Log in

View Full Version : The Commies Had It Right



The Vegan Marxist
19th September 2010, 07:21
The Commies Had It Right
by Dennis Rahkonen / September 17th, 2010

Anybody who even cursorily became familiar with Marxist literature (as many of us did during our radical days in the turbulent 60s) knows that the true, socialist Left predicted our current economic chaos with a sure clarity that no purported psychic could begin to match.

Reds of assorted affiliations were incessantly telling us how capitalism in its imperialist stage was fatally compromised and doomed, intricately detailing the reasons why, and heavily underscoring the inevitability of the coming collapse.

But we were impatient and accustomed to instant results. We consequently dismissed those claims because they didnt materialize at once, or even relatively soon.

Who could anticipate that many decades would pass before the stuff fully hit the proverbial fan?

Defenders of the bourgeois status quo, on the other hand, were so hostilely contemptuous of anything smacking of socialism that they wouldnt deign to study, or take seriously, Marxist analysis, regardless of how cogent its penetrating view.

Commies could have tipped them off to their economic folly, but hubris and supremacism prevented it.

I recall reading, for instance, a paperback critique by Gus Hall, General Secretary of the Communist Party, USA. It was entitled Capitalism on the Skids to Oblivion.

Through very deductive and quite persuasive reasoning, he pointed out that the capitalist owning classs constant campaign to reduce labor costs was unwitting suicide for the Wall Street set.

If bosses hold back workers wages, eliminate benefits, bust labor unions, saddle toilers with that portion of taxes the rich avoid through cavernous loopholes, etc., they may profit obscenely in the short run.

But ultimately a point is reached very much like the situation were faced with today where the societal majority gets sufficiently impoverished by relentless exploitation that people, by the many millions, become unable to buy back what a country produces.

The ensuing overproduction crisis triggers recession, and depression, and finally a broad, revolutionary awareness that capitalism is incapable of serving public welfare and the common good.

Reds also revealed how the depraved capitalist impulse of ripping off others for profit thoroughly corrupts a society on all levels, engendering festering decadence that rots culture to its core.

One need only surf Americas cable television channels to see the offensively tawdry entertainment, vile scandals, blatant hucksterism, and other pervasive negatives that have come to constitute our sick values.

Capitalism has plainly reached the end of its rope. It can sustain increasing levels of profitability upon which its very survival depends only by imposing harsh austerity on the worlds laboring multitudes, as the International Monetary Fund and similar institutions are currently, cruelly doing, with devastating impact.

That forced, collective sacrifice to save a relatively few oligarchic skins is infuriating workers everywhere, most dramatically in rebellious Greece, and its just a matter of time before the entire global proletariat rises in fury, understandably unwilling to have its living standards decimated simply because Fat Cats want to continue laughing all the way to the bank.

Whether the Marxists communist ideal can ever be gotten right and made to successfully function is definitely open to vigorous debate.

But their dissection of monopoly capitalism was so precise that youd think theyd been reading our mail.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/09/the-commies-had-it-right/

ZeroNowhere
19th September 2010, 09:10
Ehm (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/lies-damned-lies-and-underconsumptionist-statistics.html).

RadioRaheem84
19th September 2010, 10:29
Ehm (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/economic-crisis/lies-damned-lies-and-underconsumptionist-statistics.html).

MR are not left keynesians.

RadioRaheem84
19th September 2010, 10:41
The political implications of this controversy are profound. If the causes of the crisis are purely financial, we can prevent such crises from recurring by doing away with “neoliberalism” and “financialized capitalism.” We need financial regulation, Keynesian policies, and perhaps financial-sector nationalization. Yet if the crisis is a systemic one resulting from the underlying tendency for the rate of profit to fall, as this study argues, these reforms will at best only delay the next crisis. And while the immense buildup of government debt may also delay the day of reckoning, it promises to make the next crisis worse when it comes.

Kliman's critiques against the MR school make no sense. The MR school is not Keynesian and does not think that tweek and reform can save the system. They've always argued that due to the financialization of the economy, the system is on it's last puff and reform will only delay the next crisis. Robert McChesney and John Bellamy Foster already dispelled this notion by attacking Keynesians and letting them know that the problem is still systemic and thus no reform can save it. It was in the article titled Hey Keynesians, It's Still the System. The MR argument is that the social welfare period of the Keynesian era was a one time thing that cannot be repeated. There is nothing left but decay for the system.

ZeroNowhere
19th September 2010, 11:59
He was dealing with their economic analysis, not what they personally advocate.

RadioRaheem84
19th September 2010, 23:01
He was dealing with their economic analysis, not what they personally advocate.

But their economic analysis defines what they're personally advocating; that there is no more reform needed, but total social transformation.

How could they personally advocate this when their economic analysis says that simple reform away from neo-liberalism will help?

Kliman is wrong in insisting that the MR school is left-Keynesian. They allow for a lot of room for left Keynesians but ultimately reject their notion that the system can be fixed.

Although I do agree with Kliman that MR gives too much clout to bourgeoisie economists and try to act too relevant sometimes in order to appeal to the mainstream.

bailey_187
21st September 2010, 13:22
They are Keynesian is their economic analysis to some extent but not in their politics

KurtFF8
21st September 2010, 15:40
They are Keynesian is their economic analysis to some extent but not in their politics

How so?

ckaihatsu
21st September 2010, 15:51
Just as the present crisis has been a devastating refutation of the doctrines of the “free market” that have prevailed in the last three decades, so the collapse of the post-war boom was an equally devastating refutation of the doctrines of Keynesianism that predominated in the 25 years following World War II.

According to these doctrines, government intervention in the economy could prevent the emergence of the conditions that had developed in the 1930s. We are all Keynesians now, US president Nixon had declared in 1969. But when confronted with the crisis of the mid-1970s, the application of Keynesian measures only made the crisis worse. The doctrine that somehow timely government intervention could manage the capitalist system lay in tatters. For the past thirty years, the Keynesians have denounced the proponents of the “free market”, insisting that if only there were a return to their policies at least the excesses of the capitalist system could be curbed. But they have never been able to answer the simple question: if Keynesian measures were responsible for the greatest expansion of capitalism in history—a period of benefits for all when a rising tide did lift all boats—why were they unable to prevent its collapse?


The global economic breakdown—a Marxist analysis

By Nick Beams
17 September 2010

http://wsws.org/articles/2010/sep2010/lect-s17.shtml

mikelepore
21st September 2010, 16:04
The Commies Had It Right
by Dennis Rahkonen / September 17th, 2010 ..........

To report accurately what we have observed so far, we can clearly see this:


people, by the many millions, become unable to buy back what a country produces. The ensuing overproduction crisis triggers recession, and depression,

However, we have not yet seen any sign of this, although followers of our theory continue to predict it:


and finally a broad, revolutionary awareness that capitalism is incapable of serving public welfare and the common good.

bailey_187
21st September 2010, 16:09
How so?

I guess with their underconsumptionist theories, but, unlike a Keynsian politician, they dont advocate government spending to increase agregate demand.

Also, IIRC, Sweezy's view of finance is similar to Minsky's, however Sweezy's solution is socialist revolution, Minsky's is not.

KurtFF8
22nd September 2010, 06:02
I guess with their underconsumptionist theories, but, unlike a Keynsian politician, they dont advocate government spending to increase agregate demand.

Also, IIRC, Sweezy's view of finance is similar to Minsky's, however Sweezy's solution is socialist revolution, Minsky's is not.

Just that they share certain aspects of non-Marxist critiques like Keynesian ones doesn't, to me, demonstrate what you're claiming here.

Althusser used a lot of non-Marxist theory in trying to build a more full Marxist philosophy and contributed more to the overall Marxist project as a result in my opinion.

It seems that the MR has a legitimately Marxist analysis of crisis and economics.

The Vegan Marxist
22nd September 2010, 06:20
Just that they share certain aspects of non-Marxist critiques like Keynesian ones doesn't, to me, demonstrate what you're claiming here.

Althusser used a lot of non-Marxist theory in trying to build a more full Marxist philosophy and contributed more to the overall Marxist project as a result in my opinion.

It seems that the MR has a legitimately Marxist analysis of crisis and economics.

Althusser was definitely one of my favorite Marxist-intellectual. Even if the guy was a little crazy at times (personal life, nothing to do with his stance on Marxism).

bailey_187
23rd September 2010, 20:20
Just that they share certain aspects of non-Marxist critiques like Keynesian ones doesn't, to me, demonstrate what you're claiming here.

Althusser used a lot of non-Marxist theory in trying to build a more full Marxist philosophy and contributed more to the overall Marxist project as a result in my opinion.

It seems that the MR has a legitimately Marxist analysis of crisis and economics.

Well yeah, thats why i said they are Keynsian in their analysis to some extent. You could also call Sweezy "Schumpetarian" or "Veblenian" too some extent, but no one says "Schumpeterian" or "Veblenian".

They admit this in the article "Listen Keynsians!" and at the start of The Great Financial Crisis among other places.

None of this means they are not Marxists. Zizek is influenced by Lacan, but is still a Marxist.