Lyev
29th June 2010, 17:26
I have trouble doing so. One specific example is explaining the current economic crisis. A particularly prevalent view is that it's totally due to "those greedy bankers", and whilst bankers are, for the most part, soulless bastards with stone-hearts, they clearly didn't cause the crisis. The embers of the current crisis have steadily been getting hotter since the 70s, with outsourcing of labour, and since this, wages (globally*) have stayed the same or decreased.
Labour was outsourced from the UK, USA, France, Germany, Canada etc. because capitalists felt as though they weren't making enough profit, and unionization, workers' struggle etc., got in the way of capital accumulation. We can see in the 80s with Thatcher in the UK (and I think Reagan in the USA at the same time, although someone might need to clarify this) the near-destruction of the labour movement; trade-unionists, leftists, Marxists all get in the way of the bourgeoisie's thirst for profit, who work hand in hand with the state.
At the same time as this outsourcing of labour, an unprecedented amount of immigrants (from much poorer countries) were actively encouraged to come to much of the west, as they generally have little rights and will work for much lower wages. I think this can partly account for some nationalist, xenophobic etc. sentiment of the past 40-odd years, because as conditions for many working people in the west have gotten worse, as people have generally worked the hardest they ever have, immigration is an easy scapegoat. This is the basic immigrants-stealing-our-jobs rationale, which is all too common.
So anyway, in order to postpone a worldwide crisis, banks began giving out loans and extending credit like they never had before, so that, in turn, people could carry on buying loads of crap. And this was whilst wages were decreasing or stagnating. As far as I know, this is what we would call the beginnings of a "bubble", as lending increased and carried on throughout the next 30 years till the 2000s. This is what we call "fake money", or something like that I think. It gives people illusions of wealth, when in fact their 34" TV and plush leather sofa has in fact been bought on credit - i.e., not with actual money.
At this point, a lot of folks are in considerable amounts of debt. In my opinion, these illusions of wealth that I talk about can explain why people (would like to) consider themselves middle class. With the crushing of the labour movement in the UK, it has gradually become a very bad thing, for many folks, to be considered "working class". This is reiterated by the media and politicians. And, with all this credit being lent out, and the cool shit that people buy with it, they consider themselves middle class.
So, now we're relatively up-to-date for the past 40 years of capitalism, I can't really "patiently explain" the sub-prime mortgage thing, and nor can I "patiently explain"** what I have just written, because on the off-chance that a discussion or conversation veers towards the topic of the economic crisis, people are bored of an explanation, or I find it hard to articulate myself, and it's much easier and reassuring, in a way, to simply (and lazily) say: "it was the fat-cat bankers". Even though it wasn't - this is a crisis that has been getting bigger and bigger and bigger throughout the past 40-odd years. And I think blaming the bankers fits in with what Lenin (I think it was Lenin) said about workers naturally, per se, being reformist social-democrats, because blaming the bankers implies a reformist approach the dealing with the crisis: i.e., just a few diseased branches of the tree needed to snipped off, it doesn't need ripping out from the root.
So a few things then: how do comrades explain this kind of to those without even a rudimentary understanding of a Marxist critique of capitalism, or those who haven't even heard of Marx? Have I got my main explanation of the crisis right? Can anyone tell me how they would explain it differently, if at all? Can someone perhaps try and "patiently explain" the last bit of the sum-prime mortgages and hedge funds to me? I think it's basically, that banks starting to hand out "toxic loans", but I don't know it in-depth, and nor can I coherently link this into a Marxist analysis. Also, when comrades explain things to normal people do they even bother mentioning Marx, Engels or Lenin straight away? Personally, I think it would scare folks off, but it's something we can discuss.
Finally, can anyone explain the following the Marx quotes on crisis?
"Contradiction in the capitalist mode of production: the laborers as buyers of commodities are important for the market. But as sellers of their own commodity — labor-power — capitalist society tends to keep them down to the minimum price."
and:
"The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit."
*is this right? Some areas might not have been effected a badly. As I say, I'm not sure badly, if at all, Reagan attacked the labour movement in the USA, at the same time as Thatcher.
**I say use the phrase "patiently explain" because it was the phrase Lenin used in his April Thesis, giving his ideas about how the Bolsheviks could progress.
Thanks very much comrades. By the way, if this is better suited for economics forum or learning or whatever, then feel to move it mods.
Labour was outsourced from the UK, USA, France, Germany, Canada etc. because capitalists felt as though they weren't making enough profit, and unionization, workers' struggle etc., got in the way of capital accumulation. We can see in the 80s with Thatcher in the UK (and I think Reagan in the USA at the same time, although someone might need to clarify this) the near-destruction of the labour movement; trade-unionists, leftists, Marxists all get in the way of the bourgeoisie's thirst for profit, who work hand in hand with the state.
At the same time as this outsourcing of labour, an unprecedented amount of immigrants (from much poorer countries) were actively encouraged to come to much of the west, as they generally have little rights and will work for much lower wages. I think this can partly account for some nationalist, xenophobic etc. sentiment of the past 40-odd years, because as conditions for many working people in the west have gotten worse, as people have generally worked the hardest they ever have, immigration is an easy scapegoat. This is the basic immigrants-stealing-our-jobs rationale, which is all too common.
So anyway, in order to postpone a worldwide crisis, banks began giving out loans and extending credit like they never had before, so that, in turn, people could carry on buying loads of crap. And this was whilst wages were decreasing or stagnating. As far as I know, this is what we would call the beginnings of a "bubble", as lending increased and carried on throughout the next 30 years till the 2000s. This is what we call "fake money", or something like that I think. It gives people illusions of wealth, when in fact their 34" TV and plush leather sofa has in fact been bought on credit - i.e., not with actual money.
At this point, a lot of folks are in considerable amounts of debt. In my opinion, these illusions of wealth that I talk about can explain why people (would like to) consider themselves middle class. With the crushing of the labour movement in the UK, it has gradually become a very bad thing, for many folks, to be considered "working class". This is reiterated by the media and politicians. And, with all this credit being lent out, and the cool shit that people buy with it, they consider themselves middle class.
So, now we're relatively up-to-date for the past 40 years of capitalism, I can't really "patiently explain" the sub-prime mortgage thing, and nor can I "patiently explain"** what I have just written, because on the off-chance that a discussion or conversation veers towards the topic of the economic crisis, people are bored of an explanation, or I find it hard to articulate myself, and it's much easier and reassuring, in a way, to simply (and lazily) say: "it was the fat-cat bankers". Even though it wasn't - this is a crisis that has been getting bigger and bigger and bigger throughout the past 40-odd years. And I think blaming the bankers fits in with what Lenin (I think it was Lenin) said about workers naturally, per se, being reformist social-democrats, because blaming the bankers implies a reformist approach the dealing with the crisis: i.e., just a few diseased branches of the tree needed to snipped off, it doesn't need ripping out from the root.
So a few things then: how do comrades explain this kind of to those without even a rudimentary understanding of a Marxist critique of capitalism, or those who haven't even heard of Marx? Have I got my main explanation of the crisis right? Can anyone tell me how they would explain it differently, if at all? Can someone perhaps try and "patiently explain" the last bit of the sum-prime mortgages and hedge funds to me? I think it's basically, that banks starting to hand out "toxic loans", but I don't know it in-depth, and nor can I coherently link this into a Marxist analysis. Also, when comrades explain things to normal people do they even bother mentioning Marx, Engels or Lenin straight away? Personally, I think it would scare folks off, but it's something we can discuss.
Finally, can anyone explain the following the Marx quotes on crisis?
"Contradiction in the capitalist mode of production: the laborers as buyers of commodities are important for the market. But as sellers of their own commodity — labor-power — capitalist society tends to keep them down to the minimum price."
and:
"The ultimate reason for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces as though only the absolute consuming power of society constituted their limit."
*is this right? Some areas might not have been effected a badly. As I say, I'm not sure badly, if at all, Reagan attacked the labour movement in the USA, at the same time as Thatcher.
**I say use the phrase "patiently explain" because it was the phrase Lenin used in his April Thesis, giving his ideas about how the Bolsheviks could progress.
Thanks very much comrades. By the way, if this is better suited for economics forum or learning or whatever, then feel to move it mods.