Amartya Sen and capitalism

I would like to compose today's article as a brief note regarding the wonderful piece written by my esteemed colleague Reyhan Küçük, who recently wrote an exceptionally useful article in the context of Amartya Sen, by touching upon just a few topics. I offer my thanks and respects to Mr. Küçük for this article.

There is no need to say anything about the essence of the article, as it was very clear and instructive in Mr. Küçük's text. Here, after saying a few words about Amartya Sen and similar social-minded thinkers, I want to bring the subject to Turkey.

First, we need to clear the ground. In the relatively short history of capitalism, there have been two periods of social democracy. The first of these is the concept of the social state, accepted and declared by the Prussian dictator Otto von Bismarck in the second half of the 19th century.

In fact, Bismarck was not at all a proponent of social justice, and furthermore, the era was not a time when social policies were scattered across the earth. So, what was the factor that pushed this rigid statesman into social policies out of the blue?

When we look at the period, we see another interesting event taking place, which is the occupation of Paris and its administration through a communal system for 10 days, which could be sustained from March 18 to March 28, 1871. Although it lasted only a very short time like ten days and was suppressed very bloodily, the Paris Commune deeply affected the whole world and, of course, Otto von Bismarck, and even made him think.

Thus, the Bismarck era, which is known as the period when the first social democracy or social state policies were implemented, is of course a very important experience and has added much to humanity. However, the effect of this interesting and useful period did not last long, it did not lead to serious results in almost any capitalist country other than England, and to this day, this event remains in memories only as an experience.

The second experience regarding the social state is the European social democracy experience that began in the 1948-50s after the Second World War and faded in the 1973s. As is known, when Stalin's armies defeated the forces of the fascist Hitler in the Second World War, advanced to the middle of Europe, including Poland, and added some countries to the Communist bloc, the world experienced a complete panic.

Because communism was experiencing its strongest period, and the capitalist world was completely exhausted after experiencing its second major crisis in 1929 and going through a general war. With this war, the hegemony of the capitalist world was passing from England to the USA.

Indeed, the 1944 Bretton-Woods negotiations and the decisions of these negotiations that have continued to the present day were laying a series of tracks for capitalism, such as the Dollar being the reference currency. It was during this period, as seen in the decisions of the Bretton-Woods meetings, that the USA, the godfather of capitalism, undertook the task of developing Europe and the entire capitalist world with the famous Marshall Plan.

There was know-how and technology in war-torn Europe, but what was missing was resources, and when the USA provided this, a period of prosperity and social state policy, which went down in world history as the "Golden Age," prevailed in European countries.

Production rose rapidly, labor wages and social rights reached very high levels; in short, a period of abundance and prosperity was experienced for about 25 years. The theoretical basis of the economic policies followed in this period was formed by Keynes's General Theory book, which was published in 1936.

In economic history, this period is referred to as the second social democracy period. Some Marxists also interpret these periods as the cyclical movements of capital.

Anyway, these beauties were experienced. But as all good things come to an end, towards the 1970s and in the years that followed, profit rates began to decline and unemployment rates began to rise in European countries, and the second social state or democracy period began to come to an end.

In short, this period, the details of which could be given more extensively in another article, was thus fading away. Indeed, today's European social democracy tradition comes from the practices of this period. However, parallel to the general collapse of capitalism, Europe's ancient(!) social democracy tradition has also begun to falter.

When the history of capitalism is examined, it is seen that the concept of social state policies or social democracy practices emerged for two main reasons. The first of these, as seen in both of the major experiences mentioned, has been the concern to form a protective shield for the system against the fear of rising socialism or communism.

In short, in every period when the capital system is exposed to danger, capital has always been willing to share in order to avoid greater costs and destruction, or even loss of wealth.

This reflex can be evaluated as a reflex to minimize the cost of the defensive war against communism. Capital tries to distract the laborers and the general public it exploits with various methods during calm periods of political struggle, but in periods when things get very tight, it tries to suppress and/or postpone the problem with a finger of honey.

Indeed, Althusser, who made important comments on this subject, explains that for the lulling of the oppressed, the state's ideological apparatuses such as family, education, religion, etc., come into play first, and where these are exceeded, repressive apparatuses such as police, judiciary, prison, etc., come into play.

The second reason for the implementation of social state policies is the market requirement of capital itself. The basic logic of social democracy implementation is based on the principle that income distribution is more equitable or suitable for social conscience than market distribution.

Redistributing income at a given income level in a more fair way has an expansionary effect on domestic markets because the consumption propensity of low-income earners is higher than that of high-income earners.

The expansion of markets expands the area for capital to make profits by selling its products. Indeed, the success of the rising social state policies in Europe between 1950-73 depends not only on the revival of destroyed factories but also on the expansion of markets as labor incomes increase in a way that can create a market for rising production.

In short, unless demand is created that can absorb the rising supply, the system cannot expand; on the contrary, it shrinks and drifts into crisis. The logic of the 1961 Constitution, which is described as relatively prone to social democracy in Turkey, is the same.

Because the formation of a market that will absorb the rising production in a country that turns to import-substituting and protectionist policies is only possible with social state policies where labor rights are relatively expanded.

Understanding the reason for the formation and the way of functioning of social state policies requires examining the capitalist/bourgeois state structure and its functioning. The bourgeois state model is not a people's state, but a capital state.

Many thinkers such as James O'Connor and Bob Jessop argue that the state exists and strives for the development of private capital, and that all its other activities are aimed at ensuring the legitimacy of the system and creating social consent.

During periods of expansion, the dual duty of the state cannot be clearly understood, but in periods of crisis and collapse, the state's complete turning to capital is the natural result of the capitalist/bourgeois structure.

Let us end the article here by cutting off this subject, which can be expanded in future articles, and briefly dwelling on the place and importance of Sen-like discussions in capitalist tissues.

The capitalist state is a politically qualified structure established for the self-interest of capital through the transition from feudalism. In other words, although it possesses organizational autonomy, it is the political face of capital. The roof of the business was built this way. Of course, over time, the state organization, which is tasked with meeting the market requirements of capital, legitimizing the system, and creating defense mechanisms against communism, has developed, expanded, and even partially gained its own autonomy as an organization, reaching today's modern state structure.

However, the polymorphic state structure is shaped according to the needs of capital in various movement stages of the system. Capitalism, which forms the intellectual infrastructure of the state, is based on the production of surplus value and the dynamic of capital growing and flourishing.

If we handle the issue in a pure logical structure, there is no place for any entity/individual who cannot produce surplus value in a capital society, because in this condition, it means that someone else will meet the consumption of the individual in question.

The logic of social policies lies in the view that the cost of the individual who can no longer produce should be socialized, that is, spread to society, through various policy transfer mechanisms. In this process, the problem of capital accumulation of capitalism and the responsibility of the social state to legitimize the system come face to face.

In other words, the problem of resources to be directed to capital and the problem of resources to be directed to the poor come face to face. It is seen that retirees and similar people who no longer produce must conflict with the main purpose of the system, which is capital accumulation.

This conflict, while not perceived much during periods of prosperity, rises during tight periods. Before closing this paragraph, I am of the opinion that the problem of training the society's social labor army, that is, the education problem, should be discussed in another context.

Let us not enter into this issue here, to be touched upon in another article.

So, how is it that social policies can be defended in capitalist societies, which are the essence of the system? Besides the many aspects of this highly controversial issue, there are two very important points that I will briefly state here. The first, and even the first issue that capital is willing to share, is the legitimization of the system and, in Gramsci's terms, the provision of social consent.

In short, it is to make the system sustainable at a minimum level that can be accepted by society without resolving its exploitative and oppressive essence with a clear and permanent solution. The second reason connected to this is to create the thought in the public consciousness that today's problems are not a system problem but a management problem, and therefore these problems can be solved in the case of a better and more prudent management, and that a "good capitalism" is possible against today's "bad capitalism."

However, the issue is not a management issue, but a system problem.