on resources

Resources are the means present in the material, immaterial and sociological reality that can be used to accomplish goals and purposes. The use of resources is called ‘investments’, the maintenance of investments is its ‘cultivation’ and the benefits from the investments are its ‘fruits’.


a)      state uses: – taxes from society and capital

                              – the violence monopoly

                              – trias politica

                              – collective goods

                              – internationalism

                              – governance and policy

                              – the free market

                              – classes

                              – society’s labor ethos


b)      society uses: – peer pressure and social unity

                            – numeric majority

                            – financial power

                            – labor force monopoly

                            – emotional campaigning

                            – the free market


c)      capital uses: – production force monopoly

                            – technological and innovative knowledge

                            – the free market

                            – ownership of primary goods

                            – entrepreneur’s risk

                            – society’s labor and heroic ethos




State resources

         taxes from society and capital: in order to maintain its power and reign consistently, the state is obliged to drain its resources from legitimate income. Taxes are being imposed on the communities and capital as both a moral duty (social correction) and a necessary evil (to facilitate state monopolies like the law). The legal power possessed by the state and the legitimate execution of it (police, judicial institute, the codified law) result in a clear hierarchic position. Society’s en capital’s almost feudal bond with the state puts the state into undisputable power, while nor society or capital can claim the cost they make on the state. States and international organizations possess the tax monopoly and impose a form of indirect control on industry and society.

         violence monopoly: maintenance of the general order means the state has to suppress dissidence and scare off possible dissidents. The violence monopoly implies an exclusive right to violence and therefore the use of force as a legitimate mean to favor static interests and endeavor static wants. The elaborate social importance of it is meant to hush both the capital and the state by giving them no excuse to question the violence monopoly. It’s all just a matter of police versus militia. De organized armed forces versus the social force. The prestige and especially the legitimacy of the national armed forced and uniformed power en the monopolies on technology that goes with it scares us en therefore limits the potential impact that the capital and society might possess. This is why it is rather a preventive measure to protect static powers and interest, rather than protecting society and capital against external danger and the maintenance of the public order and national security. In this perspective, power is clearly seen as a scarce good, not as a right or a task.

         Trias Politica: manned by the social elites, they are the slaves of the state. The three powers (legislative, executive, judicial) in the western tradition are the responsibility of the nation, not the elites, not the people or the citizens. It’s a logical democratic measure, but this is how the state creates her barriers, her buffer zones of elected oligarchs on which the people can avenge themselves if necessary. Democracy is nothing more than a form of social distraction to prevent people from questioning the role and meaning of the institute that is the state. De executive power is closest to the true static elites. The states and the lobbies express their preferences and the executive power must mold these orders – for that is what they truly are – in general interests and present them as a “policy”. The judicial power is filled with static vassals who will never bite the hand that feeds and speak the word of their benevolent employer, the despot that is the state. This power, the most perverted of them all, is supposed to control the legislative power, being the elites of society. In this perspective, the judicial power can be perceived as a latent but fierce spying eye, defending the interest of the state against those of society.

         collective goods: the collective goods, such as waterways, the environment, public health, air traffic control and education are still often under state supervision or conglomerates of states (EU, NATO, NAFTA). These collective goods and services are often placed under the control and responsibility of states or international organizations, such as EPO and Interpol. Resulting from this farce it that states possess a whole arsenal of vital information and technology and so the power to keep society and capital hostage with their complex hierarchic system and valuable collective information.

         internationalism: globalization and everything that comes with it (diplomacy, migration, multiculturalism, cultural relativism,…) manage to decimate the social impact of communities and dominant cultures by strictly orchestrating the inflation of new social (interest)groups. The general social good and the volonté générale become unclear and questionable. The state gives people incentives doubting the surplus value of a society and the benefits of a group. This results in social decay. New systems such as the free market, the globalizing communication possibilities and global mobility give states the opportunity to wage an open war against the societies and their interests. The accumulation of power of different states can play a very important role. Worldwide organizations such as the UN or the World Bank and the IMF have a monopoly to a whole lot of vital knowledge, what gives them a head-on start and an incredibly and underestimated power.

         Governance and Policy: the monopoly on social policy has only augmented with the collapse of the Church in Western and especially European culture. The main argument for the separation of Church and State is the distribution of social influence and power. Nowadays the state has invested in labor ethos and the capital in heroic ethos and has the state succeeded in its quest to destroy his other legitimate governing rival, the Church. The monopoly of social policy became absolute. Through the Trias Politica and democracy, the state has managed to set a latent social course and therefore steers both society and capital.


         the free market: is the result of a centuries-long tug-o-war between capital and state. With the decline and disappearance of the national sovereignty and the rise of the free market, not only borders have faded (bad for the societies) but also the local entrepreneur’s risk. The international markets brought the danger of the elaborate foreign markets within the local national markets. So the free market didn’t just bring us an abundance of economic freedom, but an enormous increase of the entrepreneur’s risk. The large national capital – state’s biggest enemy – is being ‘consumed’ by the international economic mastodons and the trust funds, while the small national capital is forced to continue working in its status of ‘small enterprise’ if it does not wish to be ‘consumed’ itself. The free market can be perceived as a perverse pact between state and world capital and not a weapon of freedom. Communication between international “capital-islands” is often exploited through diplomatic and static ways, not through the idyllic local markets. And don’t forget: although the free market is the least unfree of all current market possibilities, we are never the less all slaves of it.

         classes: the ‘democratic’ division of society in interest groups and the socialist/Marxist separation of society in classes leads to the bankruptcy of social unity and the downfall of a powerful social entity. The state sets interest groups up against each other on the stage of the comedy that is democracy or uses the marketplace as a box ring, where the classes fight their useless struggle to the death, so it can occupy society and state fighting each other, rather then joining forces and rise against the state. Unfortunately, both society and capital turn to the state for help in the fierce struggle against one another. Attempts from society’s side to put their differences aside and link up against the exploiting and raging thieve that is the state have failed throughout history (solidarism, national-socialism, anarchism,…). Those same attempts, but from the side of the capital are present and known, but can’t seem to gain enough power to make a difference (the American Dream and libertarianism). The state doesn’t have to worry much. For now.

         Society’s labor ethos: exploiting human greed and the Peter’s Principle have to important effects. A first effect is that the meritocratic model has provided man with the opportunity and the incentives to invest his time, energy and talents in training, improving and widen his possibilities, and therefore not investing it in a social-critic vision upon our world. Dissidents of the meritocratic social model are caught in the social web, so their criticism is either not expressed, or at least not heard. Another important effect is the economic growth and social average prosperity emerging from it, so the state denies the capital any excuse to doubt her governance and affairs. A motivated working society and a fully equipped and smoothly running economic machine produces a lot and consumes a lot, therefore the state profits a lot from it.




Community resources

         peer pressure and social unity: society invests mostly in unity and communal interests. The influence of social pressure groups, unions and consumer organizations can often correct the course of the state and intervene in the capital’s decisions and strategies.

         numeric majority: social pressure and unity is a natural consequence of the numeric majority of society. There are after all more owners of labor force than there are owners of production force, and the elements of the state are invisible and unknown to the outside world. Both the state and the capital benefit from a broad and diverse community: capital can drain practically unlimited labor force from it (the more, the cheaper), and the state can benefit from its taxes (the more people, the more taxes).

         financial power: the subjects of society (the sovereign owners of their own labor force) own in total more purchase power than the owners of the production force or the state. A united society would be able to nationalize the production force and enslave the state. The capital is after all born from society en nurtures itself with the successful elements from it. The state is the vague construction around society and feasts on the fruits of the subjects’ labor. But they are both dependent on the economic strategy of society. This is why it is important for society to communicate a united message and strife for a united goal: it gives them a power beyond their natural capacities. It is the very essence of the holistic community. The phenomenon ‘purchase power’ plays a very important part within this. Through the consumerism of the adult (post)industrial society, capital has become dependent on the preference and consuming addiction of the social subjects. A coordinated governance of social consumerism and communal preferences would imply that society would have an enormous tactical influence on both the state and capital. The state prevents this by investing in labor ethos and capital by investing in both labor and heroic ethos. For now, they are on the winning hand. After al, social unity has a negative connotation nowadays, especially under the Anglo-American free market-slavery the world has to bare today. Parties and ideologies who claim to defend ‘social interest’ and the rights of all social strata are called populists, extremists, utopias and ‘just theories’.

         labor force monopoly: society is the sovereign owner and exploiter of the labor force (at least in the present capitalist economy and society) en it can use this monopoly to impose pressure on the capital (and indirectly the state as well) and bargain its market share and value. A society as a entity within the trinity of state, society and capital, founded on its own labor and production stands or falls with the willingness of that society to sell this labor to whoever is willing to pay the right price. This is why it is of the greatest importance for the state and the capital to stimulate and encourage the social subject to develop their labor ethos. Because someone who finds pleasure and satisfaction in labor, will be willing to sell his labor for a lower price than someone who isn’t motivated to work. An elaborate society with a large labor offer will bring the price down as well. A strong differentiation between social classes encourages the subjects to compete their labor force amongst each other.

         emotional campaigning: this might be the most powerful weapon to possess in the struggle for social power. The state nor the capital own it absolutely, but can only claim it now and then, under circumstances and conditions. The capital has after all an important commercial benefit from stimulating the human emotions and answer to the needs and wants of a certain group or time. But emotions, in their true role as scarce goods, are just like labor force sovereign property of the social subjects, and in this view society has a monopoly on it. Trends and sensitivities may be well fixed and cultivated by external factors and a certain social uniform in time and specific circumstances, a society with a strong cohesive nature can still maintain a certain level of social independence. The communal need for a healthy environment for example can be stimulated by social pressure groups who are an integral part of society, without any statist or capital interference. Both the state and capital can do nothing about it but answering to the trend.

         the free market: as the sovereign owner of the labor force, negotiations between the exploitation of labor and the compensation of it are held on the free market (between the social subjects and capital). They can not survive without each other and therefore they can not arm and protect themselves against each other. They are dependent on one another. Still, they both try to gain the upper hand and the power over the market. The owners of labor force want to sell their labor as expensive as possible and the owners of production force want to buy their labor as cheap as possible. Contrary to the capital, society is able to enforce her interests with social pressure. The answer that capital can pose against it, is however beyond their own free will and implies both a high risk and a high cost for the capital, as well as for society (delocalization, going out of business, inflation, migration,…)




Capital resources

         production force monopoly: owners of production force and labor force meet and bargain with each other on the free market. The role of the state on this marketplace is that of ‘security guard’ and imposes social corrections under the form of subsidies, taxes and education policy. These social corrections disrupt and interfere the natural process of offer and demand of labor force and production force and commerce. In a pure and stateless free market this communication would be much easier, smoother and more latent, money wouldn’t be a weapon of power and force and a legal form of blackmail, and interest and usury would be useless and superfluous. But in a society where labor, capital and state are one and the same entity, communication would be superfluous itself. This is the terror of communism. Dealing with the problem of market communication errors by eliminating the problem instead of solving it. In the utopist societies where there are no interest groups and no long-term benefits for a certain social group, a state, labor and capital would be all superfluous.

         technological and innovative knowledge: the capital invests in innovation and efficiency and possesses this monopoly more or less, although it could be ‘loaned’ by authorities like the government. Society as a group can however not claim it, but a few privileged subjects who manage to gain capital’s trust to invest in their talents and capabilities can. Herein lays the phenomenon of the ultimate social mobility and social inequality that is favored by the capital. Social mobility allows subjects from all layers of society who can contribute to the innovation and efficiency of labor and production to be found and heard, so they can attract investments and the means they need to innovate. It allows society and capital to distillate elites from the widest social range possible. Social inequality allows the subjects with innovative potential to answer to social incentives to distance themselves from the majority. The capital can give them access to certain scarce goods or certain services and opportunities that are not available for the majority.

         ownership over primary goods: this is quite a relative resource. Can we state that most primary goods and the sources of it are in the hands of capital? Are they not (anymore) in the hands of single social subjects or in the grasp of states? Trusts and the concentration of international capital have a lot of vital sources in their patrimony: oil, gas, drinking water, timber reserves, crops,… and they can legitimately request a compensation for it. The question is how “just” and “legitimate” it is for the capital to own all that, in comparison to the owners of labor force, who need these sources to develop their labor force and offer it to the market. By claiming the primary goods, the capital manages to reduce the cost of labor, because the workers pay their bosses for their own labor force. Only the subjects of society, and not society, capital or the state, can be the rightful owner of the sources of his labor force. In this view, we can clearly state that the capital does not have the right to claim these primary goods and that owning them is to be considered unjust, unfair en morally disgraceful.

         entrepreneur’s risk: the entrepreneur’s risk contains both a financial and a social cost for the capital. Offering a good or a service and asking a compensation for it in return implies always a certain risk, both for the owners of the production force as for the owners of the labor force who invest their labor into the project and even the state, who provides the legal and legislative cadre for entrepreneurship. The core of this chain reaction of risks, alongside the free market and the competition that goes with it, lies within this entrepreneur’s risk, namely the free and determined of the owner of capital to invest his capital (gathered through the exploitation of his labor) in production force and labor in order to offer a good or a service to the market. This determined choice and the possibilities and conditions preceding it are a scarce good on themselves. The scarce good “entrepreneur’s risk” can trigger a chain reaction of risks en contains a certain – latent but certain – social risk. Not always calculated.

         society’s labor and heroic ethos: the fact that capital can invest in the development of the labor ethos and the heroic ethos of the social subjects, implies that the development of the subject (every single one of us) is dependent on the grace and calculated choice of the capital to invest in us. To be able to claim these investments legitimately, the subject must answer to certain requirements, posed by the benevolent investors. The nature of these requirements can be merely circumstantial, but also social, genetic and personal. The power of the capital to enforce the accomplishment of these requirements is an important aspect of its relationship to society.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: