Amol Rajan, Media Editor at the BBC, interviewed Greta Thunberg (Tuesday 18th October 2022) about her future – though really her “future in politics”, because without her ‘politics’ would Rajan or the BBC have been that interested in this 19 year old? Thunberg is a political celebrity, famous for being a teenage climate activist who convinced her generation to go on ‘school strike’, and thereby have attention paid to them.
Thunberg (to use the ‘academic’ surname convention since I don’t know her personally) has done an amazing job in foregrounding not simply issues of climate change and climate justice but in asserting the highly moral standpoint that mistakes made today (including failure to adapt social processes quick enough) will be paid for by future generations (obviously her own generation and younger). But what I like most about Thunberg is her (often) straight forward expressions regarding the human condition. Despite her age, or perhaps because of it – just as a 3-year-old child does not understand the principle of ‘private property’ when picking things up in a shop – Thunberg sees what her elders, socialised through decades of ‘reasonable’ discourse and ideological ‘underpinnings’, cannot.
The BBC eventually advertised the interview (on their catch-up service and News websites) by quoting Thunberg’s response to Rajan’s query about her going into politics (or, what would have been a more accurate phrasing, her staying in politics)? What Rajan meant, of course, is the possibility of Thunberg becoming an elected politician (she has never been elected and is thus defined as an ‘activist’) and, by inference, Rajan meant her becoming a ‘professional’ politician.
Thunberg’s immediate reply was unequivocal – “I don’t want to go into politics … [because] … it’s toxic”. She did qualify this with an “at the moment”. However, what Thunberg meant by the toxicity of politics was not that clear from my position as part of the audience.
Did she mean the typically cited ‘polar’ oppositions of ‘party’, identity, or ideological politics at the moment, with their highly divisive characters, postures, and positions (radical / conservative; left-wing / right-wing; liberal / authoritarian) as compared to a more ‘consensual’ form that ‘politics’ could take? Or was Thunberg referring to the wider issue of politicians’ insularity (in the ‘swamp’) from the mass of people (from whom they claim a mandate) with their propensity to fail, spin, and U-turn until they serve established interests?
What I disliked about Rajan’s question, and what I would reject in the way it was posed, is the implication that Thunberg, somehow, is not already ‘in’ (involved with) politics? The question itself – a highly leading one – presumes that ‘politics’ must take a (or one) rather peculiar form (one which Rajan is used to) which essentially refers to electoral and ‘representative’ politics as ‘politics’ in a universal sense.
It should be obvious to any neutral observer that Thunberg is already a ‘politician’ – she is involved in politics as an active citizen, indeed, in ideality, as everyone ‘should be’! Why then would she need to ‘go into’ that peculiar form of politics – the very activity Thunberg describes as ‘toxic’? So far, Thunberg seems to have managed quite capably, admirably, and better than most elected / professional politicians in not being ‘a representative’ of anyone other than herself as a quintessential human being.
In this context, Thunberg’s point that even ‘she’ (in spite of all that has happened, including the way she has been thrust into the public eye) wouldn’t consider a move ‘into’ that politics (because of its toxicity) is a damning criticism of what is notionally and nominally referred to as our ‘democratic political system’.
The Failure of Capitalism (Round 1)
There was, however, an even more interesting question pitched by Rajan, drawn rapidly from his journalistic scabbard, in response to one of Thunberg’s expressional pronouncements. Thunberg referred to “the failure of capitalism”!
Now, it may have appeared that this point or ‘claim’ came out of the blue – a shock not only to the BBC producers, but presumably to their attendant, prospective audience. The phrase “failure of capitalism” isn’t just a question of ‘political bias’ – it goes way beyond that – since the presumption, the doxa, of British culture is that capitalism is just part of nature (not least since this is what standard, establishment ‘economics’ teaches from high school onwards – a position grounded out of socially-constructed education systems since the early 19th century). Surely, Thunberg was trying, now, despite past successes, to defy gravity with mention of such an idea?
However, the claimants of returns on capital could rest easy, since Rajan was ‘on the ball’, and managed to demonstrate he was prepared for his quarry. Perhaps from watching previous coverage of Thunberg, Rajan knew or guessed that this kind of craziness may well come up. Even though Thunberg slipped the phrase “the failure of capitalism” into a longer answer – as if, for her, it was as clear as day that capitalism has failed – it was the point within Thunberg’s response that Rajan quickly returned to (and had to return to). Consequently, he asked, in reference to the failure of capitalism, “hasn’t capitalism lifted 850 million Chinese out of poverty?”
In my own opinion, this question led to the weakest response from Thunberg, who merely reiterated the point that ‘we’ (as a human collective) still must do something to prevent future catastrophe. Yep, I get the underlying point – this is no time to be talking about capitalism versus socialism versus ‘utopianism’ versus whatever. Even if Chinese capitalism has lifted the poor out of their poverty (let’s accept the premise), ‘we’ are still left with foreboding and impending doom!
The step Thunberg did not take was to question Rajan’s claim or assertion directly. If Rajan doubts she is not already ‘into politics’ he just needs to take note of her ability to avoid a journalist’s question (a question possibly intended to distract, mislead and unbalance) and to plough on in getting her key point across (in a media interview). If Thunberg hasn’t received media training, then she has learnt from the school of trial, error, and hard knocks. Her approach was superior to anything I would have done in the situation, in being pulled sideways to counter the attack.
Rajan’s clever assessment of what he needed to ask (in reply to Thungerg’s claim) highlights the ‘political balance’ approach of the BBC built into their interview technique. This is not something you would get on Fox, GB News, or any politically-biased media outlet. If someone, anyone, states ‘on telly’ that capitalism has failed, such an assertion needs to be countered and questioned, immediately, and with evidence to the contrary.
Thunberg let Rajan’s re-assertion of the advantages, achievements, or greatness of ‘capitalism’ go – she side-stepped the implied point. It was possibly not worth fighting – not in this interview – when a more positive message about impending doom is going to achieve more from her perspective. Of course, that does not mean ‘we’ should let Rajan’s claim stand!
Businesses Don’t Make Great Coffee – People Do
Having sought refuge in the United States, as early as 1941 Raya Dunevskaya developed and published her analysis of the Soviet Union as an example of ‘state capitalism’. In doing so, Dunevskaya referred to a discussion by Marx on what would happen if national capital was reduced to the control of a single capitalist (a monopoly system – so no competition, nor internal struggle within the class of capitalists). He was asking the question in relation to his own analysis – that is, would it still apply? And the answer was ‘yes’ – the nature of capitalist exploitation, in the social form of the purchase of waged labour (at the cost of its reproduction) and this labour’s expenditure in the production of ‘surplus’ product, would not change one jot.
Of course, on this reckoning, both the Soviet Union and Communist China were similar state capitalist regimes, though with national, cultural, and historical variations. It is not, however, wrong to call them socialist regimes, in so far as they focused on furthering ‘national’ capital (or ‘commonwealth’) at the expense of individual capitalists and ‘individuals’ per se.
In short, mainland China was ‘capitalist’ long before the ‘economic’ (but not ‘political’) reforms of the 1980s. Mao’s China (and Mao continues to be a revered figure within China) expunged ‘peasant’ China – the ‘old order’; firstly through forced industrialisation (the Great Leap Forward of the 1950s) and then through forced socialisation (the Cultural Revolution of the 1960s). Some of these policies were disastrous, leading to mass famine through agricultural failure – but, there again, the Irish Famine of the 1840s never did that much damage to the British Empire. But like all ruling classes attempting to hang on to power, the Communist Party of China found itself having to reform or adapt itself to new conditions. This began with a ‘falling out’ amongst ‘communists’ (with the Soviet Union), followed by Nixon’s visit to Mao’s China in 1972 (a ‘defrosting’ of relationships), before the ‘economic’ reforms under Deng Xiaopeng from 1982.
This produces a first counter point to Rajan: you might as well congratulate the Chinese Communist Party for lifting 850 million people out of poverty! Indeed, any Chinese government official would make this point. Just like everyone else, such officials are prone to see the world as of their own making. Furthermore, Rajan made this point to Thunberg when the ‘West’ is growing distrustful of China – there is fear about the progress China has made, that it isn’t playing by the ‘rulebook’ (as understood by the Western establishment), and hasn’t been doing so for a long time, or forever – and ‘now’ it dawns on Western ‘analysts’ that the Chinese have their own agenda! Thence, if the Chinese are not, and have never been, playing by the capitalist ‘rulebook’, what do you put the economic transformation of China down to?
Next, what Rajan means by ‘capitalism’ needs to be considered? I don’t think he is referring, in ‘capitalism’, to the accumulation of ‘capital’ as money, consumer goods, industrial goods, nor even wage relations – the requirement for capital to purchase wage labour to expand itself (the final one being the definition Marx uses in Capital: A Critique of Political Economy). What Rajan means is the ‘freedom’ to trade outwith the bounds of government controls and regulations, with the implication that producers and purchasers are ‘free’ to make their own ‘rational’ decisions, since the latter is the kind of populist and spurious definition given in bog-standard Western education.
But capitalism is, ultimately, about capital, a concept defined dualistically by Adam Smith to mean: (a) all the material goods in society produced by previous labour (effort), from houses, to bridges, fridges to cars, computers to forks … ad infinitum; and (b) an amount of money which provides a return (or income) to its owner. The problem for Rajan is that Smith doesn’t bother to define ‘capital’ and its accumulation until Book 2 of The Wealth of Nations. So, what is Book 1 about? I think the order of presentation is important – Smith is putting the most significant elements of the new commercial system, emerging in the 18th century, first. Smith is giving something else priority over a need to discuss the emerging (new) commercial society in terms of ‘capital’. What can that be?
Famously, Smith opens his opus with the ‘Outline and Plan of the Work’ where he clearly states that “labour” is the annual fund which provides for all the necessaries and conveniences of life! In Chapter 1, Smith then emphasises how it is the “division of labour” which gives rise to increasing wealth (whether of material goods or services). In Chapter 4, Smith challenges the claim that profit on stock is a payment for the labour of direction and management – no it isn’t, he notes, because there are many profiteers of stock (capitalists) who never see, never mind manage, the businesses they benefit from. And in Chapter 6, Smith starts by making the point that owners of stock “share” in the wealth produced by waged labourers – that the wealth is produced by the workers is obvious to Smith. That Smith does not then ‘do more’ with this analysis, in a political sense, is what ‘shocks’ Marx – the key point is in black and white, but Smith seems to overlook what is he is stating. Labour is the source of wealth creation, and the direction of labour (its division) is nothing but another division of ‘labour’.
If someone is going to direct things (and be lauded and rewarded for it) then another person will have to be ‘directed’. And whilst meritocrats attempt to come up with justifiable reasons why one person should fall into the director camp, and another into the directed one, these justifications are often specious, baseless, and intellectually weak (e.g. Marx highlights their ‘childishness’ in Chapter 26 of Capital). However, the point stands – labour is the source of wealth, and Chinese labour, not ‘capitalism’ has lifted 850 million Chinese out of poverty. It was, to use an expression of Marx drawn from the Bible, through the ‘sweat of their brow’.
Finally, Rajan has to consider that China has a (probable) population in 2022 of 1.3 billion. It is about to be surpassed by India (by 2025). Taking 0.85 billion (850 million) from 1.3 billion leaves 4.5 billion. In other words, what about the other 450 million people in China? Have they not been lifted out of poverty, and if not ‘why not?’
The Failure of Capitalism (Round 2)
What the ‘failure of capitalism’ means has very different connotations and implications for different speakers. For Thunberg it is a ‘system’ leading to global disaster, but for Mr Pension or Ms Moneybags (of the City), the ‘failure of capitalism’ means a failure to earn, specifically a ‘return’ on their funds, and thereby to receive an income. The failure of capitalism occurs when capital fails to ‘earn’ a return – to make a profit. Given that profits (properly, surplus value) are not a singular fund which can be neatly and fairly divided, the concept of multiple, competing ‘capitals’ comes to the fore. When profits decline, capitals are set at one another’s throats, whether at a national, group (corporation) or individual level. Even in 1767, Sir James Steuart realised that profits can be earned ‘relatively’ (one person gets richer at another’s expense).
One important developmental element of capitalist societies in the 20th century was to keep the wider system ticking over by ensuring there are sufficient numbers of ideologically supportive individual ‘capitals’ – a loyalty purchased through effective rewarding for their efforts. Mass capitalism has witnessed the broad accumulation of individual pensioners, pension schemes, homeowners, independent investors as sources of larger and larger investment funds. But the accumulation crises of the 20th century also highlighted how things break down when profitability declines – there isn’t enough to meet every claim on, and expectation, about the ownership of capital.
At this moment in time, it might not seem as if there is a ‘profitability’ crisis when large oil companies are earning super-profits due to the Russia-on-Ukraine War and subsequent embargoes (there are calls for governments to impose windfall taxes so ‘all’ can benefit from this ‘windfall’ – a private benefit seen as a positive externality or outcome which is not due in any way to the actions of the oil companies). But, such super-profits in on location (on type of capital investment) simply doesn’t make up for the losses in profitability elsewhere – in short, living by profit (and especially in small business) appears impossible. Many businesses are folding left, right and centre due to rapidly rising energy and fuel costs.
The response of capitalism to such crises has pretty much always been the same – laying workers off, and increasing ‘productivity’ amongst those remaining in work (automation for Ford’s era, and ‘artificial intelligence’ in ours). But such increases in productivity have meant rising consumption of organic materials, namely, fuels.
In short, Thunberg’s failure of capitalism (the impending doom of continuing to use fossil fuels) turns out to be the exact same failure as that of Mr Pension and Ms Moneybags – their ‘failing’ leads to pressure to extend the use of ‘machinery’ in replacing animate power (labour) with inanimate power (natural resources). The claim has always been that this ‘trade off’ produces wealth (commonwealth) since use of labour would never have produced the ‘standard of living’ we ‘enjoy’ today. But no such universal benefit has ever existed – after 250 years of capitalism (‘commercial society’) many workers and their entire families are no more than one pay cheque away from using the ‘food bank’ (charity) to exist.
Therein lies Thunberg’s ‘failure of capitalism’ and Rajan’s need to refer to ‘China’ to defend the capitalist system.
Socialising Sense 