James Petras
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.
