Economics, Smeckanomics, What about the Oscars?

“Zombie Capitalism – Global Crisis and the Relevance of Marx,” by Chris Harman, 2009

Like Zizek’s book about the ‘End Times’ (reviewed below) Harman’s title is deceptive. You might think it is a prediction of a generalized capitalist stagnation, similar to the situation in Japan that went on for many years. The sub-title is really the title – Harman uses the key Marxist categories of the rate of profit, the organic composition of capital, the problems of over-production (over-accumulation to some); the growth in monopoly and the growth of the world working-class to show the superiority of the Marxist approach over the neo-classical, monetarist or Keynesian explanations.

Harman makes it clear that what caused the crisis was not ‘lack of regulation,’ nor ‘de-industrialization or ‘financialization,’ or imperialism, nor even the capture of the leadership of both U.S. parties by Wall Street – but a crisis brought on by the internal contradictions of capital itself, of which all these are only symptoms. Harman is not a great writer, but he is a somewhat clear writer, and this allows readers to use his points to extrapolate additional insights themselves. Harman is a member of a British group that was inspired by Trotskyism and later broke with part of Trotsky’s analysis, embracing the idea that the USSR and other similar states were ‘state capitalist.’ No matter what you think about his ‘statist’ perspective, Harman's method does have the benefit of including the USSR, China and eastern Europe in the analysis as more than invisible economic actors.

I am going to bullet-point his most salient thoughts:

1. Harman again affirms the truth of the labor theory of value, which classical capitalist theorists like Smith and Ricardo also utilized, and against the various neo-classical theories that give equal value to capital itself, rent, and interest. Most objections to Marx's labor theory center on the issue of time, demanding that all effects be immediate (called the transformation problem.) Harman notes that when you add time to any calculation, these objections disappear. Labor produces all wealth, and capital, rent and interest are only by-products of labor and/or nature.

2. The only point of capital is to make a profit – the most profit possible. If growing food would no longer make a profit, then food would not be grown. Eating is a by-product of the profit system. A falling rate of profit in a capital system is like a dropping air supply to a scuba diver – cause for drastic action.

3. Marx located crises within the capitalist form of accumulation – principally in what he called the ‘organic composition of capital.’ Basically, as time goes on, capitalists must increase their machinery and technology to get a competitive edge. The first adopters gain over their competitors, but as everyone adopts the same technology, the edge disappears. Productivity increases for awhile, then slows. But in the process, less labor is required, and as labor is the actual source of profit, the profit rate tends to decline. Harman locates this falling rate of profit, based on the increase in the organic composition of capital, as one of the main causes for the present crisis. I would identify the implementation, and now near exhaustion of the software / internet / computer technology ‘revolution’ as the specific technological issue. This I think is the most complicated part of Marxism to understand.

4. The profit rate falls, and as a result, a crisis – a recession or depression - breaks out. Bankruptcies occur, ‘creative destruction’ ensues and the remaining capitalists grow bigger feasting on the bankrupt ones, and a new cycle of accumulation begins again. During this crisis there have been many bankruptcies across the U.S., especially among small businessmen. This is also part of what happened in the recent Wall Street meltdown – we now have fewer, but larger FIRE sector entities. Harman does not, however, explain how the absence of even more bankruptcies (i.e. – the capitalist state saving the imperialist banking system, and eliminating the ‘moral hazard’ for some ‘too large to fail’ entities…) might interfere with the natural capitalist cycle of ‘creative destruction’ essential to a long-term revival of profit rates. This is, in essence, what happened in Japan, after their financial system was rescued by the state after a collapse in real estate value. It was a recipe for ‘zombie’ stagnation. In essence, without bankruptcies or war destruction, capital cannot re-start an effective profit drive.

5. The over-production of homes and real-estate values was a classic capitalist bubble. On top of the over-production, an excess of profits (‘over-accumulation’) led to financial speculation, hedges, derivatives, over-leveraging and debt, which eventually led to the crash, as all debts cannot be repaid. This is the “Minsky” moment. Marx called paper debt and paper profit ‘fictitious capital,’ which intensifies the natural profit-decline going on underneath in industrial capital. Harman does not complete this insight and speculate as to how much more intense financial capital’s massive size could make the next crash, given the increased debt at present. In other words, is there a maximum size of debt that can now be fatal? I.E. financial capital’s speculation is like gasoline on a fire.

6. Marx’s insight that capital tends to monopoly is truer today. Larger and larger firms of all kinds threaten the system as a whole if they go bankrupt, as they are so large they can bring down the whole capital system due to the massive amount of inter-locking economic relationships. Again, how big is fatally big?

7. Harman points out that while Marx and Engels understood the damaging effect capital had on nature, and wrote about it extensively, they did not conclude at that time that capital could actually exploit and destroy nature AS A WHOLE as it covered the globe in pursuit of profits. Harman is another Marxist who joins John Bellamy Foster (reviewed below) to point out that capital can have only one extended relationship with nature – an exploitative one.

8. Harman affirms Lenin and Luxembourg’s understanding that imperialism still needs war to survive, as war is part of the ‘creative destruction’ demanded by a falling rate of profit. Harman emphasizes that a corollary to this is the build-up of military economies (such as in the U.S.), which is not a chosen political ‘policy,’ but is actually an essential part of the stability of capitalism. This allows excess capital to be wasted on un-productive military spending (a sort of conservative Keynesianism supported by both U.S. political parties). It acts as a constant 'creative destruction,' so to speak, and slows 'over-accumulation' and bubbles. This allows U.S. capital to ‘destroy capital’ at home and also to literally ‘destroy capital’ in the Middle East, allowing firms to re-build the shattered Iraqi state, and allowing continuing waste in Afghanistan. (See Naomi Klein, "Shock Doctrine," reviewed below.) This is another difficult part of Marxism to understand.

Harman shows that state expenditures on armaments have only grown as capital has reached around the world. This is not a policy accident promoted by evil “Republicans’ but a requirement of capital. Harman does not draw this insight out as to the possibility or impossibility of a massive war of destruction similar to World War II ever happening again, and what this means for capital. As we know, it was not Keynesian policies that pulled the U.S. and world out of depression in the '30s, it was World War II. And that massive destruction of capital provided the opportunity for the golden decades of American accumulation which ended in 1970 or so. So, without another massive war, is that even possible anymore?

9. Harman emphasizes that ‘national’ states are not going to disappear under capital. In fact national states becomes more and more important as a base for various national capitals as competition goes global. The dream of capitalist ‘internationalism’ is just that. A collapse of the EU might be a graphic illustrator of that fact.

10. Harman looks at traditional Keynesianism (that favorite ideology of Krugman and various left-liberals in the Democratic Party) and concludes that it never really worked to rescue capital. (Keynes himself was against military spending as a form of government spending, by the way.) It was tried during the 3 recessions in the 70s and because of its failure, the ‘monetarism’ of William Friedman won the argument among the ruling elites. Today, the AFL-CIO and Trumka continue to make the point (as recently as a week ago on CNN) that capital needs a U.S. population able to buy its goods. This was true during the ‘credit card’ decades - workers were able to go into debt to buy those goods, and had the privilege of paying twice through credit card interest too! But capital now looks to a global middle-class to buy its goods, and does not need the U.S. working class to be as active a consumer. The crash has reduced the role debt plays in U.S. consumer spending as well, making a domestic consumer economy that much less attractive. Consumer debt is, however, taking off in India, Brazil and China.

11. Harman analyzes the USSR, China and eastern Europe and indicates that they were partly under the sway of the law of value. This is certainly true, as you cannot have a socialist economy in a block of states. He makes valuable points about accumulation crises in the USSR and eastern block that precipitated the collapse of those states. However there are multiple problems with his overall theory. The ‘state capitalist’ thesis seems to violate the Marxist theory of the state. It gives a regressive character to nationalization, or a possibly progressive character to a certain kind of capital called ‘state capital.’ It raises a question if there is a sort of 'intermediary' capital after ‘private’ capital. It argues against any transitional demands that call for the nationalization of property as being allegedly ‘capitalist’ demands. This part of his analysis is at bottom, I think, ultra-left and closer to anarchism than anything else. However, what I draw from it is that nationalization, in and of itself, cannot be the end-all of social progress, as it does not escape the totality of the market, and is also a fool’s definition of ‘socialism.’ See the market fundamentalists of the Republican Party for that foible.

12. Harman goes into an extensive analysis of which workers are productive, and which workers are excess, based on Marx’s concepts. I.E. teachers, while white-collar, raise the skill/productivity level of future employees, thus adding to labor value, while advertising employees are parasitic, useless to basic production. (Useful only in creating ‘commodity fetishes,’ I might add.) Legal workers essentially move capital from one pocket to another, usually among the capitalists, and are also non-productive. Nurses who participate in getting workers back to work contribute to productivity and labor, while medical workers whose only duty is to allocate bills are parasitic. (the majority of workers in the U.S. health system at present.) Cooks in a restaurant feed workers (part of the necessary maintenance of the class, usually done by unpaid family members), while some sales persons (not check-out clerks) in stores are parasitic. As you can see, the ‘service’ sector categories mix productive workers with parasitic jobs, which is why the statistics need to be carefully parsed.

Overall the world’s working class – blue and white collar - is now the biggest in history. Harman contends it is now the majority class in the world, if you include partial proletarians, as the pure peasant/farmer group has shrunk by being kicked-off the land by capital and environmental collapse. He also contends that the mixture of industrial workers, white-collar workers, peddlers, farmers, unemployed, students and other marginal categories are so inter-penetrated, that they allow ‘all community’ risings against capital, as people in the same family sometimes have contacts in many different employment zones. What the overall growing numbers of proletarians says about a global 'balance of power' between the classes is not drawn out here, but it seems to be positive for the working class. Harman takes a bit more controversial stand in claiming that the imperialist countries did not lose workers, they were just 're-arranged' into smaller entities within the capitalist countries. More data on this seems to be necessary, but it is hard to believe that the numbers of industrial workers in the U.S. are at the same level as in 1978, for instance.

13. Lastly, on the issue of taxes and the capitalist state – a burning issue at the present time – Harman has little to say. We are waiting for an economist who can explain the financial reasons for the destruction of aspects of the social wage and parts of the capitalist state. If we apply Marx’s theory – that the fall of the profit rate demands drastic action – than privatizing as many state functions as possible is a net gain for capital. Teachers are to be replaced by private internet schools. Road maintenance will be done by private contractors. Janitorial work is to be outsourced. Getting rid of the ‘social wage’ and various benefits increases the pressure on the remaining workers, which allows capital to increase the rate of exploitation. Getting rid of taxes on capital increases profits. The capitalists will only preserve the repressive and pro-corporate aspects of the state – and perhaps fire-fighting – but everything else will be corporatized.

Makes sense to me. The leadership of both capitalist parties approve solving the profit ‘deficit’ and their own massive debt by cutting into the hides of the working class. The only difference is in just how to do that. On Wisconsin!

Like all books, the book is far more complex than any overview.

And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, 2/28/2011

A Response to the “High Priests of Modern Economic Quackery"

“Global Slump – The Economics and Politics of Crisis and Resistance,” by David McNally, 2011

The recent crisis in capital has brought forth a slew of new Marxist analyses, as Marxism seems to be the only tradition that is able to clearly understand what is going on. David McNally is another Marxist professor, this time from Toronto, Canada, and also seems to be a long-time activist. McNally has some differences with Mezaros’s theory of a 40-year crisis (reviewed bel0w). He also de-emphasizes the ‘financialization’ meme promoted by the Monthly Review writers (also reviewed below), and emphasizes a more traditional Marxist interpretation of booms, busts and industrial capital during the last 40 years. I do not think, however, he radically differs with either approach – he adds a more grounded nuance, and his book is a welcome and clear addition to the ‘genre.’

McNally starts off reminding of us of how absolutely crushing the collapse of the financial and credit systems were. Starting in August 2007, it lead to the collapse of Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac, Northern Rock, RBS, HSBC Holdings, culminating in the September 15, 2008 crash of Lehman. AIG, Washington Mutual, Wachovia, GM, Chrysler and others followed – all told 8 major banks in the U.S. and 20 in Europe went under. Tim Geithner: ‘The U.S. risked a complete collapse of our economic system.’ Greenspan suffered “shocked disbelief.” Greenspan: “The whole intellectual edifice” of modern financial economics “had collapsed.” $35T in assets disappeared in 6 months. As McNally puts it, ‘the world’s ruling class lost its swagger.’ The “Efficient Market Hypothesis” was in shambles - the all-knowing ‘market’ had a hemorrhage. But instead of dying, the patient has been transfused with the blood of many millions of workers – and now perpetual austerity is on the table for everyone in the world except the rich. So who’s eating who for dinner?

How did this happen? McNally focuses on several events not usually discussed, which lead up to the present situation. He focuses on the end of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971, which allowed the dollar to go off the gold standard and change to a floating exchange rate. Secondly, he points to the Volcker Shocks, starting in 1979 under Carter, and then in the 80s under Reagan. McNally thinks that the 1982 Volcker shock (monetary shocks run by the Federal Reserve which consisted of raising interest rates to kill inflation) ushered in the era of neo-liberalism, which brought profit rates back up for a long time – 25 years - until 2007. And indeed, after a slumps in the 1970s (3 recessions in 10 years), corporate profits began to rise after brutal attacks on the working class. These were first administered in the U.S. by Carter against the UMW miners strike in 1979, followed by Maggie Thatcher against the English coal miners’ NUM. The period coincided with the rise of Friedman’s “Chicago Boys” after the 'success' of the first international attempt at neo-liberalism – the fascist coup in Chile in 1973.

So McNally’s pattern is:
A. Post-War Expansion – 1948-1973
B. World Slump – 1973-1982
C. Neo-Liberal Expansion – 1982-2007
D. World Slump – 2007-?

I think for the most part this fits the facts. The decline in profit rates and over-production in the 1970s (McNally prefers the term ‘over accumulation’ but I think that is a deceptive word…) could only be answered by an increase in labor productivity. That is speedup in the blue-collar world or multi-tasking in the white collar world - both mean working like a dog. Legal changes played a role as well - the increased use of the legal category 'exempt' allowed employers to work ordinary workers overtime for no extra pay. And technological changes also apply: Blackberries allowed workers to be on call at all moments. Most important, 1980 was the mass introduction of personal computers, which helped increase productivity for a time. Increased labor productivity was also achieved through the disciplining of the world workforces, from Chile to England to the U.S. No worker who lived through the 1980s will forget the severe recessions, sharp strikes and defeats of the labor movement at that time. Real wages were reduced 11% during that decade. But labor productivity was up by 2% per year – so the rate of labor exploitation increased, and profits rose.

McNally backs up his thesis with discussions of increases in world growth in some major 3rd world economies during this period, like India & China. This coincides with the shift of part of the productive capacity of the advanced capitalist countries to the global “South” – something we all experienced. He contends that no explanation of capital can be limited to the U.S and Europe alone, as the system works as one. However, he does not specifically discuss what role the non-capitalist sectors of the world economy played at the time – the USSR, Eastern Europe and China. These accounted during this period for almost 40% of world economic production, and that would seem to be a significant fact. This is a common failing among western Marxist economists. He does later address some events in China during this period, however.

McNally contends that when Nixon went off the gold standard to protect the outflow of gold to other countries in 1971, this move actually introduced ‘financialization’ into the economic body. It ended a stable world price system. Trading in minute currency fluctuations created a new, massive, purely speculative market. Currency trading later had a bigger volume than trading in goods and services. The first derivatives were currency derivatives. Later, it lead to liquid assets being able to flow in and out of economies in days. This is his answer to those who think only ‘deregulation’ brought the 2007 crash on. The end of Bretton Woods predates ‘deregulation’ by many years. After currencies, anything could become a part of the speculative economy – even disaster ‘puts’ could be sold.

During the neo-liberal period, the IMF/World Bank-induced debt of the “Third” world / global “South’ was derived from ‘enclosing the commons’ - seizing common or individually-owned land, public property, public resources. It also included enriching western bankers with massive debt repayments – and that process is still going on. After 15 years of ‘free trade,’ 80% of Mexicans live below the poverty line, and .3% of the population owns 50% of Mexican wealth. When neo-liberalism was imposed on the USSR and eastern Europe, massive public goods were sold to private investors - including former 'Communists" - for a song. McNally’s contribution is including China in his analysis – starting first in 1978 when land in China was privatized and the communes ended, public health-care eliminated, state enterprises sold off, and “Special Economic Zones’ run by foreign capital instituted. 35 million workers lost their jobs in state-owned enterprises during this period.

Presently the Chinese working-class is double the working-class of the G7 industrial nations – it is the largest in the world. Yet the Chinese working-class' own wages and conditions have been deteriorating due the global slump too. Millions have lost their jobs and been sent back to the countryside. The working-class share of the GNP has dropped from 50% to 37%. China’s 250,000 millionaires now control 70% of the countries wealth. And as any Marxist knows, (even if you already believe China is capitalist) the growth of such a monied capitalist class indicates that they are growing in power, and quite clearly overlap with the bureaucracy. A transition to full capitalism can easily be made by a bureaucracy with these kind of contacts, because they themselves have the inside track on ownership of state and private assets. This is what happened in the USSR before and after its dissolution in 1989. The dynamics in China are crucial in some sense to what is happening in the world economy and the dearth of information from pro-China organizations is a telling indicator of trouble. Certainly, defenders of Chinese 'socialism' who cannot explain what is going on in China now don't deserve the name.

McNally ends his book with a role call of the struggles against neo-liberalism that are occurring now, and have occurred in the recent past: The Cochabamba uprising in Bolivia in 2000 (which lead to the presidential victory of Evo Morales); the Oaxaca Commune in Mexico in 2006; the sit-downs at Republic Windows & Doors in Chicago in 2008, and similar sit-downs in Iceland, China, Britain, Ireland and numerous ‘boss-nappings’ in France; the worker uprisings in Martinique and Guadalupe in 2009; the 2010 mass resistance in Greece and general strikes across Europe in answer to the sovereign debt crisis. We can now add the 2011 mass revolt in Egypt and other middle-eastern countries to the list.

Whether these struggles can be broadened and linked together is key. Capital operates on an international scale, with international cooperation. McNally points out that a Commune in one city like Oaxaca for 5 months cannot withstand the death-dealing police and military, without aid from the working-class in the rest of the nation, and other nations. He praises recent efforts of the left to build united fronts - such as the joint block of left organizations in Greece and the French Anti-Capitalist Party - as promising attempts against sectarianism.

As Lula, the former leader of the Brazilian Workers Party said last week, “Capitalism is dead.” However, perhaps the frequency of zombie movies in American culture has something to say in answer to that.

And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, February 9, 2011

The Fate of Fascism

“Enemy at the Gates,” by William Craig (2000)

In 2001, ‘Enemy at the Gates’ was made into a film focused on the Soviet sniper Vassili Ziatsev and his actions at Stalingrad, including a love affair with Tania Chernova, another Soviet sniper. This is the book the film was partly based on - though Ziatsev plays only a small part in this book. Craig uses a partly novelistic treatment of the battle, one of the most crucial armed confrontations in world history, combining numerous personal stories on both sides with an overall description of events. Unlike many badly-written war books, it does not just concern itself solely with the sterile and microscopic movements of units and armies.

It was in Russia and China that the overwhelming bulk of World War II fighting took place, as fascism’s key target was the labor movement, the Soviet state and the Chinese Red Army. The Battle of Stalingrad saw perhaps the greatest casualty figures of any battle in warfare - estimates are between 1,250,000 and 1,798,619. The battle began on 17 July 1942. By the winter of 1942–43, German forces controlled 90% of the city, and had cornered the Soviets into two narrow pockets. On November 19, Soviet forces launched a massive counterattack, eventually encircling the Sixth German Army. On January 31, 1943 its commander, Field Marshal Friedrich Paulus, surrendered and the Battle of Stalingrad was over. The 68th anniversary is tomorrow, and all opponents of fascism should celebrate.

Little is now left of the devastation visited on the city and people of Stalingrad. Craig describes the fighting from house to house, sewer to sewer, room to room and factory to factory over the months. Buildings, basements and the biggest hill in the city, Mamaev Hill, changed hands numerous times. The Soviet 62nd army eventually lost control of nearly everything in the city except some caves along the Volga and bits of factories and apartment buildings in the northern part of the city. Supplies and men had to be brought across the river by ships, which were bombed by the German air-force on crossing. At a certain point, the ice flows stopped all shipping. The defenders of Stalingrad (now Volvograd, formerly Tsaritsyn) were starved for food, men and ammunition, until a day in December when the ice backed up and bridges could be built across the ice.

The names of the factories – the Lazur Plant, the Red October, the Barrikady Gun Factory and the Tractor Factory - have gone into legend. At the start of the battle, when German Panzer units arrived on the north end of Stalingrad, workers downed tools, took up rifles and machine-guns and marched to meet them. Unpainted T-34s from the Red October plant were driven off the assembly lines and right into battle. The workers’ militia held out for weeks against the Panzers until regular troops could arrive. In the southern part of the city individual unit leaders like Lt. Anton Dragan, Col. Ivan Lyudnikov and Sgt Jacob Pavlov fought for days in close quarters to slow and eventually stop the German Sixth Army. Pavlov held an apartment building on Solechnaya Street for 58 days, and eventually he made it to Berlin.

The Nazi penetration this deep into the Soviet Union was not an accident. Stalin’s actions prior to the invasion by Germany left the Soviet Union unprepared. His execution of the majority of the Red Army’s officer corps for being ‘Trotskyists’ and ‘fascist sympathizers’ lead to a great shortage of qualified officers. His execution of the overwhelming majority of the Bolshevik Central Committee further disorganized the Soviet Union. And after signing a pact with Hitler in 1939, (notice, Trotsky did not sign this pact…) Stalin believed that the English were the main enemy and the Germans would not invade - in spite of massive Soviet intelligence to the contrary. As a result, the Red Army was far less prepared than they could have been when the assault finally did happen. This lead to a massive collapse in the face of German armies, leading to millions of deaths and came close to ending the Soviet workers state. Right after the German invasion had rolled to the gates of Moscow, the staff of the Soviet state finally visited the shaken Stalin. He thought he would be shot for incompetence. He was not. Unsurprisingly.

Fortunately there were still some competent generals left. Generals Vassili Chuikov, Rodion Malinovsky (who later worked with Khrushchev), Alexander Rodimtsev, Konstantin Rokossovsky, Andrei Yeremenko and political commissar Nikita Khrushchev all participated in the battle. Yeremenko, who lead the initial defense of the city and succeeded in halting Hoth’s 4th Panzer Army south of Stalingrad, later wrote a book criticizing Stalin for the defeats of 1941. Rodimtsev lead the 13th Guards division at Stalingrad, which was decimated in building-to-building fighting in the city, but made the capture of the city extremely costly to the Nazis.

Chuikov was one of the engineers of the pincer movement which broke through the Italian and Hungarian armies north of Stalingrad, and joined forces coming from the south at Sovetsky to completely surround the Sixth Army in the ‘Kessel’ (Cauldron). Hitler had forbidden the Sixth Army from trying to break out and kept telling Paulus they would air-lift enough supplies to help him fight on until a relief force arrived. Enough supplies never arrived, due to stormy winter weather and the increasingly strong Soviet air-force. The relief force was stopped 20 miles from Paulus’ lines. Hitler essentially condemned his army to death for the glory of the Third Reich, as he thought leaving Stalingrad would be an admission of defeat.

One of he oddest parts of this story is the statistics kept by German censors, who read all the letters sent by the troops. From their letters, even at the very end, many soldiers refused to believe that the German Army could be defeated. This is a good example of false consciousness.

After the surrender, as Khrushchev pointed out, many German, Romanian, Italian and Hungarian soldiers (their ‘coalition of the willing’…) were shot; hundreds of thousands died in prison camps or on the way to camps by starvation, cold and execution – Craig puts the number at around 400,000. The most grotesque part of this was that cannibalism developed inside the camps, as some prisoners killed and ate others. The majority of prisoners never made it back home, and of those, some not until 1949, and the most hard-core, not until 1955.

If there is one World War II battle that should be studied, this is that battle, and Craig's book is a clear guide. It was the Soviet people and the Soviet working class that finally stopped Hitler, though at great, great cost. Drink a shot of Stolichnaya on January 31 to commemorate their struggle and remember the departed. Na zdorovye! Za vashe zdorovie!

Red Frog
January 30, 2011

Socialism - not just for Europeans Anymore

“The Structural Crisis of Capital,” by István Mészáros, 2010

 

Mészáros / Mezaros is a former comrade of Georg Lukacs, who left Hungary in 1956 and is now a professor of philosophy and Marxism at the University of Sussex in the UK. Like many European Marxists, he was schooled in Marxism in the universities, not just in the streets. This is a collection of essays (and interviews) written from the 1970s to the present, which give a flavor of his thinking and his most famous book - “Beyond Capital” – a book copiously studied by Hugo Chavez. 

The main point that Mészáros makes is that capital (not just capitalism) has been in a long ‘creeping’ structural crisis since the late 1960s / early 1970s. This is not to be confused with any ‘long boom’ or ‘long wave,’ a theory he negates. He seems to identify the end of the ‘profitable conjuncture’ after World War II with the events of May-June 1968 in France; the end of Bretton Woods under Nixon, which turned the U.S, away from the gold standard in the early 70s; and paying for the war in Vietnam. He calls it, following George McGovern, the development of “credit card capitalism.’ Mészáros closely parallels the thesis of Baran and Sweezy that capital abandoned insufficient profits from production activities, and responded to the crisis by switching over to a more profitable emphasis on finance capital. Capital intentionally ‘de-industrialized’ Europe and the United States to accomplish this. 

From his analysis, the present seems unlike the period prior to World War II, when boom/busts were the normal capitalist cycle. The final seizure of world monopoly power by the U.S. after the war issued in a different situation. Boom/busts were then exported to the subjugated nations of the world instead of being primarily located in the imperial centers. Of course, this is still going on. In addition, the stabilizing role of the non-market USSR and eastern Europe ended in 1989. These were areas in which capital did not yet directly control their economies, and hence did not suffer from instability. Because capital has intimately spread across nearly every part of the globe now, including the former non-capitalist areas, exporting busts to other countries is becoming much more dangerous. Because capital is now exporting the bust to ITSELF. As a result, capital has even less insulation from a crisis. In fact, if it was not for the only partly-capitalist Chinese economy, it is transparent that the present capital crisis would be much deeper. 

Drawing from this perspective, Mészáros sees that the global character of this structural crisis reflects a terminal phase of capital. It is terminal because it is no longer confined to one or several nations, and it is terminal because of the massive scale of debt, unpredictability and environmental dead-ends involved. Essentially the debt is unpayable. No amount of Krugmanesque left-Keynesianism or trade-union bargaining or shop-steward grievances can change what is happening to the system as a whole. As a result, he sees a growing opportunity for the working class and revolutionaries to take advantage of this systemic weakness. In that sense, Mészáros is a hugely optimistic thinker. 

Instead of describing the variegated essays as a whole, I am going to bullet-point some of his specific thoughts:

 1. Mészáros praises Marcuse for identifying how labor had been integrated into capital’s structure. But he thinks Marcuse’s conclusion – that capital was now ‘managed’ and that welfare capitalism was ‘permanent,’ and that hence the working class was no longer the revolutionary class – was mistaken. As he wryly notes, exporting manual labor to other countries does not remove the working class from history. He cites Marx, who even in the 1800s pointed out the growing proletarianization of every phase of white-collar and service industry work - much of which still exists in the advance capital countries. This proletarianization continues today.

 

 2. Mészáros has an essay on the “Bolivarian Revolution” – praising Chavez and Morales, and indicating the absolutely central role of ‘substantive equality’ in the socialist project. This equality was first articulated by Enlightenment thinkers like Jean Jacque Rousseau, and later made specific to Latin America by Simon Rodriquez, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar and now Chavez. He feels the project of uniting all of Latin America against U.S. domination is becoming more and more possible.

 

 3. Mészáros believes the theory of ‘socialism in one country’ over any length of time was and is absolutely untenable, and has been proven so by history. He quotes Lenin to the effect that even in Russia it was a ‘holding action.’  Even social-democracy is a 'holding action'!  Capital continues to exert pressure on any post-capitalist society and will restore capitalism there, barring world-wide revolutions. Mézáros distinguishes between ‘overthrowing the capitalists’ and actually ending capital’s power, which demands something more - a ‘permanent revolution,’ according to Mészáros.

 4. Capital is unable to plan, and only makes a feeble attempt after the fact of a great crisis or collapse – he slyly calls it ‘planning post festum.’ Hence instability is endemic, and unknown ‘crises’ – black swans as the market now calls them – can crush the existing economic and social relations in a heartbeat. Capital can never take ‘responsibility’ because even capital does not understand how their own system works. For instance, none of the heads of government or banks issued a mea culpa after the most recent collapse. Mészáros feels planning is central to the socialist project, but it must be planning resulting from the democratic control of the process by the associated producers – not from above, nor through fake, partial planning.

 

 5. The present capitalist crisis involved the ‘nationalization’ of the debts of the banking system to the tune of trillions of dollars, to be paid for by the tax-payer and the working class. The purpose is then to return the banks to private profitability – something the British government did after WWII. This is not true nationalization, of course, but shows that capital cannot rescue itself, but needs its government to extort money out of the population to do so. Mészáros believes that at some point the U.S. will declare bankruptcy. The sovereign debt crisis wracking the E.U. may well be a prelude to this. The debt will never be repaid due to its uncontrollable size. 

 6. Mészáros thinks that a ‘radicalization of the still primarily reformist trade union movement’ in every country is the answer to the crisis of capital, as ‘the goods’ can no longer be delivered in the way they were after WWII. In a way, it means going back to the beginning. 

 7. The collapse of the French and Italian Communist Parties, the British Labour Party and others were all part of the capital crisis, as reformism no longer had ground to stand on. 

 8. Capital is undermining their own systems of social control, by making more blatant their control of educational institutions, cultural entities, political parties and religious organizations. The ‘advanced’ capitalist societies are ‘tolerant’ only to a certain point, but ‘not beyond the point where protest starts to become effective and turns into a genuine social challenge to the perpetuation of the society of repressive tolerance.’ 

 9. Mézáros believes the socialist movement has to become less defensive, and more aggressive in promoting a positive socialist vision of the future – as Marx called socialism humanity’s ‘positive self-consciousness.’ Substantive equality (not mere legal equality), dispositive time (not spent slaving), liberty from want and calamity, solidarity, cooperation and responsibility – all values of a socialist project, need to be promoted in the face of de-humanized profiteering. Like Chavez, Mészáros feels there is little time in which to respond to the social, economic and environmental crises at hand. This cannot happen by ‘regulation’ or by tinkering with some economic category, as is the favorite hobby-horse of Krugman and other liberals, but through a re-politicization of politics by the masses of people.

 

 10. According to Mészáros, world wars, those most efficient generators of production and outlets for capital formation, have become impossible. Small wars will multiply, but a large war is simply unaffordable. Even the 'small' wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have pushed the U.S. towards insolvency. 

Prior blogspot reviews on this subject, use blog search box, upper left, to investigate our archive, using these terms: "Mezaros," "Marcuse," "Chavez," "Baran," "Sweezy," "Lukacs."

 And I bought it at Mayday Books! We have many books on Left theory.

Red Frog, 1/16/2011

Not for the Faint of Heart

“In the Crossfire - Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary,” by Ngo Van, 2010.

Most of the books available in the US on the struggles in Vietnam are written from either an American perspective or from the perspective of Ho Chi Minh. This book reflects the independent views and activities of the extremely militant labor, national and Marxist movements in Saigon in the 20s to the late 40s, written by a former supporter of the 4th International who became a supporter of council-communism after his forced move to France. Ignorance of the history of the Vietnamese labor and peasant movements before the “American’ war is rife among the U.S. left, and this book is a good cure.

In Van’s time, nearly every revolutionary outside the Vietminh died. They were either killed by the French Secret Police - the Surete - in executions or jails; by the Vietminh themselves in planned assassinations and murders; by various criminal gangs, or by the Japanese. Van survived all by escaping.

The Trotskyists had a large following in Saigon and the surrounding areas. They were instrumental in many strikes, in forming workers’ militias, in supporting independent peasant actions, in publishing classic works of Trotsky and others, like Harold Isaacs “The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution,” and in being repeatedly elected to the Saigon City Council in the mid and late 30s over the representatives of the Stalinist ICP. Hence their existence was a threat to the ICP’s control of the people’s movement. As a result, some of Van's comrades were killed in a mass murder of Trotskyists and their supporters by Vietminh death squads in Thu Dau Mot in September 1945, on orders of the Indochinese Communist Party (“ICP”). The ICP formed the leadership of the Vietminh. Another group, including Chinese Trotskyists, were killed and tortured in Bien Hoa in 1950. Former Stalinists would issue orders to execute those they had once worked and shared jail cells with.

The book is written in the style of a memoir, with a haunting section in the middle devoted to the mostly forgotten dead revolutionaries Van knew. This includes the most famous Vietnamese Trotskyist, Ta Thu Thau, who was the leader of the “La Lutte” group, and who Van had some differences with. “La Lutte’ was a joint publication of the Marxists in Saigon, including both the Trotskyists and the Stalinists. They collaborated together for 5 years until 1937 when Moscow ordered, through the French CP, that their supporters in Vietnam stop working with the ‘twin brothers of fascism.’ La Lutte continued under sole Trotskyist leadership and Thau was again elected in 1939 to the Saigon City Council. Smelling the coming apocalypse, the French denounced Thau as someone who would ‘take advantage of a possible war in order to win total liberation.’ Which, of course, was the plan.

The differences between the two sides were stark, as the ICP for many years formed a ‘popular front’ with the bourgeois elements in Vietnam, similar to policy in Spain and China. As a result, they opposed independent action by the working class and peasants. During the period of the 1920-1947 covered in this book, the ICP opposed workers strikes and occupations, urban people’s committees, peasant seizures of land and peasant ‘soviets,’ a coal-miners Commune of 30,000 workers in Hongai-Campha, and arming the population. As part of the people's movement, the Trotskyists formed a street-car workers’ militia in Saigon. The ICP's position was all consistent with the ICP pledge of working with ‘progressive’ bourgeois elements. The ICP used violent methods to oppose these developments, not just propaganda. As the Vietminh (ICP) minister of the interior Nguyen Van Tao put it, “Those who are encouraging the peasants to take over landed property will be punished without mercy.”

The Vietminh blocked with Blum’s popular front government in the 1930s, even though during the French popular front, the French government continued activities against the Vietnamese popular movements. At one point, the ICP supported defencist measures sponsored by the French colonial government against the Japanese, like promoting war bonds and promoting a French military draft of Vietnamese. A post-war insurrection in Saigon in 1945 was crushed, partly because the ICP did not pose a clear alternative to the French, unlike the position of the Trotskyists. In 1946 Ho formed a block with General LeClerc that disarmed the Vietnamese masses, and allowed the French to re-conquer Vietnam after the defeat of the Japanese. What is the significant factor here is that whatever the Soviet line was, the local CP had to follow it, even if it contradicted the needs of the local working class.

Born in 1912, Van himself grew up in a poor peasant home north of Saigon, and, after failing to get into some critical schools due to lack of influence, lived in Saigon. In the ‘20s he involved himself in the revolutionary movement. He met many prominent activists while in prison or on the run and in hiding, was deported to Phnom Penh, was almost killed several times, and his remembrances form the heart of the book. In 1937 while an activist in Saigon, he wrote pamphlets denouncing the fraudulent Moscow Trials, and some criticisms of Thau for working with the Stalinists on “La Lutte.” This book incidentally exposes the violent history of two of Ho’s successors, Pham Van Dong and Ton Duc Thang. Both involved in murdering a woman ICP comrade who had fallen in love with the wrong person, and both did jail time for the murder.

After emigrating to France in 1948 to avoid certain death, Van settled in Paris, and eventually got electrical technician jobs at various factories. All the while he suffered from tuberculosis, contracted in Vietnam, and in hospital learned to paint. He met many expatriate Vietnamese, some of the 40,000 soldiers and civilians drafted and deported to France by the French to serve the French Army during World War II. While in France, he wrote and published a massive and detailed history of the Vietnamese struggle, in two volumes, covering 1920 to 2005, which is still in print. He also met many people who had fought in Spain or had left the Trotskyist movement to become either 'third' campists or council communists. He later became a ‘council communist,’ working with “News & Letters” and others. Van grew to reject not just the Leninist idea of the party, but Soviet defencism, including the Ho regime in Vietnam. Given his experiences in the struggle there, it is somewhat understandable. Van wrote about the French 1968 events from his position as a factory worker, noting the conservatizing influence of the French CP in his factory, which flew the tri-color and the red flag – literally, and politically - during the 1968 events, and the CP role in limiting and ending the rebellion.

Van’s principled opposition to the popular front reveals the misguided strategy of Stalinist reformism. Only when the Vietnamese CP, in practice, was forced to renouce popular front 'strategy' did they overthrow private capitalism in Vietnam - though this happened only after decades of bloody 'mistakes' and massacres. This delayed the revolution by three or more decades - and also guaranteed that any victory would be deformed from the beginning. Instead of the working class and peasantry holding power, the CP bureaucracy took power in their 'name.' Any bureaucracy engenders capitalist counter-revolution, a process that has already succeeded in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, and is well advanced in China. And it is even developing in Vietnam itself.

In China this process is through intense collaboration with international capital, through the encouragement of a national capitalist class - some out of the ranks of the CCP, through graft and privilege, and most of all, by ignoring workers democracy, weakening or destroying ties with the working class and farmers. When the Party is no longer seen as representing anyone but themselves, counter-revolution is inevitable. The real communist slogan, after all, is "all power to the Soviets," not "all power to the Communist Party."

It is to the courageous mass movements and revolutionaries in and around Saigon that we owe this understanding, who learned it with their own blood.

Red Frog,
January 3, 2011

Some Noir, Ce Soir?

“Indian Country Noir,” edited by Sarah Cortez & Liz Martinez. Various Authors

Indian country noir seems a redundant phrase. White Earth or Pine Ridge reservations are not places of ‘blanc-itude.’ Nor has the history of American natives been anything but a long tale of misery – as one character says, ‘loss’ is the primary experience of life. These short stories bear this out, in their own way - alcohol, anger, crime, unemployment, PTSD and death form the sub-texts. White racism is a constant in the background, but the natives get their revenge. Of course, death is the sub-text of any kind of noir, even ‘Twin Cities Noir.’ Twin Cities noir seems a screaming contradiction in terms, but is also part of this Noir series by Akashic Books. This Native American collection is written by Native American and Anglo authors, set all over the country –including Puerto Rico, among the Taino.

The best stories deal with strangers or people who do not know each other well, suddenly ‘falling out’ – in a planned way. That new sexy, attractive man or woman who leads you down the garden path ... six feet under? Or the big dollars waved under your nose that end ... in a casket? You’d even be surprised at the number of native PI’s or cops there are. And they all seem to be physically adept and gigantic! Native character, street smarts or courage figure in each tale. The famous story of Pima Ira Hayes is included, who raised the flag on Suribachi on Iwo Jima, only to fall prey to PTSD and alcohol while touring for war bonds.

Some of these stories will stay with you for a long time, because of their grim extremity. They are short, and do not demand a 350-page attention span.

And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, 12/11/10.

Mayday Event - A Blast from the Past (Click on Flier to Read)

Hey, Deficit Commission!

Lonely Rebels in Rural America

“Red State Rebels – Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland,” Edited by Joshua Frank and Jeffrey St. Clair, 2008

What is disappointing about this book is that the examples of rebellion in the ‘red states’ are mostly of individuals or small groups fighting against various environmental, ethnic or political crimes. It not really an optimistic book, though I’m sure it was intended to be one. Only two involve class directly – and one of those is an interview with and article by Joe Bageant, the ‘red-neck’ writer and left commentator. A good part of this book echoes St. Clair’s “Born Under a Bad Sign” about big Green and Democratic Party collaboration with environmental destruction. (Reviewed in the pages below.) The chapter on the racist railroading of the Jena 6 (Jena, Louisiana) involves the largest mass movement – 50,000 descended on that small town to protest the heavy charges and trials of 6 black teenagers accused of getting into a fist fight with some bigots. A rebellion of farmers in North Dakota against Monsanto seed policies involves a large group of farmers who echoed the Non-Partisan League, and beat Monsanto’s police-state approach to seeds. So does the community organizing in New Orleans after Katrina. 

 But other than that, small groups and heroic individuals or pairs tell the tale. This echoes the somewhat anarchist slant of the authors, no doubt. The back of the book makes a point of saying “Marx would be confused” about what is happening in the ‘red states.’ I think not. Rebellion in rural and small-town America is really what this book is about. One story about pro-pot hippie libertarians even comes from Michigan, not traditionally seen as a ‘red state.’  The very phrase ‘red state’ plays into the Fox News narrative about whole states being right-wing…which of course the authors don’t believe.

Nearly all the stories set in the old south involve minorities, and minorities fighting against racism in its various forms, which figures. There are no white people except some peace activists in Alabama and Kentucky. So if you are looking for optimism in the south spreading beyond some black people, you will not find it here.

The best story is a deep history of Butte, Montana, and the vicious extractive economy run by Anaconda Copper for many years, crushing labor and environmentally destroying Butte. It is brutal in its clarity. A chapter on the rape of Western Shoshone lands by various gold mining companies, while the federal government stands by and demands the Native American’s sell their land for pennies an acre – in 2010 – is again shocking. The government refuses to pay the tribes money they were contractually obligated to pay. Nothing has changed as far as broken treaties are concerned, folks. The FBI blood circus at Ruby Ridge is detailed for all to see – the dead are incidental and the FBI killers free to shoot again. A story on a feminist and environmentalist shrimp-boat captain in Texas is surprising in its toughness, and contrasts well with the typical views of bourgeois feminism.

The book ends with a section on secessionist movements, irrespective of political intent. The right-wing Alaska independistas around the Palins, and various conservative or libertarian secessionist southerners (like Republicans in Texas), are lumped in with progressive secessionists like those in Vermont. I have favored the secession of Minnesota from the United States for many years. If Minnesota would see fit to join Canada, I'd be in favor of that. I'd be in favor of a socialist Minnesota, unlikely as that would be. But I would NOT favor secession if it resulted in a MORE reactionary state.

This is again a hard book to read. Too much has gone desperately wrong. Reading this, it is ever more evident that only a link-up of most of these forces in a nationwide, mass oppositional party can have a hope of beating the capitalist steamroller. The authors do detail the efforts of the western Green Party and other independent political formations, which unfortunately have not been successful. Lawsuits, civil disobedience and community organizing are the main tools being used here. The big gun - a mass Left party and revolutionary politics - is still on the shelf.

And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, 11/28/2010

Audiences Will Sleep

“Wall Street – Money Never Sleeps,” by Oliver Stone, 2010

If you were expecting a sequel to the original film, 1987’s “Wall Street,” you’ll be disappointed. Yes, mentions are made of credit default swaps, derivatives, the real-estate bubble, short-selling, self-dealing, ‘too-big-to-fail’ and ‘moral hazard’ – but only briefly, and only to give the film an air of reality. Yes, a firm paralleling Goldman Sachs is the villain of the story, and a firm that looks like Lehman Brothers is the ‘tragic’ heroes of insolvency. But what this story really is, is the story of a sad daughter who hates Daddy Gekko. And the potential son-in-law who tries to bring them together. Gag.

The film is littered with unrealities. The daughter is a leftie blogger who takes up with a guy who works as an investment banker on Wall Street. Right. The rat-like investment banker seems to be only stuck on one investment and one product – fusion energy. Yet he’s considered some kind of investing genius since he was 12-years old. OK. Somehow grey-haired but charming Gordon figures out a way to get his potential son-in-law to wire him a $100,000,000. Right. Gekko spends 8 years in jail, instead of the actual 2 years that Michael Milken and Ivan Boesky really spent in jail. Right. The latter was the one who really said that ‘greed is healthy.’ Gordon Gekko gives speeches that sound more like Paul Krugman than Milken or Boesky. (Voicing Stone, no doubt.) The potential son-in-law gives up a lucrative job with Goldman stand-in because he thinks the head of the company is a nasty brute. Right. The head of the ersatz Lehman Brothers nobly commits suicide after the company goes belly-up. Right. It never happened. At the end, the leftie blogger, potential son-in-law and Gordon all agree to back the scientific oddity of fusion power, which brings this happy trio together. Right.

Michael Douglas plays Gekko in all the creepy vanity that Douglas can conjure. And yet ends up trying to be the good Dad by giving $100M to ‘fusion’ energy, which Gekko calls part of “the next bubble, right?” (The green bubble…) All just because he sees an ultrasound of his daughter’s baby. Gag.

The film does show the ridiculous amounts of money that investment bankers earn for their ‘pitches’ and hunches. Son-In-Law is given a 1.4M bonus by ersatz Lehman. They drink expensive champagne and party with models/hookers/gold-diggers. They buy expensive rings. They buy expensive cars and motorcycles. They live in expensive apartments and houses. They go to expensive fund-raisers and hob-nob with the rest of the ruling class. This should not be news to anyone except the intentionally dense.

The best scenes are the ones where an ersatz Hank Paulson summons the “Rockerfellerian” rulers of Wall Street to a long-table meeting in some ancient oak-paneled club hall. The ambiance of 'robber baron' hovers over it like a bad smell. Here the bankers and the government decide to save the banking system with a bail-out, and yet let Lehman go under. Truly a small peek at who rules America. The bigger the criminal, the more access they have to the government. And there is no real vote, except at this table. The rest is just details.

Skip this film unless you are a glutton for trivia.

Red Frog,
11/22/2010, the day the CIA and FBI killed John Kennedy.

Duh! We Shuda Knowed!

Clintonites, Republicans, Friedmanites, Reaganites, one progressive and a couple of innocuous clucks. Take a look at the Initial Obama Cabinet and Staff:

1. Rahm Emmanuel - Managed fight for NAFTA, Likudnik, Goldman Sachs, Clintonista. Gone, but not forgotten.
2. Robert Gibbs - Press Secretary. Was unknown, but now identified as a neo-liberal. Attacked ‘professional leftists.’
3. John Podesta - Head of Transition Team (was Clinton chief of staff).
4. Sam Nunn & Warren Christopher - State/Defense Transition, Clintonistas.
5. Madeleine Albright, Economic Envoy to G20, a Clintonista.
6. Eric Holder - Attorney General - Deputy Atty General, Clinton administration. Has now endorsed Bush legal policies on Guantanamo, spying, detentions, etc.
7. Tom Daschle - Health & Human Services - long term senator. Lobbyist of health care companies at his law firm.
8. Hillary Clinton - Sec of State - Clinton's wife. ‘Nuff said.
9. Dana Pelligrino - Dept of Homeland Security, recommended sending national guard troops to border – and did! AZ governor.
10. Bill Richardson - Commerce Secretary, Clinton UN Ambassador, Energy Secretary, withdrew due to ‘conflicts of interest.’
11. Judd Gregg, Republican #1, became Commerce Secretary
12. Joe Liberman - Kept as head of key Senate Committee. VP on Gore Liberman ticket. Gore was Clinton's VP and later tried to be McCain's VP.
13. Tim Geithner - Treasury Department, former Summers protege/Clinton period. Federal Reserve / Goldman insider.
14. Larry Summers - Head of Financial Policy Board in cabinet, Clintonista and pro-deregulation.
15. Christina Romer - Head of Counsel of Economic Advisors. A Friedmanite.
16. Robert Gates - Secretary of Defense, was Bush Secretary of Defense. Republican #2. Pro-surge in Iraq and Afghanistan.
17. Susan Rice - UN Ambassador, Supported Invasion of Iraq. Former Clinton Sec of State officer.
18. Arne Duncan - Sec of Education. Obama friend. Supports "No child left behind," supported by the professional Republican centrist David Broder of NYT. Endorses charter schools and privatization.
19. Lisa Jackson - EPA, career EPA official. And we know how the EPA has been doing.
20. Carol Browner - Environmental coordinator, Clintonista.
21. Ken Salazar - Dept of Interior - (Clintonista) Supported Republican Alberto Gonzalez. Did not close the Bureau of Mines Management as he promised, then changed it a bit after the BP oil spill. Timber /Mining /Ranchers like him. Clinton-like politics on environmentalism. Which means nice talk, pro-corporate acts.
22. Tom Vilsack - Agriculture - Supporter of industrial agriculture, bio-tech, agribusiness, pro-ethanol, friend of Monsanto.
23. Steven Chu - Energy Secretary. Scientist. However, got $500M from British Petroleum for bio-fuels research. Supports nuclear power.
24. Hilda Solis - Dept of Labor, very pro-labor. Best pick of bunch. Totally quiet. Did not push “Free Choice Act.” Heard she is quietly strengthening OSHA.
25. Mary Shapiro - SEC, former head of NASD/FINRA. A proponent of industry self-regulation. SEC appointee, by Reagan initially.
26. James Jones - National Security Advisor - Hardline, Pro Vietnam War. Clintonite/McCainite. NATO and Afghan war-monger.
27. Dennis Blair - Director of National Intelligence - 4 star admiral. Hmmmm.
28. Roy Lahood, Transportation Secretary. Republican #3. 'Nuff said.
29. Shaun Donovon- HUD, Clintonista.
30. Ron Kirk - US Trade Representative - Attorney at Vinson & Elkins, African American. Dallas Mayor. Chamber of Commerce likes him. Supports 'free trade' and NAFTA.
31. Dawn Johnsen - Office of Legal Counsel (former Clintonista) but hard critic of presidential overreaching. Was denied nomination, of course.
32. Virginia Seitz – Office of Legal Counsel. Appreciated by Republicans. Hmmmm.
33. Leon Panetta - CIA, Clintonista Chief of Staff, but not a prior spy.
34. Jennifer Granholm - Called Free Choice Act "Divisive." Obama Economic adviser.
35. Steven Rattner - Car "Czar" - former Investment banker, knew nothing about the auto industry. Got bailout for GM/Chrysler, which resulted in plant closings and more off-shoring. Recently fined $$$ by SEC.
    
36. Ben Bernanke - Chair of the Federal Reserve. Former head of the Fed under Bush too. Head of Bush's Council of Economic Advisers. Republican #4.
    
37. Barack Obama – President. Initially was thought to be to the left of Hillary Clinton, but revealed to be solidly in the Clinton/neo-liberal camp. Obama won the election but Clinton and the Republicans won the war.

Red Frog
11/16/2010

Overworked Readers Department:

Progressive Fiction – 1 Line Reviews:

In order to respond to the massive interest in shorter reviews, I give you a fiction roundup that might help you pick a book for Solstice:

“The Road – Short Stories” – by Vasily Grossman. The Soviet Tolstoy proves that not everyone in the USSR spent every day in a labor camp.

“The White Tiger” – by Aravind Adiga. Killing your Indian boss is easier and more profitable if you plan it well.

“The Given Day” – Dennis Lehane. In 1919, abused Boston policeman decide to strike instead of breaking strikes.

“The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo” – Stieg Larsson. Rich Swedes enjoy torturing women – but women who know computers and aren’t afraid of violence make it less enjoyable.

“Rage and Reason” – Michael Tobias. Will turn any man into a raging 'kill humans' vegetarian after one read.

“City of Thieves” – David Benioff. Getting eggs in Leningrad during the siege is hilarious hard work.

“Inherent Vice” – Thomas Pynchon. The Dude goes LA noir.

“The Left Left Behind” – Terry Bisson. Wouldn’t it be nice if all the born-again Christians would just get Raptured and leave us alone?

“The Grass is Singing” – Doris Lessing. South African apartheid even ruins whites.

“Children of Men” – P.D. James. Welcome to the remarkably familiar, future prison camps of Britain.

I did not buy these books at May Day.  Red Frog

So you want a PhD in Humanities

Witty Lightweight attacks Marxism -

“… or the Marxists, working to undermine our Constitution.” – Jon Stewart, Saturday, October 30 at the “Rally to Restore Sanity and/of Fear” in Washington, D.C.

This was part of Stewart’s speech about the people we should REALLY be afraid of – not the normal, everyday people, of course. If this sounds like something from a Republican Tea Party member, its not. Seems to Stewart the Marxists are outside the ‘big tent’ of reason in ‘America.’ Quelle surprise. Of course, this was after a song whose chorus about the United States was, “The greatest, strongest country in the world.” And this was not irony.

Let’s look at the Constitution, Jon. There are several problems – maybe even many problems. I’ll just name some obvious ones:

#1 – The Senate. It is undemocratic. Large sparsely-populated states have as many votes as populous states. And because of this, thinly-settled states full of conservatives can block any real change - and they have. This was the way it was designed – to prevent the ‘rabble’ from ruling.
#2 – The Supreme Court. These people are in ‘for life.’ It was designed as the most conservative part of the government. Again, to insulate the law from the rabble. Enjoy your corporate Supreme Court until you die, Jon!
#3 – Personhood for corporations – The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 14th amendments are now applied to corporations. And most recently, corporations gained the ‘right to free speech’ through the 1st amendment. A corporation, which never dies, now has eternal rights, and is no different than a human being. Except it cannot be thrown in jail, fired, executed or otherwise terminated – only fined piddling amounts. Do you have a problem with the Constitution, Jon?
#4 – Representative Democracy – Marxists are for the direct political AND economic rule of the majority of people, the working class, through work-site and geographic councils. The Russians called them Soviets. We’d like to reduce the use of representative ‘democracy,’ mediated by millionaires and their media. Actually, the Marxist schema is MORE democratic than the bought-and-paid-for ‘representative’ democracy we have now.
#5 – The Electoral College. I don’t think even I have to explain this one. Undemocratic and built to be that way. You don’t actually elect the president. They do.
#6 – Lack of an “economic bill of rights.” Roosevelt wanted one. He wasn’t a Marxist, but he was to the left of Jon Stewart, who must think he was busily undermining the Constitution. A right to housing, food, a job and health care. Not really so radical, and a Marxist would agree. But we are outside the big tent of reason.
#7 - The anti-Federalists, like Jefferson, found many problems with the Constitution as written – mainly giving too much power to the federal government. In fact the state's rights' issue is the main long-standing reactionary bloc to the federal government. The president, who was at one time one of 3 equal branches of government, now declares war on his own. He has become a ‘soft’ dictator if he wants to be.

Jon, these are just a few of the problems of the U.S. Constitution. I think I hit the ‘low’ points. I won’t talk about property relations, but that goes without saying. If you think allowing private corporations to own and control our water, oil, housing, land, health care and food supply, then you should not complain when the corporations exercise their RIGHTS to control these things.

In short, the Constitution undermines itself - or at least the majority of Americans. Sometimes keeping grandma's well-built but shaky parlor chair around for another 100 years might not make sense. It might just be time for a new chair.

Red Frog, 11/2/10

Know Your Enemy

“To Serve God and Wal-Mart – the Making of Christian Free-Enterprise,” by Bethany Moreton, 2009

Bethany Moreton, an assistant professor at the University of Georgia, avoids the typical narrative about Wal-Mart, as depicted in the excellent documentary “The High Cost of Low Prices” or the damning “The Wal-Mart Effect – How the World’s Most Powerful Company Really Works.” She focuses instead on how Wal-Mart used regionalism, working-class feminism and Christianity to become the Bensonville Beast it is today. There is not a word about cheap Chinese labor, excessively cheap prices or cheaply-made products in the whole book.

In the process, Moreton reveals what was going on during the Reagan ‘80s in the Ozark triangle of Arkansas, Missouri and Oklahoma – and how it shaped wider corporate America and the “new” Right. Essentially, the dynamics of local money and a rural culture produced an ideology that won over some working class people to ally with corporate America. It tries to answer Thomas Frank’s question, “What is the Matter with Kansas?” … by saying something other than - ‘they’re stupid.’

Homeland of Populism?

Moreton oddly compares Wal-Mart’s rise in the Tri-State Ozark area to the inspiration from the populist traditions in the late 1880s. Indeed, Woody Guthrie was born in Oklahoma, and the socialist “Appeal to Reason” newspaper was published in Girard, Kansas. However, a casual look at WikiPedia shows the populists were strong among “hard-pressed wheat farmers in the plains states, especially Kansas and Nebraska” and “among poor white cotton farmers in the South (especially North Carolina, Alabama and Texas.” The Populist Party was formed in an alliance of small farmers and the Knights of Labor, and was not exclusively a farmer’s party. The Populists carried Idaho, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas and pieces of North Dakota and Oregon in the 1892 election. The Ozark area was carried by the Democrats in 1892. In 1896, a partial fusion with the Democrats in the South under William Jennings Bryan for all intents and purposes destroyed the Populist Party. (The Populists had success blocking with some Republicans in the South and some Democrats in the North prior to this.) Bryan’s big issue in 1896 was “free silver” – which would make it easier for debtors to pay their debts to the north-east bankers. Bryan did directly center his attacks on the big banks and Trusts in the 1908 election, long after the Populists were in their grave, jibing with Teddy Roosevelt and ‘progressivism.’ In that election, however, Bryan lost Missouri. Moreton focuses on the ‘anti-chain-store’ movement during the 1920s and 1930s, especially in the Ozarks, which represented a strand of progressivism. This movement supported local businesses, and opposed the large retail chains, mostly from the east, that were shuttering stores in the area. However, the anti-chain store movement was geographically wide - not limited to the Ozarks.

So Moreton’s evidence of the special strength of ‘populism’ as a political movement in the Tri-Ozarks is weak. Most of the South and parts of the West also voted for Bryan. Kansas always had special progressive history, given its role in the fight against slavery. But this is not Ozark territory. “Progressivism,” which became strong in the teens and 20s in the upper-Midwest, is a far more recent phenomenon and should naturally have influenced the alleged populism of the Ozark area. It lead to the rise of the Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota, William LaFollette in Wisconsin, the Progressive Party of Vermont, the Non-Partisan League in the Dakotas, etc. However, there is very little evidence that ‘progressivism’ was actually strong on the ground in the Ozarks, except in a few areas like mining. Even the leading populist of the 30s in the South, Huey Long, hailed from Louisiana. Nor did the union strike wave of the 30s and 40s affect this mostly rural area, full of small farms and small businesses. Nor was this area a center of activism in the 50s-60s – except among the black population, especially in … Little Rock. And for entirely different reasons - civil rights.

Most small businessmen have a built-in hostility to big banking and big corporations and their government IF they have felt the latter’s financial power. This is not unique to the Ozarks. I think Moreton confuses political ‘populism’ with a natural cultural form of small-town inclusiveness and solidarity, common among farmers and small towners, and a hostility to ‘outsiders’ – like black people and foreigners. This culture is also built upon rural frugality and hard work, both necessary to survive farm or small town life. From the beginning in 1962, Wal-Mart cultivated a regional, “localist” approach, which won them customers in a cultural sense, as customers viewed the store as growing from people like them. This is no different than the ‘buy local’ movement now. It also connects to the anti-chain store movement. In the 1970s it intentionally got funding to expand, not from Wall Street, but from investment bank Stephens Inc., centered in Little Rock, Arkansas. Wal-Mart was not hostile to ‘government’ at the time. Walton took advantage of many government projects and programs, even planning his stores in county seats because government employment brought in steady customers.

Various other Ozark-connected corporations make their appearance in this book – Tyson Foods, Wendys, Sun, Humble and Getty Oil, J.B. Hunt Transport, Halliburton, Am-Way and Holiday Inn, based in Memphis. People like Ross Perot, Sig Sigler, Milton Friedman, Fredrick Hayek, Ronald Reagan, Hillary Clinton (Wal-Mart board member) and of course, Sam Walton himself put in an appearance.

A Bit of Working-class Feminism / Reproductive Labor

In the process of developing his chain, Walton learned lessons from the legions of working-class white women employed by the firm to check items, stock shelves and sell. The stores were clean, spartan, stocked with useful, inexpensive goods, and the staff was polite. However, to this basic mix, the women hired by Walton, according to Moreton, taught the managers a thing or two about loyalty and sales. These were mostly either farm wives looking for part-time income, or small town women with families, also looking for part-time income. The key here is that the most important thing to them were hours, not wages or benefits – not that the latter were irrelevant, of course. And hours were most important because the category of ‘reproductive labor’ – i.e. having and raising children – was the key issue to these women. Wal-Mart gradually understood this, and made sure schedules were tailored to the family issues that arose.

People who have yet to have children, or who have never had or taken care of children, might not understand this, but reproductive labor is uncompensated. Yet it is key to the survival of the class. The government does little for the reproductive labor issue until children enter the full-time school system in first grade. 6 years go by without any support except tax breaks for children. This small bit of compensation is not sufficient, of course, so families have to create schedules that will make sure someone is always with their kids. And since most families have more than one child, that 6 years can stretch into 15 or more. Daycare in the 60s and on was probably almost non-existent in the Ozarks, so Wal-Mart aided these women with more flexible hours. And of course, they were flexible for profit-reasons, but that is not what the workers saw.

“We don’t get paid much but we sure have a lot of fun.” One older guy I worked with told me this while I worked at Mail-Ex in Chicago (and it was very true – we had a freaking blast!). But this is a window into how a business can get by without paying on the bottom line. At first, Walton treated his workers like cogs, as most businessmen did at that time. But then the managers started to learn from their staff, as Morton puts it, in this new area of ‘retail white collar’ work. The women workers at Wal-Mart began to be recognized by management. Their personal issues, like family graduations or accomplishments, family sickness or deaths, were made important within the stores. The women were allowed a lot of leeway in how they did things – displays, ideas, etc. Some even contributed products. The stores were all in rural communities, and because of this, the women and customers knew each other well – unlike the big city. Because the stores became larger than most local stores, they gradually became the largest group of working people in some towns, and this social comradery made for more pleasant working conditions. Absent local manufacturing or offices, or retail, “Wal-Mart” became the town’s ‘company store.’ Walmart’s practice - “the customer is always right’ - could be seen as an outgrowth of the attitude of the women working there, not just as a clever profit strategy.

The “Servant Leader” and Masculinity

Moreton links this method of staffing with a concept from evangelical Christianity and later business manuals, called the ‘servant leader.’ This concept, developed in the late 1970s, linked being a male Christian with being both the ‘boss’ and also the ‘servant’ to those who work for you, or who are in your family. Moreton explains that the retail ‘nation of clerks’ which was developing upon the industrial economy ‘emasculated’ men, forcing them into ugly ties, black pants and white shirts, and stuffing them behind desks at low-skilled jobs. And all the while their male contemporaries might be doing physical, assembly or skilled trades work. To counter the loss felt by the overwhelmingly male managers at these new retail establishments, the ‘servant leader’ role saw to it that they served their families, children and wife – while still being the ‘titular’ head of the family. This was later applied to retail management theory, with the staff as the ‘family.’ And this theory was adopted by Wal-Mart, through individuals like Jack Shewmaker, their second-in-command. Male Wal-Mart store managers worked extremely long hours, had to pay supportive attention to their female staff, and were moved from store to store, almost like members of the Socialist Workers Party! This particular Christian faith made serving as a Wal-Mart manager (or cashier) part of your religious life, ‘serving’ customers. “Soft” female relationship skills became valuable in this context, even to men.

Moreton ends the book with a paen to ‘servant leaders’ who fight for progressive causes, like fighting for a living wage in Athens, Georgia. Of course, I wonder how many white Pentecostal ministers have signed on to that campaign.

Christian Colleges / The “Entrepreneur”

As Wal-Mart grew, it realized it needed to recruit staff for its management teams. It looked around the Ozark area and found 3 small Christian/conservative schools that would create business departments concentrating on free enterprise, and partner with Wal-Mart in the process. At this time in the 1970s, conservatives and Christians began promoting or starting business schools in schools all over the country to counter the anti-corporate sentiment on most university campuses. Business became the number one major for many students in the early 80s, though these were not always the best students. Wal-Mart partnered with the College/University of the Ozarks; John E Brown College/University; and Harding College/University. Later they expanded into business ties with the University of Arkansas, Texas A&M, Brigham Young, James Madison, the University of South Carolina, Florida State and Purdue. This aggressive pursuit of academic ties was a precursor to many other corporations increasing their links with higher education, to the point where corporations have more influence than ever before in academic affairs and the pursuit of ‘truth.’

In the process, student organizations like the “Students in Free Enterprise” (SIFE) developed out of the anti-socialist, pro-free enterprise business schools. Wal-Mart adopted SIFE in the Reagan 1980s, and many other corporations followed. It is now in 40 countries. It disguised itself as an ‘educational’ program for elementary, junior and senior high school students, for college students, even for adults. It promoted education that was actually indoctrination, starting with a “Mr. Pencil” that visited children’s class-rooms, who proved that a free market was the best (and only) way to produce products.

SIFE lionized the entrepreneur – even the entrepreneur that was now a billionaire. SIFE ignored the difference between small business and corporations – instead uniting all under the flag of free enterprise and the market. Never noting that ‘free’ enterprise leads to the rule of large enterprises, or that the ‘market’ is controlled by those same enterprises after awhile. Like Wal-Mart, which dictates price and quality to its suppliers, and regularly runs little Sam Walton’s out of business every day. The entrepreneur ends up a monopolist.

International Expansion

After the orgy of patriotism that was the First Gulf War, the regionalist Wal-Mart started to look outside the United States regarding educational programs. Their first international penetration into Latin America was to be through Mexico. Initially, they started an international student program in Panama, bringing ‘all classes’ of students to the campuses in the Ozarks for international exchange programs in business education. This program was meant to give them the same education that conservative and Christian American students were getting, providing an educated elite to combat the Marxists on many public Latin American campuses. Later they used these students to work as managers at Wal-Marts to be opened in Mexico and Central America.

The first large Wal-Mart Supercenter to open outside the United States was in Mexico City, in the suburb of Xtapalapa. This was exactly during the 1993 fight for ratification of the NAFTA treaty. At the time, most Americans and most congressman were against NAFTA, even in spite of Clinton and the Republican leadership’s support. The opening of this Wal-Mart was a propaganda gold mine because it showed Mexicans buying American products. Congressman and the press fell over themselves in praise. According to Moreton, this event turned the tide in the debate over NAFTA. Al Gore went on Larry King and debated Ross Perot, and used the Wal-Mart opening to hammer Perot, who was against NAFTA. And, as they say, the rest is history.

The 'folksie' Sam Walton is dead. The Walton family are now some of the richest individuals in the world. Wal-Mart is no longer a regional corporation. The homey, country-music store is now ensconced in big cities, northern cities and areas, and now all across the globe, where 'homey' and 'country' means something quite different. Barbara Ehrenreich has reported that the Minnesota Wal-Mart she worked at was anything but friendly. Wal-Mart has been the target of the largest lawsuit over job discrimination against women in history. Wal-Mart is a big board stock quoted on the NASDAQ. The fundamentalist Christian movement, of which Wal-Mart is part, has become an influential pillar of the Republican Party. Today, Target donates to Republicans like Tom Emmer too.

Hopefully, reading Moreton’s book will illustrate just how smart that Arkansas ‘entrepreneur’ was. Because Wal-Mart conquered America.

And I bought it at Mayday Books!
Red Frog, 11/1/2010

Historical perspective

Some historical perspective from Doug Henwood:

http://lbo-news.com/2010/10/31/taking-the-measure-of-rot/