Because, he doesn't actually analyse concretely who it is he means by “the elite”, and because he wants to deny that the fundamental basis is class, he lapses into a lazy equation of the elite with “the super rich”, which, when you look at Trump, seems an easy and obvious connection to make. But, then, it could equally easily be asked, well what then about George Soros, an equally wealthy – probably more wealthy – man, who is the diametric opposite. Soros is a member of the elite, but clearly not the same elite whose views Trump reflects! The term “elite”, therefore, becomes totally meaningless as any kind of analytical tool, though, of course, if, as with Paul, what you want is a narrative not an analysis that is not your main concern.
What this unanchored term “elite” means is also that it can fill different functions, depending on the tale being told at the particular time. For, example, one of the most common phrases used by the reactionaries, as totemic of the culture wars, is “metropolitan elite”. And, indeed, if we were to examine the attitudes of the ruling class, of the people like George Soros, for example, the owners of the vast majority of fictitious-capital, as well as of those that act as their professional managers, protecting that vast paper wealth, the middle-classes that form the core of social-democracy, occupying the mediating role between capital and labour in industry, and in the state, then its true that their ideas, their lifestyle and culture can be summed up in this description – whether, in fact, they live in the metropoles or not.
The material basis of those ideas is not hard to identify. The owners of fictitious-capital, unlike the owners of industrial capital, are not limited to any particular place in which to live. You can live in the US, UK or Russia, and own US shares and bonds, and you can sell them and by shares and bonds in the UK, Russia, China, Japan, or anywhere you choose, instantly, at the press of a computer key, or a phone call to a broker. Its no wonder they have no allegiance to any given state, and want the greatest freedom of movement. And, the professional day to day managers in large-scale socialised capital, even if they don't enjoy such ability for globetrotting, work for multinational companies that operate on a global basis, and whose profits depend upon large single markets, and the same freedom of movement of goods, labour and capital.
But, then, if the narrative is that the reactionary mass is being mobilised by “the elite”, the narrative breaks down, because they clearly are not being mobilised by this “metropolitan elite”, against which that mass is rebelling! The term elite, then, not only has no analytical meaning or usefulness, but is actually dangerously misleading, and prevents any kind of rational analysis. In order to deal with that, it would be necessary to talk not about “the elite”, but “competing elites”, and, then, it would be necessary to analyse and distinguish what is materially different and antagonistic in relation to these elites, which forms the basis of the competition between them. When we do so, we would, actually find that what is being described is not competing elites, but competing classes, on the one hand a reactionary petty-bourgeoisie, and on the other a progressive bourgeoisie and middle-class. That individuals then appear as erratics in one class camp or another is irrelevant, because the Marxist class analysis starts from the objective material interests of different forms of property, not from the individual human beings who appear merely as the personification of those forms of property, and whose individual consciousness is determined by a whole spectrum of different material factors.
If we look at the material basis of the contending ideas of these two classes, which present as different cultural values, then, if we take the totemic issue of Europe, for example, it can be seen that the interests of the bourgeoisie are for a large European single market, because that is the basis for a more rational development of large-scale capital. It enables production on a larger scale, the free movement of goods, labour and capital, and the implementation of common rules, regulations and planning, which are fundamental requirements for large scale socialised capital. As Lenin describes, this is an illustration of where the progressive nature of the bourgeoisie is also aligned with the interests of the working-class, which also seeks this most rapid and rational development of capital.
The ruling class, as owners of fictitious capital, rather than real industrial capital, are not directly concerned with that, as their main concern is the revenues they can obtain from their assets, including from capital gains on those assets, as share prices rise etc., but those revenues and share prices, ultimately, depend upon profits, which are dependent upon these other factors. The opposite is true for the petty-bourgeoisie, whose horizon does not extend beyond the national economy at best, and often only within their own locality, which is the sphere of operation of their labour and capital. For them, the rules and regulations are a burden; the larger capitals simply competition against which they cannot win, even if just in terms of the wages and conditions big capital can provide, and so on.
No comments:
Post a Comment