SuperTutor

(15)

$15/per page/Negotiable

About SuperTutor

Levels Tought:
Elementary,Middle School,High School,College,University,PHD

Expertise:
Accounting,Business & Finance See all
Accounting,Business & Finance,Economics,Engineering,HR Management,Math Hide all
Teaching Since: Apr 2017
Last Sign in: 229 Weeks Ago, 6 Days Ago
Questions Answered: 12843
Tutorials Posted: 12834

Education

  • MBA, Ph.D in Management
    Harvard university
    Feb-1997 - Aug-2003

Experience

  • Professor
    Strayer University
    Jan-2007 - Present

Category > Social Science Posted 10 Jun 2017 My Price 20.00

What does citizenship mean?

“What does citizenship mean?” the bishop asks. “Does it mean—well,
you must be proud that you have an identity document? But that’s more
helpful to the police, to locate where you are!” Instead, “let citizenship
not start with the official documents, but start with the sharing of the resources. . . . Citizenship should mean that I partake in the wealth of the
country!”
Here it is possible to observe a kind of convergence, in which the muscular assertions of ownership that we see in Julius Malema-style resource
nationalism are being harnessed to concrete and universalistic distributive claims, claims that are made both plausible and practical by the new
cash transfer apparatuses that deliver existing forms of social assistance.
And while I have tried to illustrate this sort of reasoning by dwelling on
one especially clear case (the recent Namibian big campaign), I emphasize that the idea that universalistic cash payments might be reconceptualized as a kind of share of a collectively owned mineral wealth is not
unique to Namibia. Indeed, a recently launched region-wide campaign
argues for a basic income grant scheme that would be funded by levies
on mineral extraction, covering the entire Southern African Development
Community. The campaign’s argument begins by noting the regional
fact of “poverty alongside mineral wealth” together with “evidence from
countries such as India and Brazil” showing the effectiveness of cash
transfers in fighting poverty and then seeks to mobilize support for universal basic income precisely under the banner of the rightful share. (The
slogan emblazoned on the campaign’s logo reads as follows: “Our Right—
Our Wealth—Our Share.”)34
Conclusion: Toward a Politics of the Rightful Share In all this, it may be possible to detect an emergent politics. Such a politics is based on a kind of claim-making that involves neither a compensation for work nor an appeal for “help” but rather a sense of rightful
entitlement to an income that is tied neither to labor nor to any sort of
disability or incapacity. Like the claims to land discussed earlier, such
claims are rooted less in legal rights, narrowly understood, than in a powerful encompassing sense of righteousness—a conception that, as noted
in chapter 1, relies less on the liberal idea of rights “held” by individuals
than on the principle (more moral than legal) that material distributions
a rightful share 183 must answer to some idea of the proper, of the just, of the “rightful.”
At the most fundamental level, such distributive claims do not take the
form of exchanges at all (neither market nor gift) but instead something
more like demand sharing—a righteous claim for a due and proper share
grounded in nothing more than membership (in a national collectivity)
or even simply presence (cf. Widlok 2012; I return to the theme of “presence” in the book’s conclusion). It is this (emergent, only partially realized) politics that I term the politics of the rightful share, and my claim is
that, in a range of societies (especially where wage labor has lost the political and economic centrality it once had), it may be becoming a much
more prominent and important form of political aspiration.
How are we to assess the potential of such a politics of the rightful
share? Let us begin by considering where (and why) claims to rightful
shares are politically potent and do manage to gain some traction. As
noted in chapter 1, it seems to be the case that share-reasoning is most
readily accepted when it comes to mineral wealth.35 Why is this? If a small
farmer works hard to grow a modest agricultural crop on some little
patch of land, we readily accept the idea that the goods so produced belong to him or her, and not to us all collectively. But if the same farmer
finds oil on that piece of land, installs a few cheap pumps, and starts
earning billions, we easily conclude that at least some share of the wealth
is or ought to be common. Why? Because, I think, the value is so out of
proportion to the effort; in some sense, we recognize that the value was
“already there”—stumbled upon, not created, by the farmer.36 Immense
value, that is, here emerges not from labor, but fabulously, almost magically, as if from nowhere.37
But mineral extraction is not the only place where the proportionality
of wealth to effort we see in the case of the small farmer is absent; indeed,
a disconnection of accumulation from such things as work, effort, and
duration has been noted to be a distinguishing feature of the current era
of “casino capitalism” (Strange 1997; Comaroff and Comaroff 2000). In
fact, the morality of the unearned oil bonanza is not easily distinguished
from similar “gushers” that nowadays spray torrents of money out of
hedge funds, currency speculation, and executive compensation agreements. But, as pointed out in chapter 1, the same is true, in a different
way, even of such pillars of the “real economy” as manufacturing, at least
at the most up-to-date and capital-intensive end of things. In fact, a high184 chapter 6 tech factory is today not so different from an oil rig—a huge piece of capital investment that, once in place, pumps out unimaginable amounts of
valuable stuff with only small amounts of supervisory labor. The distributive claims that are plausible for mineral wealth thus become increasingly
plausible for other forms of wealth as well—for they, too, now seem to
appear fabulously, magically, as if from nowhere.
Distributive claims of this kind (i.e., grounded in membership rather
than labor or misfortune) are, I have suggested, increasingly evident in
certain new domains of social policy, both in southern Africa and internationally (the shifting international scene is briefly discussed in the book’s
conclusion). The legitimacy of such claims is a key theme, too, in much
contemporary radical social thought, especially in a recent revitalization
of thinking about what is an old topic for socialism: “the commons.”
David Harvey, of course, has in recent years revisited Marx’s old discussion of “primitive accumulation,” reminding us that the accumulation of
capital via the appropriation of property formerly held in common is not
an “original sin” that occurs at the birth of capitalism but a continuous
process that carries through to the present as commonly held resources
continue to be subject to private appropriation, especially in the latest,
“neoliberal” round of capitalist restructuring (Harvey 2005). But more interesting for my purposes here are lines of thought that lie outside of the
well-rehearsed verities of Harvey’s traditional (and production-centered)
Marxism and derive instead from alternative formulations of socialism
that give a greater place to distribution—formulations to which it may
be time to return. As discussed in chapter 1, for instance, the anarchocommunist Peter Kropotkin founded his critique of capitalism not on
arguments about labor and production but on a fundamentally distributive claim—the claim that society’s wealth properly belongs to all. Every
member of modern industrial society, he noted, benefits from “an immense capital accumulated by those who have gone before him” ([1892]
1995, 11). And among those wealth-creating predecessors, he paid special attention to poor and working people and their sufferings: “Whole
generations, that lived and died in misery, oppressed and ill-treated by
their masters, and worn out by toil, have handed on this immense inheritance” ([1892] 1995, 14). Yet the descendants of those who paid this
terrible price, instead of being treated as the inheritors of a vast richness,
are denied any property rights at all. For all the vast wealth produced by
a rightful share 185 modern railways, for instance, “if the children of those who perished by
the thousands while excavating the railway cuttings and tunnels were to
assemble one day, crowding in their rags and hunger, to demand bread
from the shareholders, they would be met with bayonets and grapeshot”
([1892] 1995, 17).38
Importantly, Kropotkin does not say that such a person deserves a
share of wealth because he or she works a certain amount. On the contrary, the entire production apparatus must be treated as a single, common inheritance. I therefore deserve a share of production not because I
labor but because I own (via inheritance) a share of the entire production
apparatus. Kropotkin appeals to labor, to be sure, but not just the labor of
the present. Instead, it is past labor that is most fundamentally the source
of the productive apparatus that we all inherit, so the heritage of labor is
as important as its current condition. What is more, he grounds the right
to a common inheritance not just in a long, shared history of work but
equally in other historical accumulations such as inventions as well as
forms of suffering, deprivation, and bloodshed (cf. Moore 2005). In this
broad panorama, which encompasses the whole history of all of mankind, there can be no accounting of who produced how much or whose
suffering was greater; the only practical as well as ethical conclusion is, as
he famously put it, “All belongs to all” ([1892] 1995), 19).
More recently, autonomists have revitalized this old tradition of theorizing about “the common.” Thus Michael Hardt (building on Virno
2004) has argued that value is really produced not by labor in the narrow
sense but by society as a whole (2000). For instance, when an advertising
campaign makes money using a hip-hop-themed jingle, where does the
value originate? Not, he suggests, in the labor of the individual advertising employee, who is just repackaging creative musical ideas heard at a
club the previous night—but not either in the individual performance of
the hip-hop artist at the club (who has likewise borrowed and sampled
from the prior creativity of others). It is society as a whole that produces
such value, and society as a whole thus has a claim to appropriate the
fruits of such production (2000, 27). (Indeed, Antonio Negri has recently
suggested that, given the centrality of such social creativity in generating
value today, the metropolis might properly take the place that the factory
held for Marx as a principal site of struggle [Negri 2008, 211–30].) The
key claim here belongs not to the wage laborers but to the members of
186 chapter 6

 

Attachments:

Answers

(15)
Status NEW Posted 10 Jun 2017 12:06 AM My Price 20.00

-----------

Attachments

file 1497053843-Solutions file.docx preview (51 words )
S-----------olu-----------tio-----------ns -----------fil-----------e -----------Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k y-----------ou -----------for----------- yo-----------ur -----------int-----------ere-----------st -----------and----------- bu-----------yin-----------g m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l b-----------e q-----------uic-----------kly----------- on-----------lin-----------e a-----------nd -----------giv-----------e y-----------ou -----------exa-----------ct -----------fil-----------e a-----------nd -----------the----------- sa-----------me -----------fil-----------e i-----------s a-----------lso----------- se-----------nt -----------to -----------you-----------r e-----------mai-----------l t-----------hat----------- is----------- re-----------gis-----------ter-----------ed -----------on-----------th-----------is -----------web-----------sit-----------e -----------Tha-----------nk -----------you----------- -----------
Not Rated(0)