D. Problems with Economic Primacy

D. Problems with Economic Primacy

 

Recall the claim mentioned earlier, "armed capacity is the foundation of politics." I agree with Tarni-Hai's claim that societies tied to a military horizon will always remain in a primitive state, and with Ian Morris's argument that peace and prosperity can be achieved through 'productive wars'. At the same time, I am surprised by the fact that many economists do not believe in such persuasive propositions, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, I will briefly criticize the stance that considers factors other than armed force, specifically economic force, as the foundation of politics.

 

There are many positions that excessively emphasize the economy to explain politics and human life, but Marxist political science would be a representative example. This is because the threat of poverty is always close and experienced, making human life seem to be filled only with overcoming the threat of poverty.

 

The threat of poverty originates from humans themselves, so its cause is always close and visible. In addition, activities to overcome the threat of poverty are time-consuming, so they constantly dominate the consciousness of all people. Almost everyone is always engaged in economic activities and deliberations. In most cases, a person's life is filled with economic activities from the time they become independent until they die. Even before becoming independent, one needs to rely on the economic capacity of guardians, such as parents. In contrast, the threat of violence is so intense that people, when faced with it, may engage in hasty activities to the point of being unaware of the threat. It's either dying or running away. However, this does not mean that the threat of violence is less important than the threat of poverty. On the contrary, it is the opposite.

 

Attempts to explain politics and life solely based on economic factors, due to the fact that human activities often consciously focus on economic activities, are as misguided as thinking that one can build a swimming pool as long as there is enough water to swim in. Even if a person wanting to swim is floating on the water, a container is needed to hold the necessary water to create a swimming pool. Moreover, this container must be made of a material other than water, as it has to hold and preserve the water. It should be made of a material that can withstand the weight of a large amount of water without leaking. To properly understand a phenomenon, one must see beyond what is clearly visible to the eye.

The Marxist political theory, which posits that the foundation of politics as a superstructure is based on the economy as an infrastructure, implies that political advantage is determined by economic advantage. However, this does not align with the realities of politics. Septimius Severus, who became the Roman emperor after a fierce battle for the throne, famously said, "Spend money generously on the soldiers. Do not think about anything else!" This statement realistically implies that if one does not spend money on soldiers, the money will not help in gaining political power. Mao Zedong, a communist himself, once said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," not "Political power grows out of money." Even the orthodox Marxist-Communist position argued that basic social and economic transformations were possible through class struggle, violence, and revolution, not by the working class possessing more money. One of the core tenets of the previously mentioned politics-as-an-extension-of-war theory is this concept.

 

A common counterargument to this line of reasoning is that money is needed for wars to gain power. However, as mentioned earlier, the history of war demonstrates that it is possible to wage war without economic capacity. According to William McNeill, the phenomenon of the industrialization of war is as old as civilization itself, suggesting that war and economic capacity are intertwined. However, none of the ancient civilizations that flourished in the large river basins of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China fit neatly into the term "industrialization of war." The commercialization of war and the "industrialization of war, in a more significant sense, began after the year 1000 AD," and in my view, it was a particular phenomenon that generalized mainly in Europe, where mercenaries played a significant role in wars.

 

On the other hand, there seems to be another confusion arising from the emphasis on economic power, which stems from the failure to understand the interaction of various factors in a multi-layer structure (or a multi-layer structure of Samjae capacity). This confusion is repeated in a circular logic, exhausting our intellect.

 

It is impossible to achieve economic production without securing public safety and establishing a social safety net. However, some people (economic fundamentalists) argue that "if there is no food, it is impossible to build a social safety net." This argument is also empirically correct. However, combining the two positions leads to a futile wordplay that repeats like the "chicken or egg" debate. What is the problem?

 

Claiming that a social safety net must be established for economic production to be possible is an argument that armed capacity forms the foundation of economic capacity, while asserting that food availability is a prerequisite for building a social safety net means that economic capacity precedes armed capacity. The economic capacity mentioned in the first part and the economic capacity mentioned in the latter part refer to different things. In other words, considering that the lower the level in the multi-layer structure that explains political phenomena, the more it signifies micro-level phenomena, and the higher the level, the more it refers to macro-level phenomena[Tab.2.11], the problem of circular reasoning is resolved.

 

The claim that a social safety net must be established first for economic production to be possible is an argument that star C must exist for star D to be built. In contrast, the assertion that immediate food availability is necessary for building a social safety net is simply saying that star B must exist for star C to be built. Regarding this, the 1st law can point out that one must be safe enough from plundering to find food immediately, which means that star A must precede star B. This is correct because even someone on the brink of starvation due to hunger would not enter a tiger enclosure where food is placed. Therefore, the persuasive claims among those made by economic fundamentalists are pointing out a part of the structure in which the three stages of survival are built in an overlapping manner.

 

Many people have emphasized the importance of armed force or violence in politics. Despite this, why have many people, including Marx, whether influenced by him or not, considered money or economic factors as the most fundamental factors of human life and social phenomena? The conclusion I have come to after careful consideration is that it is mainly due to the environment faced by most researchers in political science and sociology. Just as even the hungriest person would not approach food placed in front of a tiger, avoiding threats of violence in our lives is a more fundamental and important priority than solving hunger because it is the most urgent and desperate issue. However, situations in which we can discover such threats of violence are generally so dire that there is no room to contemplate political science or sociology. Only after such urgent threats have disappeared, and we have enough leisure to pay attention to politics and society, do most of our activities focus on solving hunger.

 

In this regard, those who considered economic factors as the most fundamental factors of life and social phenomena have made efforts to generalize their experiences, which is commendable. However, creating a desirable scientific theory requires more than just generalizing simple experiences. Analytical skills are needed to identify and explicitly bring out the implicitly assumed premises in one's thoughts, as well as systematic thinking skills to extend to more related experiences and explain them with a simpler and more consistent conceptual framework. In my view, the approach of considering economic factors as the ultimate factor (or underlying structure) of political phenomena lacks those analytical and systematic thinking skills. For example, Marx discovered the interaction between economic capacity and ideological capacity among the Samjae capacities I mentioned, and explained in German Ideology that the ruling class dominates material production, leading to intellectual control over ideas. However, he failed to integrate it appropriately into his theory. Maslow, who similarly prioritized economic factors in the field of psychology, did not adequately set the terms he used according to existing conventions. There are numerous other examples that cannot be reviewed here.