Tuesday, March 10, 2009

The Planning of Capital

Rather than fall into the abyss that is free-market rhetoric we should realize that capitalism as a historical formation is much different than the 'free-market' fantasy of theoreticians - Hayek and Freidman, amongst others. Rather than an ahistorical model we should notice that the historical formation of capitalism constitutes and enacts ever higher levels of planning (such examples are the federal reserve, IMF, WTO, WB, and so on) in an attempt to regulate accumulation and prevent future crisis, which of course is inevitable since crisis is organic to capitalism as a social relation premised on antagonism.

That the economic crisis we are currently living in would usher in ever higher levels of planning of accumulation was only a matter of time.

And today, "in a speech before the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, Mr. Bernanke said the financial system needed to be regulated “as a whole, in a holistic way” and that stricter oversight of banks would not be enough to guard against future crises." (link)

"Mr. Bernanke also called for the creation of an authority to monitor and oversee broad, systemic risks" and "He said the United States could take a “macroprudential” approach — surveying the breadth of markets and financial institutions for signs of bubbles, growing risks like the subprime mortgage market, or risks shared by interconnected markets. Congress could empower a government agency like the Fed to take on that task."

Capitalism is not a free market, it requires massive planning in order to create adequate conditions for growth, which means that capitalism is not anti-state nor does it require the night-watchman state, another myth. Capital requires an active interventionist state to maintain accumulation. And what we see now is an inclusion of neo-keynesian principles demanding greater regulation of markets and financial institutions to ensure a smooth regime of accumulation, since the myth of free markets has once again fallen on its face.

Monday, March 09, 2009

Buffet's Wrong: The economy did not fall, it was chased off a cliff.

Warren Buffet recently said that the economy has "fallen off a cliff." Which makes it sound like the economy tripped over its own two feet while walking and went careening down the cliff. This depiction is grossly mistaken. The economy did not merely trip and fall on its own accord, as if it hit a rock while site seeing on the california coast, fell over the cliff, and plunged towards the sea, only to end up catching itself on a tree half way down and being rescued by the fire department and coast guard (hopefully).

Akin to the buffalo chases on the plains the economy was chased across the cliff at full speed knowing full well what would happen - massive debts, defaults, foreclosures, repossessions, economic downturn. Anyone who did not know this and should have, aka economists, has no understanding of how the social world operates and lives a life of fantasy, which of course is what happens when you put faith in theories that are trying to legitimate a class project as in the general interest of society as a whole (classical political economy) or relies on an ahistorical ideal type model of capitalism that never existed nor will it ever (Hayek, Friedmen and co.). But this gives them too much credit as being delusional, rather than knowing full well that their actions have no ethical foundation and that their everyday lives are premised upon the structural poverty, alienation, and exploitation of billions. I think its a bit of both - delusions of granduer (this model of capitalism really benefits everybody, it really is good! for if they didn't believe in it then they would have to reevaulte their self, life, existence. which is too much for most people to do, to interrogate their world view and thus themselves, that can lead to scary places. and revelations) and just plain 'I don't give a fuck' about anyone else but me (which of course is how a capitalist society is supposed to work, thanks Adam Smith! Somehow each person persuing their own individual self interest - I only care about me! - will produce a greater collective good for all - yeah right! That is the ultimate bull and self-aggrandizement of class power I have ever heard.).

Ok, enough with that. Buffet also used the word 'war' quite a bit.

"What is required is a commander in chief that's looked at like a commander in chief in a time of war." For "we're in a big war, and we're going to use money to fight it." We being engaged in an economic war of course!

Now the discourse of war is important. We always seem to be at war - War on terror, War on drugs, War on poverty, War on teenage pregnancy, War on underage drinking.

Now, whenever the word war is used it seems to be a legitimating rationale to through lots of money at the problem. Which is explicit in Buffet's talk. He directly links a war on the economy requires a lot of money. This of course assumes that money is necessary and sufficienct to end the war. This is far from the case, money is not going to solve this problem - throwing money has failed to work so far and will fail in the future, only massive restrucutring will work. Throwing money has not ended the war on terror, drugs, poverty, and it will not end the war on the economy.

But why use the language of war? Well war is good galvinizer for chavaunistic nationalism, for employing the language of 'shared sacrifice' and 'everyone is in the same boat.' It is a discourse that attempts to create an imaginary collectivity of belonging - via the nation state - where no collective actually exists. It tries to create a mythical community where a common shared good and a general interest exist. Bull, the only interest capital or the state talk about is growth and profit. nothing else matters. and those interests are particular class interests that only benefit a particular class.

War also tends to imply that there are bad agents that one is fighting against. And that war is just and necessary in order to, at least for the US, facilitate democracy, liberty, happiness, and all that clap trap. So who is the war against? Finance capital, brookers, mortgage companies, and so on? Last time I checked it looked this this economic war was waged against those at the bottom of the class, race, and gender ladder. We see massive layoffs, wage concessions, cuts in social services, massive disinvestment and capital flight, etc. Who the economic war is against and has been since the rise of neoliberalism is of course the working class, people of color, women. The economic war is not being waged against those agents who are proportionally heavily acountable for the economic crisis. The economic war of austerity and shared sacrifice is about forcing the cost of the crisis on the bottom of the social hierarchy - those least able and least responsible for the economy going over the cliff.

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Ideology and They Live

I was watching They Live (1988) by John Carpenter and Zizek and ideology popped into my head. They Live is about a man who discovers that aliens - free enterprisers for whom the earth (their third world) is ripe for their interests as another developing planet - are essentially brainwashing people through consumer society while concentrating massive power and wealth into their own hands and of course the human power elite.

The Zizek and ideology reference is because Roddy Piper only realizes the 'truth' of the world in which he lives when he puts on sunglasses. Following Zizek, since we are already and always constituted through ideology - we are interpellated in and through ideology - in order to see the ideology we have to put our ideological lens on, we do not take off our ideological lens'.

check out the clip here.

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Native American Resistance to Capitalism's Enclosure: The Struggle for Subsistence and the Commons

Premises


  

In a little over two-hundred years industrial capitalism's death-machine has inflicted a toxic holocaust upon the totality of earthly relations. Capitalism's attempt to reshape the planet to suit its accumulation demands has meant the wholesale clearing of continents for cultivation, resulting in endless 'meadows,' extensive deforestation, soil erosion, and desertification; the loss of biodiversity and therefore ecosystem integrity through the extinction of thousands of species for quick profits; the massive die-off of tens of hundreds of fish species through the damming of lakes, rivers and streams for irrigation and electricity production; the global collapse of fish stocks in the oceans through industrial trawlers; the conversion of agricultural plains into deserts or salt ponds through over irrigation and over harvesting, and; the forced eviction and subsequent resettlement of whole populations from the countryside into cities.

In unison with treating the landbase primarily as a tap for resource extraction, capital also views the landbase secondarily as a place for the mass dumping of industrial chemicals and wastes originating from commodity production, a practice that has made vast swabs of the planet non-viable or extremely inhospitable for life. Corporations freely and willingly dump industrial pollutants from the extraction and manufacturing processes into the surrounding environment: PCBs, dioxin, uranium tailings, mercury, and arsenic are only a few of the common pollutants found in environmental testing. Today in the United States mothers milk is contaminated by dioxin's and PCBs and asthma and cancer rates are at historic highs due to industrial capitalism's toxification of land, air, water, animals, food, and people. Globally, the planetary ecosystem is in a state of decay, along with the aforementioned ecological catastrophes global warming, global dimming, depletion of the ozone layer, coral reef die-off, and melting of the polar ice caps compound the ecological crisis and threaten to annihilate the ecological flows that form the preconditions for life.

The current configuration of everyday life cannot continue: it is socially and ecologically destructive to all life forms. It systematically degrades all life to the profane commodity-form and eradicates the conditions for autonomy and self-determination. The gospels of industrial consumption advocated by both capitalist and socialist orthodoxies are premised upon colonialism: “repression at home and conquest abroad.” No longer can we look to the models of our industrialized elders to solve the problems of industrialism: the aim is not to perfect industrial capitalism but to smash it.

  

The ecological crisis is not an environmental crisis but a social crisis, and its root cause is the socio-natural relation that consists of both intra-human relations and human-nonhuman relations – which are political, cultural, spiritual, and economic in form. The ecological crisis cannot be abstracted from the human organization of socio-natural relations and therefore cannot be solved in a technocratic or individualistic paradigm which emphasizes a “technical fix” to the problems of growth or the restructuring of industrial capitalism through changes in personal behavior, e.g. recycling, replacing plastic bags with cloth and regular light-bulbs with halogen (which contain mercury!), energy efficient appliances, alternative fuel automobiles, carbon offsets, downscaling, or energy substitution (e.g. solar for coal). All these proposed solutions to the ecological crisis reproduce the social framework and material relations that manufactured the ecological crisis – the abstraction of humanity from nature, the assumption that humans are at the top of the food chain, thatt the earth exists for humans, and that humans are to dominate nature, that there is no alternative to capitalism or economic growth, and that technology provides the path to the promised land. Rather than seeing the ecological crisis as a social and political crisis of humanity's relationship to the landbase capitalism's and mainstream environmentalism's focus is on maintaining industrial society, development, and civilization at all costs.

  硿

The ecological crisis, popularized amongst social critics, theorists, activists, and scientists almost a half a century ago has only magnified in scale and severity. The problem is not just capital, the state. or the mainstream environmental movement, but the structure of everyday life. Radical steps must be taken to prevent a “hard crash” and realign lifeways within ecological flows and rhythms. The sooner the better. It is vital to restructure not merely the social world but the socio-natural relations that constitute the foundation for that social world. Such a restructuring means a turn away from a lot of the components of contemporary life that have brought the world to the brink of implosion: capitalism, patriarchy, christianity, the enlightenment's mechanistic conceptions of time and space, a competitive ethos united with a spirit of acquisitiveness, the conflation of atomized individualism with liberty and autonomy, and a blind faith in technology and so-called historical progress. The rejection of these foundational components of everyday must coincide with an incorporation of worldviews and lifeways premised upon landbase subjectivities that emphasize the commons, egalitarianism, reciprocity, respect, harmony, and subsistence.

  硿

For the vast majority of life on the planet, neoliberalism (the social formation of capitalism from the late 1970s/early 1980s through today) has been an utter failure along social, political, economic, and ecological grounds. It has not increased the freedom, sovereignty, or wealth of the vast majority of citizens nor has it increased the health and integrity of the planetary ecosystem. The overall outcome of thirty years of neoliberal hegemony is increased national and global inequality, proletarianization, scarcity of access to water and food, low-intensity warfare, civil war and genocide, multinational corporate (MNC) control over the planet and ecological degradation. This degradation has increased to such a degree that a majority of the ecological cycles are in the state of decay, crisis, or collapse. Furthermore, what neoliberalism has been successful at is increasing the centralization of governance into the hands of non-democratic institutions. Principally, corporations, national governments, and supra-national political institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organization (WTO), World Health Organization (WHO), United Nations (UN), and European Union (EU).

  

However, the most successful maneuver of Neoliberalism has been the massive transfer of ownership of land, water, air, seed, and genes into the hands of corporations. This round of new enclosures (also referred to as primitive accumulation or accumulation by dispossession) is a process that forms the foundation of capitalism's economic growth model since the 1970s. Enclosure became a key mechanism of social control through forcing all space and therefore all production into the circuits of accumulation; for the accumulation of capital, labor, commodities, and wealth presupposes the accumulation of space, first and foremost. Enclosure became the primary mechanism employed to integrate the entire planet into capitalist accumulation through the destruction of non-capital producing spaces and subjects.

  

Mainstream environmentalism – white middle class environmentalism – led by the Big Ten, is not a viable social movement nor does it address the root causes of the ecological crisis – industrialism, capitalism, patriarchy, and christianity. Its main focus is dominated by a preservationist camp that merely seeks ameliorative efforts to protect wilderness from the tendrils of capitalism. It is locked into a century and half old lens that is plagued by a dichotomy of nature and culture, humans and the environment, wilderness and civilization. This dichotomy manifests in the Big Ten's primary focus not on issues of social justice and equity nor on restructuring industrial society but on preservationism – protecting wide swaths of land from 'development' in their pristine wilderness state. Preservationist environmentalism is about preserving a pre-human contact wilderness that consisted of wildlife and not much else – enshrined in national parks, nature preserves, open space, and wild animal parks.

Mainstream environmentalism is incapable of forming a land ethic based on human stewardship and co-habitation. Furthermore, an environmental strategy premised on preservation works in combination with capitalism: they both demand the dispossession of land from indigenous people to maintain wilderness for preservation and to develop the land for capitalism. All the while, preservationist environmentalism continually avoids confronting capitalism about its anti-ecological growth demands, its production of an everyday life dominated by endless consumerism, and a relationship with the land premised upon human domination.

Moreover, when it is not confined to saving land from development mainstream environmentalism's adoption of “third wave” politics has its eco-consciousness confined to market-oriented solutions to the ecological crisis: solutions that rely on corporate volunteerism and self-regulation, tax based incentive schemes, technological innovation, and supply and demand programs, a la cap and trade that allow for the privatization and commodification of pollution and nature and their control by MNC's. The Big Ten's solution to the ecological crisis is essentially neoliberalism's solution: more 'free' markets, more corporate control, more private property, more growth. Both capital and Big Green argue that what created the problem can solve the problem. This line no longer holds.

  

As a result, the historic struggle between capitalism and the indigenous is waged at numerous levels: philosophical, spiritual, socio-cultural, political, economic, and ecological. It is a struggle of different ways of being, both socially and with the landbase. For this reason, the struggle over the path of globalization and therefore the future of the planet is a struggle between the commons and capitalist private property, subsistence and accumulation, use-value and exchange-value, bio/cultural-diversity and monocultures, autonomy and dependency, self-determination and sovereignty, the indigenous and euro-americans.

  

For over five-hundred years Native American's have been deemed expendable due to their 'natural' state of existence as wild savages who failed to 'use' the land. Both the landbase and their way of life was viewed as “open” to colonization – for colonization is both a cultural, political, economic, and ecological project. The history of the Native American post-contact is not a pretty one nor one that contemporary American's have come to terms with. Subsequently, it is generally a taboo topic in American society. No accurate history of the conquest and continuing slaughter of the indigenous is taught in the public education system and most American's celebrate Thanksgiving as part of a nationalist celebration marking the arrival upon a 'new' world that is only new if one is looking westward. In fact, the history of the indigenous post-contact is one of extreme and brutal violence, genocide, culturecide and ecocide by euro-americans. In the eyes of the settlers, miners, hunters and the state and Federal government there was no question as to whether the indigenous needed to go, the question was by what means: disease, war, massacre, or acculturation. The question was to either kill them outright or civilize them through “killing the indian to save the man.” There is no room for the indigenous within euro-american society. Until this is realized no transformative politics can commence.

  

The genocide, culturecide, and ecocide of the indigenous was rationalized and legitimated through recourse to religion, racial superiority, civilizing tendencies, notions of progress and development, private property, and Christianity's quest for dominion over the earth – all of which are encapsulated under “Manifest Destiny,” the foundation of American colonization.
For this reason, there is no critique of capitalism without a critique of colonialism and therefore no critique of capitalism without a critique of ecocide, culturecide and genocide; processes that have occurred over the last five-hundred years and not just in parts of the globe external to the United States. They are omnipresent in the third world within the north: Indian Country.
There must be a critique of the primitive accumulation of the indigenous within the occupied territory of the United States. There can be no critique of colonialism without a critique of the enclosure of turtle island and its conversion into a playground for the accumulation of capital.

  

The indigenous, the last “artifact” of the pre-history of capitalism, have resisted integration into the circuits of capitalist reproduction for over 500 years and currently display no willingness to succumb or halt that struggle today. The indigenous reject the death machine of neoliberalism – on both cultural, political, ecological, economic and spiritual grounds. Instead, they put forth the call “self-determination through control over our land.” For indigenous survival requires the survival of the landbase. The struggle is not for equality under colonialism. It is not a struggle for citizenship or sovereignty. It is a struggle against capitalism and the state. The indigenous struggle in the United States is the struggle for nationhood based on traditional indigenous values of “freedom, justice, and peace.”

  

What can be learned from the indigenous struggle is that for the domination of both humans and nature to be annihilated we must restructure social and ecological relations. In other words, the struggle for the health of the landbase is for the social and ecological liberation from capitalism, patriarchy, and christianity. At its root, the struggle is over the landbase, over the relationship that humans are going to have with the landbase. Will it be one that is premised upon domination and control or one based on balance, harmony and reciprocity?

  

The indigenous struggle of Native Americans is a struggle against the primitive accumulation of capital and all that that entails – dispossession, enclosure, enclosure, wage-labor, patriarchy, instrumental rationality, alienation and accumulation. The struggle against primitive accumulation is not just a social struggle but an ecological struggle, the latter part is often forgotten, ignored, or downplayed.

  

The indigenous struggle was not merely for autonomy and liberation from domination but for a relation to the landbase that was premised upon the commons and subsistence. It is a struggle for a way of life premised upon the principles of egalitarianism, reciprocity, and harmony with all life.

  

It is the unification of social and ecological that underscores the importance of the indigenous struggle against capitalism for ascertaining alternatives to industrial capitalist society. The struggle by the indigenous for the commons and subsistence is a struggle for cultural and biological diversity. Therefore, a struggle for a healthy environment, as their lifeway is dependent on it. It is not a struggle to separate people from the land or develop the land for a quick buck, but to preserve both people and the land forever.

  

Those who struggle for liberation must be with the indigenous and not against them. The goal is not to 'civilize' the indigenous. The goal is not to 'develop' the landbase. The struggle is to embrace attempts to unite social and ecological liberation from capitalism, which do not have to be invented from scratch, but can be found with the indigenous and their landbased subsistence lifeways. It is high time that those in the 'advanced' north so willing to jump on the global south bandwagon turn inward to aid the colonized within the 'first' world: those in indian country. There is no justification to ignore the indigenous within the core of capitalism in favor of those in the periphery. It is high time the left faced up to its historical marginalization of the indigenous within the occupied territory of the United States. The struggle is to reclaim the land for the indigenous based upon their own traditional principals. This requires the end of capitalism and the state and the reimposition of traditional indigenous values based on social and ecological justice; anything less is unacceptable.

  

The Rev is on the Rez.

Tuesday, November 04, 2008

Democracy as a Tool of Oppression

The passage of the Gay Marriage Ban in California and Arizona reflects, in my opinion, how oppressed groups should not expect to be liberated by their oppressors. Asking the citizenry to vote for ending oppression based on sexual orientation in a society that valorizes the patriarchal family and therefore the male headed nuclear family is a non-starter. This is also a society where ‘common sense’ still conflates homosexuality with pedophilia and conceives of marriage as a ‘God’ given and ruled relationship, rather than a social relation of ownership and domination that tied women to men and made them subordinate to and dependent upon the husband. The annals of history show that marriage is not the bastion of love and equality, but a power relationship created through violence and dispossession. It has only been in the last forty years that spousal rape is even a legal category, since before that women had no right to say no to sex, since they were the property and therefore the play thing of their owner, oh, sorry, I mean husband.

Putting these questions to vote reproduces the tyranny of the majority. It makes about as much sense as putting to vote whether to let African-Americans have the right to vote during slavery. Asking a population that views gay people as an inferior subhuman ‘other’ whether they should be given rights may be formally democratic, but it is not the path to equality, at the current historical juncture. I know that saying democracy and equality are not one in the same may come as a shock to some of you but re-read your history books: democracy shaped by capitalism, racism, sexism/patriarchy and classism, amongst others, will never realize an egalitarian society. You do not ask the master to give the slave rights, the slave must demand rights from the master, which happens through struggle.

The denial of rights to Gay’s highlights the contradictions within a democratic society, where we are not all given the same rights from birth, in opposition to what we are told in school. Moreover, it shows how the democratic process can be employed to deny rights through the passage of law: we are a nation of laws after all! And if you haven’t been watching the news lately, especially Obama, laws are apparently the only things standing between us and barbarism or anarchy, take your pick. Laws, Laws, Laws. What people forget is that the law is not some neutral entity devoid of power. Law is reflective of the dominant power groups and therefore of class, race, and gender hierarchies, amongst others: and will be employed to provide and deny rights based on the current formation of power.

With this passage into law we see how the concrete inequality of everyday life, the ‘private’ sphere, is transformed into the ‘public’ sphere and consequently becomes state law. The state is now directly reflective of the oppression occurring on the level of everyday life. What happens in the daily life of gays, their status as second-class citizens, is now legitimated as just because the oppressor, through the ‘democratic’ process of voting, reaffirmed their constitutional right to maintain their position of power vis-à-vis the oppressed.

The right of gay people to marry whomever they want to will not come by way of the ballot anytime soon, at the state or federal level. If must be wrestled in the streets, which means building a broad based coalition that fights for this, and not just at the level of electoral politics. It is battle for the hearts and minds of Americans. And as one approaches the battle we must realize that many hearts and minds are too couched in anger, violence, bitterness, and close-mindedness to see that the oppression of others means that they themselves are oppressed: that until all bonds of oppression are ended no one can be equal.

The goal is not to replace the master but to end the position of master.

Sunday, November 02, 2008

Why Obama is not a socialist nor a Marxist.

In the past few weeks the right-wing media machine has made a lot of hay around Obama's downward re-distributional economic policies. Obama has been called everything from a socialist to a Marxist because he advocates increasing a progressive tax system where those who make more pay more - which means re-instituting higher effective tax rates on those who make over $250,000 a year and lowering taxes on those who made less than $250,000. This would only go a small way to re-imposing the tax levels of the 1970s - which is needed to repair the infrastructure of the United States, meet social need and reduce inequality, which in the US is the highest of all 'western' post-industrial nations. Ever since the tax revolt of the 1980s through the present - at the level of the corporation and wealthy families - there has been less and less money to lay the foundation for true social wealth for all, not economic wealth for the elite.

On a local Florida news station the anchor even asked Biden if Obama was a Marxist. Her empirical support? A famous quote from Marx: "from each according to their ability to each according to their needs." A hallmark statement for re-distributional class politics. This phrase is therefore not solely a marxist statement but one championed by all those fighting against oppression and for the creation of a truly egalitarian society that realizes and meets the concrete social needs of people - be you a marxist, socialist, anarchist, ad infinitum. The fact that this phase is treated as a slur is beyond imagination, except in the nation-state that is the hegemonic center of global capitalism, where social needs are secondary to an adequate rate of return. And for the most part in American society never the two shall meet! The capitalist system is not designed to meet social needs as a primary function, and if it does, that is merely by accident, not by choice.

That people's concrete social needs are seen in such a negative manner expresses the illogic and irrationality of the capitalist system: a system that produces a culture where the concrete daily needs of people are not only unimportant and for the most part denied/repressed but are verbally denounced as socialist and marxist. If demanding that people have a house to live in, a secure job that pays a living wage, food on their table, and an affordable education and medical plan makes one a Marxist, then the majority of American's, based on public opinion polls, would be Marxists and socialists, but sadly, non of these demands a Marxist does make.

The capitalist press is designed to maintain the capitalist system, we should not expect them to tell us anything but lies, as such, what passes as fact, truth, or reality is really falsity.

The history of both Western Europe and the United States displays that downward economic redistribution does not lead to socialism nor communism. In fact, in the US, capitalism operated very well under a Keynesian (Welfare Capitalism) social contract where income re-distribution towards the working class occurred for two reasons: (1) the working class' political organization forced concessions on corporations and the state in a time when the state wanted to prevent the development of truly oppositional socialist, communist, and anarchist political movements, and; (2) the integration of the working class into the circuits of capitalism via higher wages was necessary to fuel mass consumption and thus increase accumulation through the development of a mass consumer society. The problem of effective demand required re-distributional policies combined with higher wages for more work (increased productivity - think of the Ford $5 wage as a national strategy). Keynesianism essentially combined the expanding of the economic pie with a larger share being given to the working class.

Capitalism is about production for profit as the guiding indicator of investment and thus production; along with the requirement that production be owned by private individuals, and under the current formation of capitalism - neoliberalism - this means ownership by transnational corporations [since corporations are now legal individuals and have the same rights as you or me - thank you ingenious lawyers for expanding the 14th amendment that freed the slaves and gave them personhood to include that of the corporation as well - may you rot in hell]. Therefore, economic redistribution is compatible with capitalism as long as it does not infringe upon the profit motive, in the sense of causing an unhealthy or detrimental decline in the rate of profit.

Socialism is about production for social needs where production is in the hands of the people. Obviously state-socialism fails to put production in the hands of the people, instead it goes into the hands of a bureaucratic political elite. Thus, libertarian socialism calls for the production of social needs as determined by worker and consumer councils - removing corporations and the state from control over production and therefore putting people in the hands of crafting the social world directly.

Moreover, if we look at Marx himself, he argued that the working class struggle was not solely about becoming better compensated wage-labor, sure that was a part, no one is going to argue against getting a higher wage, better working conditions and shorter hours, except your boss. But this was not the end-goal of Marx, who argued that the goal of the working class was to end their existence as a class: to end their existence as wage-labor. Marx sought the end of capitalism through the struggle of the working class to reclaim their power over shaping the world, their power of labor, from capital and subsequently place it in their own hands. Such a maneuver would end the workers subordination to the capitalist through the obliteration of that relationship of domination: a relationship where the employer controlled the labor of the worker and denied them their capacity for self-determination. Under capitalism, labor, as free spontaneous creative practice was denied the worker who had to submit to the work demands of their boss. Workers would only be free to realize their power over shaping the social world when they expropriated the expropriators - the capitalists - and ended the existence of capitalist private property - individual and corporate ownership over the means of production - and replaced it with the means of production held in common by the workers.

Therefore, we can see that Obama is no socialist nor Marxist. Obama supports both the profit motive, its priority over social need, and the right of capitalist property relations to determine what is produced, for how much, where it is produced, and so on. Obama is a capitalist and imbues and eschews capitalist ideology, but his re-distributional rhetoric speaks to the working class who is swamped with debt, and seeks to appeal to their psychological anxieties in order to obtain the imperial office. He could in fact institute this re-distributional politics but it does nothing to address the question of power, of having control over shaping the social world, which would be left in the hands of transnational corporations (an extremely undemocratic form of governance). Ownership over productive property is key, ownership over consumptive property provides no power whatsoever.

Obama is not a threat to US capitalism nor global capitalism. If Obama was truly a socialist or a Marxist there is no way he would be on the democratic ticket - which is bought and paid for by finance capital - Wall Street - amongst others, foremost among them, Goldman Sachs. The fact that sections of the capitalist media are trying to paint him in such a way show their affiliation with the McCain ticket - another faction of the capitalist class vying for power - or their explicit identification with the logic of the capitalist system unmediated by any political party, as such they are merely capital personified.

Thursday, October 30, 2008

The Financial Crisis: An Opening for Housing Reform?

This is the synopsis of the argument put forth by a NYU economics professor

Brief synopsis:

The bailout proposed by Henry Paulson does not even address the systemic collapse of the financial and banking system brought on by the collapse in the asset (mortgage) and credit bubbles. If you are trying to stabilize the system, i.e. capitalism. What needs to be done is 3 things: 1) take toxic products off the balance books of wall-street, but in a way that does not have taxpayers footing the bill, meaning that the creditors and investors need to take the hit. 2) need to recapitalize the banks so they can start a new round of growth, this can happen only through government lending to the banks, because no one else has enough capital nor is willing to lend it. 3) and this is key, you need to decrease the debt levels of homeowners, meaning restructure the ARM loans into fixed rate loans and re-negotiate the loans at current market values so you do not have negative equity problems. Without this re-negotiation of debt the crisis will not resolve itself, because US consumption is and will drop dramatically and send us into a deeper recession then is already projected [18 months]. The average household debt to income ratio in the US is 140%, this is unsustainable given the current economic climate.

This recession will mean gradual decline in the value of the dollar and higher interest rates as well, and higher unemployment rates, officially up to 8% potentially, unofficially - once we include those out of work who stopped looking and those forced into part-time work who want full-time - around 13-15%. oh, and we still have the possibility of a massive number of smaller banks going belly up, this is in addition to the run on all the investment banks - Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc, the insolvency of IndyMac, WAMU, Wachovia, etc. What is next for collapse is the hedge funds and money market funds. and the FDIC is running out of money.

what we are now seeing is a global recession, one that if it is to be corrected requires a massive restructuring of the financial banking system. increased regulation and oversight along with the collapse of the shadow banking system - investment banks, hedge funds, money market funds, broker dealers, non bank mortgage lenders - and extensive regulation of mortgage backed securities and collateral debt obligations. along with increased minimum liquidity requirements, minimum capital requirements, limits to leverage, reporting requirements, etc. to prevent bank collapses if a 'run to withdraw money' occurs, which was a major problem this time. [the entities in the shadow banking system were over leveraged, had high debt levels with little capital on hand, since they had invested in long-term illiquid investments. thus when people ran to draw their money out, the entities did not have enough cash on hand, could not gather together enough capital in time because they could not sell off the illiquid investments, and no one would lend them more money. they were therefore unable to 'pay out' to their debtors while having enough left over to cover day-to-day expenses. they therefore went belly-up]

without this overhaul of the financial system and a restructuring of US household debt the 18 month recession could turn into a Japan style decade long recession - which was caused by doing too little too late and not addressing the fundamental structural problems.

---------------

I still think 18 months sounds rather tame. I do like how he is addressing 'main street'.

now lets move from the level of capitalism as a system and its needs to everyday life, the arena for struggle and revolution. I would love to see some bottom up movement. i see no better time for an 'organizational' push for affordable or socialized - community owned and operated but state and federal funded - housing. No other time highlights the disconnect between capitalism's demands for profit above anything else and people's social need and right to affordable housing. but rights are not given by those from above but taken by those from below, rights are won through struggle. rather than letting those at the bottom continually be subjected to the profit motive, which underproduces low cost affordable housing and overproduces high profit luxury homes, it is time for community mobilization to demand the social right to affordable housing, thus the elimination of the profit motive from housing. homes should be about living not making money. the subprime crisis is a perfect example of why the lower classes will never have good quality affordable housing under capitalism - there is no profit in it without the creation of mortgage products that are systematically unsustainable and toxic. leaving home ownership for the poor and people of color to the vagaries of the marketplace and the profit motive created this whole mess in the first place. now is the time for a movement for socialized housing at the community level. this would allow the local community to have control over the rebuilding of social space, to create a space for life, debate, party, labor, art, pleasure, peace and so on, operated from the flow of life. rather than social space dominated by the logic of profit, control, the automobile, and so on - the time of death.

The fact that this collapse or 'moment' has not spurred a grassroots push to raise this issue is deeply problematic.