living standards
for the benefit of the capitalist class.
The
capitalist class has cultivated a crop of economists and journalists
who peddle brutal policies in bland, evasive and deceptive language
in order to neutralize popular opposition. Unfortunately, many
of their ‘leftist’ critics tend to rely on the same terminology.
Given
the widespread corruption of language so pervasive in contemporary discussions
about the crisis of capitalism the left should stop relying on this
deceptive set of euphemisms co-opted by the ruling class. It is
frustrating to see how easily the following terms enter our discourse:
Market discipline The euphemism ‘discipline’ connotes serious, conscientious
strength of character in the face of challenges as opposed to irresponsible,
escapist behavior. In reality, when paired with ‘market’, it refers
to capitalists taking advantage of unemployed workers and using their
political influence and power lay-off masses workers and intimidate
those remaining employees into greater exploitation and overwork, thereby
producing more profit for less pay. It also covers the capacity
of capitalist overlords to raise their rate of profit by slashing the
social costs of production, such as worker and environmental protection,
health coverage and pensions.
‘Market shock’ This refers to capitalists engaging in brutal massive,
abrupt firings, cuts in wages and slashing of health plans and pensions
in order to improve stock quotations, augment profits and secure bigger
bonuses for the bosses. By linking the bland, neutral term, ‘market’
to ‘shock’, the apologists of capital disguise the identity of those
responsible for these measures, their brutal consequences and the immense
benefits enjoyed by the elite.
‘ Market Demands’ This euphemistic phrase is designed to anthropomorphize
an economic category, to diffuse criticism away from real flesh and
blood power-holders, their class interests and their despotic strangle-hold
over labor. Instead of ‘market demands’, the phrase should read:
‘the capitalist class commands the workers to sacrifice their own wages
and health to secure more profit for the multi-national corporations’
a clear concept more likely to arouse the ire of those adversely affected.
‘Free Enterprise’ An euphemism spliced together from two real concepts:
private enterprise for private profit and free competition. By
eliminating the underlying image of private gain for the few against
the interests of the many, the apologists of capital have invented a
concept that emphasizes individual virtues of ‘enterprise’ and ‘freedom’
as opposed to the real economic vices of greed and exploitation.
‘Free Market’ A euphemism implying free, fair and equal competition
in unregulated markets glossing over the reality of market domination
by monopolies and oligopolies dependent on massive state bailouts in
times of capitalist crisis. ‘Free’ refers specifically to the
absence of public regulations and state intervention to defend workers
safety as well as consumer and environmental protection. In other
words, ‘freedom’ masks the wanton destruction of the civic order by
private capitalists through their unbridled exercise of economic and
political power. ‘Free market’ is the euphemism for the absolute
rule of capitalists over the rights and livelihood of millions of citizens,
in essence, a true denial of freedom.
‘Economic Recovery’ This euphemistic phrase means the recovery of
profits by the major corporations. It disguises the total absence
of recovery of living standards for the working and middle classes,
the reversal of social benefits and the economic losses of mortgage
holders, debtors, the long-term unemployed and bankrupted small business
owners. What is glossed over in the term ‘economic recovery’ is how
mass immiseration became a key condition for the recovery of corporate
profits.
‘Privatization’ This describes the transfer of public enterprises,
usually the profitable ones, to well-connected, large scale private
capitalists at prices well below their real value, leading to the loss
of public services, stable public employment and higher costs to consumers
as the new private owners jack up prices and lay-off workers - all in
the name of another euphemism, ‘efficiency’.
‘Efficiency’ Efficiency here refers only to the balance sheets of
an enterprise; it does not reflect the heavy costs of ‘privatization’
borne by related sectors of the economy. For example, ‘privatization’
of transport adds costs to upstream and downstream businesses by making
them less competitive compared with competitors in other countries;
‘privatization’ eliminates services in regions that are less profitable,
leading to local economic collapse and isolation from national markets.
Frequently, public officials, who are aligned with private capitalists,
will deliberately disinvest in public enterprises and appoint incompetent
political cronies as part of patronage politics, in order to degrade
services and foment public discontent. This creates a public opinion
favorable to ‘privatizing’ the enterprise. In other words ‘privatization’
is not a result of the inherent inefficiencies of public enterprises,
as the capitalist ideologues like to argue, but a deliberate political
act designed to enhance private capital gain at the cost of public welfare.
Conclusion
Language,
concepts and euphemisms are important weapons in the class struggle
‘from above’ designed by capitalist journalists and economists to maximize
the wealth and power of capital. To the degree that progressive
and leftist critics adopt these euphemisms and their frame of reference,
their own critiques and the alternatives they propose are limited by
the rhetoric of capital. Putting ‘quotation marks’ around the
euphemisms may be a mark of disapproval but this does nothing to advance
a different analytical framework necessary for successful class struggle
‘from below’. Equally important, it side-steps the need for a
fundamental break with the capitalist system including its corrupted
language and deceptive concepts. Capitalists have overturned the
most fundamental gains of the working class and we are falling back
toward the absolute rule of capital. This must raise anew the
issue of a socialist transformation of the state, economy and class
structure. An integral part of that process must be the complete
rejection of the euphemisms used by capitalist ideologues and their
systematic replacement by terms and concepts that truly reflect the
harsh reality, that clearly identify the perpetrators of this decline
and that define the social agencies for political transformation.
|