When the Accumulator becomes the destroyer

                               

  As a student of the materialist dialectic philosophy, which deals in contradictions, resolutions and progression, this is a theme that is of particular interest to me because it helps to explain the end of civilization and its counterparts. The main counterpart to manmade civilization is the natural environment which is an empire that man continually strives to subdue so that his civilization may thrive with its emphasis on ideology and material wealth. In the rise and fall of empires wealth is measured by the extent to which people accumulate; what they accumulate becomes a legitimating factor for their empire, regime or following.  This also applies to the success of individuals and so if I accumulate 10 followers on twitter that would not render me as successful as the person that can accumulate 20 million. The person who accumulates 20 million may find it difficult, however, to accumulate a further 20 million because that 20 million might represent the extent of their success or market share. I have 10 followers and so the potential for growth is much higher than the one with 20 million although I may never reach that level.  When the person cannot increase rapidly beyond that 20 million that is when the accumulator becomes the destroyer because the rate of accumulation declines or stagnates. With great empires the extent that they can command their followers depends on the elements they used to accumulate such a following be it wealth, revolutionary principles that saw the overthrow of the previous corrupt regime, national interests etc. These elements represent the accumulator because it is these elements that attract followers. In the case of the twitter account the individual with the 20 million views is probably a music or film star whereas the man with 10 followers is an average nobody in life i.e. someone nobody cares about in the public sphere. When you have reached the extent of what you can accumulate decline is inevitable because decline is a natural process since people will now turn to other spheres which will accumulate accordingly, particularly if there are competitors or if there is a generational shift with the introduction of new elements that represent the forces that accumulate wealth. Also what you use to accumulate has to change because when your followers become used to it then eventually that element will not reach out to other spheres.  This is all common knowledge but I admire the theme very much especially because it is not really clear how decline actually sets in because we know if you rise to the very top you will fall relatively although you are still at the top as a legend or some ephemeral ghost lurking at the mountain tops or in the crevice of people’s consciousness.

For instance The United States of America and the Eurozone, the main representatives of world capitalist domination, accumulated their wealth by encouraging their dominant capitalist class to extract surplus value/unpaid labour time from the proletariat or the working class. This was complimented by high levels of investment, high levels of saving and a rise in incomes and living standards which were reflective of the high levels of productivity. This has been their undoing for having accumulated all of this wealth via surplus value, which is absorbed by machinery or constant/fixed capital, these centres of world capitalist wealth are now in a crisis especially as the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.  The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer because with the massive growth in the rate of surplus value, which when calculated on the capital advanced becomes the rate of profit, machinery tends to take over and when this happens some workers become redundant and swell the ranks of the surplus population that await a job or are supposed to be next in line waiting for a job. These ranks of the unemployed depress the wage bill because labour power is like any other commodity: when it is not in demand it becomes cheaper and when it is in demand it becomes dearer. Those who remain employed are forced to work twice as hard to keep their job thus increasing the rate of productivity with the aid of machinery or technology. One man eventually does the work of 70 in advanced economies whereas the poor countries with high rates of growth would employ that 70 because of the low levels of development in technology. The high levels of productivity that characterize capitalist production eventually become its undoing because the relative surplus population represents the forces of anarchy and revolution and the source of the eventual overthrow  of those few that prided themselves at the top accumulating their wealth through their stock holdings. (This is why the stock market is reflective to some extent of economic growth.) The swelling ranks of the proletariat or working class groups that feel disenfranchised suggests that these swelling ranks are representative of those not inclined to subscribe to the previous method associated with capitalism that claimed to be the source of liberty and wealth etc. These ranks become disillusioned with the owners of the means of production and the following that they attracted with massive amounts of investment start to turn against the very system that created its followers who scrounge around in filth as the illustrious owners of the means of production and their lackeys subsist on luxury. The system itself becomes intransigent because with capitalism it is clear that it is based on the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few and this is facilitated by technology which aids in discarding workers who no longer have a stake in national wealth. The capitalist system uses other levers to perpetuate its system in such a case such as the stock market  and public debt which provide massive amounts of stimulus to the economy although most of it will go to waste because a lot if it is illusory.

When one looks at the Macedonian, Roman, Egyptian, Babylonian and Mongolian Empires the main accumulator was the prestige of the kingdom in war. Conquest was the basis for their wealth as well as the slave labour of the outlying provinces. All of these empires succumbed to the advance of other nations who also used conquest against them or the slave labour that reflected the class divisions within. With Egypt you have Moses and his followers, who were slaves of the pharaoh, fleeing Egypt and you have several slave revolts in Rome. These slaves no longer subscribed to the infallibility of those empires that prided themselves on conquest. The basis of wealth in those times was landed property and so the use of slave labour to cultivate the fields and to build illustrious monuments, which astound the world to this day, were also reflective of the eventual decline in production particularly as the provinces they once conquered revolted and turned against these empires. They could not sustain themselves any longer since the basis of their wealth was via military conquest. The peoples they conquered became ostracized as some became slaves or others were forced to hand over a portion of their surplus as tribute.  It also becomes the case where the extent of conquest is unsustainable for initially one rides high when you conquer but eventually it becomes difficult to sustain especially as you are stretched thin and so you limit the possibility of maintaining your conquered territory. This ostracism eventually leads to decline.

In the case of individual fortunes I will use examples from two films which accurately capture this premise: Barry Lyndon (1975) and Citizen Kane (1941). In the former Barry Lyndon gained his fortune by marrying a Mrs. Katherine Lyndon a rich widow who he seduced while the husband was alive. Barry was determined to accumulate his wealth and become a gentleman however his gambling career was insufficient and when he set sights on Mrs. Lyndon the rest is history. He never actually had possession of the wealth however for the signature of the wife was needed to conduct any transaction. He used this as the basis to buy on credit. He eventually lost out on the fortune by first spending lavishly in order to acquire a peerage or lordship which would secure him, should his wife pass away, as a result of his mother’s advice. His poor attitude resulted in an embarrassing situation where his stepson sought to expose the lowliness of the Irish man at a public ceremony with a lot of lords in attendance. Barry swooped down on his stepson, who is a lord via inheritance, and beat him in full view of everyone at the ceremony. After that incident Barry lost his friends in the elite circles and so his peerage eluded him. He eventually lost his own spoilt son, whom he spent lavishly on, in a horsing accident. The horse was to be a surprise for his young son but he found out, rode it and was toppled which caused an injury that eventually cost him his life. The stepson, now mature, eventually came to challenge Barry after the fortune he lavishly spent, on the basis of credit, came to bear down on him as he was shut out of several circles. The stepson challenged him to a duel and Barry is wounded in the leg which is eventually amputated. He has no resources left as his credit source is dried up. The stepson offers him £500 a year on the condition that he leaves England never to return. The main source of Barry’s wealth was the marriage to Katherine Lyndon however the stepson was a part of the marriage package and was intent on destroying him. The credit he was able to exhaust in lavish spending was due to this marriage but the incident with the stepson deprived him of his friends in the elite circles and those wiling to offer him unlimited credit. The marriage which was the accumulator of his wealth eventually destroyed him.

There is a similar case in Citizen Kane. Charles Foster Kane inherits a large fortune and when he eventually grows up he initially intends to use this wealth to begin a newspaper syndicate so as to accumulate followers. With the expansion of the media empire, as a result of the significant increase in newspaper circulation, there is an expansion of Kane’s political ambitions. He marries the president’s niece and begins to accumulate classical objects of interest along the way in his travels. He runs for Governor but there is scandal involving Kane and a singer, he casually meets and starts to see clandestinely, that ends his race for the Governorship. He divorces his first wife and marries the singer however decline begins to set in. The circulation of his newspapers begins to shrink partly due to the scandal and other questionable decisions by Kane such as having meetings with Hitler or condescending to his audience by assuming that they will think what he makes them think. One embarrassing instance is where he tries to promote his wife’s singing talents although she is not as talented as he thinks, even with singing lessons. He uses the newspapers to highlight her greatness but it is clear to everyone including the wife that he is way off the mark and it is only when she attempts to kill herself does he get the message. With the decline of his newspaper empire Kane becomes solitary and uses his vast wealth to construct the fortress known as Xanadu but this remains unfinished. He also collects thousands of ornaments which he probably never sees more than once and which he cannot appreciate. The only relic he wished to possess was his sleigh, rosebud, which is his famous dying word. He clearly overcompensated with his vast collection when what he really wanted was that old relic from the days when he never knew such wealth. His second wife also leaves him to die alone in that great fortress. It is clear that with the decline of the newspaper empire Kane was destroyed. He used the newspaper empire to run for political office but this was turned against him with a major scandal and his condescending view to his audience. He thought that the people would think what he told them to think.  He became complacent and assumed that his viewership would always be there for him because most of his support was based on newspapers in circulation. He ends up alone having relinquished claims to his media empire and those people who followed him so assiduously in the beginning.

These are just some examples of how the accumulator becomes the destroyer. It goes to show that the more inclusive you are the less likely the accumulator will become the destroyer. It is in the nature of private property however to create this dialectic. The positive, which is the accumulator, becomes negated by the destroyer or the element that will overtake it as the new positive. Only until society can become all inclusive will there be no need for these dilemmas where the accumulator becomes the destroyer and this will only occur when it is no longer the belief that one must lord himself over the other.

What makes you great eventually makes you small.