I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.
For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.
Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure
I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.
It’s bad but necessary. It would be great if we lived in a world where there was no need for government, therefore no need for government policy, and therefore no need to debate those policies.
But in the real world government is necessary therefore politics are necessary. The right wing confuses people with the belief that politics is bad and therefore should be eliminates. The left confuses people with the belief that politics should be good and because it isn’t people should avoid participation.
Politics is ugly, and having unrealistic expectations for it is what blocks a lot of progress from happening. The right are better able to accomplish their goals through politics (even when their goals are harmful) because they have a better understanding of the ugliness. The left is oftentimes ineffective out of a silly desire to be above the ugliness of politics.
I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.
A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions
does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?
The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.
I don’t think it’s the left that discourages participation in politics. The right discourages the left from participating in politics and all too often the left falls for it, hook line and sinker. The right has the “both sides” narratives down to a science, but despite promoting this kind of thinking, they always vote.
does a society make choices between better and worse practice of politics/government?
Yes. But it’s not like ordering a product from Amazon. You don’t put your desired improvements in a cart and have it delivered in two days. To accomplish the change you want in a democracy, you need to vote in many elections, sometimes over decades. If you really care you might want to join a major political party and discuss the issues important to you with them. Again this may take decades, but if the issue is important enough then you’re willing to make that effort. Note how long the Christian right worked to get abortion banned. They didn’t instantly get to have things their way it took voting in every election, attending party meetings, along with decades of apathy on the left.
what would a world that doesn’t need government look like if you were to imagine it?
Mad Max kinda shit. Do you prefer the leadership of Lord Humungus or Immorten Joe?
There will always be a government. We’re a tribal species and we will form into tribes and war against one another if there is no one that sets the laws and enforces them. Those tribes would develop into a feudalistic society which may someday develop into a democracy again.
That whole Marxist “the state will whither away” thing is just pseudo religious belief comparable to the Christian belief in a rapture followed by an eternity of paradise. Which is why it’s attractive to atheists that were formally Christians. Old habits and all that.
Definitionally, anything that prescribes the way things are to be distributed is political. There has been a desensitization to the word politics with an ever present right using words loosely adjacent to their true meaning, but capitalism is inherently political. Now it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem with western democracies kinda being formed around it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I sincerely doubt anyone would argue communism or socialism aren’t political because they are economic theories.
You can’t meaningful separate these. Sure, capitalism is not mutually exclusive to say parliamentary democracy or dictatorship or monarchy, but you need a state that enforces the “will of the market”. Capitalism values property very highly. That’s a political decision. It allows a very hierarchical relation between workers and bosses by enforcing the property laws of the latter. At the end of the day, it’s the police (and therefore the state) that evicts you, not the landlord and not the market.
I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.
You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.
-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.
What is politics? People spend have their waking hours in a strict top down system, instead of a democratically organized economy. Tbf that’s not only true for Capitalism but also for Soviet style socialism.
For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation.
The market is not the only aspect of capitalism. Plutocracy is another strong one. Being rich makes you influential in capitalism in contrast to systems where your ancestry is important or systems that try to get rid of power altogether respectively try to distribute it as evenly as possible. So while I said it’s compatible with monarchy and democracy, this is true on a scale. If the monarch is listening to rich people instead of their kind, it’s less monarchical and parliamentary democracies are more prone to capitalism than more direct forms of democracy.
To put it differently: it’s not only about who makes the decision according to the constitution, it’s also about how this decision comes about. Besides: the institution at least makes capitalism possible, if not enforces it in one way or another. The existence of a state alone is something capitalism needs, a punitive justice system that enforces property rights, which often also are constitutional themselves, …
It’s an economic system that seeks to control the political system enough to further itself with no thought or care for anything that doesn’t fit that goal, in the same way a malignant cellular mass seeks to control the host environment enough to further unrestrained and out of control growth. Both kill the host.
Capitalism is financial, fascism is political. They can be concurrently implemented.
Capitalism is a politicial and economic system.
Can you elaborate on how capitalism is a meaningful political system?
I think the argument is that economics and politics are not independent of each other. They are two sides of the same coin. Whomever controls the food supply has power over the population, which means it has political power. Whomever has power over the population, has power over the food supply. Basically, economics and politics are different perspectives on power.
For example, the political structures in the West create the rules over who gets to obtain power through the economy. From the other direction, the people with economic power get to control who gets to obtain power through the political structures.
Thanks for this, I like the pragmatic view that those with economic power select those who obtain political power. I certainly don’t think they’re independent. The economic system influences the political system for sure, but categorically/formally we’re still talking about two distinct systems, otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about a separate political structure
you’re welcome 🙂👍
“Everything is politics” is an argument that right wing grifters often use. Culture? Politics! Sexual orientation? Politics! Science? Politics!
The “everything is politics” argument is the warped kind of thinking of people that are trying to gain control over others.
I would say the greater achievement of right wing grifters is the connotation that “politics” is inherently bad and shameful, as implied by your comment as well.
It’s bad but necessary. It would be great if we lived in a world where there was no need for government, therefore no need for government policy, and therefore no need to debate those policies.
But in the real world government is necessary therefore politics are necessary. The right wing confuses people with the belief that politics is bad and therefore should be eliminates. The left confuses people with the belief that politics should be good and because it isn’t people should avoid participation.
Politics is ugly, and having unrealistic expectations for it is what blocks a lot of progress from happening. The right are better able to accomplish their goals through politics (even when their goals are harmful) because they have a better understanding of the ugliness. The left is oftentimes ineffective out of a silly desire to be above the ugliness of politics.
I see what you’re saying in terms of idealism/naivete vs pragmatism. However I also get the sense that what you mean by government and politics is a bit different from what the left usually means. I’d be interested to understand what you mean by “politics” and “government”.
A couple follow-up questions that might help clarify the distinctions
The only part is disagree with is that the left encourages not participating in politics. I’m pretty sure a pillar of the left is encouraging informed participation in politics. Unless you mean punk/commie ideas of rejecting the establishment in favour of revolution? That’s still participation in politics.
I don’t think it’s the left that discourages participation in politics. The right discourages the left from participating in politics and all too often the left falls for it, hook line and sinker. The right has the “both sides” narratives down to a science, but despite promoting this kind of thinking, they always vote.
Yes. But it’s not like ordering a product from Amazon. You don’t put your desired improvements in a cart and have it delivered in two days. To accomplish the change you want in a democracy, you need to vote in many elections, sometimes over decades. If you really care you might want to join a major political party and discuss the issues important to you with them. Again this may take decades, but if the issue is important enough then you’re willing to make that effort. Note how long the Christian right worked to get abortion banned. They didn’t instantly get to have things their way it took voting in every election, attending party meetings, along with decades of apathy on the left.
Mad Max kinda shit. Do you prefer the leadership of Lord Humungus or Immorten Joe?
There will always be a government. We’re a tribal species and we will form into tribes and war against one another if there is no one that sets the laws and enforces them. Those tribes would develop into a feudalistic society which may someday develop into a democracy again.
That whole Marxist “the state will whither away” thing is just pseudo religious belief comparable to the Christian belief in a rapture followed by an eternity of paradise. Which is why it’s attractive to atheists that were formally Christians. Old habits and all that.
“Politics (from Ancient Greek πολιτικά (politiká) ‘affairs of the cities’) is the set of activities that are associated with making decisions in groups, or other forms of power relations among individuals, such as the distribution of resources or status. The branch of social science that studies politics and government is referred to as political science.”
Definitionally, anything that prescribes the way things are to be distributed is political. There has been a desensitization to the word politics with an ever present right using words loosely adjacent to their true meaning, but capitalism is inherently political. Now it’s a bit of a chicken and egg problem with western democracies kinda being formed around it, but that doesn’t make it any less true. I sincerely doubt anyone would argue communism or socialism aren’t political because they are economic theories.
You can’t meaningful separate these. Sure, capitalism is not mutually exclusive to say parliamentary democracy or dictatorship or monarchy, but you need a state that enforces the “will of the market”. Capitalism values property very highly. That’s a political decision. It allows a very hierarchical relation between workers and bosses by enforcing the property laws of the latter. At the end of the day, it’s the police (and therefore the state) that evicts you, not the landlord and not the market.
I see, I think there are a couple things to clarify. Causally, you can view it as the political system of decision-making determines the economic system, so keeping capitalism is a political decision made through a political system such as democracy or theocracy with downstream political consequences, e.g. property has high capital value, which affects citizens.
You may also be conflating decisions that carry a political quality with decisions made by a political system. Or conflating systems that carry political qualities such as economic systems and education systems with political systems proper, which are system for instituting decisions that govern societies. For example, the market may “decide” that asbestos is the best insulation, however, the market does not set political policy about insulation. It is up to the political system (e.g. democratic parliament or dictator) to decide whether or not to pass policy about limiting asbestos insulation, not capitalism. This distinction is also present in your own argument. Like you said, the market (capitalism) doesn’t create and enforce property law, it’s the state (political system) that creates the law and is responsible for enforcing it.
-EDIT- Okay I think I see the semantic disagreement. What others are emphasizing is that the economy is political in nature and therefore it is a political system. What I understand for the term “Political System” is more narrow to be more narrowly “system of government”. I certainly agree that the economy is political in nature. And honestly, I’m not married to my definition of political system. What I cared more about is drawing the distinction between “system of government” and “systems that are political in nature”. The only reason why I’d disagree is that by the latter definition, any system of social structure such as religions, education systems, human transportation systems, communication systems, language systems etc. Are also political systems because they’re political in nature. So the term “political system” may be too broad as to be useful.
What is politics? People spend have their waking hours in a strict top down system, instead of a democratically organized economy. Tbf that’s not only true for Capitalism but also for Soviet style socialism.
The market is not the only aspect of capitalism. Plutocracy is another strong one. Being rich makes you influential in capitalism in contrast to systems where your ancestry is important or systems that try to get rid of power altogether respectively try to distribute it as evenly as possible. So while I said it’s compatible with monarchy and democracy, this is true on a scale. If the monarch is listening to rich people instead of their kind, it’s less monarchical and parliamentary democracies are more prone to capitalism than more direct forms of democracy.
To put it differently: it’s not only about who makes the decision according to the constitution, it’s also about how this decision comes about. Besides: the institution at least makes capitalism possible, if not enforces it in one way or another. The existence of a state alone is something capitalism needs, a punitive justice system that enforces property rights, which often also are constitutional themselves, …
If your political system uses wealth as a means to create policy. Then whatever economic system you use becomes political.
Can you elaborate on your obtuseness?
It’s an economic system that seeks to control the political system enough to further itself with no thought or care for anything that doesn’t fit that goal, in the same way a malignant cellular mass seeks to control the host environment enough to further unrestrained and out of control growth. Both kill the host.
Economics is politics, and fascism must be concurrently implemented or it isn’t fascism.