Tag / colonialism

by doctormcgrail

Trump’s Trade Deals with History

‘Make America Great Again’ – the slogan oozes with nostalgia. Its central motif is not “back to the future” but, rather, “forward to the past”. But, this leaves the suspended question of: whatever happened to the (‘our’ / ‘anyones’ / ‘everyones’) future?

If the capitalist system (mode of production) was thriving, then year-on-year Money (M) would be turning into Money Plus (M+), with the extra value produced (the Plus) being easily reinvested into more money-making schemes. The general notion is expressed in a rapidly ‘growing economy’, measured by economists since 1934 in the crucial metric of rising Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Within this ideal socio-economic context, the political representatives of the capitalist class, whether on the Left or Right (i.e., socialists or nationalists, libertarians or conservatives) should be able to provide the population (within and beyond their state’s boundaries; so at a universal level) with a modernist myth of ‘progression’. In other words, they should be narrating and conducting an inspiring vision of the ‘future’ and how it will be glorious for all! And here I always think of Harold Wilson’s “white heat of technology” and how the UK would burn its way into a new cosmos!

Certainly, this kind of modernist myth-making is possible when “opulence” (as Adam Smith, 1776, puts it) reaches down to even the “lowest ranks” of the people. As the nation, overall, gets wealthier – as the pie grows – then even the wretches at the bottom of the social pile may ease their ‘naturally’ or ‘Godly’ imposed burdens. Eating from the sweat of their brow may require slightly less sweat. And whilst the share of national wealth that the wretches actually obtain may decline (in percentage terms), nevertheless, the absolute amount of goods that small % share represents can, crucially, ‘grow’ (in real terms) since the pie their slice is taken from is so much bigger.

It is, therefore, not hard to understand why the elected or co-opted representatives (rulers) of the capitalist class and State prefer times of ‘bread and circuses’ – a growing pie! Under such conditions, they can spin tales about the entire nation, and even other nations, moving forward together, as one; of all boats, no matter how insignificant, rising on a tide of (technologically-determined) progress.

Of course, by Autumn 2025, so factually, such economic conditions haven’t been witnessed (in the ‘developed’ G7 countries) for almost 2 decades, since the Financial Crunch of 2008. ‘Our times’ have been ones of austerity, breakdown in international agreement (e.g., Brexit), shifts in economic power (towards China), rising debt, fiscal crises, unsustainable government deficits, speculative use of ‘fiat’ or fictitious money, and inflationary ‘cost of living’ tragedies on the back of pandemic and war).

What little economic ‘growth’ there has been was concentrated (squandered) on benefitting a minority of the powerful and wealthy, consequently producing the highest levels of social inequality ever seen – with the obvious proviso that either or both the poorest and the middle-classes are worse-off (placed in ‘declining’ positions of what has been referred to as ‘negative growth’).

Unsurprisingly, globalist unifying visions (such as the one that inspired G. W. Bush and Blair to invade Iraq as bearers of the light of ‘liberal democracy’) have been replaced by the reverse gear of ‘nostalgia’. The nationalism (socially-exclusionary, but therein ‘socialism’ for the chosen citizenry) of Trump, Putin, Xi, Orban, and Modi, plus many other ‘il-liberals’, have taken over in times of “work and prayer”. And, of course, it is not just a case of America First (a slogan taken from a US interwar movement), but Russia First, Europe First, India First, China First, even the Taliban First. And it also means that a Right-wingers’ primary enemies include not just Left-wing ‘reds under the bed’, but any other nationalist conservatives. As such, the ‘future’ oriented narratives (plural, of course) are all about a specific trajectory of just ‘one’ people (who, of course, must dominate to survive).

And yet, Trump is also picking up on another legacy of the America First movement from the days of Roosevelt, which is its anti-war / anti-interventionist approach to foreign policy. Trump, as the business man he claims to be, wants to ‘deal’ his way out of the ‘crisis’ situation capitalists of America find themselves in.

On James Steuart’s Principles of Political Economy

Published in 1767, nine years before Smith’s Wealth of Nations, Sir James Steuart’s opus is typically viewed as the last, great intellectual achievement of the Mercantilist School. Whilst Mercantilism, as a philosophy for policy-makers, would hang around for another 80 years (until the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1847), in terms of scientific contributions to the history of political economy, Smith’s surpassing of Steuart’s conceptual grasp of economic categories would quickly eclipse the latter’s work. Where Smith saw the centrality of ‘work’ (industry) in the production of profit, Stewart’s analysis never moved beyond the realm of exchange (market trader relations) in which profit was seen to arise out of commodity ‘circulation’.

Nonetheless, Steuart’s work appears at the very beginning of Marx’s 2,500 pages of ‘notes’ (1861-63) on the theoretical history of political economy, published as Theories of Surplus Value (1904). Marx’s coverage of Steuart only lasts 3 pages, but what Marx focuses upon is Stewart’s awareness that a trader can make money (profit) via two different kinds of relationship. These are ones of ‘Positive Profit’ and ‘Relative Profit’.

Positive Profit refers to the ‘ideal’ trader situation – a deal where both parties come out having made a gain (profit). Of course, Stewart is unable to explain (from the realm of exchange or circulation) ‘how’ both can make a profit. That is, how can both the metropolitan merchant and the colonial trader make profits when the system is skewed towards the mother-country merchant having a politically-controlled monopoly through which they determine prices? But, in practice, it was clearly possible, and Steuart must have observed the outcome despite an inability to explain the phenomenon. Anyhow, positive profit is what we, today, would call a “Positive Sum” result in Game Theory. It is preferable or ideal because it means there are no ‘losers’.

In contrast, by Relative Profit Steuart means a “Zero Sum” outcome – one of the merchants / traders must “lose”, and the profit of the winner rests on taking something from the loser. Mercantilists traders, theorists and politicians (policymakers) were all too aware of this type of relationship; not least because they constructed both a colonial Empire and legal framework to guarantee such an outcome for the chosen few (the 5% of people who controlled the political and legal system on Steuart’s and Smith’s day).

A Fascination with Yesterday’s Game

Made aware of these concepts, forged in pre-Smithian political economy (the Mercantilist era), it is arguable that Trump’s fascination with the raising of taxes through “tariffs” is a reversion or collapse into the dirty wars of the Zero Sum trader game. Crucially, it is not a sign of strength (the existence of capital accumulations ‘ideal’ situation) but of weakness – Trump the capitalist cannibal is aiming to devour the very people who keep shifting the Overton window in the same direction that he has.

Interestingly, Trump wants to reduce internal government taxes on “Americans” (workers as well as capitalists) where his “liberal” predecessors wanted to shift the taxation burden off (any) capitalist (American or not) onto the American poor (getting workers to pay for their own and each others’ welfare). A part of this strategy is to redefine who is “American”. Some Americans are to become “foreigners” – expelled and dispossessed. They are one element of the ‘losers’ from which others will make a gain. At the same time, American merchants reliant on overseas workers (so, also, not “American”) will be taxed higher than those aiming for autarky – the very kind of economy Putin appears to already have achieved.

And this, should, all sound ominous given what we, collectively, know about history. Trump is playing poker with a deck of cards dealt in the 1930s.

by doctormcgrail

Racism and Fire: Capitalism’s Role in the Persistence of Race

October is Black History Month, and both of my institutional employers have emailed me with offers of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) training as part of Continuing Professional Development (CPD), though not mandatory sessions.

Edinburgh University led the way (1st October) by presenting a one-hour workshop on a range of different groups and activities undertaking anti-racism activities (including profile-raising of minority staff networks, provision of links with outside bodies, and highlights on race education projects). Each presenter had about 10 minutes to outline (pitch) what their organisation was doing (and where it could be found).

At the end, the organisers struggled to get the question and answer (Q&A) session going, with no questions coming forward until one presenter felt duty-bound to ask something (of another presenter). This outcome was not due to lack of interest on behalf of the audience (being ‘self-selecting’, they were the ‘converted’). Rather, it was hard to think of ‘questions’ (to get a ‘discussion’ going) from such a factual presentation. What is there to disagree about?

The Open University offer was much more assertive in indicating that people will learn how to challenge their “white privilege” (by becoming aware of it) and, therein, an effective “ally” (who knows how to support people suffering racism and not how to ‘take over’ as a ‘white saviour’). At least this kind of anti-racism work allows more space for people to get into a debate. However, a general feeling of discomfort (about questioning the presented narrative) still pervades what is a workplace ‘instituted’ conversation, such that no-one is really going to challenge the expert anti-racist presenters / session leads.

The positive I take from such employer sanctioned events is that it is good to see the issue of racism being taken seriously, and provisioned with staff time (for those who choose to attend) by my employers. However, what makes me ‘chortle’ is the thought that I might now sit and wait for an email ‘ping’ to announce the equivalent EDI session on ‘The Exploitative Nature of Waged-Employment: Anti-work Initiatives’! Somehow, I can’t see that happening anytime (not even soon), within the ‘employer-employee’ environment. Yet, in anti-racism work, is it not important to investigate and explore the relationship between ‘the social construction of race’ and ‘the mode of production’ which gave rise to modern racism?

The Exploitative Source of Racism

Eric Williams, in Capitalism and Slavery (1944 – developed from his PhD research), observed that it was not racism that gave rise to the Atlantic slave trade. Rather, it was slavery which gave, and continues to give, substance to racism. On the basis of this thesis, whenever we see the smoke of racism rising it is incumbent upon us to look for the fire (the source of the smoke), or at least ask: ‘where is the smoke coming from?’ That is, we should ask ‘where is the slavery?’

To be clear, ‘smoke kills’ – it is not just a ‘signal’ meaning it can be ignored in order to shift ‘analysis’ elsewhere. But Williams’ point highlights that racism is not an ‘autoimmune disease’. It does not ‘seed itself’ in a vacuum, and has a cause (both a ground which it grows out of, and a ‘sense of progression’, or history, of which it is a part – everyone appears to be going ‘somewhere’ for some ‘reason’).

With the Atlantic slave trade, the exploitative source of the racism was ‘obvious’ – the system relied on one person being ‘enslaved’ in order to ‘serve’ another. And whilst Europeans in America initially took ‘white slaves’ (indentured poor, criminals, and vagabonds, even prisoners of war) with them (alongside a highly-oppressed population-half: women), the situation with rapid capital accumulation (the need to accumulate workers as ‘things’) meant there was soon a ‘lack’ of available people. This led to transportation from Africa to fulfil the ‘gap’. Initially, white and black slaves co-existed, even if unequally, but the ‘need’ (requirement) to categorise more and more individuals as ‘slaves’ eventually led to entire ‘groups’ of people taking on different roles in this system’s division of labour. Thus, skin-colour (being ‘black’) took on its slave-defining role.

But what about today’s voluntaristic, liberalised economies where chattel slavery (now in the form of ‘human trafficking’) has been pushed to the margins of ‘the economy’? Whilst there may be 26 million trafficked people (modern slaves) in the world today, this makes up a tiny proportion of the 6+ billion people surviving as ‘wage labourers’. So, why is racism still so widespread?

One answer, from Marx (1894), is that capitalism (in essence waged-labour, because this is the source of ‘profit’) is nothing other than “veiled slavery”! Consequently, following Marx’s assertion, Williams’ thesis holds true, with the persistence of racism (in its different forms: open, unconscious, institutionalised) being built upon the on-going existence of compulsory labour – forced not by the whip-hand but by the invisible-hand of ‘economic conditions’ (the primary condition, for most, being their propertylessness).

Indeed, in today’s contemporary corporate world, racism’s fundamental form is still the ‘reservation‘. On the one hand, there are those ‘reservoirs‘ of cheap labour ‘politically’ confined by ‘citizenship’ (or lack of it) to conditions maintained under brutal undemocratic regimes – a 21st century version of globalised apartheid with ranks of ‘nation states’ determining the extent to which an area of land mass is classified as totally useless (the ‘useless mouths’ of Afghanistan / Somalia / South Sudan) versus ripe for exploitation (Philippines / Nigeria / Bolivia).

On the other hand, there are those places were the very best (well-paid / good working condition) jobs, access to the required education, facilitation by the most ‘labour enhancing’ technologies, and consumption of advanced healthcare are ‘reserved‘ for people with specific ‘characteristics’ (including ‘citizenship’).

Taken together, these different symbiotic and bifurcated spatial reservations form a hierarchy in which skin-colour still plays a fundamental refining mechanism for the ‘underlying’ system of exploitation (capital accumulation through waged-labour). Though, in theory – and in terms of progressivist political myth-making about possible ‘futures’ liberated from race and racialism – a few ‘individuals’ are able to move from marginalised reservoirs to the lands of exclusively ‘reserved’ jobs. Such social mobility gives the impetus to much (but not all) anti-racism work within the world of corporate and institutional employers – whilst, of course, the central mechanisms of waged-labour exploitation remain untouched.

Is the Dream of Corporate Anti-racism possible?

Interestingly, with reference to Afrofuturist writing, Alex Zamalin (2025) points to one dystopian novel in which the imagined society had, finally, managed to expunge Black people, thereby producing a purified world. This is a different version of reaching a state of ‘colour-blindness’ compared to the corporate eutopia (good place). It is touching on the ‘completion’ scenario of the Nazi ‘Final Solution’ of a Jew-free Reich. But the novel is really raising the question that, if such a Nazi utopia ever ‘worked’, would the waged-labour mode of production have been maintained?

In the novel’s Black-free society, racism soon begins to re-emerge in a new form. Someone is (some ‘bodies’ are) always required to do the menial, bottom-of-the-rung jobs in any ‘exchangeable labour’ society and, consequently, the roaming, roving eyes of a surveyor class (whoever they might happen to be) begin to look for anyone who is ruddier or slightly ‘more pink’ than ‘everyone else’. Thus, a new ‘norm’ or ‘average’ is generated from which social categories (by skin, sex, height, voice-box) will ‘form’. In short, and in line with what I argue here, the categorisation process is being driven by the needs of ‘the economy’ and its forced / compelled ‘division of labour‘.

It is the social essence of capitalism’s reproductive structure (that there is a hierarchy based on ‘exchangeable labour‘) which determines the requirement for different social categories of labourers. But a ‘reason’ or justification must be given for the ordering of society (i.e., in the above dystopian society ‘you are overly pink’, though the same distinction could be based just as easily on eye-colour). The ‘passion’ (behind the reasoning) is more consistent and practical in its desire to make extractive exploitation feasible and sustainable (since this exploitation is the very means of survival for those ‘empowered’ but ‘reliant’ groups who eternally seek the social transfer of resources from person X – the ‘enslaved’ – to person Y – ‘the masters of money’).

References:

Marx, K. (1894) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy – Volume 3. [Edited by F. Engels / trans. by D. Fernbach (c) 1991]. London: Penguin.

Williams, E. (1944) Capitalism & Slavery. [Penguin Classics / 1994 imprint]. London: Penguin Random House UK.

Zamalin, A. (2025) ‘The Future of Afrofuturism: Thinking with Afrofuturism’ [Workshop Paper]. Part of Panel 3: Revisiting Utopianism from other critical and radical perspectives. AHRC Workshop 3 of Utopia & Failure: ‘Fail Again, Fail Better! Held at: King’s College London (Mon 8th and Tues 9th Sept).