Capitalism
Yes, of course you must study the images too. What's up with that? They were not included here to simply amuse your pet mouse!
Yes, of course you must study the images too. What's up with that? They were not included here to simply amuse your pet mouse!
This term refers to both a socio-economic system and the ideology that justifies this system. At the simplest level capitalism, as a socio-economic system, can be described as an interdependent but inherently antagonistic class-based system in which the overall objective is limitless acquisition of wealth for its own sake (accumulation) by the few (the bourgeoisie) at the expense of the many, the masses (also referred to as the working classes or the proletariat), on the basis of profit-driven (surplus appropriation) expanded reproduction of investment capital against the backdrop of private ownership of economic property by the few—legitimated by means of monopolization of political power (in practice), and thence the coercive powers of the state, by the bourgeoisie, coupled with the socialization of all members of society in the precepts of capitalist ideology, of which three are salient: the inviolable sanctity of private ownership of economic property, the legitimacy of imposing on society negative economic externalities, and the belief in the illusory concept of meritocracy. (See also: ideology, class, accumulation, bourgeoisie, surplus appropriation, capital, state, society, externalities, meritocracy socialization.)
This term refers to both a socio-economic system and the ideology that justifies this system. At the simplest level capitalism, as a socio-economic system, can be described as an interdependent but inherently antagonistic class-based system in which the overall objective is limitless acquisition of wealth for its own sake (accumulation) by the few (the bourgeoisie) at the expense of the many, the masses (also referred to as the working classes or the proletariat), on the basis of profit-driven (surplus appropriation) expanded reproduction of investment capital against the backdrop of private ownership of economic property by the few—legitimated by means of monopolization of political power (in practice), and thence the coercive powers of the state, by the bourgeoisie, coupled with the socialization of all members of society in the precepts of capitalist ideology, of which three are salient: the inviolable sanctity of private ownership of economic property, the legitimacy of imposing on society negative economic externalities, and the belief in the illusory concept of meritocracy. (See also: ideology, class, accumulation, bourgeoisie, surplus appropriation, capital, state, society, externalities, meritocracy socialization.)
Capitalism as a socio-economic system first emerged in Western Europe around the fifteenth century following the collapse of feudalism, but which does not come into its own until the advent of industrial revolution some three hundred years later, around the middle of the eighteenth century.[1] This is not to suggest that prior to this period there were no capitalists. In fact capitalists were present as far back as the ancient civilizations of Babylonia in the form of merchants. The difference however is that in these civilizations capitalism was not a universal economic system in which all members of society were participants—either as workers/peasants or as capitalist entrepreneurs. For capitalism to exist as a universal economic system it is not enough that only some members are involved in profit-making activities whereas the rest are involved in other forms of production systems, such as the feudal system or subsistence system. The entire society must become involved in which there is not only simple profit‑making via trade but also profit‑making via what may be termed as “expanded reproduction of capital.” That is the continuous process of investment and re‑investment of profits (capital) in order to continuously expand its magnitude. In such a system everything has a potential to become a commodity that can be bought and sold, including labor‑power (provided by workers) and capital (provided by banks). Therefore, capitalism signifies an economic system in which three types of markets interact: the labor market, the capital market, and the exchange market (the selling and buying of goods) with the sole purpose of generating profits for those who own the means of production: the capitalists. Such a system is only possible under conditions where a group of people in society, workers, are completely at the mercy of another group, capitalists, for their livelihood; for it is only under such conditions that capitalists can obtain labor‑power, without which nothing of value can ever be produced. In other words, capitalism by definition implies the emergence of two principal classes: the capitalist class which has a complete monopoly over the means of production (be it land, factories, and so on) and the working class which has no access to the means of production, and therefore must sell their labor‑power to the capitalist class in order to survive.[2]
Capitalism as a socio-economic system first emerged in Western Europe around the fifteenth century following the collapse of feudalism, but which does not come into its own until the advent of industrial revolution some three hundred years later, around the middle of the eighteenth century.[1] This is not to suggest that prior to this period there were no capitalists. In fact capitalists were present as far back as the ancient civilizations of Babylonia in the form of merchants. The difference however is that in these civilizations capitalism was not a universal economic system in which all members of society were participants—either as workers/peasants or as capitalist entrepreneurs. For capitalism to exist as a universal economic system it is not enough that only some members are involved in profit-making activities whereas the rest are involved in other forms of production systems, such as the feudal system or subsistence system. The entire society must become involved in which there is not only simple profit‑making via trade but also profit‑making via what may be termed as “expanded reproduction of capital.” That is the continuous process of investment and re‑investment of profits (capital) in order to continuously expand its magnitude. In such a system everything has a potential to become a commodity that can be bought and sold, including labor‑power (provided by workers) and capital (provided by banks). Therefore, capitalism signifies an economic system in which three types of markets interact: the labor market, the capital market, and the exchange market (the selling and buying of goods) with the sole purpose of generating profits for those who own the means of production: the capitalists. Such a system is only possible under conditions where a group of people in society, workers, are completely at the mercy of another group, capitalists, for their livelihood; for it is only under such conditions that capitalists can obtain labor‑power, without which nothing of value can ever be produced. In other words, capitalism by definition implies the emergence of two principal classes: the capitalist class which has a complete monopoly over the means of production (be it land, factories, and so on) and the working class which has no access to the means of production, and therefore must sell their labor‑power to the capitalist class in order to survive.[2]
Folks, in this task of explaining to you what capitalism is, there are a number of additional points to which I must draw your attention:
Folks, in this task of explaining to you what capitalism is, there are a number of additional points to which I must draw your attention:
(a) The drive to make profits as a result of competition (see above) not only fuels the innovation process in production techniques as new ways are always being sought to reduce costs as well as improve quality of products (which in turn require greater profits to pay for the research and innovation), but also forces capitalists to seek out new markets and sources of cheap raw materials beyond the borders of the country in which they are located, giving rise to transnational firms. One implication of this fact is that it is in the interest of transnationals to ensure that no region of the world is closed to them—in case they may need to extend their activities there (to invest, to sell goods, to develop raw materials sources, and so on). The push to open up the Antarctic region to capitalist activities is symptomatic of this inherent need by capitalists to extend their range of actual and potential activities to all corners of the globe; regardless of the disastrous environmental consequences that may ensue, not only for the Antarctic region but the planet itself. Since socialist economic systems do not permit private capitalist activity countries that acquire socialist economic systems are by definition enemies of transnationals. It is this issue that lay at the heart of what used to be called the cold war; the United States and its allies had an innate fear of the Soviet Union assisting PQD nations in instituting socialist economic systems. But how does one explain the fact that even a supposedly socialist country such as China now has transnationals operating within its borders? The simple answer is that it no longer has a socialist economic system. Its economy is a mixed economic system comprising partially state-owned and partially (or wholly) privately-owned capitalist enterprises. In fact, with the phasing out of centralized economic planning—an important characteristic of socialist economies—the economy that has emerged is essentially one of a fusion of state and private capitalism. (State capitalism is a system where the owner of the capitalist enterprise is not a private individual or a group of private individuals but the state.) It is for this reason that the cold war is now dead.
(a) The drive to make profits as a result of competition (see above) not only fuels the innovation process in production techniques as new ways are always being sought to reduce costs as well as improve quality of products (which in turn require greater profits to pay for the research and innovation), but also forces capitalists to seek out new markets and sources of cheap raw materials beyond the borders of the country in which they are located, giving rise to transnational firms. One implication of this fact is that it is in the interest of transnationals to ensure that no region of the world is closed to them—in case they may need to extend their activities there (to invest, to sell goods, to develop raw materials sources, and so on). The push to open up the Antarctic region to capitalist activities is symptomatic of this inherent need by capitalists to extend their range of actual and potential activities to all corners of the globe; regardless of the disastrous environmental consequences that may ensue, not only for the Antarctic region but the planet itself. Since socialist economic systems do not permit private capitalist activity countries that acquire socialist economic systems are by definition enemies of transnationals. It is this issue that lay at the heart of what used to be called the cold war; the United States and its allies had an innate fear of the Soviet Union assisting PQD nations in instituting socialist economic systems. But how does one explain the fact that even a supposedly socialist country such as China now has transnationals operating within its borders? The simple answer is that it no longer has a socialist economic system. Its economy is a mixed economic system comprising partially state-owned and partially (or wholly) privately-owned capitalist enterprises. In fact, with the phasing out of centralized economic planning—an important characteristic of socialist economies—the economy that has emerged is essentially one of a fusion of state and private capitalism. (State capitalism is a system where the owner of the capitalist enterprise is not a private individual or a group of private individuals but the state.) It is for this reason that the cold war is now dead.
(b) The political system that accompanies capitalism can be of any kind—so long as it does not interfere with the capitalist processes of making profits. Hence a monarchical form of government, a ruthless military dictatorship, a fascist government, a racist government, a parliamentary democratic government, a multiparty presidential government, a benign civilian dictatorship, etc., can all be at home with capitalist economic systems. Democracy therefore is not intrinsic to capitalism, just as political tyranny is not intrinsic to socialist economic systems—except in the case of the Leninist‑Stalinist versions (sadly the only ones that have been in existence hitherto). While my classes are usually replete with criticisms of the capitalist system this should not be taken to imply that there is a surreptitious plea for the wholesale abandonment of it; however desirable that may be, reality (both conceptually and politically) precludes that. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that in capitalist societies the role of democracy is to temper the worst excesses of the capitalist system, which one must be remember is intrinsically antithetical to economic development in the fullest sense (requires paying heed to the agenda of authentic democracy) given its obsession with economic growth, the objective of which is accumulation for its own sake.
(b) The political system that accompanies capitalism can be of any kind—so long as it does not interfere with the capitalist processes of making profits. Hence a monarchical form of government, a ruthless military dictatorship, a fascist government, a racist government, a parliamentary democratic government, a multiparty presidential government, a benign civilian dictatorship, etc., can all be at home with capitalist economic systems. Democracy therefore is not intrinsic to capitalism, just as political tyranny is not intrinsic to socialist economic systems—except in the case of the Leninist‑Stalinist versions (sadly the only ones that have been in existence hitherto). While my classes are usually replete with criticisms of the capitalist system this should not be taken to imply that there is a surreptitious plea for the wholesale abandonment of it; however desirable that may be, reality (both conceptually and politically) precludes that. On the other hand, it is important to emphasize that in capitalist societies the role of democracy is to temper the worst excesses of the capitalist system, which one must be remember is intrinsically antithetical to economic development in the fullest sense (requires paying heed to the agenda of authentic democracy) given its obsession with economic growth, the objective of which is accumulation for its own sake.
(c) In order to fully comprehend the sources of social change in capitalist societies one must study the political behavior of the two principal groups in these societies: the capitalist class and the working class; that is, the two groups that are mutually antagonistic toward each other as a result of the specific relationship each has to the production process (exploiter and exploited).[3]
(c) In order to fully comprehend the sources of social change in capitalist societies one must study the political behavior of the two principal groups in these societies: the capitalist class and the working class; that is, the two groups that are mutually antagonistic toward each other as a result of the specific relationship each has to the production process (exploiter and exploited).[3]
(d) On a global scale, capitalism has evolved over the past several decades, beginning in the 1950s, to become, today, what one may call techno-financial monopoly capitalism where a few large transnational corporations—supported by equally large transnational monopoly banks--relying on a stupendous base of technical and financial resources unprecedented in human history, dominate the global economy, often stifling competition, fixing prices, brutalizing and super-exploiting labor, globalizing supply chains, etc., in their insatiable thirst for profits as they march to the drumbeat of limitless accumulation of wealth for its own sake. The rise of these capitalist conglomerate behemoths has also been accompanied by a decidedly destructive approach to both people and the environment so that it makes sense today to talk about “destructive capitalism” versus “constructive capitalism.”
(d) On a global scale, capitalism has evolved over the past several decades, beginning in the 1950s, to become, today, what one may call techno-financial monopoly capitalism where a few large transnational corporations—supported by equally large transnational monopoly banks--relying on a stupendous base of technical and financial resources unprecedented in human history, dominate the global economy, often stifling competition, fixing prices, brutalizing and super-exploiting labor, globalizing supply chains, etc., in their insatiable thirst for profits as they march to the drumbeat of limitless accumulation of wealth for its own sake. The rise of these capitalist conglomerate behemoths has also been accompanied by a decidedly destructive approach to both people and the environment so that it makes sense today to talk about “destructive capitalism” versus “constructive capitalism.”
(e) A question that emerges whenever capitalism is the subject of discussion at a general level is whether it is possible to make money while doing good? The answer is yes and no. No, in the sense that capitalism is a fundamentally exploitative system that requires unjustified inequality in society. Yes, in the sense that in a democratic capitalist society that has such key features as the rule of law and a robust social safety net, then the missing piece becomes ethical capitalism or socially responsible capitalism in creating a capitalist society that is humane. In other words, this form of capitalism is a "humanized" form of capitalism (in contrast to a predatory form of capitalism).
(e) A question that emerges whenever capitalism is the subject of discussion at a general level is whether it is possible to make money while doing good? The answer is yes and no. No, in the sense that capitalism is a fundamentally exploitative system that requires unjustified inequality in society. Yes, in the sense that in a democratic capitalist society that has such key features as the rule of law and a robust social safety net, then the missing piece becomes ethical capitalism or socially responsible capitalism in creating a capitalist society that is humane. In other words, this form of capitalism is a "humanized" form of capitalism (in contrast to a predatory form of capitalism).
(f) You will find in the literature a very adamant view that the analysis of the social structures of capitalist societies (like this one) does not need to consider the matter of “race” (or “gender” for that matter) because it is in reality an ideological epiphenomenon. It is “class” that must be the only focus of attention. At one level, this view is correct as this thought experiment should quickly reveal: if tomorrow this entire society became racially homogeneous would structural inequality disappear? The answer of course is no. Class would still remain as the determinant of the social structure. To make things clearer, I am briefly laying out below the basic elements of a theoretical formulation that explains the relationship between class and race in a capitalist democracy. However, before I proceed let me first draw your attention to the issue of “specificity”: what follows is not concerned with a “generic” democratic capitalist society, rather it deals specifically with the United States; that is, a society that is characterized not only by a capitalist democratic system but also a history in which race has not only been a permanent subtext, but at times the text itself. (Recall that the colonization project that brought the Europeans to the Americas was also at one and the same time a “racist” project involving, at its worst, the genocidal murder of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans.) Given this fact, the theoretical task is to coherently weave together three things: race, class, and law to arrive at a cogent understanding of the nature of U.S. capitalist democracy. So, there is a “poster flowchart” I have prepared that attempts to do just that. Make sure you study it carefully. Its available here.
(f) You will find in the literature a very adamant view that the analysis of the social structures of capitalist societies (like this one) does not need to consider the matter of “race” (or “gender” for that matter) because it is in reality an ideological epiphenomenon. It is “class” that must be the only focus of attention. At one level, this view is correct as this thought experiment should quickly reveal: if tomorrow this entire society became racially homogeneous would structural inequality disappear? The answer of course is no. Class would still remain as the determinant of the social structure. To make things clearer, I am briefly laying out below the basic elements of a theoretical formulation that explains the relationship between class and race in a capitalist democracy. However, before I proceed let me first draw your attention to the issue of “specificity”: what follows is not concerned with a “generic” democratic capitalist society, rather it deals specifically with the United States; that is, a society that is characterized not only by a capitalist democratic system but also a history in which race has not only been a permanent subtext, but at times the text itself. (Recall that the colonization project that brought the Europeans to the Americas was also at one and the same time a “racist” project involving, at its worst, the genocidal murder of Native Americans and the enslavement of Africans.) Given this fact, the theoretical task is to coherently weave together three things: race, class, and law to arrive at a cogent understanding of the nature of U.S. capitalist democracy. So, there is a “poster flowchart” I have prepared that attempts to do just that. Make sure you study it carefully. Its available here.
(g) Are there any socialist economies in the world today? The answer is no. What about the former communist countries of China and Russia? The Chinese economic system is based on what we may call dirigiste capitalism, where in addition to the hegemonic role of the state within the economy, it is characterized by, on one hand, a very high degree of extra-legal appropriation of surplus by kleptocratic totalitarian elites (at all levels: national, regional and local), and on the other, the socialization of the costs of its production among the masses. As for Russia, its economy is similar to the capitalist economies in the West, with one exception: it functions under the hegemony of highly kleptocratic authoritarian elites (as before, during the Soviet era).
(g) Are there any socialist economies in the world today? The answer is no. What about the former communist countries of China and Russia? The Chinese economic system is based on what we may call dirigiste capitalism, where in addition to the hegemonic role of the state within the economy, it is characterized by, on one hand, a very high degree of extra-legal appropriation of surplus by kleptocratic totalitarian elites (at all levels: national, regional and local), and on the other, the socialization of the costs of its production among the masses. As for Russia, its economy is similar to the capitalist economies in the West, with one exception: it functions under the hegemony of highly kleptocratic authoritarian elites (as before, during the Soviet era).
NOTES
NOTES
[1]. The factors that were responsible for this transition to a new economic system is a matter of intense debate—see for example Dobb et al. (1976) and Brenner (1977).
[1]. The factors that were responsible for this transition to a new economic system is a matter of intense debate—see for example Dobb et al. (1976) and Brenner (1977).
[2]. But how does this division arise given that at some point in history all in a society had access to the principal means of production: land? The answer is force and violence; not, as the capitalists tend to assert, talent, ability, or intelligence. To take the examples of the United States and South Africa: the mechanism by which a group of people were rendered workers and another capitalists was force and violence. Through force and violence the early European settlers stole the land from the native inhabitants and divided it up among themselves. Later, once all the land had been taken, newcomers had to buy the land from the original settlers—setting in motion the usual capitalist processes of using land for agricultural, or mining, or residential or other uses to generate profits that would later be invested in factories and other commercial enterprises. In this way there arose two principal classes in both countries: capitalists and workers. Similarly in Western Europe, through force and violence the serfs lost the right to farm their land to an emergent capitalist class (comprising some members of the nobility and newly wealthy entrepreneurs) during the process of the transition from feudalism to capitalism and became as a result agrarian and industrial workers.
[2]. But how does this division arise given that at some point in history all in a society had access to the principal means of production: land? The answer is force and violence; not, as the capitalists tend to assert, talent, ability, or intelligence. To take the examples of the United States and South Africa: the mechanism by which a group of people were rendered workers and another capitalists was force and violence. Through force and violence the early European settlers stole the land from the native inhabitants and divided it up among themselves. Later, once all the land had been taken, newcomers had to buy the land from the original settlers—setting in motion the usual capitalist processes of using land for agricultural, or mining, or residential or other uses to generate profits that would later be invested in factories and other commercial enterprises. In this way there arose two principal classes in both countries: capitalists and workers. Similarly in Western Europe, through force and violence the serfs lost the right to farm their land to an emergent capitalist class (comprising some members of the nobility and newly wealthy entrepreneurs) during the process of the transition from feudalism to capitalism and became as a result agrarian and industrial workers.
The roots of capitalist classes therefore are to be found in history where invariably money tainted with the blood of others (e.g., serfs, native inhabitants, slaves, and so on) formed the basis of their genesis. The most recent example of a capitalist class in formation is, of course, in present-day Eastern Europe, China (and South Africa as well, in the case of the emerging compradorial black capitalist class). Those bureaucrats who had managed to accumulate privileges and contacts while they were in office are finding it much easier to convert these privileges into sources of support for their entrepreneurial activity. The arrival of capitalism in Eastern Europe has given a second life to the former high-level Communist bureaucrats (ironically, the very group responsible for bankrupting the economies of Eastern Europe when they were in charge). But how does one explain the fact that today there are examples of people who have become rich through, seemingly, their own talent and ability? The answer is that to be sure some at the individual level do become rich and join the ranks of the capitalist class through their own efforts (perhaps they win a lottery and invest the proceeds, or they have unusual entertainment talent—acting, singing, sports and so on—that allows them access to large sums of money that they then invest in businesses). However, a close scrutiny of the background of the rest of the so-called self‑made people will reveal that they had advantages and “breaks” associated with coming from a capitalist class background (e.g., education, the right skin color, the right gender, adequate nutrition that did not stunt their brain development while growing up, right connections through their parents and/or other relatives, and so on), or in the case of the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe associated with coming from a high‑level Communist bureaucratic background. It will, therefore, come as a shock to many to realize that in all modern capitalist countries of the West, the majority of the working class and the capitalist class can trace their roots going as far back as thousands of years in history when the first divisions began to take place in society (with the emergence of settled agriculture) between those who produced products via their own labor (the ruled), and those who consumed what others produced (the rulers or the nobility). In other words, regardless of the various transformations of economic systems, class divisions have remained remarkably constant in terms of who the occupants of these divisions have been. Today’s working class in OD countries has a long, long history of being exploited that predates capitalism. Therefore, the idea that people achieve wealth, status and power via their own personal efforts, embodied in the so-called “mobility dream” (meritocracy) that is so widespread in many capitalist societies is in reality a myth. (See Li 1988 for more on this idea and its fallacies, as well as the entry on meritocracy in this glossary.)
The roots of capitalist classes therefore are to be found in history where invariably money tainted with the blood of others (e.g., serfs, native inhabitants, slaves, and so on) formed the basis of their genesis. The most recent example of a capitalist class in formation is, of course, in present-day Eastern Europe, China (and South Africa as well, in the case of the emerging compradorial black capitalist class). Those bureaucrats who had managed to accumulate privileges and contacts while they were in office are finding it much easier to convert these privileges into sources of support for their entrepreneurial activity. The arrival of capitalism in Eastern Europe has given a second life to the former high-level Communist bureaucrats (ironically, the very group responsible for bankrupting the economies of Eastern Europe when they were in charge). But how does one explain the fact that today there are examples of people who have become rich through, seemingly, their own talent and ability? The answer is that to be sure some at the individual level do become rich and join the ranks of the capitalist class through their own efforts (perhaps they win a lottery and invest the proceeds, or they have unusual entertainment talent—acting, singing, sports and so on—that allows them access to large sums of money that they then invest in businesses). However, a close scrutiny of the background of the rest of the so-called self‑made people will reveal that they had advantages and “breaks” associated with coming from a capitalist class background (e.g., education, the right skin color, the right gender, adequate nutrition that did not stunt their brain development while growing up, right connections through their parents and/or other relatives, and so on), or in the case of the former Communist countries of Eastern Europe associated with coming from a high‑level Communist bureaucratic background. It will, therefore, come as a shock to many to realize that in all modern capitalist countries of the West, the majority of the working class and the capitalist class can trace their roots going as far back as thousands of years in history when the first divisions began to take place in society (with the emergence of settled agriculture) between those who produced products via their own labor (the ruled), and those who consumed what others produced (the rulers or the nobility). In other words, regardless of the various transformations of economic systems, class divisions have remained remarkably constant in terms of who the occupants of these divisions have been. Today’s working class in OD countries has a long, long history of being exploited that predates capitalism. Therefore, the idea that people achieve wealth, status and power via their own personal efforts, embodied in the so-called “mobility dream” (meritocracy) that is so widespread in many capitalist societies is in reality a myth. (See Li 1988 for more on this idea and its fallacies, as well as the entry on meritocracy in this glossary.)
People do not choose to become poor, homeless and unemployed; structural conditions of the capitalist system ensures that a significant segment of society that has been historically discriminated against, through the use of force and violence, remains within the class of workers and the unemployed. Moreover, a simple thought experiment will drive home the point that other factors besides talent, ability and the capacity for hard work are involved when seeking membership to the capitalist class: supposing that all within the United States or South Africa, regardless of race, gender or any other biological attribute, suddenly became equal in terms of these three factors, would they all become rich and members of the capitalist class overnight? The answer obviously is in the negative. The fact is that the enjoyment of wealth, power and status by a minority group of people, whether in a single country or in the world, is dependent upon the denial of these to the rest of the population in a context of scarce resources that cannot permit all to have gourmet three-course meals, chauffeur‑driven expensive luxury cars, unlimited supply of spending money, luxury mansions with tennis courts and swimming pools, vacations in exotic places, servants, expensive cloths, all kinds of sophisticated electronic gadgetry, and so on. The system that today permits this massive inequality without making it appear unfair and unjust to both the capitalist class and the underprivileged is the capitalist system. The idea, propagated via the concept of the “mobility dream,” that all have an equal chance to enjoy such a life‑style, but only if they work hard and use their talent and ability, is a myth that helps to justify the existence of a system that conceals the inherent inequalities it engenders via the impersonal operation of market forces where those with initial advantages (derived from the past) remain the constant winners. The irony in all this, of course, is that among the staunchest believers of the mythology of the mobility dream are the very victims of the capitalist system: the workers, the unemployed and the poor.
People do not choose to become poor, homeless and unemployed; structural conditions of the capitalist system ensures that a significant segment of society that has been historically discriminated against, through the use of force and violence, remains within the class of workers and the unemployed. Moreover, a simple thought experiment will drive home the point that other factors besides talent, ability and the capacity for hard work are involved when seeking membership to the capitalist class: supposing that all within the United States or South Africa, regardless of race, gender or any other biological attribute, suddenly became equal in terms of these three factors, would they all become rich and members of the capitalist class overnight? The answer obviously is in the negative. The fact is that the enjoyment of wealth, power and status by a minority group of people, whether in a single country or in the world, is dependent upon the denial of these to the rest of the population in a context of scarce resources that cannot permit all to have gourmet three-course meals, chauffeur‑driven expensive luxury cars, unlimited supply of spending money, luxury mansions with tennis courts and swimming pools, vacations in exotic places, servants, expensive cloths, all kinds of sophisticated electronic gadgetry, and so on. The system that today permits this massive inequality without making it appear unfair and unjust to both the capitalist class and the underprivileged is the capitalist system. The idea, propagated via the concept of the “mobility dream,” that all have an equal chance to enjoy such a life‑style, but only if they work hard and use their talent and ability, is a myth that helps to justify the existence of a system that conceals the inherent inequalities it engenders via the impersonal operation of market forces where those with initial advantages (derived from the past) remain the constant winners. The irony in all this, of course, is that among the staunchest believers of the mythology of the mobility dream are the very victims of the capitalist system: the workers, the unemployed and the poor.
[3]. But there are many people in capitalist societies who are neither capitalists nor workers; does this mean they are irrelevant? Not at all; except that their political behavior can be best understood by determining how far from or how close to in the production process (or bureaucratic hierarchy) they are to either of the two principal groups. To take an example: in a government bureaucracy the political behavior of those at the top will diverge considerably from those at the bottom; those at the top will most likely have a commonalty of interests with the capitalist class whereas those at the bottom with the working class. (By the way, it is important you understand that it is possible for one person to be classified as either middle class or working class. It all depends on what the purpose of the classification is. Is the purpose to explore power relationships in society, or is it to explore who gets how much in terms of things like income and education.)
[3]. But there are many people in capitalist societies who are neither capitalists nor workers; does this mean they are irrelevant? Not at all; except that their political behavior can be best understood by determining how far from or how close to in the production process (or bureaucratic hierarchy) they are to either of the two principal groups. To take an example: in a government bureaucracy the political behavior of those at the top will diverge considerably from those at the bottom; those at the top will most likely have a commonalty of interests with the capitalist class whereas those at the bottom with the working class. (By the way, it is important you understand that it is possible for one person to be classified as either middle class or working class. It all depends on what the purpose of the classification is. Is the purpose to explore power relationships in society, or is it to explore who gets how much in terms of things like income and education.)