Like What, Exactly? (3)
Part Three: Conceived in Nazi Germany, Born in the USA
The search for a solution to the financial crisis
You probably are not aware of this, but in 2008-2009, when the world market faced its darkest hours of the financial crisis, the attention of many mainstream economists, who were desperately looking for a way out of that mess, turned to the halcyon years of the early Nazi regime. Yep, that’s right — economists scrambled to study fucking Nazi economic policies. Most Marxists don’t realize this, but the template for their cherished “social state” was the Nazi policies of the Great Depression.
Really, I am not making this up. Have a look at this quite interesting article from the New York Times in 2009:
“Every so often, history serves up an analogy that’s uncomfortable, a little distracting and yet still very relevant. In the summer of 1933, just as they will do on Thursday, heads of government and their finance ministers met in London to talk about a global economic crisis. They accomplished little and went home to battle the crisis in their own ways. More than any other country, Germany — Nazi Germany — then set out on a serious stimulus program. The government built up the military, expanded the autobahn, put up stadiums for the 1936 Berlin Olympics and built monuments to the Nazi Party across Munich and Berlin.”
Can Capital survive the abolition of the State?
I recently came across this excerpt from a short paper by the Marxist writer, Raya Dunayevskaya. The argument is a very dense consideration of a fundamental point of Marx’s theory. If it appears obscure and incomprehensible, that is okay; I offer it only as a reference for those familiar with the more arcane points of Marx’s theory. For everyone else, you can skip below, where I will address it directly in a way that makes its import both obvious and rather astounding:
Let me state right here that we have greatly underestimated Volume III of CAPITAL, which deals with these transformations. It is true that we caught its ESSENCE when from the start we put our finger on the spot and said the DECLINE in the rate of profit is crucial; the average rate of profit is completely secondary. Look at the mess we would have been in if we had not seen THAT and suddenly found ourselves, as did the Fourth [International], tailending the Stalinists’ sudden “discovery” (which had been precisely the PERVERSION with which the Second International PLANNERS had long ago tried to corrupt Marxism) that it was the AVERAGE rate of profit which was the “law of capitalism.”
Good, we saw the essence, but that is insufficient, and because that is completely insufficient, we were incapable of being sharp enough even here. For it is insufficient merely to state that the decline [in the] rate of profit, not the average, is crucial for understanding VOLUME III. The full truth is: JUST AS MARX’S THEORY OF VALUE IS HIS THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE, SO HIS THEORY OF SURPLUS VALUE IS IN REALITY THE THEORY OF THE DECLINING RATE OF PROFIT.
Why couldn’t we state it this simply before? It is because we have been too busy showing that profit is only a disguise which surplus value wears and must be removed, again to see “the real essence”: exploitation of labor. Because the opponents we were facing were Workers Party underconsumptionists, we had to overemphasize this EVIDENT truth. But to overemphasize the obvious means to stand on the ground the opponents have chosen. Freed from these opponents and faced with PLANNERS WHO ARE NOT UNDERCONSUMPTIONISTS the greater truth of what Marx was saying suddenly hits us in the eyes with such force that now we can say: How could we have not seen what Marx was saying? It is all so clear: Since the realization of surplus value IS the decline in the rate of profit, the poor capitalist MUST search for profits.
The argument Dunayevskaya is making here is simple: Marx proposed that capitalism would be increasingly hamstrung by a decline in the rate of profit. This decline was not an accident or aberration, since it rested on a fundamental feature of the economy: On the one hand, the capitalist was always seeking to maximize his profits by reducing labor costs. This drive leads businesses to produce more output with fewer workers. On the other hand, the source of profits were the unpaid labor time of the employed workers. Thus, even as the capitalist tried to maximize profit by reducing its work force, its success at reducing its work force reduced the pool of unpaid labor time that was the source of its profits.
So far, not much of interest, right? Just another cat fight among the followers of Marx over interpretation of his theory; and Marxists are, if anything, more prone to cat fights than a bag of wet cats. But, then Raya does something jarring: she throws in that sentence at the end and changes the entire nature of the argument:
Since the realization of surplus value IS the decline in the rate of profit, the poor capitalist MUST search for profits.
Let me perform an intellectual shortcut here: Although it may not be obvious what she has just done, Raya has just stated that Marx is setting the reader up, not for an explanation why prices of goods reflect the values of those goods, but why they can never reflect the values of those goods. On a micro-level, Marx is explaining why that $600 iPad you got for Christmas probably cost no more than $3 to manufacture in China.
To put this another way: Marx was describing why the actual labor time expended in a capitalist economy must always and increasingly be greater than what is socially necessary. The tendency built into a capitalist economy toward a secular decline in the rate of profit produces its opposite: a mad scramble on the part of each capital, and all of them together, to find every avenue to maintain profitability in the face of this tendency; and this tendency can only be countered by effort to extend the social work day beyond what is actually required by society. As we have argued elsewhere, if Marx is correct in his analysis, there is a vast pool of superfluous labor within existing society that can be abolished without touching on the material living standard of society.
To put it bluntly, Marx’s law of the tendency toward a fall in the rate of profit predicts that if total debt, total consumption and total hours of labor don’t constantly increase capitalism will collapse. The social relation is not only incapable of achieving equilibrium, but it becomes increasingly self-disequilibrating as the productivity of labor increases. Assuming Raya was saying what I understand her to be saying, I think this self-induced, self-reinforcing, disequilibrium results in, at least, the following 5 symptoms:
- The Market for output must constantly expand.
- Total employment must always rise more quickly than productive employment. And, total hours of labor must always increase more quickly than productive hours of labor.
- Because of the above, total consumption must always increase more rapidly than necessary consumption (i.e., production). Which is to say, waste and unnecessary consumption becomes a matter of life or death for the economy.
- Since waste becomes a permanent feature of the economy and the rising cost of wasted effort must be borne by society, total prices must always increase more rapidly than total value.
- Since, wasted effort itself produces no new value, exchange itself is increasingly founded on debt; hence, the financial sector must always increase more rapidly than the industrial sector, and debt more rapidly than equity — leverage, which is, at root, only the relation between the sum total of social labor to the sum total of productively employed labor, must always increase.
Assuming I am correct about Raya’s comments about Marx’s third volume of Capital, and, that she is correct in her reading of the volume — two very big ifs, I admit — in his third volume of Capital, Marx is setting us up to understand how the State becomes an absolutely critical and absolutely necessary feature of capitalist society — a matter of life and death for capital. Each of the five symptoms of modern society I cited above are no more than functions taken on by the State to manage capitalist society through its increasingly devastating cycles of booms and busts.
Marx’s law of the tendency toward a decline in the rate of profit is, in reality, a theory of the State. To extend Raya’s statement: Marx’s theory of value is the foundation for his theory of surplus value; his theory of surplus value is the foundation for his theory of the decline in the rate of profit; and, finally, his theory of a decline in the rate of profit is the foundation for his theory of the modern State.
Powerful support for my interpretation of Raya’s argument can be found simply by looking at the title of the paper from which the above quote was drawn: “The despotic plan of capital vs. freely associated labor”. In this paper, Raya counterposes the modern State to the free association of individuals, explicitly arguing that planning arrived at by free association is completely incompatible with the various forms of State management of the economy with which we are familiar: everything from the centralized planning of the Soviet type to the fiscal and monetary levers of neoliberal political-economy. In 1950, with the ink still drying on National Security Council Report 68, Raya was making the argument that, in her words, “If the order of the factory were also in the market, you’d have complete totalitarianism.”
Effort by the State to manage the economy, as envisioned by the Truman administration, had to lead to an increasingly totalitarian reorganization of society. This, apart even from consideration of the aim of that management — which, for Truman, was a means of accruing the resources for a long-term conflict with the Soviet Union — implies the subjugation of the whole of social relationships to the despotism of capital.
Marxists and progressives who see in the increasing entanglement of the State in the economy — as borrower, lender, consumer and employer of last resort — some realization of the possibility for a humane society are not only wrong, but dangerously misguided in their approach to every social issue from the present intractable unemployment, to poverty, to every form of inequality, the environment and global relations. They are trying to use as a solution the very instrument of society which maintains those evils and makes their continuation possible.
Is this a US shopping list for other nations’ resources?
An interesting post on Operation Leakspin of a series of cables in the latest Wikileaks dump:
“Wish List for Terrorists” or “Covet thy Neighbor” · 10 December 2010
US State Department cables release by Wikileaks contained information being described as a “Wish List” for terrorist targets.
The cable subject is “REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: CRITICAL FOREIGN DEPENDENCIES (CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND KEY RESOURCES LOCATED ABROAD)” contained in the original cable.
The cable is based on Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD 7), which uses the statues of the USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195(e)), and Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(9)) to define both “Critical Infrastructure” and “Key Resources”.
Many media outlets and blogs had report this cable release as providing a “wish list” for terrorists.
On close examination of the actual cable, referenced above, the US State Department provided a list of critical infrastructure and key resources to US diplomats assigned overseas, under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP) for annual review and reporting of “inventory”.
An excerpt from the cable:
The overarching goal of the NIPP is to build a safer, more secure, and more resilient America by enhancing protection of the nation’s CI/KR to prevent, deter, neutralize or mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them; and to strengthen national preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency.
3. (U//FOUO) In addition to a list of critical domestic CI/KR, the NIPP requires compilation and annual update of a comprehensive inventory of CI/KR that are located outside U.S. borders and whose loss could critically impact the public health, economic security, and/or national and homeland security of the United States.
See full text of the NIPP.
Although both the USA Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act appear to apply only to the USA. However, this cable references CI/KR outside the US borders. This makes strategic sense when considering the nature of global infrastructure including many critical underwater telecommunication cable landings.
From the standpoint of protecting global communications the State Department directive includes names and location of the landing points of these telecommunication cables including Southern Cross undersea cable landing, Brookvale, Australia.
The name of the source is shown and was revealed in the Wikileaks cable release which was created at the State Department on 2 February 2009 and released by Wikileaks on 5 December 2010. A quick search of Wikipedia, the on-line Encyclopedia, shows the Southern Cross undersea cable landing;
The article by Wikipedia shows that the page was last edited on 15 November 2010, prior to the Wikileaks release.
Other “key resources” detailed in the cables includes minerals, oil/natural gas, private and publicly held corporations, including Pharmaceutical manufacturing. Again upon examination and in reference to statues used to form this directive the purpose was to;
“mitigate the effects of deliberate efforts by terrorists to destroy, incapacitate or exploit them; and to strengthen national preparedness, timely response, and rapid recovery in the event of an attack, natural disaster or other emergency.”
A random search on Google for Niobium (Nb), one of the “key resources” reveals that 90% of the production is in Brazil. The cables mention the State of Goias, Brazil.
In light of the facts the cables reveal the US Government is interested in the resources of other Nations to protect the United States.
In researching this cable release, the pictures changes from a “Wish List” for terrorist targets and looks more like a “shopping list” for key resources in other countries by the US Government.
So ask yourselves, were contents of the cables a “Wish List” for terrorists or for the United States.
The scope of the Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD 7), USA Patriot Act of 2001 (42 U.S.C. 5195(e)), and Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 101(9)) should be examined by the US Congress and the People of the United States of America.
IAC: Petition drive against US and South Korean military provocations against North Korea
STOP THE WAR PROVOCATIONS AND ATTACKS ON THE DEMOCRATIC PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF KOREA NOW!
KNOW THE UNDISPUTED FACTS!
SIGN THE ONLINE PETITION to the Obama Administration and s. Korean Govt.
at http://www.iacenter.org/korea/stopattackondprk NOW!
PLAN PROTESTS IN THE DAYS AHEAD TO COUNTER THE GROWING WAR THREAT
THESE ARE THE UNDISPUTED FACTS: On Nov. 23, the government of South Korea mobilized 70,000 troops for a week of military maneuvers just off the border of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The DPRK said that these military maneuvers simulated an invasion of the north.
The military deployment was provocatively held right off the sea borderline between the north and the south. This is an area considered to be disputed territory.
On Nov 23, at 1:00 p.m., South Korean forces fired many shells into waters right off the DPRK. This is an area that the north has a longstanding claim to be within its territory. This claim had been accepted by prior south Korean governments.
An hour and a half later, the DPRK retaliated to what it saw as an attack on its territory by firing shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong.
And now the U.S. has announced plans to send the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its battle group including war ships, destroyers and hundreds of fighter jets back into the area to participate in new war maneuver provocations.
It is urgent that all who stand for peace and justice make plans now for immediate protest actions in the days ahead.
The U.S. military has been involved in all the war maneuvers by South Korea, going back to the 1950-53 war, and has occupied South Korea since the end of World War II.
Why doesn’t the media ask why the U.S. was orchestrating a massive military deployment of troops, ships and aircraft right on the border of the DPRK?
The provocation here clearly comes from the U.S. government and the right-wing south Korean regime, not the DPRK. The regime of Lee Myung-bak has undone earlier moves that improved relations between the two halves of the Korean nation and has brought increased confrontation.
It can never be forgotten that U.S. imperialism waged a horrendous war against the Korean Revolution from 1950 to 1953, one that resulted in millions of deaths and total devastation of the Korean Peninsula.
For there to be peace on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. should end its support of expansionist, right-wing forces in the south, sign a peace treaty with the north (a state of war still exists after 57 years!) and withdraw its troops so the Korean people can decide their own destiny.
Join us in the days ahead in taking to the streets to protest these U.S. war threats and sanctions that have created a powder keg in Asia. End the military occupation of South Korea! Sign a peace treaty and bring the troops home!
SAMPLE PETITION TEXT:
To: President Barack Obama, President Lee Myung-bak, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
CC: U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, U.N. member delegations, U.S. Congressional leaders, members of the media.
- Stop the U.S./South Korean War maneuvers and provocations against the DPRK (north Korea) immediately!
- Remove the south Korean and U.S. war ships! DO NOT SEND ADDITIONAL U.S WARSHIPS AND PLANES INCLUDING THE U.S. AIRCRAFT CARRIER GEORGE WASHINGTON!
- End the U.S. sponsored sanctions against the DPRK!
- Sign a peace treaty NOW to end the state of war that has existed for 57 years since the Korean war!
- Withdraw all of the 30,000 U.S. troops that still occupy south Korea, so that the Korean people can freely decide their own destiny.
It is an undisputed fact that on Nov. 23, the government of South Korea mobilized 70,000 troops for a week of military maneuvers just off the border of the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea. The DPRK said that these military maneuvers simulated an invasion of the north.
On Nov 23, at 1:00 p.m., South Korean forces fired many shells into waters right off the DPRK. This is an area that the north has a longstanding claim to be within its territory. This claim had been accepted by prior south Korean governments.
An hour and a half later, the DPRK retaliated to what it saw as an attack on its territory by firing shells at the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong.
And now the U.S. has announced plans to send the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington and its battle group including war ships, destroyers and hundreds of fighter jets back into the area to participate in new war maneuver provocations.
The U.S. military has been involved in all the war maneuvers by South Korea, going back to the 1950-53 war, and has occupied South Korea since the end of World War II. AND THE WAR DANGER IS GROWING!
Clearly the military provocation is from the U.S. government and the south Korean government of President Lee Myung-bak.
For there to be peace on the Korean Peninsula, the U.S. must withdraw its troops so the Korean people can decide their own destiny.
Sincerely,
(Your signature appended here)
Rand Paul causing waves among the GOP
Rand Paul has the ability to force the Senate to raise sixty votes for every bill introduced that increases Washington’s spending for the next six years. He has, in other words, the power to create a massive ongoing political crisis for the bloated, wasteful perversity that passes for government in Washington D.C.
We think he will fold — we think he will pull an Obama and sell out the Tea Partiers who brought him to this quite spectacular position.
We would love it if he proved us wrong.
He has already signaled his willingness to cripple the earmark process in the Senate. And, now John “Maverick in Name Only” McCain is drawing a bead on Paul’s stated willingness to force massive cuts in the defense budget.
From the Huffington Post:
John McCain Attacks Rand Paul’s ‘Isolationism’ In Willingness To Cut Defense Spending
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, expressed concern Monday that some new Republican legislators would be defined by their “protectionism and isolationism,” two views that the Vietnam War veteran feared would result in a butting of heads within the party on Afghanistan and defense spending.
“I think there are going to be some tensions within our party,” McCain said during a conference put on by Foreign Policy Initiative, a DC-based think tank. “I worry a lot about the rise of protectionism and isolationism in the Republican Party.”
A prime example, McCain continued, was Rand Paul, Kentucky’s next U.S. Senator.
“I admire his victory, but … already he has talked about withdrawals [and] cuts in defense,” McCain said.
Indeed, Paul appears to have taken after the more libertarian side of foreign policy issues, much like his father, Texas Rep. Ron Paul (R).
Never, in our memory, has someone so apparently clueless, seemed so likely to deliver on the precisely those things that have to be done to kill this economy for good, and bring the empire to its knees.
If he is even vaguely successful in challenging the status quo, we expect McCain will take the entire millionaires’ club hostage, automatic rifle in hand, in a frightening outburst of PTSD-driven, alcohol-charged, delusional rage.
We wish Rand Paul all the luck (and backbone) in the world.