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.

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.