3.5 Powers in Capitalist Modernity

Concepts such as civilization, power, and state are the most difficult categories of social relations to resolve both in terms of their interrelatedness and in their own right. Civilization is a subject where discussion in relation to its description continues through the present. Any attempt to describe where power began and where it might end, when and how it was formed and should terminate, is even more complex. Although people readily talk about these matters they cannot really reach consensus on their definition. Why is that? This is not only because these are very complex, riddled matters but also because there is a desire to leave them that way. There is much ideological activity aimed at leaving them in the dark. If one wishes to make a topic the subject of fear, then there is a need to leave it in mystery and complexity. If their true faces are revealed, then they will be ridiculed by all and they shall no longer be a factor of fear. As a result, the aspirations of the whitewashed interest groups shall be annulled. Ordinary people can tell many stories about this.

Civilization starts off with its own mythological tales. Interest groups or surplus-product monopolies would only have been able to plunder successfully once or twice if it were not for these stories. For them to be permanent and acceptable there is a definite need for mythologies, religion, and law. Today, however, there is an attempt to seal their permanency and acceptability by making additional use of sex, sports, and arts with the help of media in order to mentally and emotionally condition communities.

I tried to divide civilization into three main periods and characterize each of these periods. I do not hold the method of scientism in high esteem. I have at every opportunity underlined the fact that they could be useful provided that they are limited. If, however, they are dogmatized, then they shall threaten the chance for free life. I took care to implement the method of sociological interpretation without dogmatizing it (with scientism and positivism). The guidelines of my interpretations together with several examples have been presented in such a way that they are open for discussion. I know that I have repeated things at times: I shall try not to do that unless there is a need.

Although I have tried to analyze capitalist modernity (civilization) as the official and victorious modernity (contemporariness) of the new era (from sixteenth century to the present), I have also been very critical of the approaches that attribute our era totally to capitalism and have made comprehensive criticisms in relation to its anti-modernity. I also indicated that although I agree with the definition of modernity made by the sociologist Anthony Giddens, I do not totally share his interpretations when it comes to the “three discontinuities” which are capitalism, nation-state, and industrialism. I presented my analysis of these through extensive interpretations and examples: all three have roots in the early days of civilization and they have attained their strongest position in capitalist modernity. In this section I will try to expose how official modernity has shaped power and state relations more concretely. I make the distinction between official and unofficial modernity (contemporariness), with the latter denoting democratic modernity (civilization or contemporariness). The positivist sociologists (like Giddens and others like him) think that they make a sociological analysis at each period of the civilizational history when they interpret their civilization to be unique. This can be seen in the case of the English civilization and state. There has been a great deal of research in order to classify this state and civilization as one of its kind. In fact, all they are doing is a very refined distortion, that is, by blurring the forest through focusing on the trees. We cannot effectively define the forest by only evaluating the millions of trees. it Is clear that such a method will not give accurate results. But it is not a very bad policy to use thousands of young people in such research to disregard the real characteristic of the system in the name of realizing social sciences. This is how the contents of social sciences or sociology in general are rendered meaningless and drained of its substance.

However, the correct interpretation would be to link the English state, power, and civilization with a development like the state (as class-city-economic monopoly) whose fundamental categorical features are evident for the past five thousand years. The classes that developed around the cities which have revived since the tenth century first became economic state monopolies in the form of kings and aristocrats, and since the sixteenth century in the form of bourgeoisie. They came to power and consolidated their power by making themselves invisible under various ideological patterns or adorned themselves with symbolic values in order to render themselves unrecognizable. One of the early examples of this development is the English state and civilization. The English state and civilization is one of the hegemonic representatives of the main ongoing civilization. I am sure that this definition alone makes more sense than the vast research done on the English web of relations. In terms of substance (disguising fundamental interest groups), there are no real differences between the Sumerian priest’s interpretations of society based on the movements of stars and the interpretations made by the thousands of priests of scientism of capitalist modernity. The only difference lies in their method, time, and location.

The difference in time and location means change and development (called universal formation). Societies, too, develop and change in accordance with differences in time and location. At times, it is also possible to go backward. I am not criticizing its state of being unique: there is no development and change in the universe that is not unique. Each change means a uniqueness. “Exactness and repetition” is only a dogmatic belief value. Such words are nothing but a meaningless play of words when it comes to natural developments.

Hence, of course, capitalist modernity has many important uniquenesses. These have been realized in the three important areas that Anthony Giddens has defined them. It may be instructive to conceptualize them as “discontinuities” in this sense, I shall not dwell on capitalism for the moment as I have interpreted it already, but I believe there is a need to summarize what power and the nation-state –the concrete and juridical definition of power– are.

Power has been much talked about in social sciences but it is also a topic that has been heavily distorted. I am not talking about only intentional distortions here. One of the more important uniqueness of capitalist modernity is to make each individual think that they hold power. No other civilization was able to achieve a success with such scope and features in rendering the individual as such.

The sociology of political power still awaits analysis. This is a topic Michel Foucault dealed with greatly, but he was not able to completely expose it. Lenin wanted to define the state in his work called State and Revolution. But even while he was alive it became clear that the state was the one point where he was the most mistaken. Moreover, he did not even want to understand what power is. He did not understand that by employing this magical stone (carried by the strong and cunning man by putting on various civilizational masks throughout the ages), he was invalidating socialism from the start in the name of “socialist power.” This is because socialism must be built through democratic modernity.

I find the following saying by Mikhail Bakunin to be very meaningful: “If you took the most ardent revolutionary, vested him in absolute power, within a year he would be worse than the Tsar himself.” The sociology of power awaits a necessary analysis. It is not only the topic of what power is that awaits analysis, but also whether and to what extent it is needed. According to some mentalities and the interest groups that are disguised under them, absolute power is the ultimate solution. This must have been the historic Assyrian way of thinking: to completely take the life of the target. There are also those, especially the anarchists and pacifists, who view power as the complete state of disorder. According to them one should distance oneself from all kinds of power and authority. Such an understanding is indeed another way of surrendering to power.

The definition and solution proposed by the system of democratic civilization has qualitative differences. The right of each social group to defend itself is sacred. To defend oneself against each attack which aims to destroy the existence of a group or any of Its values related to its existence is not just an irrevocable right, it is the basis of the group’s existence. I believe that one could not call such a defensive force power in its classical meaning. It may be more appropriate to call it the democratic defense force or authority. A rose defends itself through its thorns; let us then call this democratic authority paradigm the “rose theory.”

I think it would be most appropriate to define power in relation to civilization as a variety of societal activities aimed at the acquisition, increase, and seizure of surplus-product. If ideological and military activities, deceptive tales, genocides, games of entertainment, and religious rituals are used to squeeze out the surplus-product and value, then it is possible to call all of them activities of power. Hence, power is a very comprehensive area of societal activity. Power, especially in the civilizational societies, has the inclination to continuously grow both in depth and scope in proportion to the increase of surplus-product.

We need to clarify what we mean by surplus-product and value in order to better understand the composition of power. When we analyze the act of seizing the material and immaterial creations and gains of an individual or a group or, indeed, their cultural values in general, then “the thing seized” and “the one who seized it” shall be more concrete. Power is the act and art of seizing things that are not one’s own through the use of force, assimilation, and possession. If unsuccessful then it is the art and act of dumping, expelling, and, in general, making it insignificant both materially and immaterially. It would be a narrow approach to limit this to economic surplus-product and value. Here the important thing is to seize it. But, of course, in the process different values are seized and hence it may be more realistic to call the sum of all of them power.

The fundamental function of democratic authority on the other hand is to defend the material and immaterial values which are directly or indirectly linked to the relevant person’s or group’s existence and not to overlook their seizure; if they are seized they must be claimed back. Hence, it is related to rightful and irrevocable situations. Democratic authority is the art of taking action as described in this context. It may be more correct to call it the power of preventing seizure and its artful action. There is an ontological difference between the use or art of force (army and war) to seize someone’s homeland and the prevention of such a seizure. These are antagonistic notions. Society describes such situations through dichotomies such as good and bad, sin and deed, right and wrong, just and unjust, and beautiful and ugly.

It is possible to classify power from various perspectives:

1. Political Power

It is the most used form of power. It denotes the administrative and executive functions of state and its projections (such as political parties and NGOs that are dependent on state). It is the most significant and most used form of power throughout history.

2. Economic Power

It defines the monopolist forces that carry out the seizure of surplus-product and values. Throughout history such seizure has taken place in different forms.

3. Societal Power

It defines the tradition or act of force established by the fundamental societal sections over another. It is distinguished through many important divisions such as family, class, gender, and ethnicity. In a family, it is the father; in class, it is the one who seizes the surplus-value; in terms of gender, it is the male; and, in ethnicity, it is the oppressor who represents the power.

4. Ideological Power

This relates to the mentality of rulers. The individuals and groups who are advanced in science and culture have the status of being the ideological power.

5. Military Power

It is the foremost institution that is identical with power. It is the most excessive, anti-societal, and anti-human form of power. It is the source of all power.

6. National Power

It describes the central power exercised nation-wide. It takes care to depict itself as one and indivisible. This can also be called national sovereignty.

7. Global Power

It describes the hegemony or empire of the dominant civilization and modernity. At present, capitalist modernity makes use of such power under the leadership of USA and together with global economic monopolies and nation-states.

Power is the sum of historical, societal, and institutional relations. Historically, it tries to position and traditionalize itself on the most vital issues and areas of societal development. Traditionalization also means institutionalization. Power is the most institutionalized and elaborate area of societal relations. It is rendered very much functional by those concerned with it. This is why it is vital to ground its institutionalization and formation to some rules of conduct so that it is best represented and its continuity is ensured. For example, the construction, transfer, and handing over and seizure of a sultanate’s power are arranged through magnificent symbols, protocols, and ceremonies. From their clothing to food, marriage to death, each relationship has forms that became traditional thousands of years ago. That is the reason why one cannot just become a power through the use of any force: one would be called a bandit or tyrant. But, indeed, the most clear and true essence of power is banditry and despotism. Hence, the exalted and blessed institutions of power find it compulsory to intensely oppose these clear forms of power so that the truth is not understood, and to ensure its own continuity and prestige. It is aware that its legitimacy is secured significantly through these traditions and symbols.

I must remind you of the metaphor I previously mentioned. Power (the knot of interest monopolies that have gained historical quality) may be likened to a snowball that grows and becomes stronger as it falls from the peak of a mountain. This was its course throughout history.

Power may be better understood if we liken it to an infectious disease. Power is contagious. In the beginning this societal disease was exercised over hunted animals. and later over the mother-woman with accumulated knowledge by the strong and crafty male. But later this was institutionalized by the trinity of priest (the person who holds the meaning), administrator (the one who administrates the society due to his experience), and military commander to be the hierarchic patriarchal order. With the construction of class and the city it became statist. I must quickly point out that with the construction of state power the hierarchic patriarchal order of the strong and crafty man has not been abolished. The formula for power has changed to equal the total of strong and crafty man plus the hierarchical patriarch and the state. These three fundamental institutions define the society of power.

As a general categorization, we call this order civilization with all its multiple upper and lower floors. On the ground floor is the economy and on the upper most floor is the council of gods. This is how the Sumerians built the civilization. Its form has changed but its essence grew whilst preserving its meaning. Throughout time the ground floor belonged to the human material that has been used for the purpose of attaining surplus product, especially the slave, serf, and worker. The craftspeople, farmer, and all the other professions too mainly perform their activities on this floor. The top floor belongs to the mythological gods, the gods of the monotheistic religions (and sometimes their shadows, the sultans, or their messengers, the prophets; the shaman and priests, too). To this floor belongs the ideas and laws (Plato’s theory of Forms) that rule.

During antiquity and the Middle Ages, power was often established primarily in the form of these fundamental institutions and especially in the form of the state. However, during capitalist modernity, the whole society became contaminated with power. If we put it another way, the whole society is infected with the idea that they have power. What’s more important is that, although power becoming widespread through the use of institutions (called “discontinuities” by Anthony Giddens) is a state of illness, it is essentially unique to capitalist modernity. Some ideologies and institutions play a decisive role in this. In the next section I will set out my thoughts in more detail.

Just because the whole of society gets contaminated with power does not mean that it has become very strong. It also means that it has become desperate, miserable, and approaching the final state and speed of its dissolution process. When anything reaches its end two things can happen: Either the relevant people do something about it, or if not, then that thing shall rot. It may be a coarse analogy but when an apple reaches its most mature stage it should be picked from its tree. If this is not done, eventually the apple will rot and decay. This is also the case with power. The phenomenon of power was already a state of illness when established but now it is just about at the decaying phase in capitalist modernity. Just as Bakunin had pointed out; power has decayed so badly that it will make the most ardent and morally strong person ill. He is right, even if the most oppressed of all, the woman, was vested in such decaying power she, too, would turn to a dictator within 24 hours. The only way to avoid such a decay or illness is to build democratic modernity as a system.