Log in

View Full Version : Shock and Au-sterity



S.Artesian
1st December 2010, 18:10
Modest bastard that I am, with a sense of modesty that makes Bono look like a wallflower, I thought I'd post the editorial to Insurgent Notes (http://insurgentnotes.com): written last July, and appearing in October, just show how prescient the IN group can be:




Shock and Au-sterity



1. Scared to death that all the lights were about to go out after pulling the plug on Lehman Brothers, the bourgeoisie rolled up its sleeves, girded its loins, crossed its fingers, and reached deeper than deep for that thing of all things, that relation of all relations that is the life of all lives for the bourgeoisie—OPM, other people’s money.

Tapping the unrestricted credit lines offered by the banker’s banker—the government—the bourgeoisie helped themselves to what they knew they were entitled to, the public purse.


For the bourgeoisie, it’s always other people’s something or other. For capital to be capital, it must command other people’s labor. For finance to be finance it must command other people’s money. So when the bourgeoisie through those great organizations of inter-governmental cooperation, regulation, and exchange call for austerity, it’s always somebody else’s austerity.


After the billions in direct transfers from public treasuries to private accounts, after further billions in government guaranteed debts, after more billions in government sponsored special investment vehicles, after more than more billions in toxic assets, non-performing loans, bad debts bought and overpaid for—after all that expenditure of other people’s money, the bourgeoisie had come to the shocking conclusion that: 1) money changes everything; 2) whatever changed, it wasn’t enough; 3) a hundred billion dollars here and a hundred billion Euros there and pretty soon you’re talking about serious money; 4)somebody has to pay; 5)somebody else has to pay; 6)there is no such thing as being too rich or too thin. “We,” say the bourgeoisie “can never be too rich. You [meaning all of us] can never be too thin.”


So first from the hack economists, journalists, commentators, representatives, ministers, senators—those agents and bagmen employed by the bourgeoisie—come the expressions of shock that other hack economists, journalists, commentators, representatives, ministers, senators—other agents and bagmen of the same bourgeoisie—could have acted so irresponsibly, could have acted with such profligacy. This only means that the bourgeoisie needs this other section of hacks to act even more irresponsibly, with even more profligacy. This time, however, the wastefulness requires a specific universality—a wastefulness in the very basis for human existence; a wastefulness determined to deprive human lives of the bare necessities for living a human life. Then even and ever greater misery and povertymust be piled atop that mountain of misery and poverty already piled up as the more than equal but opposite symbols of capitalist wealth.


First comes the shock then comes the austerity.


2. When in April and May of this year the government of Greece stood just a stone’s throw from collapse, suspended between pit of bankruptcy and the pendulum of mass demonstrations and strikes, the European Union hesitated to provide a “rescue” package, transfixed so it seemed, not by the spectacle of the conflict, but by the image of itself it saw in Greece. It wasn’t the cost that paralyzed the governments of the European Union, it was the mirror.


Merkel was reluctant to approve the “rescue” of the government of Greece without assurance that Germany’s interests would be protected, which meant that Germany’s contributions would be considered as senior to, and secured prior to, any other obligations. Merkel, of course, was only reprising the role she thought her mentor and role model would have played in the discussions. Her role model is Margaret Thatcher, but not the Thatcher of 1981, of Attila the Hen fame, but the Thatcher of today whose addled brain and lack of recognition of her current environment make her the once and future champion of everything bourgeois.


After the hemming and hawing, the toing and froing, the after you Alphonse-ing, after you Johann-ing, the half-hearted and half-assessed agreement on a “rescue,” the high command of the European Union received a phone call from US Treasury Secretary Geithner.



Geithner’s elevated stature among the titans of finance is due as much to the fact that he sits on a telephone book at his desk and in restaurants as to his previous and ongoing service in Maiden Lane I, Maiden Lane II, Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers TALF, TARP, PPIP, ABCPFF campaigns.
“You guys and dolls need to do something big,” said secretary Geithner to his counterparts, counterparties, across the Atlantic. “You need to do something dramatic. You need to impress the markets,” he said getting to the real issue, the only issue.


“Yeah,” he said, gaining confidence if not height with each pregnant pause. “You’ve got to do something completely different. Like create an off-balance sheet funding facility with a really big number and guarantee its initial capital with the revenue of the EU itself, and then you get the IMF to supplement, to partner, in this vehicle, with the IMF vetting the economic program of any government stupid enough—check that—finding it advantageous to request funding by this off-balance sheet special funding facility guaranteed by your own revenues. How does that sound?”
They looked at each other, these ministers, presidents, financiers. “It sounds just like Greece to us,” they said.


“Exactly,” said Tim, sounding less like a munchkin and more like a wizard in Oz. “That’s the point. You’re all Greek to me.”


Word.


3. Greece revealed that Europe was the sick man of Europe. The markets translated that as “you’re all Greek to us.” Banks in the sixteen euro zone countries had amassed a euro 1.25 trillion exposure to sovereign and private debt instruments of Greece, Portugal, Ireland and Spain. UK banks had amassed euro 270 billion in exposure. French banks accounted for euro 370 billion, and German banks for euro 394 billion, with approximately euro 624 billion of the total in private debt instruments and euro 140 billion in government debt issues . The total amount of debt outstanding from these four countries exceeds euro 2 trillion. Outside this group of four, Italy alone has outstanding debt of approximately euro 1.7 trillion.


With so much debt concentrated in such poorly performing economies, the European Union commercial banks and other financial institutions found themselves virtually unable to refinance their own operating requirements in the commercial paper money markets. Banks that did attempt to circulate their short-term instruments in these markets were forced to pay three or four times their previous average interest rates.


The European Central Bank, by the end of 2009 having guaranteed bank debts in the amount of euro 433 billion, increased its direct loans to euro zone commercial banks. At the end of June 2010 the volume of these loans measured euro 879 billion. In addition to finance the operating needs of its member countries, the ECB took to directly purchasing government debt issues.


With the commercial paper markets inaccessible, with cross border lending essentially frozen, the banks themselves decided that the best, if not the only place, to risk their cash was no place at all, depositing over euro 300 billion with the ECB itself.



Meanwhile, the costs of credit default protection on the sovereign debt of Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland [I]and the UK soared. The credit default swap costs on the debt of EU private financial institutions reached the levels of costs after the collapse of Lehman Brothers in 2008. Debt auctions failed in Hungary, and in Germany, with issues not being fully subscribed and discounts from face value exceeding discounts planned by the issuers.



The joker in this house of cards is, of course, fiscally righteous, monetarily strict, and financially responsible Germany. Germany’s very own bankers from their lofty position in the EU food chain can turn to the west and survey their mountains of non-performing collateralized, asset backed, structured, real estate debt in the United States.



The bankers can turn to the east and survey more mountains of under-performing sovereign debt, the debt they sought to isolate and conceal from the “stress tests” performed by the European Union.
They can look straight ahead and survey yet more mountains of non-performing commercial real estate debt ranging across Europe.
The one place the German bankers did not want to look was Basel III, where the “improved” requirements for “key capital ratios,” diluted and phased in over nine years, were still too much too soon.


But it wasn’t the height of the mountains of debt that bothered the bankers; it was the fact that as high as those mountains are, they are all underwater.

Surely it’s the mountains of non-performing debt, which makes Germany’s banks technically insolvent, that weighs like an Alp on the brains and pocketbooks of the living.


“Do as I say,” implores Merkel, “Not as my bankers do.” What else could she say?


It was all Greek to the markets, with Greece itself emerging as the leader of a new world economy—a Dubai World economy with the world itself running out of Abu Dhabis.


4. So, enter austerity. Austerity appears to aim at ensuring the repayment of debt, the bourgeoisie’s first and last words being, “pay me.” In essence, in its social reproduction, austerity serves a different purpose.
If debt originates in the lags, delays, the a-synchronicity of capitals’ metamorphoses from money through commodity production and back to even more money as a claim on that expansion of value, debt concludes, realizes, itself on the extinguishing, the annihilation, the devaluation of the accumulated values of society necessary for the reproduction of value but which themselves, can no longer be sustained, be reabsorbed, recirculated, reproduced as value. Primary among that expanse of social accumulation that can no longer be sustained is the reproduction of labor power, and all that makes up labor power, itself.


So to that part of the population who are working, austerity means some will be working harder, longer, some will be working less, and shorter, but all will be reproducing a lesser social basis for reproduction. All that was substantial will become marginal, and the marginal will become substantially greater.


For that part of the population retired and receiving a pension, fewer will retire; fewer will receive pensions, those that do will receive less.
For that part of the population born into poverty, deprived of a basic, necessary education, of proper medical care, even more will be born into greater poverty. Even more will be cheated of and by an even poorer education. Even more will be excluded from already inadequate medical care.



All value must be devalued. “Everything must go!” is the slogan of this bourgeoisie’s staying in business forced liquidation sale.



The call for austerity, the programs of austerity are about destroying the overproduction of accumulated values, even and especially the miserably paltry assets of public health, transportation, education—those things that make up the social basis for expanded reproduction which is inverted into overproduction and becomes a burden to capital.


5. “Everything must go!” proclaim our salesmen of austerity. But not exactly everything will go. Military spending—that’s one thing that doesn’t really have to go, as Greece itself has shown.



Greece, the largest importer of conventional weaponry in Europe; Greece, with military spending as a percentage of its GDP twice that of the European Union; Greece whose deficit revision “scandal” has in fact been driven by military expenditures; Greece who year ago purchased two submarines from Germany neither of which has been delivered; Greece with plans to buy six frigates and 15 military helicopters from France; Greece having purchased 24 F-16 fighters from the US , has managed to exempt those expenditures from its austerity program.



Military spending is the near perfect vehicle for non-reproducible accumulation by the bourgeoisie. It is not-reproductive production, it is finance made real, its values only being realizable in not only their own destruction, but in the destruction of all other values. Military spending acts as a conduit of recuperation for the bourgeoisie, with taxes transferring and restoring a portion of the wage expenditure to capitalism and without any need for enhanced social reproduction to make use of the commodities.


If revolution is one way, the exploited’s way, of resolving the contradiction of use value and exchange value, military spending is the exploiter’s penultimate way of resolving the same contradiction. War, of course, is the bourgeoisie’s ultimate method of resolving that contradiction.
Greece shows the way to, for, and of the brave new Dubai World where submarines that list to one side, helicopters with nowhere to go, circulate among the artificial islands bursting with abandoned homes, vacant condominiums, and empty streets.


When Greece, upon agreeing to the EU rescue package, enacted the terms of its austerity program, a financial analyst remarked, “They were supposed to make these changes ten years ago.” Maybe “they” were, as part of the entry into the European Union, but guess what? Seven years ago, Portugal did make such reforms as part of its adherence to the European Union, and today it finds itself in the same predicament as Greece.


And something else not for the guessing: This is the economic contraction capitalism was supposed to have ten years ago, after the capital spending bubble of the 1994-2000 period.


6. Meanwhile, how much better off than their European cousins are the bourgeoisie in the United States where the market is the austerity program; where stimulus and contraction go hand in hand; where poverty is so established in the fabric of everyday life that increases in poverty, declines in household income, and declining numbers of insured are the recovery?


The US Census Bureau’s Income, Poverty and Health Insurance Coverage in the US: 2009, released in September 2010, verified the progress the bourgeoisie had made in reversing the little bit of progress made against poverty in the 1990s. After stagnating between 2000 and 2007, the inflation adjusted median income for families plummeted between 2007 and 2009. It took the bourgeoisie almost a decade, and two recessions, but at last poverty was back up where it belonged—embracing one in seven of the general population, but more importantly, almost one in four for those under the age of six. Nothing secures the future of capital like no future.
In 2009, per capita income declined 1.2 percent from 2008 levels. The growth in the overall poverty rate 2007-2009 exceeded the rate of increase in the 1973-1975 recession and the rate of increase measured in the combined double dip recessions of the 1980s.



In 2009, the family poverty rate increased from 2008’s 10.3 percent to 11.1 percent. The poverty rate for single-parent female head of household reached 29.9 percent.



Those without medical insurance increased to 16.7 percent of the population and the absolute numbers with coverage declined for the first decrease since 1987.



Among all workers over the age of 16, the poverty rate and absolute numbers increased in 2009, and the increase is solely the result of the decline in full-time employment. Of the general population between the ages of 25 and 34, 42.8 percent live below the poverty.



The legacy of Ronald Reagan, unlike Reagan himself, lives forever.
Besides collateralized debt obligations and synthetic asset backed securities, the legacy of that administration of Ronald Reagan, the US’s idiot version of the UK’s Thatcher, includes “new federalism.” “New federalism” was designed as the mechanism through which the national government dramatically reduced its participation in, and administration of, social welfare programs. Some forty three social welfare programs were returned to the administration of the individual states, with the national government awarding block grants which the states were to utilize toward defraying some of the costs of these programs.



The “reasoning” behind this policy was painfully clear to the most casual observer. The legislatures of many states were configured to dramatically reduce the political strength of the urban centers, and consequently, the urban poor. State governments were much more permeable to corporate influence, and much less vulnerable to that of organized labor.
Capital thought globally and acted locally well before any leftist made that a slogan.


Lobbying by corporate and large-scale agricultural interests, allied with the small town and rural distrust of big cities could, and did, effectively maintain the burden of regressive financing on the urban and poor populations. The fact that these same corporate interests proceeded to close industries, reduce employment, shatter the wage structure and generally devastate the small town and agricultural areas was the dirty, little not-so-secret tucked within the “revenue sharing” of the “new federalism.”


Sales tax and personal income taxes account for 80 percent of state government revenues in the United States. Since 2008, these flows have declined by 12 percent. So while US corporations have booked over $1 trillion in cash and liquid assets, over the next two years, state governments are facing budget shortfalls amounting to $127 billion. In some states, pension liabilities are underfunded by half.



After imposing furloughs, wage reductions, and cutting support to education and transit, states have responded, as states always respond, by attacking the weakest, the most vulnerable, those most in need of service and support. Home care services to the elderly and disabled have been reduced. Illinois has ended its support for Meals-on-Wheels programs. Alabama has reduced its provisions for housekeeping assistance to elderly people. California is proposing to eliminate adult day care centers and home support for 400,000 disabled or elderly people. Nearly every state has reduced eligibility in and payment for Medicaid services.
As reported in The New York Times of July 21, said the director of senior and disabled service for Rogue Valley, Oregon, “I’ve seen, in a matter of months, thirty years of work go down to drain.”


A decade, the 1990s reversed, a decade 2000 to 2010 lost, but most importantly, 30 years of work gone in 24 months.


“In a matter of months, thirty years of work down the drain.” There in a dozen words is the liquidation of pensions, 401Ks, the attacks on immigrant laborers, the destruction of wages, the rolling back of opportunity and equity for women in the workplace, in the doctor’s office, in the schools. There in a dozen words is the past, present, and future of capitalism, of human beings under capitalism. There in a dozen words is all you need to know about valorisation and devaluation.


7. It is not the task of the working class, or of Marxists, to reverse capitalism, to restore capitalist valorisation in the face of capital’s self-devaluation. It is the task of the working class, of Marxists; it is the task for revolution to oppose this devaluation that capital imposes upon all human relations, not things, notcommodities, but actual human relations.
It is the most essential, critical task of the working class to defend the need for better than adequate medical care, better than basic education, better than tolerable public transit; to meet the needs for home care assistance, day care centers; to defend immigrant labor, women’s access to safe healthcare; to defend the social basis for human beings actually reproducing themselves as social human beings.


That defense requires the disavowal, rejection, cancellation, shredding of the debts accumulated by capital in its own attacks on that social basis; of the debts accumulated by our asset-liquidationist bourgeoisie.
That disavowal of debt requires in turn the immediate end to all military spending.


And that’s just the beginning.

RedTrackWorker
4th December 2010, 10:33
That defense requires the disavowal, rejection, cancellation, shredding of the debts accumulated by capital in its own attacks on that social basis; of the debts accumulated by our asset-liquidationist bourgeoisie.
That disavowal of debt requires in turn the immediate end to all military spending.

I read the editorial a while ago and found much of it useful and interesting. The LRP has long called for campaigns rejecting the capitalists/imperialists debts.
The line that struck me was the last line, on the "immediate end to all military spending." It struck me in the sense of "WTF? What could that possibly mean?" I try to attribute the best possible meaning I can thing of to anyone I disagree with, but I can't figure out what that is in this case. It seems idealistic to speak of ending "military spending"--both in the sense of how, without overthrowing the state can one do that, and in the sense of, even after overthrowing the state, one will need a military.

redz
4th December 2010, 13:00
The line that struck me was the last line, on the "immediate end to all military spending." It struck me in the sense of "WTF? What could that possibly mean?" I try to attribute the best possible meaning I can thing of to anyone I disagree with, but I can't figure out what that is in this case. It seems idealistic to speak of ending "military spending"--both in the sense of how, without overthrowing the state can one do that, and in the sense of, even after overthrowing the state, one will need a military.

More effective transitional demands would be to demand an end to specific military occupations, adventures, etc. (starting with Iraq & Afghanistan) and calling on soldiers to "turn the guns the other way".

Redz

S.Artesian
4th December 2010, 14:55
I don't think "turn the guns around" is a transitional demand.

IMO, "end military spending" is similar to, and follows from "cancel the debts," particularly in Greece where military spending was/is the source of much of the debt.

RedTrackWorker
5th December 2010, 02:21
IMO, "end military spending" is similar to, and follows from "cancel the debts," particularly in Greece where military spending was/is the source of much of the debt.

I agree with Trotsky's critiques of pacifism and think that a demand to "end military spending" is a pacifist demand. Not just pacifist, but shows one is out of touch. It is in the interests of the workers to build a world without war, but that will not be achieved without military spending. Or take the police: we abolish police brutality and how the police are hired thugs to defend capitalist rule, but we do not raise an abstract call to "end police spending" because we recognize that it just doesn't make sense--it's not real. We aim to replace the police (and army) with a workers' militia or some similar formation, but we cannot just "abolish" the police or military.
The traditional Marxist position, which I support, is to vote against the military budget as a way of voting against confidence in the bourgeois government, but I would not support a workers' party rep in parliament presenting a bill to abolish the army or something like that. I am for splitting the army and reconstructing it as a workers' army/militia. A call to "end military spending" is, I think, utopian and out of touch with the working class.

S.Artesian
5th December 2010, 02:34
I agree with Trotsky's critiques of pacifism and think that a demand to "end military spending" is a pacifist demand. Not just pacifist, but shows one is out of touch. It is in the interests of the workers to build a world without war, but that will not be achieved without military spending. Or take the police: we abolish police brutality and how the police are hired thugs to defend capitalist rule, but we do not raise an abstract call to "end police spending" because we recognize that it just doesn't make sense--it's not real. We aim to replace the police (and army) with a workers' militia or some similar formation, but we cannot just "abolish" the police or military.
The traditional Marxist position, which I support, is to vote against the military budget as a way of voting against confidence in the bourgeois government, but I would not support a workers' party rep in parliament presenting a bill to abolish the army or something like that. I am for splitting the army and reconstructing it as a workers' army/militia. A call to "end military spending" is, I think, utopian and out of touch with the working class.


Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Do we need banks and credit after the revolution? And therefore should we not call for an end to the bailouts? Not demand canceling the debt-- and not just the sovereign debts, but the mortgage debts?

How you read a pacifist slant into opposing the way by which the bourgeoisie direct the public treasury into their private pockets really beats the hell out of me. I'm not parading about demanding "No More Wars" or arguing for pacifism-- the demand against military spending is a demand against capitalist wars, and capitalist aggrandizement of wages through taxation. That connection is clearly made in the piece. Read it again.

And the police, WTF? If and when a proposal is floated through a city council for budgeting money for police, for automatic rifles, for SWAT teams, for any thing, we don't oppose that? Of course we do. We don't oppose it on moral grounds,--- police are bad, police hurt people-- but on class grounds-- police are used to protect corporate property, suppress poor people.

You're reading your own personal, and ideological, orientation into it-- the piece explicitly lays out the links of military spending to capitalist aggrandizement, and does not abstract the military from that reproduction of class relations.

RedTrackWorker
5th December 2010, 13:13
Whoa, whoa, whoa.

Do we need banks and credit after the revolution? And therefore should we not call for an end to the bailouts? Not demand canceling the debt-- and not just the sovereign debts, but the mortgage debts?

How you read a pacifist slant into opposing the way by which the bourgeoisie direct the public treasury into their private pockets really beats the hell out of me. I'm not parading about demanding "No More Wars" or arguing for pacifism-- the demand against military spending is a demand against capitalist wars, and capitalist aggrandizement of wages through taxation. That connection is clearly made in the piece. Read it again.

And the police, WTF? If and when a proposal is floated through a city council for budgeting money for police, for automatic rifles, for SWAT teams, for any thing, we don't oppose that? Of course we do. We don't oppose it on moral grounds,--- police are bad, police hurt people-- but on class grounds-- police are used to protect corporate property, suppress poor people.

You're reading your own personal, and ideological, orientation into it-- the piece explicitly lays out the links of military spending to capitalist aggrandizement, and does not abstract the military from that reproduction of class relations.

The next-to-last line of the piece is "That disavowal of debt requires in turn the immediate end to all military spending." let me repeat: "immediate end to all military spending".
I don't see how I'm laying out something based on my orientation. I actually started by asking for clarification and did not get it, then when I draw out my conclusions based on what I can gather from reasonably interpreting "immediate end to all military spending," you do at least partially clarify.

Let's take the police. Of course I would vote against a SWAT budget line expansion and against the whole police budget, but I would not put forward a bill for the abolition of the police. The police must be replaced, not abolished. Calling for an "immediate" end to police or military spending seems to me to be calling for their abolishment. I find it hard to read any other way, and therefor: utopian; and pacificist.

You say read the rest of the piece. I did. That sentence at the end surprised me. Hence, I asked for clarification and did not just launch into a political attack. Now the clarification is beginning. It seems perhaps the most obvious meaning of the sentence contradicts what you were trying to say with the article? I'm not sure yet.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean when you say: "Do we need banks and credit after the revolution? And therefore should we not call for an end to the bailouts?" We do need banks and credit after the revolution. The line of march is along the lines of nationalize the banking system and cancel/repudiate the public debt (credit card debt, mortage debt, government debt to Wall St., Greek debt to Germany...a context-dependent etc.). This is different than "abolish the banking system" or "no to all debt forever and ever".

S.Artesian
5th December 2010, 15:01
Yes, canceling the debt requires abolishing the military spending as clearly the spending is part of what drives the accumulation of debt. What does that have to do with pacifism? We are talking about cutting out, eliminating, a source of revenue to the bourgeoisie.

I believe the sentence just prior to the one you quote, not to mention the entire section 5 provides the explanation you were looking for, which is why I referred you back to the article.

You're "line of march," which is IMO is not so much a march as it is a crawl, and backwards, calls for "replacing" the police, and replacing the banks through their nationalization [something the bourgeoisie do as a matter of course, thus turning the public treasury into one big "bad bank"]. If that's what we do in a revolution, or call for in a transition to revolution, then why don't you simply call for the replacement of the bourgeoisie, and the "replacement" of capital?

The point is in your call for "replacement" you are doing the same thing Marx criticizes in bourgeois political economy, abstracting the category from the social relations of production that determine and produce the category.

So we don't "replace" the police, or argue for the "replacement" of the police, we argue for the abolition of the social relation that produces the police, and all attempts to reproduce that social relation through the police.

On a more theoretical and practical level, we don't argue for the replacement of the banks, but for their seizure, liquidation, their negation. The movement, and struggle, is not for replacement, but for abolition.

That' what distinguishes revolution, and the transition to revolution, from reforms and pseudo-revolutions that wind up mimicking what they claim to have overthrown.

RedTrackWorker
6th December 2010, 02:47
Yes, canceling the debt requires abolishing the military spending as clearly the spending is part of what drives the accumulation of debt. What does that have to do with pacifism? We are talking about cutting out, eliminating, a source of revenue to the bourgeoisie.

I believe the sentence just prior to the one you quote, not to mention the entire section 5 provides the explanation you were looking for, which is why I referred you back to the article.

You're "line of march," which is IMO is not so much a march as it is a crawl, and backwards, calls for "replacing" the police, and replacing the banks through their nationalization [something the bourgeoisie do as a matter of course, thus turning the public treasury into one big "bad bank"]. If that's what we do in a revolution, or call for in a transition to revolution, then why don't you simply call for the replacement of the bourgeoisie, and the "replacement" of capital?

The point is in your call for "replacement" you are doing the same thing Marx criticizes in bourgeois political economy, abstracting the category from the social relations of production that determine and produce the category.

So we don't "replace" the police, or argue for the "replacement" of the police, we argue for the abolition of the social relation that produces the police, and all attempts to reproduce that social relation through the police.

On a more theoretical and practical level, we don't argue for the replacement of the banks, but for their seizure, liquidation, their negation. The movement, and struggle, is not for replacement, but for abolition.

That' what distinguishes revolution, and the transition to revolution, from reforms and pseudo-revolutions that wind up mimicking what they claim to have overthrown.

Well, yes, I want to abolish the social relations that produces and requires police--abolish it by replacing it with truly human relationships that will flourish and grow in a communist society. But how will that society be created? I believe--as Marx wrote in the Critique of the Gotha Program and Lenin explained further in State and Revolution--that it will require a capitalist state without the capitalists building the foundations for a new society through the spread of revolution and the conscious re-organization of society within what will remain for a time capitalist social relations. A revolution will not be able to negate the social relations that produce and require police, armies and banks--it will only be able to produce and create a workers' state that provides the foundation on which to transform those social relations.

S.Artesian
6th December 2010, 03:00
But how will that society be created? I believe--as Marx wrote in the Critique of the Gotha Program and Lenin explained further in State and Revolution--that it will require a capitalist state without the capitalists

No such thing. You don't get a capitalist state without the capitalists-- that's the whole point, what you are doing here is exactly that abstraction of a category from the social relations that produce it.

I understand your allegiance to Lenin, but I'm no Leninist, just as I'm no pacifist.

A revolutionary organization does precisely NEGATE the social relations which have spawned it. It abolishes them. What it does not abolish is the means of production that can support qualitatively new social relations. IMO, your view is steeped in the limitations that the Bolsheviks encountered in the isolation of their revolution, and the constraints of the backward development, both technically and socially of Russia.

If a revolution, if the revolution, is to occur, it cannot occur on that limited, backward platform. It certainly can be initiated there, but it cannot bring itself to realization there, as the fSU certainly proved. What you see as the necessary elements-- police, armies, banks, are the elements of weakness, of the deformity of the Russian Revolution in its earliest manifestation.

If we're not capable of abolishing debt, abolishing military spending-- of making that our program from before day 1, then we're not going anywhere. Period.

RedTrackWorker
6th December 2010, 13:01
No such thing. You don't get a capitalist state without the capitalists-- that's the whole point, what you are doing here is exactly that abstraction of a category from the social relations that produce it.

I understand your allegiance to Lenin, but I'm no Leninist, just as I'm no pacifist.

A revolutionary organization does precisely NEGATE the social relations which have spawned it. It abolishes them. What it does not abolish is the means of production that can support qualitatively new social relations. IMO, your view is steeped in the limitations that the Bolsheviks encountered in the isolation of their revolution, and the constraints of the backward development, both technically and socially of Russia.

If a revolution, if the revolution, is to occur, it cannot occur on that limited, backward platform. It certainly can be initiated there, but it cannot bring itself to realization there, as the fSU certainly proved. What you see as the necessary elements-- police, armies, banks, are the elements of weakness, of the deformity of the Russian Revolution in its earliest manifestation.

If we're not capable of abolishing debt, abolishing military spending-- of making that our program from before day 1, then we're not going anywhere. Period.

Well, at least now I'm more clear on where you stand. I really enjoy many of your writings, especially on dialectics. You are clear and concrete. But you think that day 1 of the workers taking over the U.S. we just get rid of the banks and military?

Nothing Human Is Alien
6th December 2010, 13:35
"The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class .... The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society." - Marx

S.Artesian
6th December 2010, 13:36
Well, at least now I'm more clear on where you stand. I really enjoy many of your writings, especially on dialectics. You are clear and concrete. But you think that day 1 of the workers taking over the U.S. we just get rid of the banks and military?


Thank for the kind words.

Maybe not on day 1, as I'm sure many will take the opportunity to celebrate.

And maybe not day 2, as many will be hungover.

But day 3.... yeah, sure, why not? It's a revolution, isn't it?

RedTrackWorker
6th December 2010, 21:14
"The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class .... The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society." - Marx

Exactly, but how will it substitute for the old civil society?


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
--http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

S.Artesian
6th December 2010, 21:54
Of course, but it is a revolutionary dictatorship-- not a replication of the old order with "better people," "class conscious workers" filling the slots in the old institutions.

A revolutionary dictatorship means more than a change in property forms. A revolutionary dictatorship means an end to the old social relations embodied in the categories of debt, credit, wage-labor, and yep, military spending.

That's the real substance to Marx's critique of the Gotha programme. What Marx is objecting to is the failure of the Gotha programme to concretely address the social relations behind the categories it blusters about in its "demands."

Sometimes I think the worst thing people do is to read Marx after reading Lenin or Trotsky etc etc etc, or read Lenin, Trotsky, Mao, Stalin etc. etc. on Marx instead of reading Marx directly; or filter their understanding of Marx through the works of Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Mao etc etc.

RedTrackWorker
6th December 2010, 22:30
Of course, but it is a revolutionary dictatorship-- not a replication of the old order with "better people," "class conscious workers" filling the slots in the old institutions.

A revolutionary dictatorship means more than a change in property forms. A revolutionary dictatorship means an end to the old social relations embodied in the categories of debt, credit, wage-labor, and yep, military spending.

So how will a workers' dictatorship do away with military spending? A Greek workers' dictatorship wouldn't need to defend itself from Germany?

S.Artesian
6th December 2010, 23:15
So how will a workers' dictatorship do away with military spending? A Greek workers' dictatorship wouldn't need to defend itself from Germany?


A Greek worker's dictatorship will do away with the bourgeoisie's military spending. I did not abstract military spending from the social conditions of Greece, did I?

Did I not link the military spending directly to the assumption of debt, and to the reproduction of capital?

The real question is will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain military bases around the world?

Will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain NATO?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain defense contracts with GE, United Technologies, etc?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat negotiate arms deals with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat allow arms sales to other governments, like say the government of Chile, or Zimbabwe?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain an air force? nuclear first strike capability? a $600 billion dollar annual expenditure for warfare?

RedTrackWorker
7th December 2010, 02:27
A Greek worker's dictatorship will do away with the bourgeoisie's military spending. I did not abstract military spending from the social conditions of Greece, did I?

Did I not link the military spending directly to the assumption of debt, and to the reproduction of capital?

The real question is will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain military bases around the world?

Will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain NATO?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain defense contracts with GE, United Technologies, etc?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat negotiate arms deals with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat allow arms sales to other governments, like say the government of Chile, or Zimbabwe?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain an air force? nuclear first strike capability? a $600 billion dollar annual expenditure for warfare?

I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this response. What have I said that makes you think I would be in favor of a workers' state preserving a military to continue U.S. imperialism? It's not even possible. You wrote "an immediate end to all military spending"--you can say that the context of the article makes it have a meaning at odds with its appearance and I'll just accept that politically. But what did I say that made you think I could possibly imagine an imperialist workers' state, which is what you're asking?
Second, your response still evades our basic disagreement. Even if I re-interpret your sentence to mean "an immediate end to all bourgeois military spending" (since I'm still not clear on your position on the workers' state spending money on a military), I still have a problem with the demand because as posed, it leaves open the idea that such a thing is possible under capitalism. I would say: "We need a social revolution--yesterday--which would split the army, build a workers' militia and take over the factories, etc. while attempting to extend the revolution and defend itself, which requires military spending--but the spending would be unlike in many ways bourgeois military spending and directed toward a different social end." "An immediate end to all military spending" seems to me ambiguous at best in regard to such a direction.

S.Artesian
7th December 2010, 03:21
I have to admit I'm a bit confused by this response. What have I said that makes you think I would be in favor of a workers' state preserving a military to continue U.S. imperialism? It's not even possible. You wrote "an immediate end to all military spending"--you can say that the context of the article makes it have a meaning at odds with its appearance and I'll just accept that politically. But what did I say that made you think I could possibly imagine an imperialist workers' state, which is what you're asking?
Second, your response still evades our basic disagreement. Even if I re-interpret your sentence to mean "an immediate end to all bourgeois military spending" (since I'm still not clear on your position on the workers' state spending money on a military), I still have a problem with the demand because as posed, it leaves open the idea that such a thing is possible under capitalism. I would say: "We need a social revolution--yesterday--which would split the army, build a workers' militia and take over the factories, etc. while attempting to extend the revolution and defend itself, which requires military spending--but the spending would be unlike in many ways bourgeois military spending and directed toward a different social end." "An immediate end to all military spending" seems to me ambiguous at best in regard to such a direction.


You must have a guilty conscience. Where do I suggest in my previous post that you would answer those questions in the affirmative? Nowhere. Just as nowhere do I abstract the demand for an end to military spending from the other issues of the class struggle against the bourgeoisie as a class.

I said those are real questions about assuming state power, not whether or not we spend time, or resources, on training a workers militia to defend against Germany.

Why are you so worried about something, a demand to abolish spending on the bourgeoisie's military, that is so, at this moment, preliminary? WTF, ideological purity never got anybody anywhere.

The fact of the matter is that the Greek austerity budgets leaves military spending intact, will pulling the old Friedman/Sachs/Pinochet/Yeltsin/IMF "shock therapy" on government jobs, wages, pensions, and nationalized utilities like the railroad.

The point of attacking military spending is the counter-point to the EU/IMF/Socialist "dirty" economic war against living standards.

Clearly, you still have a problem with the way the demand is posed, but I think it's your problem-- that is to say, the problem is created in your adherence to a certain ideological construct that says x,y,z must happen and they must happen in this format and this order.

I think anyone not so constrained by ideology clearly sees the issue I raise with the military spending. As a matter of fact I know that. You're the only person who interpreted that as a "pacifist" appeal.

You want to go out there and agitate for a workers militia-- that's your response to the EU/IMF program that allows the government to maintain military spending? Good luck with that.

And even cutting military spending isn't the issue. Look at Cameron in the UK. He's cutting the military budget.

Why does Greece need submarines and attack helicopters? Greece doesn't. The Greek bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of Germany, France, US need the revenues from those commodities

I say eliminate military spending. Don't reduce it. Abolish it. I think Marxists will have much more real success if we talk about just unloading the entire destructive apparatus-- "fuck it, get rid of it"-- than if we talk in the abstract about workers' militias. You don't raise a demand for a workers' militia until the need arises.

Are there organizations of class-wide power that require protection from assault by the bourgeoisie in Greece, in the UK? Believe me, I wish there were, because those organizations then would be the embryos of soviets. Maybe your information is better than mine, but I haven't seen that "civil" organization of class-for-itself power emerge yet.

RedTrackWorker
7th December 2010, 08:02
I'm comfortable leaving those different conclusions out there in the confidence that the people I would want to talk who are informed on the issue will side with me. If anyone other than S. Artesian isn't clear on what my point is, feel free to join in. Otherwise I don't see the use in continuing this debate.
For more information on the approach my group takes, see:
In Defense of Bolshevik Military Policy (http://www.lrp-cofi.org/PR/conscription78.html).

redz
11th December 2010, 14:31
A Greek worker's dictatorship will do away with the bourgeoisie's military spending. I did not abstract military spending from the social conditions of Greece, did I?

Did I not link the military spending directly to the assumption of debt, and to the reproduction of capital?

The real question is will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain military bases around the world?

Will a US "dictatorship of the proletariat" maintain NATO?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain defense contracts with GE, United Technologies, etc?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat negotiate arms deals with Israel, Taiwan, South Korea?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat allow arms sales to other governments, like say the government of Chile, or Zimbabwe?

Will a US dictatorship of the proletariat maintain an air force? nuclear first strike capability? a $600 billion dollar annual expenditure for warfare?



A US dictatorship of the proletariat (i.e., successful socialist revolution by the working class, led by a vanguard-combat party) would (unless there were a simultaneous worldwide seizure of power in all the major capitalist nations) almost certainly have to establish and maintain a military establishment for an indefinite period. IF NATO still existed, it would certainly be a major adversary (presumably representing German, French, etc. imperialism).

A Socialist America (hopefully Socialist North America) would undoubtedly provide aid, including military, to revolutionary workers' parties and their struggles in Israel-Palestine, South Korea, Taiwan, Chile, Zimbabwe, etc. aimed at overthrowing capitalist rule and establishing workingclass states.

Beyond those general predictions, it's hard to project more specifics on military and other policies before the smoke clears and the dust settles.

A Greek workers' dictatorship (i.e., workingclass state) would come into being through crushing the capitalist state, including its military establishment, and replacing it all with a state based on workers' and soldiers' councils - including a new workers' military to defend the nascent workingclass state. Any debt to the capitalist world would probably be renounced, although again, until the smoke clears and the dust settles, the specifics here cannot be reliably projected.

Redz

RED DAVE
11th December 2010, 19:23
A Greek workers' dictatorship (i.e., workingclass state) would come into being through crushing the capitalist state, including its military establishment, and replacing it all with a state based on workers' and soldiers' councils - including a new workers' military to defend the nascent workingclass state. Any debt to the capitalist world would probably be renounced, although again, until the smoke clears and the dust settles, the specifics here cannot be reliably projected.A crucial point:

Revolutionaries in major capitalist countries should not even dream about defeating the military of such a country. The defeat of the military in the first world will come through the recruiting of the troops over to the revolution, not defeating them militarily.

RED DAVE

redz
26th December 2010, 17:53
A crucial point:
Revolutionaries in major capitalist countries should not even dream about defeating the military of such a country. The defeat of the military in the first world will come through the recruiting of the troops over to the revolution, not defeating them militarily.


I agree that recruiting major sections of the troops over to the side of workers' revolution must be a major tactical goal. I foresee some of the troops splitting from the imperialist military and "turning their guns the other way" - basically, carrying the societal civil war into the military itself. However, there will probably occur battles with capitalist-loyal sections of the military, and the revolutionary forces, particularly the vanguard-combat party, must be prepared for this.

Winning significant numbers of troopers over to the revolutionary side is probably a quite crucial need for the revolution to succeed, when the time for such tactics arrives.

Redz