Harry Targ
…the
most important contradiction of all [is] that between reality and appearance in
the world in which we live (David Harvey, Seventeen Contradictions and the End of
Capitalism, Oxford University Press, 2014, 6).
In David Harvey’s opening chapter “On
Contradiction,” the author refers to Karl Marx’s discussion of narratives about
life that are distortions of reality. He quotes Marx: “If everything were as it
appeared on the surface there would be no need for science.” He interprets
Marx’s admonitions as requiring us to “get behind the surface appearances if we
are to act coherently in the world.” (Harvey, 6).
David Harvey’s book identifies seventeen
contradictions, seven “foundational” ones, seven “moving contradictions,” and
three “dangerous” ones. The foundational ones address the fundamental economic
underpinnings of a capitalist system; the moving ones represent those features
of capitalism that change over time; and the dangerous ones represent the
deepest changes that might cause chaos, pain, and suffering if not addressed by
what he calls “anti-capitalist” movements.
Of course, most “foundational” to a capitalist
system is the dynamic in which workers produce goods and services for a
capitalist who sells them in the market. Some of the value of the goods and
services, above the costs of hiring the worker, is appropriated by those who
own or control capital. This is the substance of what is called profit. At root
the workers do the work and those who own or control the productive process
gain a disproportionate share of the value of it. Over time the value of the
work done is accumulated and capitalist enterprises expand.
This process was richly described by Adam Smith and
Karl Marx. Today economists tell us that profit comes from a variety of sources
other than the amount of work time applied to produce goods and services: the
skills of the entrepreneur, risk-taking, market forces, the supply of money in
the economy, or technological advances. The problem with this analysis is not
that these factors do not affect production, distribution, and profit but that the value of the amount of work that goes into the production of the product or
service is not part of the narrative. In this view, workers, whether in the
private or public sector, constitute a force that stifles the making of profit
and the development of the society. Consequently today state governments are
actively working to destroy the rights of workers--the producers of goods and
services--to join together to secure a greater share of the value of what they
produce.
Harvey elaborates on this fundamental feature of
capitalism by describing the role of money, the glorification of commodities
(or those goods and services produced by workers), the emphasis on the sale of
products while deemphasizing the value of the work that produced them, the ways
in which states support the accumulation of wealth, and how capitalism and the
state expand the privatization of land, labor, and basic societal services.
In sum, Harvey argues that the definitions of the
basic features of the economic system that dominate the globe are left out of
public and academic discourse. Media and educational institutions reinforce a distorted
view of how the basic conditions of life are produced and reproduced.
Harvey’s “moving contradictions” involve aspects of
the evolution of capitalism: technology; transformations in the nature and
meaning of work; monopolization; draconian shifts in the geographic
distribution of economic development; environmental changes; and shifts in
wealth and income.
The immediate and long-term “dangerous
contradictions” involve the inexorable logic of capitalism requiring an
unachievable continuation of compound growth; the privatization of nature; and
the complete alienation of humans from themselves, society, and the environment.
Therefore, Harvey’s analysis is based on the
assertion that the reality of economic processes, institutions, sources of
value, and prospects for economic justice are not addressed. Publics are
presented with “appearances” that are radically different from the reality of
capitalism and people’s lives.
Years ago political scientist Murray Edelman
addressed the differences between appearance and reality in the political
sphere. His book, The Symbolic Uses of
Politics, postulated in politics what Harvey was suggesting in economics.
Edelman argued that people engage in politics largely through the mental images
they receive from two kinds of experiences. One kind of experience comes from
direct participation in the political process. The mental images participants
gain from direct and immediate involvement in the political process he called,
“referential symbols.”
Direct experiences of politics are limited for
numerous reasons--power, money, and undemocratic institutions. However, people are
engaged in the political process through emotionally-charged mental images, so-called
“condensational symbols.” These may vary greatly from the reality of political
life. For example, consider the emotion-laden relationship to the Iraq war. Most
Americans received information over the years about the war framed by concepts
such as democratization, modernization, the struggle against fundamentalism, or
the danger of weapons of mass destruction. However, a veteran of the Iraq War
might prioritize, or at least include, in his/her consciousness the physical
devastation of that country, the killings of Iraqi citizens, and/or rising
resistance to foreign intervention.
What analyses such as Edelman’s suggest is that the
narratives which shape the consciousness of most people about politics,
domestic and international, are emotionally-charged appearances rather than
reality.
In the end, Karl Marx’s conception of science--uncovering
realities that vary from appearances--is vital today if economic justice and
democracy are to be achieved. With 21st century technologies
bringing literally millions of new images to people all across the globe, the
contradictions between appearance and reality have become more stark than ever.
