Chaos

(image courtesy of fimfiction.net)

 I was inspired to write this by the great film Ran (1985) directed by the legendary Akira Kurosowa. Ran means chaos or pandemonium in Japanese.

Chaos is essential to the principles of existence. We all frown at chaos but it is a necessary movement in creating a new central authority. What we call order is the principle that all social elements are centralized through a particular individual, institution or political body. Chaos is more or less the principle of decentralization and the new order comes when a new central authority emerges. The move to decentralization is a very detailed process which normally results in upheaval. This upheaval creates a sense of despondency in those tied to the old order because they cannot imagine life without the old order. The old order dies a natural death because there are new elements within the social framework which do not wish to submit to the old centralized authority. The old order tends to cast judgment on these new chaotic elements as they begin to emerge because they know that it represents a state of dissolution for their society and way of living. The chaotic elements can remain in a state of anarchy or chaos until someone or a group of individuals take it up on themselves to create a new order by subduing the chaotic elements. This new order is created on a new basis because the old order cannot return. The chaotic elements acknowledge this development of a new centralized authority because it embraces those elements once considered chaotic. Chaos is vital in shattering the old order although it leads to a great upheaval. Constant chaos is not a good thing because the lack of a centralized authority means that nothing new will emerge from the melting pot. Those who emerge from the chaos are heroic in some respects or villainous. Things cannot remain in a state of decentralization because there will be no unity from a political or economic point of view. A perpetual state of democracy, for instance, which encourages decentralization leads naturally to chaos.  There are many voices that are directionless but there are some with the aim to make their viewpoint the dominant one. It is a never ending battle until hardline measures are taken to sway others through tough or violent measures. Chaos is always difficult to control and even if authority in the current central body is so significant that it seems as if all chaotic elements are subdued it is only for  the present because when bodies begin to age then the cracks will emerge and through the cracks come the chaotic elements. Those subdued become victorious and eventually the new central authority will have to grapple with new chaotic elements. It is never ending but it makes life exciting. The decisions that make or break us are a response to the emerging chaos that will emerge once you tackle the preexisting social element in which authority is centralized. Chaos is at the heart of the great theoretical debates, artistic creations, cultural expressions, the expansion of economic activity and the creation of new political bodies.

 Chaos is not such a bad thing after all.

The historical Importance of the Independent producer

 
(Daniel Plainview and son, H.W in There Will Be Blood)

I was inspired to make this post by the great film, There Will Be Blood starring Daniel day Lewis as Daniel Plainview an Independent oil man who strikes out on his own in his quest for oil with his own labour, hence why he is initially an independent producer, until he can build up enough capital and so become his own man/capitalist. Doing this piece now will remove the need to do it later on when I review the film which is featured in my American Heartland series. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is also a great example of the class of independent producers (see my review)

 The independent producer is one that produces with his or her own labour in order to subsist or provide a living. They have no recourse to selling their labour power to others in order to live like the working classes that sell their labour to the capitalists. They can do this because they own some portion of the means of production however due to a lack of capital they must utilize their own labour to make the means of production come together and so create a use value for exchange in the marketplace. The independent producer falls in to several economic categories: the peasantry, the artisan class and those individuals that partake in an economic activity, such as creating a product or a service, where they do most of the labour thereby rendering unto themselves any gains and losses to be made from sales, or lack thereof. The Independent producer normally thrives in an economy or area of an economy where the rate of capital accumulation is low or capital does not dominate a particular area. When I review There Will Be Blood I will highlight in more detail how this is so. Capital exists to exploit the labour power of the working classes by extracting surplus value/unpaid labour time. In developed capitalist economies the wage earner is subservient to capital and the only aspect of the means of production he or she is capable of owning is the labour power from which capital extracts surplus value. In normal circumstances the majority of the working class can only live by selling their labour power to the capitalist class. The independent producer on the other hand lays claim to particular material elements utilized in the production process for many reasons such as family ownership, the first in a grab for such materials etc. This core of independent producers represent a point of expansion for capital because capital can only exist by controlling the means of production which will force the working class to sell their labour power to this great social force. The independent producer who is normally much smaller than a developed capitalist enterprise cannot be so ruled because he owns a part of the means of production and can expand until he becomes a capitalist him or herself. With a proliferation of independent producers capital must constantly use this as a point for expansion. This is the historical importance of the independent producer.

I will now highlight my point with a few historical and practical examples. Firstly, the independent producers, particularly the peasantry and tenant farmers represent the genesis for capitalist ground rent from the 15^th through to the 18^th century before capital took off. This is most evident in England whereby conquering this group of small land owners, once dominated by the landed aristocrats in the feudal economy, capital was able to expand particularly from the perspective of agricultural production. There is also the case where the tenant farmers were able to take advantages of certain circumstances in order to expand under the auspices of the landed aristocrat. It is from the peasantry, sharecroppers and tenant farmers that the first class o agricultural capitalist emerged from. This was done because they were able to accumulate substantially through the produce of their own labour and so able to employ labour for exploitation as well as through external circumstances such as the devaluation of gold that occurred with the discovery of the mines in central and South America. This devaluation would affect the tenant farmer, for instance, because the leases were made at a fixed price and so the devaluation of gold would allow for the tenant farmer to accumulate more than he normally would.  

In the towns during this period the work of the independent producer was also instrumental in encouraging capital formation.  There were the small guild of manufacturers that would normally spread from the class of artisans who labored for themselves.  With the establishment of the guilds these independent producers would take on apprentices and exploit their labour power until the apprentice became a master. The scale of production was limited but it still represented a point of expansion when capital was to take off in later years. The usurers and merchants were the first true representatives of capital because they dealt primarily in commercial capital and not full scale industrial capitalism which was yet to expand. They charged exorbitant interest for the money loaned out simply because industrial capital was not fully developed and labour productivity was relatively low. The independent producers were targeted by impotent usurious vultures because they represent the main productive element in the society at the time and so they were most likely to be targeted when loans were issued. Even the monarchs that received loans from these usurers gained could afford to do so because they taxed the independent producers. Even the merchant and the usurer were probably independent producers. Most merchants worked in their wholesale and retail shops and the usurers were primarily money lenders however one must question where the money come from and in medieval times it is most likely that these merchants and usurer inherited their wealth either through the labour of family which was primarily a clan of independent producers or by hard labour which would allow them to accumulate sufficiently in order to employ workers under them.

The colonial expedition is also an example where the independent produce laid the grounds for capitalist expansion.  The first colonists in the Americas and Asia were sent by the governments to settle wild lands and subjugate the indigenous population however when the labour of the indigenous population declined or died out there was an encouragement for citizens of the colonizing country to come and set up shop. While setting up shop these early settlers had to make a living by working the land initially and encouraging the production of certain crops for export to the motherland. The sugar trade was instrumental in the colonizing process for the British and French empires, for instance, and this encouraged the development of capital particularly through the merchants who would advance capital to the colonizers. This expansion of trade would encourage the growth in the slave trade. The Americas benefited from the colonizing process which all began with the independent producer.

In the initial stages of capitalist development the capitalist must expropriate the independent producer in order to expand for they preceded him. The Independent producer can be expropriated through a by out or by coercive means such as the strong arm of the state. When this is done the independent producer must join the ranks of the working class and so sell his labour power or seek to rebuild by trying to regain control over some area of the means of production. This is what occurs in any country that is expanding its capital base.

In an economy where capital does not thrive the independent producers lay claim to much of the economy this is largely the case in agrarian economies where the peasantry dominates the economy. In such a context  the future group of capitalists are likely to emerge from this group on the basis of how much they can accumulate through their own labour utilizing the limited means of production at their disposal. The basis for the expansion of some independent producers into capitalist production is normally dependent on the development of capital elsewhere, either in the local towns or internationally. The peasantry in the feudal economy would grow differently from the peasantry of a colonial economy dominated by the capital of the Imperial power.

Why then is the independent producer still viable in a developed capitalist economy? If capitalism is fully developed then where would room be for the independent producer? The independent producer represents the point of expansion for capital. Capital has to constantly valorize itself in order to continually accumulate. In a developed capitalist economy the independent producer normally created the next big product or service that will allow for this point of expansion. Capital uses the universities and investments in scientific projects to aid in the production of new commodities. The product will still come from individual initiative within a particular social context where a new need must be satisfied. This is the  first basis for the independent producer. The independent producer normally creates a new product that does well in the market and creates a new demand. when this product does well those who have capital invest in the product in order for it to expand its reach into new markets and to improve the production method. The independent producer eventually loses his distinctive edge when he or she becomes capitalist or sells out or has to deal with other shareholders. He or she  eventually becomes known as a founding member  and his or her labour is not sufficient to continue the enterprise and other specialists will enter the field and take over as the independent producer simply looks on and increases his profits. If or she is not savvy it is likely that the individual will be thrown out by business executives.

This concludes my brief discussion on the independent producer.

The Importance of comic Book Heroes in the modern era

When I say the importance of comic book heroes in the modern era I am referring to their cultural significance in western society, particularly in the United States, for the 20^th and now the 21^st century. I was an avid comic book collector when I was young. I collected almost every significant title from the DC and Marvel canon. I also grew up on the Superman and Batman films of the 70s, 80s and 90s. I , with the host of the 21^st generation, watched superhero films  take complete control of the box office receipts  since Spider-man (2002), Spider-Man 2 (2004), Spider-man 3 (2007), The Dark Knight (2008), Iron Man (2008), The Avengers (2012), The Dark Knight Rises (2012). Iron man 3 (2013) has passed the billion dollar mark. Man of Steel (2013) has also done quite well. The success of comic book films make it clear that these films enjoy some measure of cultural significance in contemporary society having been adapted from the comic books that preceded them. Is it because these superheroes plastered on the pages of the comic books, and in film, are super powered and so are able to perform extraordinary feats that ordinary humans can only dream of? Is it because they represent some set of ideals we should all aspire to? Do they represent the potential of mankind to develop its bodily functions to a point that the laws of physics are defied thereby creating new laws related to matter and energy? All of the above will necessarily apply however there have been heroes from the old myths and fairy tales that represent the very same thing as these modern day comic book heroes. Greek myth, for instance, presented us with a plethora of ‘superheroes’ such as Hercules, Theseus and Achilles (I think I can include Kratos from the God of war series). Fairy tales have given us brave knights, wizards etc that rescue the damsel or defeat the dragon or a dark lord of magic. Norse Myth presented us with Thor and his mighty hammer that had grand adventures and defeated mighty creatures with his great hammer. The Lord of the Rings trilogy presented us with super powered individuals ( in their own right) that were able to do extraordinary things in their quest  to defeat the owner of the ring of power. What then is the true difference between these heroes and those of today? The culture of capitalism, that’s what. 

Most of the superheroes in comic books emerged within the sphere of the capitalist culture.  The notion that the bourgeoisie is the dominant class is a major theme in the comic book world. This is made more apparent when most of the superheroes originate in the great capitalist nation empire, the United States of America. For instance you have the Justice League of America and the Avengers, which represent the collective might of superheroes in the DC and Marvel universe respectively, where all super powered individuals reside in America, even if they are aliens. All of these so called superheroes represent, primarily, American virtues which are dictated by the capitalist mode of production. This mode of production involves the few that own the means of production that extract surplus value/ unpaid labour time (based on the length of the working day) from the working class. This mode of production requires high levels of labour productivity, advanced technology and the production of a vast # of commodities for exchange in the various markets.  The middle class/petty bourgeois which includes, mostly, professionals acts as the moral buffer and the centre of bourgeois ideological activity. The superheroes fall either within the group that control the means of production or the middle class. This is why superheroes do not necessarily resonate with people from a primarily peasant background or those individuals of the working class thoroughly brutalized by the exploitation of capital. The superheroes come, primarily from these backgrounds because it is these two classes that represent the hegemony of political and civil society in capitalist society. The primary role of these two classes in modern society is the maintenance of social order or as a detterent to anything that would disrupt commerce.

Previous heroes from old mythology, fairy tales etc existed in slave or feudal economies. This is why they rode horses, travelled primarily on foot or were transported by a magical apparatus. The primary weapons were swords, spears, clubs, bow and arrow, shields and magical weapons whose origins cannot be explained from a scientific point of view. Their primary foes were magical beings or abnormal natural creatures such as dragons, lions, snakes, tigers etc. They also fought nature itself where the villains would inhabit the natural elements and use it as a force against them (the gods of Olympus). They emerged in a time when the mode of production was inferior because labour productivity was low and the pace of technological innovation was slow. The heroes of those myths relied more on their ability to relate with nature. The physical strength of the heroes was tied into mysticism or religious beliefs, therefore Hercules or Thor could not have powers if they did not have some filial relationship with the gods of that particular culture. Hercules was the son of Zeus, King of the gods in Greek myth and Thor was the son of Odin, King of the gods in Norse myth. Patriarchy was an important feature of these old cultures because women figure as individuals who were either vixens that cajole their husbands or use witchcraft (Medea is the most outrageous embodiment of these values in Greek myth) or those women that support the male hero and ennoble his manhood. Saving the damsel in distress was a prominent feature of this old lore (See Perseus and Andromeda). When Hercules was punished  by being sentenced to three years of domestic servitude  under Queen Omphale, where he had to dress like a maid, he considered it a worse trial than his famous twelve labours.

Due to the poverty associated with the feudal and slave based economies, which were primarily agrarian, conquest was vital in supporting the drive for enrichment. Conquest was not always plunder for one cannot plunder the entire earth leaving nothing in your wake. After conquest of a new territory it would be assimilated within the conquering empire or nation. Tribute would be paid to the conqueror and the conqueror would expand the opportunities for the exploitation of whatever wealth resided in the conquered nation (gold, slave labour etc). The conquering nation would be able to facilitate an improvement in the terms of trade and there would be a more smooth transfer of goods because of the new avenues of settlement for the conquering nation (See the Roman Empire and the development of the extensive road network. See also Egypt, China, Indus Valley region and Mesopotamia).  This tradition of conquest  saw the emergence of a warrior class who were the primary offenders or defenders  depending on the situation. This class of heroes relied on their expertise in warfare to be successful. This led to the creation of legends surrounding the famous warriors. Most heroes in Greek myth were involved in some form of warfare of this type. Hercules went on several raids with a band of warriors, including the first sack of troy and the exploits of Achilles are famously documented in Homer’s account of the Trojan War. These elements associated with conquest have passed over into today but within the context of the bourgeois economy which emphasizes the valorization of capital. The plundering associated with conquest is seen as retrograde in the comic book world of today because instead of conquering let’s make money. Villains are normally seen as conquerors (See General Zod in the most recent Man of Steel). 

Now why are the comic book heroes of today important to the culture of capital, particularly as it is expressed in the West? They reinforce the capitalist culture primarily the culture of America. Europe or the Old world, more readily embraces the myths of a bygone era. Sophocles, Homer, Virgil, and Shakespeare all come from this tradition.They embodied these great ancient myths of the ancient heroes in tragic style and their works are important in schools today. Due to the inadequacy of visual aids they appealed to the imagination by rendering the tales in dense poetic styles. This is incompatible with the bourgeois mode of production which is more direct and less superfluous and we see this with the development of the film and comic book industry. The Asian countries, particularly China and Japan also have a distinct fabled heritage supported by mythology. They too have their famous warriors with supernatural abilities but within the context of agricultural development just like Europe. See the Samurai of Japan, the martial artists of China where the myths are embodied in films such as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hero. Old European and Asian culture is exported in this form due to the age of their respective civilizations. These countries carry with them the burden of long dead traditions despite operating in a more modern context. These cultures are still marketed with more modern visual aids such as film. America on the other hand only knows the bourgeois mode of production although there was a slave economy shattered by its civil war. The myths of American heroes are myths primarily for the capitalist mode of production.

   I will just outline briefly why these superheroes embody the capitalist culture of America.  Firstly the superheroes must emerge within a capitalist context. Either the heroes are members of the capitalist class (Bruce Wayne/Batman, Tony Stark/Iron Man) or they are simply middle class representatives (the majority of superheroes. They don’t have money but they have the power). The heroes from the capitalist class have enormous resources at their disposal and use the technology to aid them in their fight. Their primary weapons, therefore, are based on technology. The middle class representatives must get their powers from something that enhances their physical capabilities (Spider man bitten by a radioactive spider and Superman benefiting from earth’s atmosphere. The mutants from X-men are born with their powers).  Within the capitalist context these powers have to be scientifically explained (Spider man bitten by a radioactive spider etc). If not the powers must come from some energy in the universe (Green Lantern). Even heroes from past myths make an appearance within the capitalist culture and (Thor, the amazon wonder woman) they appear condescending with a grandiose tradition riding at their heels yet backward because of their origins and it is similar to how Europe and Asia  is perceived as representatives of the Old world with America representing the New world mentality with capitalism as the historical basis for its mode of production. Some modern heroes still use old means of fighting (Green Arrow, Huntress, Hawkeye) but with a more modern approach.

Secondly, the heroes must represent bourgeois ideals particularly from an American perspective. Even cowboys are seen as settling the frontier for the basis of capitalist economic expansion.  The slave based economy of the American south operated within the bourgeois context of the American North and the development of capitalism in Britain during the 19^th century. Superman is a classic example of bourgeois ideals having been reared on a peasant farm and standing for truth Justice and the American way. His main villain is a rabid capitalist, Lex Luthor and most of his villains are technologically based. He is an alien from a advanced planet which seemed to have embodied capitalist virtues and so his presence as an orphan from that planet makes him seem so advanced and aware of the need for the growth of capital because his dead planet embodied those same virtues. He only has to resolve the great crises of capital. Over production, technology failure, swindlers, speculators etc. Superman is a great harmonizer. Heroes such as Captain America emerged when America entered World War 2 and there was a great drive to encourage the citizenry to buy war bonds. After World War 2 he is conveniently frozen and when he returns his main villain is still the Nazi, red skull. The Justice league of America and the Avengers are based primarily in America with outposts in other countries like the United Nations and the IMF. Most of the heroes of comic books originate in America. It is a prerequisite.

Lastly the superheroes must represent various facets of bourgeois society. Batman and iron man represent philanthropic capitalists who use their wealth to resolve crisis through welfare activities. This will allow them to protect their wealth from criminals. Batman’s great goal is to protect capital investments from criminals. (I will elaborate when I speak of the role of comic book villains). Superman, and Spider man are classic representatives of the middle class/petty bourgeois and their great role is to ensure that capital runs smoothly even though they do not have capital themselves. The majority of superheroes fall within the middle class.  They embrace the system wholeheartedly. Crisis is represented by destructive elements even if they are revolutionary and so these heroes are determined to resolve the crisis created by the villain.

This concludes my discussion on the value of comic book heroes and what they represent for western, particularly American, culture. These comic book heroes are the legitimate cultural response of capital to the old myths of the ancient societies of Europe and Asia and reflect capital’s position as the most advanced society in history. *

*I will follow up when I speak of the role played by comic book villains.