In America there is a false dichotomy that is central to the imagination of the American political discourse. We like to imagine that there is an opposition between business/capital and government. People are then forced to choose one side or the other. Republicans tend to believe government is evil, but business is good. Democrats tend to believe that business is evil, but government is good. The reality is that all forms of power, when left unchecked, are destructive. I have read a number of books about the two great East India Companies recently (British and Dutch). They are fascinating histories that give insight into the history of Britain, Europe, India, China, Indonesia, colonialism, capitalism, and corporations. One of the clearest conclusions to draw from these histories, is the extraordinarily destructive and violent legacies of these businesses. They used violence, torture, the threat of violence, money, and any other form of power they had to accrue as much capital as possible. Along the way these private companies colonized much of India and Indonesia, killing tens of thousands in the process. This was NOT a state led endeavor, in fact the governments back home were often at odds with the two companies. However, the companies did these things anyway. They committed acts of great evil, they created the conditions of massive famines, they oversaw enormous political crackdowns, and instituted oppressive regulatory and bureaucratic control over the regions under their sway. All done without the state. My point being that when those powerful institutions were left unchecked, they ran amok and were extraordinarily destructive. Their power was no better or worse than state power. As a contrary example, I live and work in China, and I have read numerous histories of the cultural revolution. Mao's bastardized Leninism was vehemently anti-capitalist, and the cultural revolution sought to destroy all forms of capitalist and historical forms of power. However, what was left in their stead was were even more destructive forms of power. Even better examples to illustrate states run amok have happened elsewhere like the USSR under Stalin. These were states that wrought enormous destruction without the help of capital. In the end, the problem wasn't capital nor was it government. The problem was power unchecked. The real dichotomy is between power with competing power as a check on itself and unchecked power. This is true in business, where out of control business can pollute our water, colonize entire nations, destroy the environment, hoard wealth, extract national wealth, etc. This is also true in government, it is true in the police force, the military, the boardroom, in Hollywood (the biggest problem in the whole Harvey Weinstein scandal was his power was unchecked), and in academia. If any of those institutions is privileged, if we lose our ability to check their power, they become destructive to the common good. So next time you want to uncritically defend the police, the military, the government, or business remember they are all ready and able to cause massive harm if the rest of society only just lets them. It is our jobs as citizens to ensure that we put in place proper checks on the power of any institution, no matter what that institution is. PS. The thread title should be "all power is destructive" not "equally destructive."
The best strategy is to maintain a minimal government, but one large enough to stop abuses in the private sector. If we count the dead bodies throughout human history, government has been exponentially more dangerous than the private sector.
The private sector usually doesn't have a military. When it has, like in the cases of the East India Companies, they surpassed almost every government of their era for death, destruction, and cruelty. However, the modern state jealously guards the monopoly on the use of overt displays of violence. So if modern corporations want to commit acts of violence, they usually can't (with some exceptions like private military contractors, an exceptionally dangerous group). What they usually do is use their power and influence over the state, to get the state to do the violence for them. One power amplifies another. Also as an American, you live in the shadow of the most powerful government in human history (their power IS limited, though it should be limited a lot more). However, the reality is that the most powerful multi-national corporations in the world have far more power than most governments in the world. We need to limit both, don't just choose one or the other.
Well first of all, the idea that there would be one person or one institution that would do so would be self-defeating. The short answer is a collection of private and public institutions, mixed with an engaged citizenry. The latter is the most important point. Too many people in America slavishly respect governmental and/or corporate power. Its not ideological either. People on the right pay lip service to limited government, but bend over backwards to deify and empower the police and the military (the two most explicit extensions of state power). So what I'm trying to say is, we need to, on a non-partisan basis, come together to agree that power is destructive. Then we need to limit that power as much as possible, without undermining the institutions and mechanisms of our system.
Granny says, "Dat's right... ... power corrupts... ... an' absolute power... ... corrupts absolutely.
I take a different view, I fail to see how we can escape power dynamics. What you're proposing isn't the abolition of power, only centralising it into an institution supposedly representative of most. While tempting and certainly a defensible position, I think there are very cogent arguments against such a move. When such states go bad, they tend to go a lot worse than they otherwise would have, because power is already consolidated. All a tyrant has to do is cut off the connection to the people and put himself in its place. On the other hand, such governments are typically more orderly. I think the analogy to alliances holds well. Alliances make war less likely, but much more brutal when it eventually does occur. WWI is a good example of this. Anyway my break is over I'll ttyl
Actually that is the opposite of what I am proposing. I actually want to decentralize power, I just recognize that power emanates from many different sources. So we need to limit the power of government, more than we do now. We just also need to limit the power of capital as well. We also need to limit the power of individuals, the tech world, academics, etc. No individual, group, institution, corporation, or government should be allowed to have too much power. The problem comes in maintaining a balance. That is why an informed and engaged citizenry is vital. As is having competing centers of power. Those competing centers of power should be built into and exist outside of government and other institutions.
That's a good post. I have read the book "why nations fail", which somehow addresses this issue. The basic premise of the book is that nations fail when they have extractive institutions, i.e. power is yielded by the few, who then use this power for their own benefit only, but at the exclusion of everyone else. Nations succeed who have inclusive institutions, i.e. power is distributed over as many people as possible. Note that the second thesis is incompatible with unregulated capitalism, because it has the tendency to concentrate capital and, thus, power. The problem with our current form of government is that capital subverts government by the majority. By buying votes through capital, our institutions are slowly changed from being inclusive to extractive. If this trend continues, the US is on the path down the hill.
One should bear in mind however that both were largely adjuncts of the governments of those countries. And that the destruction wrought by these entities was often caused by the support of the military of these entities. One should bear in mind that companies are limited in the damage they can do governments tend not to be.
Yes and no. The Dutch government was always more deeply intertwined with the Dutch East India Company, but the British East India company was far more independent. The British East India company colonized large parts of India without the intervention of the British government starting in 1757. They then controlled those areas independently for about 20 years. In the aftermath of the famine of Bengal in 1770. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bengal_famine_of_1770 Parliament passed a series of regulations in the aftermath which placed greater controls on the company, and made Indian territories held by the company essentially British colonies. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulating_Act_of_1773 This famine killed millions of people, an estimated 30% of the population of the region. To put that into perspective and drive home my point about the destructive nature of all forms of power. The great charge leveled against Mao Zedong is his death toll, but an overwhelming number of those deaths were a result of the famines in the aftermath of the great leap forward. Those famines killed less than 3% of the Chinese population. That is not a defense of Mao, just an illustration of the fact that terrible destruction IS NOT the sole purview of the state.
Seems like we have similar ends in mind, but with different means. I too like decentralised power, but would like many different sovereign jurisdictions to meet that end. I feel that power is best limited by alternatives. If we took the social contract seriously instead of as some vague abstract idea I don't think there would be any issue with government power. In such a context government power is just a euphemism for power generally. Nobody is ever going to be completely happy with the state of the world, so I'd like to provide as many little laboratories of democracy as we can. I am a libertarian but have no issue with communist or fascist jurisdictions, so long as they are not imperialist. Anticipating your reply.
But 3% of the pop of China is a hell of a lot of people and that doesn't include deaths in the cultural revolution. There were British regulars in India with the East India company from the very beginning. This according to a History of the British Empire following the Jacobite Rebellion I just finished reading about a month or so ago.
I think the greatest difference between our positions is that I believe you greatly underestimate the power of capital. Otherwise, there probably isn't a huge difference. I like the separation of powers in America, I think it is great. I think the biggest problem is that many elements of government have abdicated their responsibility to hold the other elements of government responsible. I also think an independent media who holds power to account is vitally important. What we have instead is corporate media that picks favorites and then only holds those they don't like to account. If president Obama had an unrestrained global drone war going, MSNBC would pretend it wasn't happening or dismiss it as if it weren't important. If president Trump lies constantly, Fox News will pretend it is just an alternative fact, and pretend there is nothing wrong. In both instances, such an outlook is terribly destructive to our body politic. On top of that, because too much of our media is owned by a small handful of corporations, they therefore also do a poor job holding corporations to account. A terrible mixture of partisan hackery, conflicting interests, profit chasing, and general incompetence pervades our media. Without the media holding ALL power to account, it becomes much more difficult to restrain power.
Comparing total death totals between a modern nation and a pre-modern nation is like comparing apples to oranges. The total number of deaths was greater, but when scaled to modern population levels, the bengal famine caused by the East India Company was far more destructive. That is true, but so what? The actions the EIC took to take control of Bengal were done independently of the government. The governing of the areas they took control of were done independently of government. In no way am I arguing the government was absent, only that EIC actions were done for their own benefit and of their own accord. They were non-governmental actions.
So was the Irish potato famine, and it couldn't have been done without the support and active cooperation of the British Army. Corporate power only becomes dangerous when it is coopted by the government. Government has claimed the only legitimate use of force since at least since the pharoahs ruled Egypt. That use of force has more than occasionally been delegated to other entities when it furthered the government's own interests or a willing cat's paw was required. The BEIC in India served both those purposes and drove the French from India into the Bargain
I just presented you quite compelling evidence that what you are saying isn't true. The company took control of Benghal, their control led to famine and only AFTER that did the British government take an active role. You deny evidence based on ideology. I base my ideology on evidence. You should do the same.
Dude BEIC was chartered by the Crown its major were a who's who of the commons the lords and probably the crown itself. Why do think it had all those soldiers available to it? If you think it wasn't doing pretty much exactly what the government expected you're kidding yourself.
Dude..... I read about 5 books about the EIC and VOC recently, I can tell you that they weren't. The relationship between the EIC and the British crown was often fraught. I can also tell you that the EIC took control of Bengal without authorization from the government. They were also directly responsible for the administration of Bengal during a famine that killed millions of people. However, in your absurd view of things, because the British government also existed at the time and promoted the success of the EIC, it was solely the fault of government. It is identical to if Exxon Mobil decided to invade and colonize Venezuela to get access to their oil, then caused a massive humanitarian disaster. However, since Exxon Mobil has close ties to people in US government and has often been protected/promoted by US government interests, it would then be the sole responsibility of the US government. It is nonsensical. This conversation illustrates exactly the point I am trying to drive home. Even when corporate action; done without direct state intervention or directive, leads to disaster, somehow capitalist fundamentalists do everything in their power to blame government and only government. It is indefensible nonsense. Power is destructive, it doesn't matter whether it emanates from government or capital, especially since capital controls so much of government these days.
There have been numerous philosophers who have postulated that the best form of government is one of checks and balances, and takes into account human nature. By splitting up power, and trying to make officials with different roles at the top more accountable to one another, it can help prevent that power from becoming too concentrated into the hands of one person or a single political body.
So now you're arguing that the EIC which was according to you the governing authority of Bengal was just a simple commercial enterprise. Exxon Mobile does not have at it's disposal so much as one single solitary infantry company at it's beck and call EIC had a full division of British regulars, and many more formations of Indian auxilary units. It was the government and as such no longer a strictly speaking a commercial enterprise. If your argument is that governments can do some really awful things no matter who is running them I concur, whole heartedly. But this has nothing to do with capitalism which isn't a governing system but the default economic system which works marvelously well when governments can be persuaded to leave things alone. Through out most of history this hasn't happened.
What about this do you not understand? Of course Exxon Mobil has numerous infantry companies at its beck and call!! Not Exxon Mobil exclusively of course, but America has had troops stationed in the Middle East for 60 years now. Is that in order to admire the camels? The lovely desert heat? Don't be naive. Secondly, the EIC had its own private military force. It took control of Bengal without government directive and it governed Bengal into disaster. These are irrefutable facts. Your only recourse, being a free market fundamentalist, is to say but the government existed then so it was government's fault. It is nonsensical. Again, I will repeat what I said earlier, allow facts to inform your ideology, don't allow ideology to inform which facts you will acknowledge.
What part of the fact that the EIC was the de facto government of Bengal escapes you? NOt the crown but the EIC itself was performing the role of government in Bengal at the time.
