“words in their primary or immediate signification stand for nothing but the ideas in the mind of him that uses them (p. 146).”
The quote above is taken out of the work called An Essay Concerning Human Understanding by John Locke. Specifically, the quote is from Book III which talks about how humans come to understand words and communicate ideas to one another. From the quote above the reader can get a general idea of John Locke’s theory on words. We can reason that Locke thinks words are equal to ideas when he says “Words in the their primary…. signification stand for nothing BUT ideas in the mind…”. Additionally, he goes on to explain that humans are endowed with various thoughts that are supposed to benefit other people. But there’s a catch, these thoughts are all locked up within the individual. Despite this dilemma, words allow these ideas to become unlocked from the individual. According to Locke the unlocking process is what allows society to flourish (Chapter ii sec1. Pg 146 Locke). From that readers are compelled to conceptualize language as a phenomenon which instructs and provides knowledge in order for society to flourish. Furthermore, sharing ideas would be living in accordance with human nature, since he also believes that humans are inherently designed to be sociable (Chap I sec 1 pg 145). Since for Locke ideas are used to be sociable, that means words have utility as well. He argues there are two use values when it comes to recording words: 1. it aids memory 2. It brings ideas out in the open where others can see them (Chapter ii sec 2 pg 146). But words would become too idiosyncratic if people conceived of their own “markings” to translate their ideas. So words that flourish are a “mark” which are universally recognized. Locke explains this notion by saying:
“nobody can apply a word, as a mark, immediately to anything else. For that would involve making the word be a sign of his own conceptions, …applying the word as a mark of a thing involves applying it intending it to stand for that thing, which means applying it with an accompanying thought about the word’s significance.”
So if you want an idea to universally stand for a certain mark that means one must find a mark within the world which can generally signify the idea you are trying to convey. This process is what facilitates proper communication with others. So, for example, if “x” signified the idea “car” in a certain society, then another mark such as “y” (y= not car) would be inappropriate to use for car since “y” isn’t generally understood to mean car. Though Locke has interesting reasons to justify his views on words and ideas, that doesn’t exempt his arguments from criticism.
One objection to Locke’s reasoning would be one that challenges the claim that recording words aid personal memory. While yes, generally this may seem true, readers should analyze the full extent of this claim. Let’s consider a brief example. Imagine an individual who has trouble with long term memory but is proficient at remembering locations. Now let’s say this person is attending a speech and wants to remember the way the orator was talking, and so writes down “Remember the address”. Later on in the week the person finds the paper and reads what he had written. According to Locke the words written down on the paper should aid our forgetful person in remembering the infliction of the orator. But problems arise considering the fact the person is proficient at remembering locations. So he reads it and thinks “Right, it was 5th street”. On the surface this seems like it aided his memory but his initial intention was to remember the infliction of the orators voice, and not the location. After all the person is already good at remembering locations and didn’t necessarily need the words to remind him where the speech was. This could be mitigated by recording his voice (since address (location) and address (speech style) can have different pronunciations). But this would be problematic if the person voice recorded words like “councilor/counselor” or “bank”. Because these words sound the same, the forgetful individual might still find trouble in remembering what they meant.
Another detail we must pay attention to in Locke’s reasoning is the concept that when we write symbols to denote ideas we are doing this to share ideas with others. This once again is generally true. And we get a qualifier on why sometimes it may not be true, since popular symbols must be used to signify ideas (“x”= car example above). So Locke successfully explains why sometimes people don’t understand words that explain ideas. The symbols are too idiosyncratic. But he fails to go deeper on what makes these symbols generally understood in the first place. It’s not as if when human’s with linguistic capacity look at objects they immediately have word impressions of that object. Quite plainly, when you look at a dog in the real world, the brains initial impression doesn’t initially stimulate the cognitive impression of “dog!”. And if you were to pan over to a chair your brain doesn’t exclaim “chair!”. It just understands these objects as such. The word and the object here don’t seem to be directly linked to one another in terms of recognizing objects in our consciousness. But nonetheless these names exist and we have formulated them, so in that sense Locke is correct in saying words are ideas. But it’s wrong to say the inverse, that ideas are words. Mainly because objects in themselves don’t contain the property “word”. But rather, this cognitive property assignment comes from humans. He acknowledges the arbitrary nature of word denotation but still believes that the impressions of objects warrant an automatic denotation. But this isn’t an accurate conceptions of human cognitive thinking. We don’t get impressions from objects in the world and immediately think “this object is that”, rather the brain seems to conduct a process of pattern recognition. The brain’s process seems to fall under reasoning like this “this object is this object, which generally falls under this set of symbols/sound in the world”. This distinction, though small, opens up the scope of Locke’s inquiry into the human mind. Here, we can begin to understand the creatures we are. We aren’t creatures who cognitively just process objects and translate them to ideas, but rather we do that and then inquire about its relationship in the world. This process happens quickly, and most humans master this skill by around the age of 3. That’s how we are able to come closer to understanding each others intentions. Animals are generally good at understanding intentions. Humans obviously fall in that category too, but we are different in that we are able to connect patterns with certain sounds and symbols. Let’s imagine, I invite you over for dinner but I don’t speak your language. Now, I could be standing at a table with some spaghetti on a plate and I can point to it and say “fleeblah” and then have another family member come to it and say “fleeblah”, and a person who has never even heard “fleeblah” uttered can reason the sound “fleeblah” has something to do with that spaghetti. Now if I go even further and open up my phone and google many pictures of spaghetti. And then point and say “fleeblah” that person is inclined to understand that when I utter “fleeblah” I am intending to put the idea spaghetti into their head. This recognition of intention should warrant our attention when we speak about human cognition and language. It seems as if when humans utter/ write words we are intending to put ideas into other people’s cognition. This turns Locke’s assertion that words are used to bring ideas out in the social world, into a question of “what do humans intend with words when they try to bring ideas out in the social world?”. A question which may be tackled in a future post.
Full Disclosure: I am not advocating Marxism, Neoliberal capitalism, or Communism. I disagree with Marxist ideology but it has been influential on the political scene.
My understanding of Marxism was influenced by lectures taken by me at Rutgers by Professor Sam Carter, an analytic philosopher with degrees from Oxford &Edinburgh. His research at Rutgers is conducted in linguistics and higher order logic. His work can be found here: https://www.samjbcarter.com/
This article will discuss how one of the founding fathers of Singapore, Lee Kuan Yew, was influenced by Marxist notions of the relations of production have helped Singapore’s economy since the 1950’s. Pioneering leaders, such as Lee Kuan Yew have pushed towards reform specifically targeting the relations of production in order to create economic prosperity in the nation. Arguably, it’s Yew’s Marxist influence which allowed him to actualize a form of state capitalism never before seen in Singapore.
Yew was not an ardent communist as leader of Singapore but may have been influenced by his early encounters with the ideology as a youth. Lee was influenced by a Marxist organization called the Fabian Society in his youth. He asserted that “cooperation and competition between people” which he believed was a compromise between communism which relied too much on collectivism, and capitalism which he considered to rely too much on competition. This lead his focus on the plights of poor people in Singapore, allowing him to create favorably economic conditions for his constituents. This form of capitalism has allowed Singapore to outperform the USA in terms of Neoliberal economics used and popularized by the USA. This is the case because it’s clear that Singapore’s economic rise can be directly correlated to the enfranchisement of its working class and the use of various financial instruments popularized by Wall Street. And that was only possible via reforms that looked to reorganize certain relations of production. Specifically, reorganization was possible via the establishment of the Central Provident Fund. The reason why the Central Provident Fund was so important in changing the relations of production was that it enfranchised Singapore’s citizens in terms of healthcare, housing, and other financial means- enabling Singapore’s economy to grow at an exponential rate. But this enfranchisement didn’t come in the form of a “hand out”, rather it incentivized productivity and entrepreneurship.
This graph shows Singapore’s economic rise in terms of GDP over time compared to Cuba & The USA. Worthy to note Singapore achieved this growth with a lot less debt than the USA.
In order to understand Singapore’s exponential economic rise under a Marxist framework, a few Marxist terms Lee was likely familiar with must defined. These definitions will act as reference points which allow for a clear understanding on how Lee’s early exposure to Marxist ideology may have played a role in Singapore’s state capitalism. One of the fundamental Marxist notions that needs to be analyzed is the phrase “subsistence needs”. Arguably, it is nearly impossible to understand Karl Marx’s writings without defining this core phrase. Mainly, because Marx believes that without understanding that phrase, accurately conceptualizing how humans organize their material lives would be difficult. Marx emphasizes this point by saying that humans:
“…begin to distinguish themselves from animals as soon as they begin to produce their means of subsistence, a step which is conditioned by their physical organization. By producing their means of subsistence men are indirectly producing their actual material life.” (Marx German Ideology sec: A. Idealism and Materialism).
So clearly it’s an important definition because defining what a societies subsistence needs exactly are will give valuable insight on the physical organization of that society. Naturally, the next question ought to be: what are human subsistence needs? One could reason that human subsistence needs are reflective of natural human impulses. And it’s these impulses which drive humans to organize themselves the way they do. Furthermore, Marx seems to give insight on what these “human impulses” are, claiming that humans meet their subsistence needs via biological means (eating, drinking, delaying death etc) and cultivating individual gifts, and that is all done because humans have a natural tendency to do things for the community ( Marx German Ideology sec: D. Proletarians and Communism). This is important to the discussion regarding Singapore’s economic development because the way Singapore’s government institutions decided to improve their society was to make sure certain subsistence’s needs were facilitated and guaranteed to their citizenry. Under a Marxist framework, one can observe how Singapore addressed these subsistence needs of its populous by observing the societies relations of production.
The second and final term that needs to be properly analyzed is the phrase relations of production. For Marx, the relations of production seemed to serve as an important part of analysis in terms of understanding a particular society. The reason he thought this can be best explained by Marx:
“The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.” (Marx A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy sec Preface).
So in essence the relations of productions for Marx are a reflection of a number of things such as: the economy, law, and political climate. The reason that Marx thinks the relation of production can provide an adequate description of society is due to the fact that it describes individuals’ relationship with productive forces. Mainly, he seems to pay close attention to who exactly owns these productive forces, because for Marx that determines how a particular society is organized. A brief excerpt from Marx’s magnus opus, Das Kapital allows for a more thorough explanation on the topic of relations of production:
“The latter is as much a production process of material conditions of human life as a process taking place under specific historical and economic production relations, producing and reproducing these production relations themselves, and thereby also the bearers of this process, their material conditions of existence and their mutual relations…their particular socio-economic form. For the aggregate of these relations, in which the agents of this production stand with respect to Nature and to one another, and in which they produce, is precisely society…”
The prose used by Marx gives insight on the importance of the relations of production if one is to fully grasp society via a Marxist framework. So, in order to understand Singapore’s economic rise under Marxist terms, we need to look at Singapore’s relations of production. But in order to do that a brief history of Singapore’s economic development must be discussed.
Singapore: A Brief Economic History.
Sago Street in the 1960’s
Though Singapore has a rich history stretching back to antiquity, this work will focus on modern developments. Specifically, the scope will be limited to Singapore’s development from the mid-20th century to our present day. The two main reasons for that are: the data from this period is extensive, and this is the period Singapore’s contemporary national identity comes to fruition. Singapore’s story beings in 1965, after Malaysia expelled them from their political union via parliamentary resolution, due to growing racial tension that was perceived as directly undermining the Malaysian economy. (US Library of Congress). After this forced independence, Singapore immediately found itself in a fiscally disadvantaged situation. The situation for the citizenry was dismal. Over 70 percent of households lived in overcrowded communities, a third squatted in shanty towns outside of the urban center, and over half the population was illiterate. (World Bank). Additionally, Singapore faced a heavy influx of immigration before they were kicked out of the Malay political union, further exacerbating the situation. This wave contributed to a high level of unemployment (roughly 15-20%) (World Bank). A visitor living in Singapore during this tumultuous time provides a firsthand account on what this society looked like to him:
“The undercover walkways are usually taken over by hawker stalls and junk. Laundry hangs from poles thrust out of windows above—just like in old Shanghai. This is Singapore, in the early 1970s. We were all devastated at the time—we who didn’t live here. From 1871 to 1931 the city’s Chinese population rose from 100,000 to 500,000. By 1960 it is estimated that more than 500,000 Chinese were living in slum-like conditions—indoors. Equipped with only one kitchen and one bathroom, the shophouses were designed for two extended families at most. After extensive partitioning many of them housed up to 50 individuals.” (Yeo)
It’s worthy to note this person wasn’t in the outskirts where the shanty towns were prevalent. But rather close to the Urban center highlighting the destitute situation a majority of Singaporeans faced. Now this was all going on in the 1960’s-70’s. But now let’s fast forward 50 years, and look at the state of Singapore now.
Contemporary Singapore is far removed from its impoverished past. Their progress is reminiscent and analogous to the Rocky Balboa series. Once a land where
Sago Street in the 21st century
over half the population was illiterate, Singapore now boasts a literacy rate of 96.8% (Knoema). Furthermore, Singapore can take pride in being number one worldwide in terms of educational prowess in math, science and reading (OECD.)Additionally, the unemployment rate has drastically fallen to a staggering 2%. Now comapare that to the world average which falls roughly around 6% (World Bank). And not only that, but roughly 90.7 % of Singaporeans are home owners (Singapore State Government). Comparatively the USA, which is perceived to have a reputable standard in terms of homeownership, has about a 64% rate (US Census). How has the populous of Singapore improved so exponentially? A lot of credit should be given to the population itself. The large majority of the people who immigrated to Singapore in the early days were impoverished and looked to work hard in order to change their circumstances. However, it would be remiss not to mention the contribution of an individual who started at the grassroots level and would end up at the highest office in Singapore’s government, Lee Kuan Yew.
Lee Kuan Yew
It would be disingenuous to talk about Singapore’s meteoric rise without mentioning the contributions of its first prime minister Lee Kuan Yew. He grew up during the Japanese colonial occupation of Singapore which would influence his politics in the coming future. But a specific event would have profound effect on Yew. On his way home from work Yew was randomly ordered by a Japanese guard to join a group of Chinese people who were being round up for a “routine” inspection. Luckily for Yew, he spoke Japanese and was able to convince an Imperial soldier to let him go get a better pair of cloths from home. That “routine” inspection group ended up being the victims of the Sook Ching Massacre, a Japanese atrocity that would cause the deaths of roughly 50,000- 100,000 ethnic Chinese. Yew’s close encounter with Japanese oppression inspired him to say “My colleagues and I are of that generation of young men who went through… the Japanese Occupation and emerged determined that no one…had the right to push and kick us around”(Yeo 87). That sentiment inspired him to enter politics, joining the Communist Party of Malaya, where one can assume he was exposed to terms such as the relations of production and subsistence needs. After a complicated series of events Yew would find himself at the helm of Singapore’s newly independent state, inheriting an economic and humanitarian crisis few would ever want to deal with. But his early Marxist influence may have given him an idea on where to start. That can be argued by analyzing some of the reforms he introduced which set up a solid economic base for Singapore’s population to prosper in the future. But it is worthy to note that Singapore is NOT a Marxist state but rather a state influenced by Marxism.
The Central Provident Fund
In order to tackle the economic crisis that plagued Singapore in the 1960’s sweeping reforms that addressed these economic woes needed to be established. Luckily for Yew he inherited the Central Provident Fund which was created under the old Malay regime in 1955. The CPF was the social security system used by the previous regime as a retirement plan, which was funded via taxes. This fund is owned and controlled by individuals but it allows for a bit more autonomy in terms of where the money from the fund is spent, in comparison to other social security systems. Essentially, it creates a bank account for all of it’s citizens. But at the same time allows citizens to use private banks in conjunction with the CPF. Additionally, the CPF can be seen as a government voucher which allows users to save or spend the capital within it whenever they want. Another difference in social security lies in who is qualified for social security services. That’s because all that’s needed to be eligible for the CPF is Singaporean citizenship (CPF).But when Yew came to power the CPF’s power was limited in scope. However, he must’ve realized the potential of the social security system because his regime greatly expanded it over the years, and in hindsight it paid dividends. That’s because the CPF covers 3 layers of subsistence needs which arguably allow Singapore’s population to focus on other things such as: self-fulfillment, community engagement, or social leisure. The 3 layers that allow that are: Shelter, Health, and Education. Each of these would be addressed via the CPF, but the first expansion of the CPF occurred in 1968 and it aimed to address one of the biggest problems challenging Singapore’s prosperity.
Public Housing Scheme
In 1968 Lee Kuan Yews government was tasked with handling an economic crisis, and one of the first things they decided to address was the housing problem. They did this by expanding the CPF social security apparatus in order to foster viable living conditions, the government also mass produced housing units, which eased the burden felt by the populous during this tumultuous time. (CPF History of CPF). In addition to this, the government made it it’s priority to insure that citizen’s private wages didn’t go into buying houses but rather housing was paid via the CPF (CPF History of CPF). Having said that, this isn’t traditional public housing where the state owns the houses, but rather it insures citizens with an opportunity to become homeowners. That’s possible because the CPF essentially was expanded to act as a state sponsored investment account and as a social security system. When taxes are taken out the funds, they are immediately redistributed to everyone’s CPF account. In addition to that, individuals can choose to contribute more funds to this account via private wages, and if that’s done the private employer is expected to match that amount, similar to 401k schemes in the USA except more full in scope. Moreover, citizens have the option to use their CPF funds as resources to invest in global markets, individuals can invest in low risk accounts or high risk accounts at their discretion. All of these benefits of the CPF enfranchise individuals to become homeowners. These developments explain the aforementioned high percentage of homeowners in Singapore.
Under Marxist terms we can argue that the productive forces in terms of housing were aimed to eventually belong to the people of Singapore. Because when the development first started the government owned the productive forces since they built everything, but over time that debt was paid and individuals owned their houses. Furthermore, they could later sell them to other individuals. In essence, ownership of a house is predicated mainly on citizenship and partly on labor power. The reason it’s partly labor power is because individuals can contribute their private wages to the fund, increasing its value compared to someone who didn’t want to. Reducing the anxiety of shelter must’ve been a much needed relief for the citizenry, allowing them to focus on their own personal endeavors. But that’s not all, the healthcare sector would also be targeted by the CPF leading to further reform in their society.
Medisave
After an economic expansion in the face of the recessions of the early 1980’s, Singapore was able to further improve upon the CPF, guaranteeing yet another subsistence need. They addressed one of the essential parts of subsistence- healthcare. In 1984, the Singaporean government passed legislation which would expand the CPF’s role in its citizens lives. The expansion would be called Medisave. The financial mechanisms used by the CPF to guarantee housing are also used to finance the healthcare sector. At first the funds could only be used for public hospitals but after ample amounts of private economic expansion Medisave was combined with a new model Medishield which allowed CPF funds to be used at private hospitals. Arguably, this new expansion further diminished the worries of the populous. That’s because once subsistence needs are taken care of, people can free up their resources towards other societal endeavors. And certain societal endeavors taken by individuals can also have tremendous effect on the overall economy. More minds can focus on developments in medicine rather than survival. Singapore’s government seems like it incentivizes these private endeavors, and the data can back it up. It ranks number 2 in the index of economic freedom which measure what countries best protect the liberty of individuals to pursue their own economic interests allowing for greater prosperity for society at large (Heritage Foundation). Compare that to the USA, often perceived as the ideal in terms individual economic freedom, who currently ranks 18th . So in Marxist terms it seems as if the government of Singapore wants workers to make and own the productive forces in Singapore. In nontechnical language they want to develop as many entrepreneurs as possible.
In the end, Singapore’s development was exponential. Arguably, one could reason this was influenced by addressing Marxist concepts to improve their economy. Specifically, by addressing subsistence needs Singapore could improve the nations relations of production, effecting greater economic society. They were able to do that with a government financial instrument called the Central Provident Fund, which enabled and incentivized home ownership, entrepreneurship, and other personal endeavors. Though not a communist state, Singapore seems to have tried to help their citizens realize their potential. Capitalism and Marxist techniques have been used hand in hand to increase efficiency in a Neoliberal capitalist system.
Works used:
“Adult Literacy Rate by Countries, 2017.” Knoema, Knoema, knoema.com/atlas/topics/Education/Literacy/Adult-literacy-rate?baseRegion=SG.
Huff, W.g. “The Developmental State, Government, and Singapore’s Economic Development since 1960.” World Development, vol. 23, no. 8, 1995, pp. 1421–1438., doi:10.1016/0305-750x(95)00043-c.
“OECD Data.” The OECD, data.oecd.org/.
Yeo, Kim Wah. Political Development in Singapore, 1945-1955. U.P., 1973.
“Das Kapital” “A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy” & “German Ideology” by Karl Marx
You are who you imprison. Well, that’s what Plato would’ve said if he would’ve written The Republic in the modern era. Actually maybe not, but he would’ve been able to see the connection between modern economics, legislation and imprisonment. Being the genius that he was he’d probably devise a theory about this correlation, it’d be lofty, and well articulated. But since he’s no longer with us you’ll have to settle for my condensed version.
The first aggressive and transparent instances of this correlation emerge around the age of Mercantilism. They would debut in the form of legislative mandates all across Europe, particularly the Anglo-sphere. Michele Foucault (Historian and author of Madness and Civlisation) argues and points out that during this period:
“The first houses of corrections were opened in England during a full economic recession. The act of 1610 recommended only certain mills and weaving & carding shops to all houses of correction in order to occupy the pensioners. But what had been a moral requirement became an economic tactic when commerce and industry recovered after 1651, the economic situation having been re-established by the Navigation act and the lowering of the discount rate. All able-bodied manpower was to be used to the best advantage, that is, as cheaply as possible. When John Carey established his workhouse project in Bristol he ranked the need for work first: “the poor of both sexes…. May be employed in beating hemp,dressing and spinning flax, or in carding wool and cotton”…Sometimes there were even arrangements which permitted private entrepreneurs to utilize the manpower of the asylums for their own profit” (Madness and Civilisation 52-53)
In a nutshell, Foucault emphasizes the interdependence between economics/legislation, and the effect they had on the development of correctional facilities in the age of Mercantilism. In this case an economic recession has hit England and in response the government passed legislation in order to regulate the economy. A fairly normal measure for governments trying to lessen the effects of an economic catastrophe. But it’s the methods that are deployed which raise cause for alarm.
In a desperate attempt to save the economy England outlawed abject poverty, homelessness, and “loose, idle and disordley behavior(the latter was never given a clear legal definition) . They sent all “offenders” to correctional facilities, where they were locked in a cell and forced to work . The proper terminology for this systemic means of punishment is called Poor Relief. It was a way for the government to absorb the “non productive” members of society into a system of regulated labor. That newly established labor pool was then used by the big businesses of the time to make a profit during the economic recession. These organizations would come into these ‘houses of correction’ and use the free prison labor enabling them to turn a profit during a recession. Basically they exploited the new source slave labor.
Additionally, Poor Relief should be looked at as a form of societal control in the face of economic hardship. By rounding up the impoverished of society, England was able to mask how catastrophic things were by forcing everyone to be economically productive. This enables a suppression of any societal/political agitation. After all people without jobs can’t protest the state of the economic climate if they’ve already been arrested for not having a job. That allowed England to ‘kill two birds with one stone’:( 1) because more of the population is able contribute to the economy (increasing economic efficiency) and (2 )the threat of civil unrest is suppressed. The first instances of modern mass incarceration have begun to take shape.
(in hindsight England was able to fully recover from their economic catastrophe)
Fast forward to the latter part of the 20th century. A time of extreme ideological tension across the globe. Perpetrated by an ongoing Cold War between two world superpowers, the USSR and the USA. During the Reagan administration the goal was clear; the Soviets had to be stopped. The administration would spend their time conducting extensive research to determine the Soviet’s systemic weaknesses. One of the weaknesses identified was an economic one. The administration figured out that by strangling the USSR with economic sanctions and making sure the US economy expanded at an exponential rate, the USA could win the Cold War. Rendering the Soviet economist Leonid Kantorovich’s Nobel prize winning work on optimal resource allocation useless. In hindsight, Reagan’s supply side economics (Reaganomics) would prove to be an effective strategy in the aim to stimulate and grow the American financial sector, albeit artificially. By stripping away and adding new red tape, laissez-faire economics dominated and took American capitalism to places it had never been before. Despite all that, some sectors of the American economy needed artificial legislative means to achieve that record growth.
In the 1980’s the number of arrests of drug offenses rose by 126% (National Council on Crime and Delinguency 1989). Mainly due to legislative acts such as the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. It was a mandate which radically revised the American criminal code system;It gave the government more power in civil forfeiture, reinstated the federal death penalty, and increased federal penalties for cultivation, possession, or sale of Marijuana. This was an indirect effect of Reagan’s supply driven economic stimulus. Because in order for the USA to beat out the Soviets, the US market needed to be operating at near full capacity. That meant everyone was needed to contribute to the system. No matter who you were. What followed these mandates was the rapid development of the ‘for profit privatized prison industrial complex’ . In these new prisons a new criminal was cultivated to populate them, the non-violent drug offender. As the prison industry grew so did the abundance of this newly cultivated criminal. This in effect meant more free labor for the American economic system as prisons became a new place for corporations to use “outsourced” prison labor. Leading to even more diverse growth in the corporate structure. For example, if Walmart uses prison labor to create an assembly line for a product (which it does) , then that product is cheaper for consumers, which incentivizes them to shop at Walmart.
But a lot of the economic growth in this era was feigned under complicated laws which inflated economic statistics. An example of this would be corporate share buy back schemes. This financial technique is used by corporations to inflate numbers by buying shares of the company back from individuals who’ve bought them. Share prices are inflated because less shares are out in the public’s hands. But this alone doesn’t necessitate growth. The reason why the profit margins grow is because investors are ignorant of the fact that the company is buying back it’s own shares. Generally, if people were aware of that corporate behavior confidence in that corporation would diminish. Ideally you’ll want the company to invest it’s money on the product/service it’s providing in order to turn a profit. When a company starts buying back shares that shows a lack of focus in terms of direct capital accumulation from the business. Instead buying back shares shows that a firm is more focused on marketing the fact they are still profitable. A desperate attempt to save their reputation. In principal nothing is wrong with this. But it’s wrong when the US legislation allows corporations to mask the fact they are buying back shares. This allows corporations to lie and potentially defraud investors. But ever since the 1980’s share buybacks have been allowed to remain nontransparent. Practices such as these can result in big economic bubbles. This is especially concerning when considering the fact that Goldman Sachs has recently bought back $780 billion worth of it’s own shares to avoid public scrutiny, giving us insight that this behavior is alive and well in the 21st century. Subtly, there’s an implication that the prison system may not have even played a significant part in the economic war waged by the USSR and USA. If it did generate growth then it must’ve been minimal. What seemingly played a significant role is the non transparency of certain economic strategies, one of them being corporate buy back schemes. But the creation of the non violent drug offender allowed the US private prison system a new source of labor, and therefore created growth within that industry. Nevertheless, Reaganomics resulted in a exponential growth for the American economy, one of the key factors that resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union. Just another concrete example of the relationship shared between legislation, economics, and imprisonment.
In all, when economic instability is on the horizon, one should expect a response from those controlling the resources within a given society. This response will often translate into laws and it’s effect can be easily mapped overtime.
(Sources)
Madness and Civilisation By Michelle Foucault
The 1989 NCCD Prison Population Forecast: The Impact of the War on Drugs By James Austin Aaron David McVey
Sermo Civilis 