Category: Marx

May’s ‘Free’ market blather is anti Corbyn rhetoric

Photo by Thomas Charters on Unsplash

Theresa May is ‘frit’.

Jeremy Corbyn argued (September 2017) that the neoliberal model of capitalism is broken.

In response, May argues:

“A free market economy, operating under the right rules and regulations, is the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created.  It was the new combination which led societies out of darkness and stagnation and into the light of the modern age. It is unquestionably the best, and indeed the only sustainable, means of increasing the living standards of everyone in a country. And we should never forget that raising the living standards, and protecting the jobs, of ordinary working people is the central aim of all economic policy. Helping each generation to live longer, fuller, more secure lives than the one which went before them. Not serving an abstract doctrine or an ideological concept – but serving the real interests of the British people”.

Theresa May is not original of course in her praise of capitalism and in praise of the activities of the bourgeoisie:

It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic cathedrals; it has conducted expeditions that put in the shade all former migrations of nations and crusades”.

So wrote Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto. Before anyone talked of ‘Globalisation’, and its discontents, Marx and Engels had this to say:

“The bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market given a cosmopolitan character to production and consumption in every country. To the great chagrin of reactionaries, it has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old-established national industries have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed. They are dislodged by new industries, whose introduction becomes a life and death question for all civilized nations, by industries that no longer work up indigenous raw material, but raw material drawn from the remotest zones; industries whose products are consumed, not only at home, but in every quarter of the globe. In place of the old wants, satisfied by the production of the country, we find new wants, requiring for their satisfaction the products of distant lands and climes. In place of the old local and national seclusion and selfsufficiency, we have intercourse in every direction, universal interdependence of nations. And as in material, so also in intellectual production. The intellectual creations of individual nations become common property. National one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness become more and more impossible, and from the numerous national and local literatures there arises a world literature”.

May is singing the praises of the ‘free market economy’ but with a very important caveat often missed in further elaboration and eulogising others. Look carefully, May is not talking about a free market at all, and as I have argued, this is rhetoric not reality for if we examine just how free market neoliberal capitalism actually is, we find it just is not.

May actually acknowledges this with the two words ‘rules and regulations’ which when actually examined sends shivers down the spines of free market ideologues. May’s government continues to spend 40% of GDP and subsidises industry. May even raises the spectre, if not of communism, but of industrial policy .  Perhaps she does so with an eye to China, a country whose interventions in key industries even the free market Economist appears to grudgingly accept has brought some successes. Marianna Mazzucato in ‘The Entrepreneurial State’ also clearly shows the role of the State in innovation as a rebuke to free market fundamentalism. I think May has also read this and understands the nature of the partnership between private and public sector.

As does Corbyn, difference between the two is neoliberalism. Both want State intervention, only one wants the interests of Labour to be taken into account. The other is in thrall to Capital. Neoliberalism in practice does not mean a free market (perish the thought!), it means State support for capital and withdrawl of state support for labour. Socialism for the rich, neoliberalism for the poor. May understands that many people are wise to this and thus fears their drift to Corbyn.

Hence this speech.

The missing two C’s – commodity and critique

http://tinyurl.com/the-missingtwoCs   This is the link to the published article in the Journal of Research in Nursing.

This discussion paper argues for understanding nursing care as a commodity within capitalist relations of production, ultimately as a product of labour, whose use value far exceeds its exchange value and price. This under recognised commodification of care work obscures the social relationships involved in the contribution to the social reproduction of labour and to capital accumulation by nursing care work. This matters, because many care workers give of themselves and their unpaid overtime to provide care as if in a ‘gift economy’, but in doing so find themselves in subordinate subject positions as a part the social reproduction of labour in a ‘commodity economy’. Thus they are caught in the contradiction between the ‘appearance’ and reality. A focus on the individual moral character of nurses  (e.g. the UK’s 6Cs), may operate as a screen deflecting understanding of the reality of the lived experiences of thousands of care workers and supports the discourse of ‘care as a gift’. The commodification of care work also undermines social reproduction itself. Many nurses will not have tools of analysis to critique their subject positioning by power elites and have thus been largely ineffectual in creating change to the neoliberalist and managerialist context that characterise many healthcare and other public sector organisations. The implications of this analysis for health care policy and nursing practice is the need for a critical praxis (an ‘action nursing’) by nurses and nursing bodies, along with their allies which may include patient groups, to put care in all its guises and consequences central to the political agenda.

 

“The University in Ruins”

Constructing the Paraversity using the web.

 

Introduction

Higher Education institutions across the globe are changing and changing fast. Several writers have expressed dismay, as well as seeing opportunities to move in different directions, in response to what has been called the ‘University in Ruins’ (Readings 1996).

 

Gary Rolfe (2013), picking up on Reading’s work addressed ‘scholarship in the corporate university’ and suggested that academics must ‘dwell in the ruins’ in an authentic and productive way through the development of a community of philosophers who will dissent, subvert and challenge the ‘corporate university’ from within. Tools for subversion are at hand. Social media, blogging, open access journals and the development of new academic websites such as Researchgate and academia.edu, give academics new ways to reach students, and indeed anybody, way beyond the physical confines of their campus. Accepting that there are issues of peer review and hence quality, these tools allow free access and may facilitate dialogue in ways unheard of just few years ago. This paper explores the ruins, argues for critical dissensus, and shares one experience of using such tools and suggests that this might then assist in building Rolfe’s ‘community of philosophers’ or what Slavoj Žižek has called ‘liberated territories’ (Žižek 2008).

 

Following a note on pedagogy and addressing what the purpose of education  might be,  the idea of the Paraversity will be outlined, and importantly a central notion of dissensus highlighted. Why nurse educators and student nurses should engage in dissensus, as well as professional training, is a point to be debated. To do so, I will refer to the work of C Wright Mills’ on ‘intellectual craftsmanship’. Secondly, an example of constructing this Paraversity will be shared, not that this is a paradigm case, but as only one way to do so, a way that of course may prove fruitless as we acknowledge the variety of approaches and uncertainty of any outcomes. Indeed ‘outcomes’ themselves may be part of the language of a certain mindset that is antithetical to the Paraversity.

So, what follows is a thesis, which may draw forth an antithesis resulting in a new synthesis, which in turn can be challenged. Consensus and agreement is not the point; dialogue is. This paper is overtly political; drawing upon Freire’s ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’, Marx and the heirs of Marx, to argue that nursing is locked into a matrix of social systems that are oppressive and marginalising, and that Higher Education itself, in the guise of the ‘University of Excellence’ is increasingly commodified, and losing its way as it tries to meet the needs of the ‘Knowledge Economy’ in the production of ‘Cognitive Capitalism’.  I argue we need to revisit the question ‘what is education for’?

 


 

A note on Pedagogy

 

Paulo Friere’s first premise concerns a humanistic value base, upon which a pedagogy should be constructed. The human being is a ‘subject’, rather than an ‘object’ ready for construction by oppressive forces. Our ‘ontological vocation’ is towards ‘humanization’; to be able to engage in ‘conscientização’   which is learning to perceive social, political and economic contradictions and to take action against the oppressive elements of reality.

Stephen Sterling (2001) later argued that we need a paradigm shift away from transmissive forms of education towards transformative forms of education. Transmitting an education that ensures graduates are better equipped to perform clinical skills is first order learning.  However it is a partial education at best. First order learning takes place within current educational boundaries and philosophies. It is adaptivelearning, e.g. the acquisition of skills and knowledge to assist in adapting to new roles as registered nurses.

 

Education ought to be a process of transforming individuals so that base values, assumptions and paradigms are taken into account and challenged  – this is what Sterling calls second and third order learning.

 

Second order learning involves critically reflective learning. This is about examining the assumptions that underpin first order learning.

Third order learning is transformative learning and allows us to change perspectives and paradigms. It is creative, is a ‘shift in consciousness’, and involves a ‘deep awareness of alternative world views’ (Sterling 2001 p15).

 

Education in this sense is for humanity rather than just the transmission of knowledge, skills and values for the corporate, or employment, sphere. The Paraversity could be such a space in which this pedagogy operates. Thus, the process of education is as important, if not more important, than the end product. However, this is an issue for nurse education – to what degree is the product more important than the process? Do certain professional values, regulation and the needs for an NHS workforce outweigh the experience of a critical pedagogy? If so, are we constructing the student as passive object, who also self governs, rendering them unable to engage with countervailing voices against a one dimensional political hegemony in which the ‘market is king’?

We need to challenge pedagogical assumptions because, contrary to what many would have us believe, history has not ended, business can’t be ‘as usual’ and this is not ‘the best of all possible worlds’:

“The truth is that many things on which our future health and prosperity depend are in dire jeopardy….this is not the work of ignorant people. Rather it is largely the results of work by people with BAs, BScs, LLBs, MBAs and PhDs.” (Orr 2004 p.7)

The global financial crisis of 2007-8 was not caused by blue collar workers, nurses or teachers, but arose out of the activities of very clever people recruited from so called elite universities, many of whom studied economics mired in orthodoxy, rendering it unable to foresee the systemic risk building up within finance capital.

Jihadist social movements have gained ground in part to the ideologically based bumblings of Yale, Harvard and Oxbridge Educated elites, who with characteristic hubris and with appalling lack of insight, declared ‘mission accomplished’, and are now fretting about ‘radicalisation’ while doing little to address the socio-political causes of jihadist ideological narratives that drive young men and women into armed conflict.

Older people, their families, and those with mental health problems, in contemporary capitalist societies are experiencing crises in health and social care provision as successive governments have failed to put the interests of people before profits and capital accumulation.

With a few exceptions, for example Michael Burawoy’s (2004) notion of ‘public sociology’ or Paul Hawken’s notion of the ‘Blessed Unrest’, we have largely failed to produce enough countervailing voices, or a new vision of care that is fit for the 21st century. There is little in the way of critical guiding philosophies in operation for nursing beyond individualised biomedically dominated notions of ‘care and compassion’ in the context of instrumentally orientated curricula obsessed with competence – ‘doing rather than thinking’. This is not to deny the existence of critical voices in the literature, just to acknowledge the often ahistorical, apolitical and anti theoretical nature of what passes for scholarship in and for clinical practice.

This might seem irrelevant, idealistic, utopian and antithetical to professional nursing practice. Nonetheless, it is a notion that can be discussed within the paraversity as an element of dissensus.


 

What is the ‘paraversity’? (Rolfe 2013).

Gary Rolfe  suggest that the ‘paraversity’ runs alongside the visible University, going unnoticed or unseen. The paraversity is a ‘mental space’ of dissensus, seeking no unity of thought or acceptance of any grand narrative. As such, the Paraversity may well throw up an antithesis to this thesis. It is invisible, subversive and a virtual institution. It is not owned by corporate interests, it is not influenced directly by research bodies, funding streams or research programmes or corporate management strategies. The national student survey is irrelevant to its continuance. There will be no physically identified building or faculty – it exists in the form of a community of philosopher scholars exploring and deconstructing and reconstructing ideas.

In the paraversity there is no need to arrive at consensus or agreement or a system of unified thought. It does not exist to fulfil the corporate university’s aims and objectives, it is the ‘pursuit of difference’ to keep open debate and discussion and not to shut it down. It also operates to call the corporate university to intellectual account.

In this aim, it fosters countervailing voices to critique one dimensional thought and implicitly evokes the critical theory of Herbert Marcuse, Theodore Adorno and Louis Althusser, but is of course not merely the intellectual heir to such thought as if the matters regarding ontology, epistemology and philosophy were settled. This uncertainty of certainty could be potentially unsettling for nursing thought and practice which seeks certainty and truth in professional practice.

 

What are Universities for?

“In a world characterised by complexity and uncertainty, our long term survival lies…..in our willingness to bend the rules in unforeseen circumstances and even operate beyond our level of knowledge as we make our world view” (Paul Vare p2).

Vare acknowledges that the problems besetting the world require thinking differently, acting differently and challenging many long held assumptions. Academic disciplines which cannot evolve their thinking will produce graduates who will engage in ‘business as usual’ chasing fewer and fewer ‘plum’ jobs as they join the precariat (Standing 2011) as ‘graduates with no future’ (Mason 2012) .

 

The ‘University of Excellence’.

It might be argued that within the ‘Enlightenment’, the historic missions of Universities focused on ‘truth’ and ‘emancipation’. Docherty (2014) writes

“In 1946, the political theorist Hannah Arendt received a copy of The Idea of the University, which was written by her mentor, Karl Jaspers. Jaspers had revised the book, originally published in 1923, for the post-war context, when German universities needed to recover from explicit institutional and ideological conformism to Nazism. He advances a reconfiguration of academic freedom that, today, is everywhere threatened again, thanks to a failure of political will – and of leadership – that allows intellectual freedoms to be sacrificed to financial priorities. Writing to Jaspers on receipt of the book, Arendt firmly expressed the view that, given the cost of the higher education system, it must be state-funded. But it was vital that the professoriate should not thereby become tacitly politicised “civil servants”. Academic freedom meant that universities should be governed by intellectual demands, without improper political interference”.

Now, this narrative has been replaced with that of the neoliberal capitalist narrative of efficiency and profitability, i.e. the narrative of the market. Readings (1996) argued that the ‘pursuit of excellence’ within this narrative is a legitimising idea. However, ‘excellence’ refers more to administrative processes in which ‘excellence’ is a unit of measurement, devoid of qualitative content, which we now measure through such metrics as attrition, the number of firsts, impact factors, the number of research grants awarded and student perception questionnaires. An excellent nursing degree is one with low attrition, satisfied students, high employability and high numbers of firsts. Who would disagree with that?  Rolfe (2013) suggests this view of excellence is one of quantity rather than quality and brings us into the realms of ‘efficiency, profitability and administration’ (p9). He goes on to argue

“The vision and mission of the University has shifted from the production and dissemination of thought and ideas to the generation and sale of facts and data” (Rolfe 2013 p 81).

This suggests that the role of Universities now is often that of contributing to the local and national economy and to train graduates for the job market, and I would suggest that in many nursing departments that is the sole ‘raison d’etre’.

This instrumental orientation to nursing education (Goodman 2012) is evidenced by the dominance of competency based education, fit for practice, fit for purpose curricula, based on the NMC’s educational standards. The student nurse or graduate registrant who questions and critiques the ontological, political, ideological and epistemological assumptions upon which care is designed, delivered and evaluated would not be that welcome in clinical practice and perhaps only marginally tolerated in many nursing modules based on the transmission of facts and theories for clinical practice, grounded as many are in the assumptions of positivist and empiricist science. Nursing theory, let alone feminist or critical theory, may have disappeared from nurse education.  We may now be less able within nursing curricula to question the basis of social knowledge and care practices from critical perspectives that seeks to illuminate the subject positioning of women and the marginalisation of older people as unproductive burdens on society.

What is being lost is the notion of ‘intellectual craftmanship’ in favour of the search for empirical certainty, data and hard facts to guide practice. Indeed, evidence based practice education can be reduced to issues of methodology rather than issues of epistemology, philosophy and ontology. Perhaps many nurse scholars themselves have lost the ability to engage in this activity, and thus to be role models, buckling under the pressure to deliver clinical skills and other diverse teaching while also delivering empirically based research which provides facts and answers to practical questions. Many of course will have been schooled in the biomedical sciences and thus would not have had the critical epistemological enquiries and paradigms of social science. What we end up with is the pressure to produce ‘denotative’ writing – the telling and informing process through powerpoints and scientific reports as the dominant discourse of knowledge production and dissemination.  This is the ‘University of Excellence’.

 

What are academics for in the ‘University of Excellence’?

 

Brock (2014) asked “what is the function of the social movement academic’? However I would rephrase this and ask “what is one of the functions of the nurse academic? I would respond, as Brock does, with the suggestion that it is partly “to debunk the knowledge on which the powerful rest”.  One of those notions being peddled currently is that the NHS and society will not be able to afford care for older people,  that free at the point of delivery will no longer be possible, and that expensive external monitoring and inspections are worth the money spent on them. All the while corporates lobby behind the scenes for bits of the profitable NHS pie; see this list by Andrew Robertson on his site ‘social investigations’.

To engage in debunking requires ‘intellectual craftsmanship’ and is important for critical enquiry in the paraversity. What might that look like?

 

On Intellectual Craftsmanship  (C Wright Mills 1959).

 

In the appendix to ‘The Sociological Imagination’ Wright Mills outlined his view on ‘doing’ social science in which he suggested that ‘Scholarship’ is more important than empirical research for the social scientist. He considered that Empiricism was the ‘mere sorting out of facts and disagreements about facts’. Wright Mills’ critique of abstract empiricism contained in ‘The Sociological Imagination’ is that argument made manifest. Rules of method and arguments on methodological procedures and validity are just so much navel gazing which Wright Mills wished to avoid if he could possibly do so:

 

“Now I do not like to do empirical work if I can possibly avoid it” (p205) and “there is no more worth in empirical enquiry as such than in reading as such” (p 226).

 

The task of social science is thus to critically engage in the real world, joining personal experience and intellectual life through critical reflective reason as the

 

“advance guard in any field of learning” (p205).

He argued:

“It is the political task of the social scientist — as of any liberal educator — continually to translate personal troubles into public issues, and public issues into the terms of their human meaning for a variety of individuals. It is his task to display in his work — and, as an educator, in his life as well — this kind of sociological imagination. And it is his purpose to cultivate such habits of mind among the men and women who are publicly exposed to him. To secure these ends is to secure reason and individuality, and to make these the predominant values of a democratic society” (p187).

The personal trouble of obesity is a public issue not a personal moral failing of weak willed individuals. We must look to the role of fossil fuels instead of food, in providing energy; we must look at the marketing and distribution activities of the food industry; we must look to portrayals of the body in the media;  we must look to the structures od sedentary employment…..

Nurse educators might read this and think, actually, no it is not my political task at all!  Nurse students do not need to think about their personal lives and the lives of others as they relate to wider social and political issues…they need to be able to deliver care – to provide pain relief, comfort and explanations to vulnerable people, to interpret cardiac rhythms and administer medications, to assess wounds and decide upon management plans….that is the stuff of nursing and the rest of this is mere frippery. This is a view I have heard expressed by students as they cry “when are we going to learn proper nursing?”

In this they might be supported by the Corporate University which, in response to the demands of its customers, industry, commerce and the economy, has shifted the emphasis of the role of the academic from raising questions to providing answers, from problematizing to problem solving. Many nursing students want answers, not to raise questions. Thus empiricism and the tenets of positivistic science have been dragooned to support this mission. This is in opposition to many notions regarding personal and social transformation.

 

Michael Burawoy argued:

“The original passion for social justice, economic equality, human rights, sustainable environment, political freedom or simply a better world, that drew so many of us to sociology, is channeled into the pursuit of academic credentials. Progress becomes a battery of disciplinary techniques—standardized courses, validated reading lists, bureaucratic ranking intensive examinations, literature reviews, tailored dissertations, refereed publications, the all-mighty CV, the job search, the tenure file, and then policing one’s colleagues and successors to make sure we all march in step. Still, despite the normalizing pressures of careers, the originating moral impetus is rarely vanquished, the sociological spirit cannot be extinguished so easily”.

Can we replace sociology with nursing in this paragraph? Can we say our original passions have been channeled into pointless mindnumbing bureaucratically led education programmes that do nothing to challenge or change the context of care in which currently we are facing major issues in mental health and the care of older people with long term conditions?

Antonio Gramsci’s (1971) archetypal theory of the intellectual may also be illuminative and raises questions about what we are here for. Gramsci described two types of intellectual: the ‘traditional’ and the ‘organic’. The traditional is the academic who secures the status quo and the organic as the activist whose function it was to ‘construct a transformative historical bloc’, an alternative basis of consent for social order (Cresswell and Spandler 2012 p4). Although written many decades ago, this archetype may well be seen within the corporate university which supports and encourages the traditional and ignores the activist.

Nursing, and nurse academics, have a question to address. Are we engaged in the development of a practice based discipline interested only in the ‘sorting out of facts and the disagreements of facts?’ Are we traditional and/or organic academics? Is there room for both, either as separate individuals or as two roles within the same person? Justification for the ‘discovery of facts’ may be founded on its usefulness for policy and clinical practice and of course should be foundational knowledge for clinical nursing practice, after all we do not want the wrong drug to be administered because we have not sorted out the ‘facts’.

However, empirical research does not take place within a political vacuum and it would be a mistake to see the relationship of research to policy and practice as a simple linear relationship. The purist model of ‘research-policy relationships’ which takes for granted that research informs policy action by generating knowledge, or the problem solving model whereby research is driven by the need for a policy answer, do not adequately describe the process and is a far too narrow a focus for scholarship. It just does not address some of the fundamental questions underpinning human health and well-being which are as much to do with human agency and social structures within certain political economies, as to do with biomedical processes.

Research and policy then is a political activity. Wright Mills in arguing for craftsmanship in intellectual life implicitly acknowledges in the Sociological Imagination the need to go beyond simple empirical knowledge in forming policy action when he enjoins social scientists in a political and intellectual task to clarify the contemporary causes of “uneasiness and indifference to personal troubles and public issues” (p13). The social scientist is not to merely describe the contemporary elements of social life, but to engage in it.

The use of the word ‘craft’, undefined by Mills, appears here to differentiate the activity from that of (mere?) mastery of elaborate discussions of research method and ‘theory-in-general’, which would quickly make one “impatient and weary” (p195). A craft suggests development of skill by diligent constant practice, honing one’s technique by reference to finished products and products in the process of being to evaluate their flaws and strengths and then adjust accordingly. This is reflexive practice in that the work as it continues is being constantly worked and reworked as required. It suggests leaps of imagination and intuitive thinking and practice in the creation of a project. It calls for a departure from strict adherence to a rigid structure of routines, methods and frameworks. It also suggests a measure of artistry in thinking.

The scholarly craftsman is his work as his craft develops alongside who he is. Scholarly craftsmanship then is a state of being not only doing:

When Wright Mills argued that:

“admirable thinkers…do not split their work from their lives” (p195), he also argued

“Scholarship is a choice of how to live as well as a choice of career” (p196).

And:

“Scholarship is writing”.

To undertake this craft he asked students and social scientists to keep a journal to enable the development of the intellectual life, of the craftsmanship of social science. This should consist of ideas, personal notes, excerpts from books, bibliographical items and outlines of projects. He suggests that journals should record ‘fringe thoughts’, snatches of conversation and even dreams. This will also include the taking of copious notes from books and this needs developing into a habit.

Since Wright Mills outlined notes on journal keeping there has been the explosion onto the scene of information technologies, elearning and web 2.0. These are now new tools that were unavailable to Wright Mills. However the essential nature of scholarly activity should not be lost in any infatuation with new technologies, rather these gateway technologies could facilitate critical enquiry, journal keeping and the connection of a community of philosopher scholars engaged in dissensus and critique through a process of what Paolo Freire called dialogics.

To assist in this process, scholars need to write, and to write essays or blogs and not just research reports; to engage in discussion and not just to tell; write to invite commentary, to clarify one’s thoughts, to learn about oneself as well as to explore ideas and investigate one’s area of interest. Nursing is a socio-political activity and not just an applied set of techniques; and as such requires critique, understanding, discussion, reflexivity and transformation. The corporate university may not be interested in these ‘outcomes’, fixated as it may be on contracted commissioning targets, workforce development, league tables, SPQ results, attrition rates and ill defined notions of the ‘student experience’. The early career nursing academic will be faced by a host of external constraints on their intellectual development and their ‘success’ or performance development reviews may rest on targets and values not of their own making. What may be ignored by ‘impact metrics’ is any of their writing, which is createdover and above the research ‘write up’ focused on answering an empirical question according to a matrix of methodological imperatives. Graham Scambler (2014), as a now retired academic,  makes the point that he benefitted from the freedom to engage in intellectual activity unchained from the demand s of the Corporate University chasing its position in league tables:

“I was rarely during my career forced onto the back-foot, obliged to define achievement in terms of research revenue generated or publications in high-impact journals.”

And…

“I have encountered several ‘young’ sociologists whose expertise by far exceeds mine and who have played significant roles in facilitating as well as contributing to virtual networking and innovation but whose pioneering expertise in social media remain institutionally unrecognized and unrewarded” (my emphasis).

 

Karl Marx, C Wright Mills, Antonio Gramsci, Paulo Freire, Pierre Bourdieu, Michael Burawoy,  recognized that intellectuals can play a crucial role in ideological warfare against the dominant classes. The Paraversity may assist in this by creating

 

“havens of thinking into which thinkers can migrate and from which thoughts can proliferate and social change can reify” (Žižek 2008).

 


 

What might the Paraversity begin to look like?

 

The examples below are not definitive, it is up to the community of scholars to construct the Paraversity and if it is based on dissensus, it may look very different and take on a dynamic nature. If the idea is to create dialogue, to share ideas, to critique, to go beyond the physical confines of the Corporate University, the web 2.0 technologies might assist in this process.

 

1. Social Science and Nursing

2. Graham Scambler

4. Benny Goodman’s blog

5. Researchgate

6. Academia.edu

7. Facebook

8. Twitter

 

The links above will provide examples of critical thought and the sharing of ideas accessible by anyone anywhere and at anytime. They provide platforms for commentary and feedback, both synchronously and asynchronously. Their credibility may be built upon already established reputations and research outputs and/or by the clarity and force of the arguments. They will stand or fall by the readership wanting to engage and share and the commitment and enthusiasm by the creator.

 

Conclusion

 

Human health and wellbeing depend on many things. Critical education and challenging taken for granted assumptions are part of the foundations for human progress, if we still believe in progress. Universities may not provide the fertile soil for critical enquiry and discourse, but we do not have to wait for this to occur. We can right now live in the ruins of the University and engage in scholarship that is subversive, critical and potentially engaging and do so in the full knowledge that traditional rewards and recognition may not be forthcoming. That makes it risky. That also makes it fun.

References

Brock T (2014) What is the function of the Social Movement Academic? The Sociological Imagination. http://sociologicalimagination.org/archives/15545

 

Burawoy, M. (2004) Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas and Possibilities. Social Forces, 82(4), 1603-1618.

 

Cresswell M. and Spandler H. (2012) The Engaged Academic: Academic Intellectuals and the Psychiatric Survivor Movement, Social Movement Studies DOI:10.1080/14742837.2012.696821.

 

Docherty T (2014) Austerity canard stymies funding debate. THES. July 7th  http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.aspx?storyCode=2014367

 

Goodman B (2013) What are nurse academics for? Intellectual craftsmanship in an age of instrumentalism. Nurse Education Today 33: 87-89

 

Gramsci, A. (1971) Selections from the Prison Notebooks. Lawrence and Wishart. London

 

Mason, P. 2012 The graduates of 2012 will survive only in the cracks of our economy. The ‘Graduate without a future’ series. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/01/graduates-2012-survive-in-cracks-economy

 

Orr D. (2004) Earth in Mind. On Education, Environment, and the Human Prospect. Island Press, Washington.

 

Rolfe G (2013) The University in Dissent. Routledge. London

 

Readings B (1996) The University in Ruins. Harvard University Press. Cambridge. MA.

 

Scambler, G. (2014) A 100th Blog: A reflexive interlude.http://www.grahamscambler.com/a-100th-blog-a-reflexive-interlude/#respond

 

Standing, G. (2011) The Precariat: the new dangerous class. Bloomsbury. London

 

Sterling S (2001). Sustainable Education – Revisioning Learning and Change, Schumacher Briefings 6. Green Books, Dartington.

 

Vare P (2014) Sustainability Literacy: role or goal? (online) http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0010/6202/Sustainability-Literacy-Blewitt-and-Vare.pdf in Stibbe A (2014) Handbook of Sustainability Literacy http://arts.brighton.ac.uk/stibbe-handbook-of-sustainability

 

Wright Mills C (1959) The Sociological Imagination. 40th Edition. Oxford University Press  Oxford.

 

Zizek S (2008) Violence. Profile. London.

 

health and capitalism – a marxist view

Health and Capitalism. 

“Resistance is futile” and if you heard those words uttered by the Borg, it often was. However, that did not deter the crew of the starship ‘Enterprise’ from carrying on resisting. And so it is with our current ‘predicament’ on his planet. The Borg for us is the globalised ‘surplus capital accumulation problem’.  The resistance to it is legion, but it is disorganised, fragmented, unfocused, without a clear plan and often unsure of who the real threat actually is. Some of the resistance movement of course would misguidedly seek to replace  one form of exploitation and crisis generation with another, but with a kinder social democratic or green face. 

I seek in this paper to cut through the mess of analysis as to why we are heading for continued economic disaster which underpins the ecological one, a disaster in which we are lied to as being ‘all in it together’, while the distribution of wealth remains in very few hands and is then turned to exploiting the planet’s natural and social capital with often deadly results.

This analysis has emotional elements to it, given what the science is telling us about the crossing of planetary boundaries, how could it not? It is not however based on an emotional analysis but an attempt to understand how social worlds change and upon what basis current societies are organised. It is a complex interdependence of economy and ideology shaping social relationships which in turn shape who we are. In the coming together as individuals to trade, work, exchange, distribute, sell, buy, advertise we bring our hopes, values and ideals to that process and in turn that process shapes our hopes, values and ideals. 

This is an agenda that brings together the inequalities in health, the social determinants of health and critiques of political economy. It is a realisation that education has failed us on a grand scale. It is a realisation that a few powerful men (and it is usually men) have commandeered the levers of power and wealth for their own benefit, arguing as they do that it is for our own good. It is a realisation that only when populations wake up to the fact of this (old fashioned) class war and demand a better way of social organization that we will we have a hope of bequeathing to our children a better world. It is a realisation that well meaning individual action that does not challenge the fundamental driver is at best useless and at worse a distraction from the real battle. 

It is a realisation that the war is already lost and the best we can hope for is managed decline in human welfare before restructuring of the social economy is forced upon us.  

Health

Upon what is human health based? It is largely social in nature,  determined by the social relationships in a material world. No one lives alone and so it is in the coming together in communities and societies that we fashion the determinants of health. There is a biological basis for some individuals, however genetic determinants (e.g. in cystic fibrosis) operate at this individual level and are manifest in a relatively minor way. This is not to deny that for the individual the medical condition is anything but minor, but health on population levels are not determined thus. Even genetic manifestations are at times made worse or better by the social conditions in which the individual finds themselves. Poverty has a knack of making underlying biological problems much worse. 

Social Conditions

If health is socially determined by social relationships, what are the current forms of social relationships that give rise to certain patterns of health, illness and disease? We know from studying inequalities in health that socio-economic conditions and relative social status determine populations’ health status including measurable outcomes such as life expectancy and the under 5 mortality rate. Other social relationships such as gender and ethnicity also affect health status. However, these are subservient social conditions to the socio-economic in the last instance. That is not to deny that affluent women and affluent BME’s may also experience ill health disproportionately in certain medical catagories. However, the major driver for global health are the socio-economic relationships which are based on a certain forms of political economy.  What are the dominant socio economic conditions therefore that give rise to the patterns we note?

Political Economy.

A feature of modern capitalism, which in its neoliberal form especially has now gone global, is that it determines in the last instance forms of social relationships that are exploitative and unequal. The material conditions of life are shaped by these unequal and damaging social relationships. Thus, how much land you have to feed your family and where that land is, is determined by systems of private property, commodity prices and the rules of the state. The same goes for water and shelter. The fundamental building blocks of life, including eco systems services (e.g. fresh water, waste recycling) are subsumed within capitalist social relationships. Nature (the air, water, livestock etc) upon which we depend has been fashioned into a mere instrument for human survival and development. There is very little ‘nature’ left untouched by human hand. All of nature has been turned into natural capital and is being used up as if it is limitless. 

Capitalism has to continue to do what it does because of surplus capital accumulation problem (SCAP). Because only labour produces value, capitalism involves the expropriation of labour’s surplus value. As surplus value accrues to the ruling class (those who own and control the means of production) it has to be reinvested or it is lost. Thus capital continually seeks new markets and new profits. It cannot stand still and so it looks to exploit more and more natural capital in the process. When it comes up against a barrier to this process (e.g. strong labour organisations who demand living wages and pensions) it either designs a solution (e.g. strict labour laws that outlaw strikes and labour organisations) or finds other investment opportunities (takes manufacturing to countries where there is weak, cheap or surplus labour). An economy that is not returning 3% growth is seen as sluggish and, as we are experiencing in the UK, recessions (which result from lack of aggregate demand and lack of surplus capital investment) result in unemployment and social unrest. 

Capitalism has proved to be dynamic and inventive. It has taken on many forms – mercantile, industrial and recently financial and consumer based. Apologists for capital accumulation argue it is good for societies, pointing to the jobs and wealth created while ignoring the social misery that often follows in its wake. Whole populations have been ‘bribed‘ by the baubles that capitalism produces which, as the recent credit and consumer led boom and bust has proved, are merely will o’ the wisps. The phrase ‘wage slave’ resonates with many in so called ‘advanced’ societies who are trapped in alienating forms of work ameliorated only by the lures of consumer products and services. The promises of ‘you’ve never had it so good’ turning sour on sovereign and private debt while the ruling class run away with the spoils in ‘Richistan’.

Green thinking

One way to confront this machine is to get off the consumerist treadmill and hope that through collective consumer choices (i.e. not to buy stuff), that the ruling class will mend their accumulative ways, invest in health, education, the conditions of social life and design products that are ‘green‘ and ‘environmentally friendly’. This is already occurring. The plethora of products from hybrid cars to organic and locally sourced food products indicate that some companies are basing their business models with sustainability in mind. What this does not do however is change the underlying dynamic of the surplus capital accumulation problem which demands growth in the economy and the overuse of natural resources. 

This means there is a race on between developing goods and services that are carbon neutral and environmentally friendly and the supply of goods that are killing ecosystem services and wreck social relationships.  This race occurs within the context of the SCAP which will seek to overcome any barriers to the investment of that surplus value and will not wait until all goods and services become eco friendly. If investment in eco friendly products can be found, and is profitable, capitalism will do so, but it is not fussy in this regard. Canadian tar sands exploitation is an example in which demand for oil and the chance for investing surplus capital to turn a profit cannot be overlooked.

Thus, living the good life runs up against globalised capital surplus accumulation.  

Green thinking is also a minority sport as it is up against other forces as well. The idea of human progress and technological advances to solve our problems runs in tandem with those who have the capital to invest. This also includes some forms of religious ideology which affirms man’s right to dominate nature and an anthropocentric world view. 

Greens need a critique of political economy or risk being sidelined in the Shire as Mordor advances its deathly grip.

So what?

It is unlikely that human populations under globalised capitalism will stop the SCAP dynamic. They don’t understand it. What they do understand is that there are winners and losers in the current system. If you win, you win big. Many also feel impotent to prevent the investment decisions being made by suits in the financial districts of first world countries. Politicians have let their electorates down or more likely could not deliver as they are merely apologists for the ruling class. Democracy is under challenge (ironic given that many are currently dying for a democratic ideal). Many shrug and say ‘nothing can be done’. They may be right. The ruling class may have too powerful a grip and ‘enjoy’ too much of the spoils to change. Meanwhile the political economy of SCAP produces social relationships that determine our current unequal patterns of health. 

To date, not enough people are discussing the underlying dynamic of capitalism that produces periodic crises and which may eventually allow Gaia to take revenge. We are locked into a cluster of high carbon systems underpinned by this capitalist dynamic and we  don’t have a key. There is an urgent need to design one but our (elite?) Universities are currently so wrapped up in producing technologies for capitalist production and equipping people with skills fit for capitalist purpose that they are ill placed to produce radical thinking, challenges and alternative plans. Education is not the solution, it is the problem. Politics is not the solution it is the problem. Ecology is not the solution it is the problem. 

“Philosophers have hitherto interpreted the world in many ways, the point however is to change it”.  That means confronting Capital. Changing the light bulbs ain’t enough and may give a false sense of ‘doing something’.

  1. Join/start an anti capitalist social movement.
  2. Use social media to connect.
  3. Confront your elected representatives in writing. 
  4. Identify and contact the ‘suits’ 
  5. Find someone who knows what campaigning is all about and share skills.
  6. Focus on your core skills, attributes and role and fashion a response that suits them.
  7. Identify a sphere of influence and work within that.
  8. Read and understand the issues.

…or realise that no one gives a toss about any of this, go home and get pissed. 

Flowers and chains 2

Flowers and chains 2

We have been lied to and have lied to ourselves. We have let class politics in by the back door and given succour to the entrenchment of class power without realising it. How has this happened ? We have focused on the (illusory) differences between parties of liberal democracy rather than on the (real) differences of class politics. The collapse of communism and the continuing success of neoliberal hegemony has led us to believe that class is no longer relevant. We have been told that class no longer applies and that voting along class lines is less important than it was two decades ago. Both are fallacies.

Let’s be very clear, the differences between left and right parties in western liberal democracy are differences mainly about the role of the state in managing advanced consumer capitalism and not about whether consumer capitalism itself is the issue.

Arguments about whether the state’s role is to only provide a framework for entrepreneurship or that the state should intervene in regulating markets more forcefully is like a family argument around the dinner table. Consensus exists around that table that the family exists, the argument is only about who should have the say over serving up the peas. Neoliberal theory and practice is now so entrenched in liberal democracy that there is now a state-finance nexus whose separate voices differ only on the best management practices.

Greece, Italy, and the crisis in the euro zone, the UK and US deficits have produced a great deal of debate about how best to deal with it. One thing is clear. The people being asked to take pay cuts and lose pension rights are not the people responsible for the crisis in the first place. That much we know. Even the most ardent of neoliberal hawks must accept that, and arguments about states indulging in overspend, poor inflexible employment practices and lack of entrepreneurship (e.g Italy) should not distract us from the real reasons liberal democracies are in a fix. Italy may well be a basket case who ignored the rules set down by the family, but it is the family’s rules themselves that are at fault. Even if Italy played ball and acted as the US and UK did over the last decade or two would that have prevented their problems? The US and The UK are no role models and are supposedly bastions of neoliberal economics, however they underestimated the role of systemic risk that is a central feature of global capital flows. China et al will not escape the system risks as they grow either, but in the short to medium term they have other ways of dealing with the various crises of capital (for example they have huge armies of reserve labour to call upon).

An example of an argument that completely misses the point is the current struggle between defenders of the public sector and those who believe the state should be whittled away to leave room for business to do it’s thing freely. Notwithstanding ‘race to the bottom’ arguments on pay and conditions or that the two sectors are not comparable in any case, this argument is one about the character of the superstructure itself rather than focusing on the economic infrastructure. Both social democrats (arguing for the application of regulation and morality to markets) and free Market conservatives (arguing for less regulation and less state intervention) are not discussing the core problem of the economic infrastructure which if not addressed results in systemic risk manifesting itself at the weak points in the global capital system.

The issue? The problem is of surplus capital accumulation at a compound growth rate of around 3%. That is to say that a driving mechanism of capital flow is the need to invest/spend surplus capital that results in a 3% rate of growth. Capital has to flow freely to achieve this end, if it does not then the system collapses. This is what David Harvey calls the enigma of capital.

This is a technical economic argument that needs much more explaining, suffice to say at this point that this is the reason class politics is under the radar because few are paying any attention to capital flow and it’s concomitant affects on labour.

The flowers are the political debates between leftist and rightist parties of western liberal democracies. The chain is surplus capital accumulation and the requirement for labour to act as wage slaves to provide this surplus value.

For a very good cartoon on this see

http://fora.tv/2010/04/26/David_Harvey_The_Crises_of_Capitalism_Animated

Plucking Imaginary Flowers

“Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself.” (Marx Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

This quote from Marx has always been a favourite of mine because it clarifies a fundamental truth: that many social practices obscure the actual nature of social relationships resulting in imbalances of power and exploitation which because of self delusion are not challenged. The subject here may be religion as an obfuscatory belief system but it equally applies to the tenets of consumer capitalism as an obfuscatory belief system.

Religion says “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me” (John 3:16). Without going into too much interpretation the message here is that Christ is the only path to enlightenment and knowledge of God, of course accepting that there is a God to know in the first place. Thus is established the first hierachy which was then extended into the human realm by such notions as the Divine Right of kings and the established practices of organised christianity. “Rich man at his castle, poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly and ordered their estate”.

The flower: Believe in God (and his ordained ministers on earth) and your reward will be in heaven. The chain: your lowly social position.

The apologists for consumer capitalism use the public sector deficit as an ideological cover for their brand of neoliberalism. They say “We are all in this together” and that there is no alternative to slashing public spending to head off becoming Greece. Public sector pensions are also “unaffordable”:

The flower: Cut public spending and we will prosper. The chain: the inability of labour to break free from wage slavery and to organise an alternative relationship to wealth creation, distribution and exchange.

Illusions abound: It is argued that governments do not make money, they only spend it, and that it is the private sector, and importantly, global corporations that provide jobs and wealth. Note the words ‘government’ ‘private sector’ and ‘corporation’. These are illusory abstractions (flowers). They exist in discourse only to explain how a system works. In concrete reality there are human beings engaged in productive processes arranged in particular social relationships (chains).

Thus Marx calls for an examination of actual social relationships as they exist in concrete reality to reveal that it is labour creating surplus value for capital as the basis for wealth creation. Bright, ambitious individuals prosper partly through their own efforts but also because the system they prosper in has been constructed to reward certain types of effort disproportionately. This is now happening to the extent that a financial global elite are making sums of money most ordinary mortals cannot even concieve of for creating things like Credit default swaps (http://tinyurl.com/negativeCDS) which are basically bets on firms or countries failing in a market worth an estimate $45 trillion. That is to say people are working on abstractions in financial markets (which are numbers in a computer software programme) which bear little relationship to actual houses, food and energy. Let’s return to ‘affordability’ – read that number above again. That is in trillions (1 trillion = 1,000 billion). How much is the financial sector worth in trade each year? How much money sloshes around the global sytem, who earns it,  who keeps it? Affordability is another abstraction. These questions need concret answers before we talk about affordability.

The flowers include buying your own home, owning a new car, a holiday in the sun, a new kitchen…the chains were the loans you have to take out to get these things and the length of time you need to spend in work to pay it all back. You (labour) work in a system which promises you illusory heaven now to cover the the actual hell experienced while capital reaps the rewards. The system is just not sustainable. 

 

Skip to toolbar