Ladys Webforum

First off, like all academic texts, written by academics living and working inside the walls of the University-apparatus, the writing of the book is dull, uninspired, and seriously lacking in energy, including any memorable imagery that sticks with the reader. It is a snoozer, a 400 page sleeping pill, to say the least. Moreover, the organization of the text is cumbersome, rambling, and full of meanderings that make the reader question what is the point of all this, especially in the first 200 pages or so, (which any good writer would have chopped off with extreme predjudice). The book lacks rigor and focus. And, in consequence, this is most likely the reason why sales of this book are virtually nil. Nevertheless, the major problems with this book concerns the authors definition of power, which kills the book, dead on arrival:

1. The title, “Capital As Power” is misleading, as a more appropriate and accurate title would have been capital as a relation of power, or capital as a set of power-relations, in the sense that nowhere do the authors consider capital as a relation, or power as a relation of force. In fact, the authors repeatedly side-step the issue and argue that “capital is not a social relationship” (p.7). Which makes any serious reader question the authors’ understanding of what power is, or how it works. Thus, I am incline to think the authors’ have totally missed the mark, when it comes to a genuine understanding of power. In fact, the authors disassociate themselves from the accurate post-modernist idea that capital is a relation of force, or more accurately, a power-relation. Indeed, in the initial pages of the book, the authors argue that “capital... is neither a material object nor a social relationship, [but instead,] is... a symbolic representation of power” (p. 7). For the authors, capital is not a relationship, yet, contrary to their myopic understanding of capital, capital cannot be a symbolic representation of power, unless a set of underlying relations of force mold and hold a specific magnitude of power, as a symbolic representation. Meaning that a symbolic representation, whatever it is, must be back-up by relations of force, as a product of these relations of force. Subsequently, in contrast to Nitzan and Bichler, capital is not a numeric sum, i.e., a symbolic representation, or the face of power, it is fundamentally a relation of power, symbolically represented by arbitrary numeric sums, which are themselves backed up by relations of force. Contrary to Nitzan and Bichler, power and capital are derived from relations of force, relations that funnel and direct force in a specific direction, according to a specific sum, and/or according to a specific regime of social and economic organization. In short, contrary to the authors, capital is relational, first and foremost. Through relations of force, power arises and acquires symbolic representation. And this symbolic representation is the clothing of capital, but it is not capital itself, since, capital is nothing but a relationship organized in a particular capitalistic format. However, this fact is lost on the authors, as they deliberately avoid the issue, choosing instead to break with Marx’s definition of capital as a relation. Consequently, this forces the authors into all sorts of wishy washy meanderings and unconvincing mental gymnastics that go on and on into all sorts of dead-end cul-de-sacs. The result of this denial of capital as a relation transforms the book, making it appears to be more or less an exercise in misinformation and propaganda, rather than, a serious attempt at genuine impartial scholarship.
2. According to the authors, “power is confidence in obedience” (p. 17). A very dubious definition, in the sense that any serious reader can see that confidence in obedience is an effect of power, not power itself. As a result, the authors fail to see that confidence in obedience is not power, but a by-product derived from the power-driven relations of force and influence, which manifest reliable obedience in people and/or populations. Via the power-driven relations of force and influence that people are immersed-in, people are coerced and directed to obey with regularity certain thought and behavioral patterns, patterns imposed on them by the relations of force and influence, they belong to. And out of this standardized regularity of obedience, a type of by-product is manifested out these relations of force and influence, which are, then interpreted as confidence in obedience. But, this vital point is never addressed by the authors, due to the fact that such a crucial point conflicts with the partisan political agenda of the authors, an agenda designed to avoid at any cost, all serious discussions and confrontations with the post-modern theorists and their detailed analyses of power.
3. Considering that Foucault, Nietzsche, and the Post-Modernists, spent the bulk of their careers analyzing power and power-relations, there is no attempt by the authors to deal with their analyses of power and power relations. In fact, such an analysis is utterly omitted from the book by the authors. And it is my professional opinion that the authors deliberately avoided any discussions of the post-modernists, due to the fact that mainstream bourgeois academia is currently locked in a war with post-modern theoreticians, in effort to purge any and all post- modern theories from the halls of the bourgeois university. As a result, “Capital As Power” is a highly bias piece of scholarship, wherein, the authors try to overwrite and/or ignore any and all post-modernist analyses of power, in the sense that these post-modern theories seriously challenge and critique dominant power, and the authoritarian hierarchies of bourgeois academia, including the sacred methods by which bourgeois academia determines truth and falsehood. In consequence of this catastrophic omission by the authors, this book is disingenuous and bias. It is a work of bourgeois-academic propaganda that tries to write the post-modernists out of history, by avoiding any and all discussions pertaining to their analyses of power and relations of power. Following a degenerate cabal of mainstream baby-boomer academicians, the baby boomer authors position themselves against post- modernity, by denying the post-modernist analyses of power, which again proves this book is more a work of propaganda, than a serious attempt at tackling power in a post-modern society.
4. According to Nitzan and Bichler, “accumulation [solely derives from] capitalization and finance” (P.10). That is, “the process of accumulation represents the changing ability of dominant capital— namely, the leading corporations and key government organs at the epicenter of the [accumulation] process—to control, shape and transform society against opposition[s]” (P. 17). Consequently, for Nitzan and Bichler, the locus of power is always top down and situated in the corporation and the organs of government. Although, these sites are centers of power, contrary to Nitzan and Bichler, they are not always dominant and/or the sole centers of power. For instance, trade unions are dominant centers of power, embodying multi-varied sets of power-relations that have a serious influence on the determination of values, prices, and wages that circulate inside and outside the State and/or the corporation. Also, academic institutions are dominant centers of power that exert a powerful force and influence on the conceptual-perceptions of the general- population as to what constitutes power, an acceptable level of value, and a legitimate price-sum. All of which is never discussed by the authors. If, as the authors believe, “power is everywhere” (P. 42), a statement initially stated by Michel Foucault, which the authors deliberately never mention or footnote, then, it is obvious that the authors should have clearly understood that power can come from anywhere. That is, power functions and operates not solely from the top down as the authors’ argue, but, instead, functions and operates from side to side, as well as from the bottom up. As a result, contrary to Nitzan and Bichler’s central argument, governance over values and prices can come from anywhere, not just from the locus of corporations and/or the State. Contrary to Nitzan and Bichler’s thesis, capital is socially constructed through power-relations and ideologies, because, fundamentally, capital is a power relation, as well as, a set of ideologies. At its core, capital is not a symbolic representation. And the fact that the authors make such a claim is to completely misunderstand what capital is, and what power is. Moreover, capital is never the sole product of capitalization and finance as the authors’ claim, but, the product of a whole set of macroscopic and microscopic power-networks, networks stitched together by an underlying set of power-relations and/or ideologies, by which values and prices arise as a by-product of these underlying relations and ideologies. That is, relations and ideologies that socially construct, deconstruct, and reconstruct, capital and society as a whole, over and over again, ad infinitum.

All in all, “Capital As Power” is disorganized, dull, and rambles on and on, for far too long. More importantly, it is a partisan piece of scholarship, which purposefully omits any post-modernist discussion of power, which, in the end, cripples Nitzan and Bichler’s argument and text, leaving any knowledgeable reader scratching his or her head, as to what is the point of avoiding the post-modernist analyses of power, since, such analyses might have buttressed and bolstered their weak top down power theory, with greater certainty and an insurmountable robustness. In the end, this book is not worth the time or the money. It lacks rigor, focus, and, I dare say, genuine intellectual honesty, hence, just another book meant for the dung-pile of economic history. The best response to Nitzan and Bichler's work is simply to say, #OKBOOMER.