In very simplistic terms, the economic history of capitalism in "the West" can be split into 19th century laissez-faire capitalism, a "statist" century from 1875 to 1975 (if you agree with Loren Goldner) and then neo-liberalism. If, as Goldner suggested, "the Social Democratic era...is over [and] will never come back" then what will replace neo-liberalism? What is the next stage of capitalism? Or can there be a return to a "statist" era (which I'm sure all you communists are hoping for!)?
After Neo-Liberalism?
- Thread starter mk12
- Start date
love detective
there's no love too small
barbarism
proletarian democracy.
Have you read 'The End of Hiostory and The last man' by francis fukuyama?
lol.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Goldner, if i remember right suggests an attempted return to classic wage-imposition and this displacing the social wage, forcing the costs of social reproduction onto wage-labour collectively and so on. I think this would entail not a return to the old-school statsism which was based around a compromise between capital and labour (as represented within the state by unions and the labour party) over this social reproduction, nor a shrinking of the state as neo-liberalism proper (rhetorically) demands but a reconfiguration of state intervention around aggressively imposing and maintaining markets - and with that wage-labour - across society as a whole.
So, in brief, a laissez faire economy but one based on heightened state intervention in order to prop it up. Which takes us right back to why the state historically had to take on the costs of social reproduction following market/capital failures last time around. In a sense we would be going back to the social-democratic era - just this time with the labour component (in the sense above) utterly defeated and all the compromises wrung out of capital losing their political basis, but with the longer-term economic functional necessity for these historical compromises still existing there but just hidden behind growth in productivity and other developments that might help cut the throat of capital through extending the problem to ever higher levels. The next step after that would then be conflict between various individual capitals and the state as all the above will only advantage large capital, capitals that can access global markets and hi-tech industries, whilst the working class would experience that all their conflicts with capital and the state take on once more clear joint economic and political features (as opposed to the classical split that the rise of capital and mass democracy introduced between economic struggle at work and political struggle outside).
That's exactly how it will go down.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. Interesting, butchers. Good analysis.
But with increased state intervention - from what you might call a right-wing position (as has been happening in Japan) - do other avenues for a struggle open up? For instance, if it is deemed necessary to essentially nationalise the money system, which I think could happen, and if this entails a prolonged period of low- to no-growth, which I think it would, that is bound to mean that the wages of the majority will need to be suppressed - if you are to keep that international capital happy. That becomes harder and harder to do.
The alternative - which even a small amount of democratic accountability might demand - is deglobalisation and the reimposition of controls on the international flow of capital. After all, those controls were only removed in the 1970s, and nationalisation of the money production system would make it possible to reimpose them.
I think a lot depends on China. When China decides it can go it alone without relying on western markets and floats its currency, which I think will happen (has to happen eventually), the rest of the world is in for a shock. No more cheap Chinese goods, and perhaps an increasing resistance to the idea that China is now coming in and buying up chunks of industry as a 'repayment' of the debts it's built up during the years of currency devaluation. That could cause a rupture, as there is no politically acceptable way to move from the one situation to the other without the west breaking its promises to China. The biggest default in history could be on the cards if the US decides it will not pay China back. Not sure what China would be able to do about that, tbh. It would surely mean an end to the US dollar as the currency of international reserves.
But with increased state intervention - from what you might call a right-wing position (as has been happening in Japan) - do other avenues for a struggle open up? For instance, if it is deemed necessary to essentially nationalise the money system, which I think could happen, and if this entails a prolonged period of low- to no-growth, which I think it would, that is bound to mean that the wages of the majority will need to be suppressed - if you are to keep that international capital happy. That becomes harder and harder to do.
The alternative - which even a small amount of democratic accountability might demand - is deglobalisation and the reimposition of controls on the international flow of capital. After all, those controls were only removed in the 1970s, and nationalisation of the money production system would make it possible to reimpose them.
I think a lot depends on China. When China decides it can go it alone without relying on western markets and floats its currency, which I think will happen (has to happen eventually), the rest of the world is in for a shock. No more cheap Chinese goods, and perhaps an increasing resistance to the idea that China is now coming in and buying up chunks of industry as a 'repayment' of the debts it's built up during the years of currency devaluation. That could cause a rupture, as there is no politically acceptable way to move from the one situation to the other without the west breaking its promises to China. The biggest default in history could be on the cards if the US decides it will not pay China back. Not sure what China would be able to do about that, tbh. It would surely mean an end to the US dollar as the currency of international reserves.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
The death of "civilisation".
By which I don't mean "the annihilation of all that is human", but rather social relations between the governed and the governers becoming far less consensus-based than it is nowadays/far more baldly anti-democratic and/or non-democratic.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
See that kind of lack of consensus is all very well where you have economic growth, which gives capital its profit while maintaining wages at the same level. I would argue that this kind of baldly anti-democratic situation is exactly what we've had in the last 30 years. But as we are seeing, when growth stalls, profits can only come from reducing the wages of the majority. This paves the way for an effective challenge to the system, imo. It opens up possibilities to become more consensus-based.
The Thatcher-Blair consensus that inequality did not matter as long as the poor were getting richer too (even if only be a tiny amount, and that dependent on cheap imported goods) can no longer stand scrutiny in such a situation. Rich getting richer and everyone else getting poorer is not a politically sustainable situation, I would suggest.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
With the comrade Captain assisting in guiding us along the Shining Path of Proletarian Democratic governance, one hopes.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Oh, I agree, but I think you're missing the obvious corollary to the opening up, which is that those who support neo-liberal capitalism are aware of this, and have the power and influence to protect themselves and their project. We need to bear this in mind as we mount any challenge, because any challenge is highly unlikely to be a cakewalk, more likely to be a head-busting festival.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ah, but being aware of it, what do you think they're likely to do? 'Protecting their project' could involve the making of concessions - and the chronic lack of demand that cutting wages causes is a problem for them, after all. They face a quandary that is not solved by simply putting down insurrections and thus keeping the wages down.
This is where things could take interesting turns. For instance, Peron the neo-fascist sold the concessions he made to Argentinian workers to the bosses as the necessary price they had to pay. Now he also suppressed free unions (which was part of the deal he offered the bosses), but suppressing free unions in that way in Europe, say, is not so easy. I could not see Peron-style corporatism taking root in the UK, for instance, or France. Definitely not in Spain, where it would be seen more easily for what it is.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
That's dependent on whether they can hold the line until the economy shows reasonable growth again. If they can, the problem can be set aside for another day.
Different time, different place, different social situation.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Same problem, though - how to buy off the workers while keeping profits rolling in. My point being that Peron had access to the kinds of state control that western Europe of today does not have access to.
As to your first point - that's the whole point: it isn't going to show 'reasonable growth' again, not with this model. That's the experience of Japan, which I think is a pretty good indicator of what will happen in the UK and elsewhere in the coming years. I suspect that returns on capitalist investment within the current model are going to tend towards zero - hence the increasing need for direct state investment to replace it. If we can grab some kind of democratic control of that state investment, things can be done.
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Some sort of global state fascism probably.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I genuinely don't think so. To work, fascist states have to win over large sections of the population, usually by opposing themselves to a bogeyman such as communism. Those conditions don't exist in Western Europe, to take that as an example. And I do not see them developing either.
Fuchs66
Ring a ding
camouflage
gaslit at scale.
Populism- always an easy trick. State and corporations in lockstep.... done. Internal and external enemies, when has there not been?
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Yes, well they've certainly been playing that trick hard in the last decade. But the economic reality of zero growth combined with capital demanding returns means that it's not just an identifiable 'working class' that needs suppressing, but most of those who would see themselves as 'middle class' (but are economically largely working class too).
Blagsta
Minimum cage, maximum cage
This is called capitalism. Not fascism.
JimW
支那暗杀团
I've read it argued that China is the model for the new phase of capitalism - a sort of corporatism (Unger and Chan PDF file) that performs in the way butchers sets out, the state serving the market and few or no political concessions to the w/c.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Thing is China has arrived at that situation from a starting point of an authoritarian (totalitarian), largely agrarian state. It's a different question altogether how to get to that kind of system from somewhere like the UK.
For starters, the economic structure is totally different. The gap in wages between a factory worker and a factory manager, say, or between a factory worker and a lawyer, is far higher in China. China's emerging middle class lives a totally different life from the new working class. The workers are economically and politically disenfranchised. It seems to me that China resembles 19th-C Europe more than 21st-C Europe in that respect.
JimW
支那暗杀团
I know, but I think the case goes that it's shown conclusively that there is no link between 'bourgeois freedoms' and the 'bourgeois economy', as has been argued in the West (not necessarily sincerely, but all the same), so it can be full steam ahead at clawing the back still further in the West without damaging the interests of capital.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Hmmm. Not sure that was ever much of an argument anyway. South Korea industrialised effectively without much freedom.
But where you start from matters. In South Korea, as in China now, the rapid industrialisation came without real political freedom.
But the key question in all of this - in terms of the interests of capital - is 'where is demand going to come from'. It isn't going to come from anywhere, hence the need for increasing state intervention. But I would not assume that the UK or France, for instance, can institute a system of state intervention that is anything like the Chinese model.
JimW
支那暗杀团
That's true, but then they were well aware of the special case in Korea as a pseudo-protectorate of the US with preferential market access, and they did have all the democratic upheavals. (ETA by which I mean it may have looked more of a special case)
Perhaps a similar goal will be achieved by coming from the other direction, with corporate interests capturing more of the state, as you see in the way they're farming out parts of services or how the bail-outs went etc. Always been the 'committee for the affairs of the bourgeoisie' but once contested by an active w/c movement so forced to concede some ground, not any more so that can now be recaptured and more taken. End result being a state that similarly looks only to provide 'stability' and serve the rawer needs of capital, with little or none of the social democratic welfare content.
ETA: And thinking on, the 'technocratic' imposures we've had in Italy and Greece show how little regard is paid to even a show of democracy when the chips are down.
Capitalism is the economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and the creation of goods and services. Without excess free energy, there can be no means of production, and no creation of goods and services. Without excess free energy, there can be no capitalism.
Societal metabolism has followed the trajectory of hunter-gatherer -> agrarian -> industrial. Capitalism co-evolved with industrialism during the the transition from agrarian to industrial society by exploiting the colossal quantities of net free energy afforded by the temporary draw down concentrated fossil solar energy resources. But it was excess energy, not capitalism, which enabled the transition, and it will be energy deficit, not capitalism, which governs the next transition.
Shortly, we will have no excess energy. The society that follows will therefore not be capitalist. In fact, the society that follows will be as different from industrial as industrial is from agrarian.
All of the phases of capitalism you cite are products of industrial society. So there is no basis to assume that any form of capitalism will follow.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Slavery was the traditional source of "free" energy in most societies prior to the modern age. We'll probably revert to that, in practice, if not name.
Yuwipi Woman
Whack-A-Mole Queen
Here's an example of indentured servitude creeping back:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/college_guide/blog/student_debt_as_indentured_ser.php
