The Crisis: Marx, Lenin, Keynes and Us
Much has changed since the collapse of the Eastern Bloc and the much-heralded “end of history”. Francis Fukuyama has distanced himself from both neoconservativism and neoliberalism, Chris Hedges is more radical than the Communist Party USA, the Left is resurgent in Europe and promenading towards hegemony in Latin America. Even in Washington DC, for the first time in a generation, Keynes is more in vogue than Friedman.
Progressive forces can thank natural tendencies of capital, not a few “bad apples” in the financial sector, for the uptick in class conflict and more favorable conditions for politicization. As Marx wrote throughout Das Kapital, the tendency of the rate of profit is to decline (a debate and discussion best left for another time and place), the tendency of capital is to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands and bouts of overproduction periodically throw capitalism into disarray. Marx’s contributions on crisis are incomplete, with much of them coming from Volume 3 of Das Kapital, which was prepared posthumously by Engels from Marx’s notes. Lenin’s writings on the crisis of late capitalism and imperialism were a reaction to the Great War, the rise of finance capital and the hyper-exploitation of the undeveloped world, factors that led him to believe that unlike the bourgeoisie during the time of Marx, the bourgeoisie of the 20th century was reactionary and decadent, no different than the aristocracy of the 17th and 18th centuries. The use of market mechanisms to develop productive forces in India and China may show that the bourgeoisie is still dynamic enough to be considered a progressive force, but for workers here in America it is impossible to shake the feeling that the present order has hit a standstill. On the other hand Lenin’s writing on monopolization and the impact of economic interests on foreign policy (read War is a Racket by Major General Butler) are surprisingly relevant. Yet, Lenin was a writer for his time and not for the ages (someone should tell the “Leninists” that What Is To Be Done was written for Tsarist Russia), so taken literally some of his writings seem dated, but the clarity of his thinking and his mode of analysis makes him someone that should not be ignored, even by those who reject his views on political organization.
This particular crisis has the potential to hit harder than previous ones in part, because deregulation has exposed many of capital’s more destructive tendencies. Many of the structures built to bridle capitalism’s excesses and direct some of its output towards public goods were slashed. As a result wealth has concentrated in fewer and fewer hands, our social safety net has been gutted and unions are on life-support. Liberal commentators have succinctly called our time the Second Gilded Age. During the First Gilded Age income disparity soared and vultures swindled their way to economic fortune during the chaotic transition from an economy based upon agriculture to one based on industry. Today as we plod our way towards a post-Industrial economy, income disparity stands at its highest point since the Roaring 20s, and there appears to be no great technological leap to propel us in the way that revolutions in industry and computing have done in the past .
The Great Depression which followed the Roaring 20s paved the way for the New Deal and Scandinavian Social Democracy, but could this be a crisis that leads to even more fundamental change? Confidence among the ruling class is low, so confidence among progressive forces should be high. Wildcat occupations are sweeping Ireland, the Ukraine and elsewhere, student radicalism reigns in Europe and class struggle is reaching its apex in Bolivia and Venezuela (countries where “maximal” programs may be possible) . The United States is taking baby steps away from conservatism and returning towards mainstream social liberalism. Different places are at different stages of class identification and polarization and our tactics should reflect this, but the international movement towards social justice (read: socialist) is marching in the right direction.
What is to be done? (for the American Left)
1) Support for President Obama’s stimulus package
2) Advocacy for Employee Free Choice and Health Care Reform— Renegotiate NAFTA and other trade agreements, cancel foreign debt
3) Militant opposition to foreclosures and evictions (direct action, public education forums, lobbying for legislation)
4) Resistance to occupation — independent of the Democratic Party (Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia)
5) Continued exploration of the prospects for a Left Regroupment and Refoundation
Si se puede?




I’ve come to the conclusion that the left (such as it is) should not be supporting the Obama stimulus package, so I’d have to take issue with item #1 on the list of what is to be done. Yeah, not passing some sort of stimulus at all would be far worse than passing the current half-assed package that doesn’t go far enough and has all kinds of stupid tax cuts in it. But let’s get out there and be loud and use whatever capacity we have to push an alternative recovery program of our own instead of half-heartedly pushing something that we know sucks. And I can’t even contain myself when I think about how unbelievably horrendous Geithner’s bank bailout 2.0 proposal is probably going to be. I guess not all of the details are out yet, but I do not trust these people to do what actually makes sense. It’s probably not going to do much of anything to begin to turn the crisis around and shovels even more public money into the coffers of the assholes that have made this crisis happen. My only hope is that its likely failure will force the administration to finally step in and nationalize the worst banks, wipe out the shareholders, etc. etc.
Also, I really like the new design.
David Harvey explains why the stimulus will fail to revive the U.S. economy:
http://grupodapiedade.posterous.com/radical-europe-fwd-moneybanksc
A page that looks useful: http://marxandthefinancialcrisisof2008.blogspot.com/
I think it’s inaccurate to say that the New Deal “failed” in any sense, really. New Deal policy helped to drastically reduce unemployment and got the economy moving strongly in the direction of recovery, with the exception of the recession of 1937-1938, which occurred largely because FDR attempted to move back toward the orthodoxy of balanced budgets. Yeah, the war actually ended the Depression, but it’s not like the New Deal prevented recovery from happening. The biggest knock against it is that it wasn’t far-reaching and Keynesian enough. The historian Eric Rauchway has written some good stuff on this subject, mostly in the context of arguing against Amity Shlaes’ resurrection of right-wing anti-New Deal talking points from the 1930s. Here’s one of his recent articles: http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=learning_from_the_new_deals_mistakes
It is still important for people to acknowledge the Depression did not end because of the New Deal. I was watching a CSPAN conservative critique of the New Deal which also brought up high wages set in industries by the government that kept people unemployed. I don’t know how much of that is true or is lying with statistics.
I would also suggest people check out John Judis’s “End the Honeymoon” in the New Republic. He calls out left-liberal institutions for being too supportive of the stimulus package and not pushing it to be better. Hence, if only the right-wing is putting pressure on Obama then he is more likely to make compromises with them rather than telling them to shove it because he has to deal with the left.