Introduction
In more ways than one, the conceptualized constructs demarcating the means by which money exchange takes place within the contemporary world economy are profuse than they might actually appear. The ideology of a contemporary capitalism culture can be split two ways; the thinking of a financializer versus that of a technologist. This paper will take on a triangulation approach at trying to deconstruct the ideals of contemporary capitalism. By cross-referencing different theorizations, the two loudly acclaimed arrangements of abstraction – financialization and technological abstraction – shall be extrapolated and used to establish the actual stand concerning the doctrine of capitalism today.
Financialization
Theorizations by Karl Marx in the 20th century would seem to be in agreement with Van Der Zwan (2014) as Marx critiques the political embodiment of an economy as a problematic system. To corroborate her deduction, Van Der Zwan additionally substantiates her theorization using definitions for financialization; as an umbrella term for activities in the finance market and as a form of globalization. Van Der Zwan seems to take a stand on the numerousness of evidence in support of positive economic and political growth as caused by financialization. Further, volume 13 of the Socio-Economic Review (July 2015) presents a similar angle but focusing on different elements – financialization on an industry-specific setting (Tomaskovic-Devey, 2015). Conclusions drawn here seemed to denounce financialization as a key growth mentor in a state’s value added determinant. This outstretched notion of financialization as a delimiter to the socialist culture has had a fair share of supporters and denouncers alike.
Political Economy
Engel appears to have had two separate ideologies on the concept of political economy and its toll on the capitalist regime. On the one hand, we are led to believe that the then political economy, was nothing different from the contemporary exchange of commodities amongst humans. On the other hand, however, Engels takes on a variably critical deciphering indicating that the generic nature of this strangely novel discipline was purely biased towards the capitalist whirlwind. Pasquinelli (2009) uses Google as a case study to draw us insightful deductions on the concept of knowledge economy under what he calls “political economy in the digital age” Why he uses Google for his case study slowly but surely becomes apparent to us: it is a monopolistic institution, and if there would be a smarter way in which to decompose an economy from a single rather than generalized standpoint, it would not be better than monopolistic analysis. Pasquinelli intellectually fuses general intellect by Karl Marx, with original knowledge accumulation of digital economies. This offsets our singularized ideology concerning the ‘modernism’ of a digital economy and its non-relatability to adage Marxist theories. Correlatively, Engels cited ‘forms and conditions’ as the very heart of political economy; a synergetic construct affective of the human race then, now, and presumably in the future.
Capitalism
Meltzer (2015) throws out a bold statement with regard to the nature and construction of capitalism as a regime, letting us know that no capitalist system is like the other. Further, he posits to us that for the pro-capitalists, a moral system in society is adhered to; resourcefulness, choice, self-made decisions etc. all forming part of the social capitalist regime. Indeed, no document ever provides Marxist evidence of an offered alternative to capitalism. We would quickly rush and jump to the assumption that the quite obvious counteracting mirror image is communism. However, Marxist literature barely has an attestation to that, he only just rightly predicts the convergence of technology with capitalism at some point in future.
Technology
Most scholars of the socio-cultural realm will almost always mention information in their efforts to deconstruct algorithmic culture. As Benkler (2006) would have us believe, the heights scaled by digitalization and algorithmic depositions in the money market today is almost questionable. Benkler has intensified the resourcefulness of the internet as an elaborative algorithmic culture tool, to expend his thoughts using the information-clad approach. He categorically asserts to us that activities of a nonmarket nature are occurrences begging wider applicability than is captured by free open source software utilities. The so-called algorithmic trading, or AT as so abbreviated by Chaboud et al (2014), appears to be commonplace to all addressers of social culture in the contemporary economic framework. Chaboud et al (2014) dedicates a research paper to delineating the differences arising in the forex market owing to the use of algorithmic and non-algorithmic (human) trading techniques alike. The paper addresses algorithmic trading using two approaches; strategic correlation and structured market performance. The paper concludes that there is more correlation on the algorithmic trades than on the obverse, hence lesser diversification of ATs compared to non-ATs. Chaboud et al (2014) also annunciates that algorithmic traders (hence computers) do provide a form of share liquidity in times of market upheavals, as compared to non-ATs. The paper has also substantiated the benefits of computers in the AT platform as being that of quicker reaction time, as well as higher volatility.
Striphas (2015) insists on the uncommonness of the usage of algorithms, he presumes it, both in meaning and in context, in modern cultural constructs. He clarifies to us that at one instance, algorithms – the mathematical logic of numbers, and algorisms – code systems of revelation and concealment alike, were like twin motors. Striphas then makes it clear to us that this trend got to a dead end and that the 20th century opened more doors for algorithms at the expense of algorisms. Striphas leads us to the truism that algorithms made a more precise point during information handling and communicating and hence algorithms grew the upper hand. He then concludes that, treating culture as an authoritative entity, invokes the existence of algorithmic culture – a concept he labels a ‘positive remainder’ of the information handling process – this compares closely to the deductions of Van der Zwan. He further on suggests action for privatization of cultural truisms to avoid stereotypical cultural overruling.
Striphas has proved scrupulousness on his stand regarding algorithmic culture and has corroborated his thoughts in yet another paper, claiming that despite the stagnation that characterizes this culture, it is export-friendly, in an information sense. His closing statement on the nearly indiscernible nature of culture and algorithmic computing, only leaves us recovering from the effects of a subtlety trance. While some scholars convince us of the saving power of algorithm trading as realized from experimental studies based off trading benchmarks, catalysis for upsurges in equity market volumes, as well as the power of algorithmic trading to maintain price equilibriums, other scholars seem to have a different angle of view. Asides being a tool for trading activities, the algorithmic culture poses some issues, as Lange, Lenglet & Seyfert persuade us.
Knowledge situations, responsibility distribution, cognitive nuances, as well as issues related to organizational structure are presented to us as some of the issues. On the contrary, Lange, Lenglet & Seyfert still attempt to foster positive criticism, purporting to us that AT allows corporate entities to have more data control. With this control, it is further clarified that not only is it easier to identify threats, but even better is how precisely an AT will allow such an undertaking. Haiven reveres this instrumental capability by labeling it “an incredibly powerful AT machine owned by major financial firms that process and respond to incredible quantities of rapidly changing economic data”. The growing and continually advancing world of technology has in a way outgrown itself – however, dependence on human intervention cannot be outgrown.
The theory of technology, too, has not started in the wake of the 21st century. Marx had already given us a hint of the affective factors to an economic structure – he defines fundamentalism with a query – does the character of a society change more or less self-sufficiently upon being impacted by technology on a social or economic or political level? Meltzer (2015) responds to this query with utter confidence, citing the obviousness of the non-survival of a capitalist regime without technology. Living in an era that comes after the all-famous epoch of enlightenment, most scholars will address the contemporary human race as post-enlightenment. Unspecific and unthoughtful as Hornborg (2013) may have us think, he is indeed in the rightful stance to make such a gruesome entitlement of us, the human race. What he is trying to do is drawing out a meaningful correlation between us – the factor of variance – and technology, the constant factor that has sustained and even perhaps extended the amount of effect it impresses upon culture.
The Cartesian paradigm has been uttered in vehemence on this post-Marxist, post-Engels excerpt. Hornborg (2013) gets us to think or to imagine that the general contemporary academician and prospector of scholarly endeavors is missing an important link. He boldly and confidently asserts that what the human race experiences difficulties in as far as academic approaches of the socio-political element of technology is concerned, is caused by the so-called Cartesian paradigm. Hornborg does a good job at defending his scholarly honor by providing us with an explicatory outlook towards the Cartesian saga he brings up. The most modern and perhaps inevitably indelible social scar that the Cartesian paradigm has brought with it, is stripping off what the contemporary human is convinced is called fetishism. Again, Hornborg (2013) goes all in with a paraphrased elucidation of the fetishistic, deteriorative, and probably bruising lack of knowledge in his narrow gap of scholarly excellence. We are cautioned that the only way we could make fetishism again relevant at all is by wearing the helmet of post-Cartesian perspectives, and facing the bull, that is Marxist truthfulness by its horns. It is also clarified that there is a mundane and rather important cross-fixation of relativeness between the Marxian methodology and insight into culture, and our mainstream, modern day version of the same. These two entities, as we are led to believe, form part of a greater course of technological decorum which does, much to our unawareness, have the ability to evolve with time and grow in size and complexity as time advances.
Conclusive Statement
After a thorough overview on the many instances where scholars have justified and at times de-justified the reverence and profoundness of the two approaches i.e. money and technology abstractions, I wish to take a stand.
Since most scholars of the pre-industrialization period and many of those who exist in this era have a general tendency of leaning towards the aspect of political economy, I will deduce my discourse starting from there. From the greater lengths that were covered by Marxian and other theorizations of the prior days, political economy seems to be the main tool that both worlds, the world then, and the world now, aware or not, use to sharpen and shape up the element of capitalism. Being that the idea necessarily and most probably inevitably stems from the idea that political economy was an influencer then, it is still one now, and will probably continue to be one in the future, then it is highly likely that it is the main method with which the world has resorted to adopting in fabricating capitalism. I hereby take my first stand that, political economy will remain a feat that has a largely significant impact on the capitalist regime, and that the prospects governing capitalism, modern-day and beyond, will surely borrow from the exploits of political economy.
Second, financialization, as much as is unavoidable, is also ineradicable. In an exemplary illustration where the political economy of a society is the driving force towards its capitalistic endeavors, financialization happens to be the wheel controlling the entire societal vehicle. In times now and ahead, scholars will continue finding new angles of looking at the ideals of capitalism, and whether maybe there ever will be another regime with the ability to replace it. Even with this being the case, it is not to be ignored that the socialist and capitalist regimes are here to outlive our human thinking, and political economy will remain to be the fuel to that. The future may deem it fit to replace financialization with a healthier discourse, possibly integrate technological stances fully and get rid of money abstraction, but until then, the frameworks guarding contemporary capitalism remain unchanged.
Works Cited
Benkler, Yochai. The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. Yale University Press, 2006.
Chaboud, Alain P., et al. "Rise of the machines: Algorithmic trading in the foreign exchange market." Journal of Finance (2014): 2045-2084.
Crawford, G. "Algorithmic trading saves money, report says." Pensions & Investments (2005): 33-36.
de Teran, Natasha. "DAVOS: Algorithmic Trading - Writing's On The Wall For Sell-side Middle Men? - The Speedy Adoption Of Algorithmic Trading ." The Banker (2007): 2-5.
Haiven, Max. "Securitization: Walmart’s Financialized Empire." Haiven, Max. Cultures of Financialization. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2014. 74-101.
Hallinan, Blake and Ted Striphas. "Recommended for you: The Netflix Prize and the production of algorithmic culture." new media & society (2016): 117-137.
Hornborg, Alf. "Technology as fetish: Marx, Latour, and the cultural foundations of capitalism." Theory, Culture & Society (2014): 119-140.
Hudis, P. Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. Brill, 2012.
Jackson, Leonard. The Dematerialisation of Karl Marx: Literature and Marxist Theory. Routledge, 2014.
Lange, Ann-Christina, Marc Lenglet and Robert Seyfert. "Cultures of high-frequency trading: mapping the landscape of algorithmic developments in contemporary financial markets." Economy and Society (2016): 149-165.
Meltzer, A.H. Why Capitalism? oxford, 2015.
Pasquinelli, Matteo. "Google’s PageRank algorithm: A diagram of cognitive capitalism and the rentier of the common intellect." Deep search 3 (2009): 152-162.
Seo, Ji-Yong and Sangmi Chai. "The role of algorithmic trading systems on stock market efficiency." Information Systems Frontiers (2013): 873-888.
Striphas, Ted. "Algorithmic culture." European Journal of Cultural Studies (2015): 395-412.
Tomaskovic-Devey, Ken-Hou Lin Donald and Nathan Meyers. "Did financialization reduce economic growth?" Socio-Economic Review (2015): 525-548.
Van der Zwan, Natascha. "Making sense of financialization." Socio-economic review (2014): 99-129.
Wilson, Hall T. Marx's Critical/Dialectical Procedure (RLE Marxism). Routledge, 2015.
