Some notes in response to William I. Robinson's Al Jazeera article 'Global capitalism and 21st century fascism'
Imperialism
The basis of this article, as I expected from the quotes chosen by Phillip Gioan in his responses, is the Kautskyan theory of 'ultra-imperialism', where the imperialists gather together for the common exploitation of the colonial world. Though of course in this article it is dressed up in the form of 'trans-national capitalist class'. Nevertheless it amounts to the same thing. This is evidenced by the frequent jockeying for position of France and Germany in the EU for the domination and exploitation of the skilled but cheap workers in eastern Europe. Germany is economically dominant, but can't cash in on it because France has the nukes.
Some may say that these small conflicts between the imperialist powers don't imply a deeper and more fundamental conflict, but that is wrong. Such a position was only possible in the period before the stabilisation of imperialism, when the whole world hadn't yet been carved up--a brief space of 40 years--and in the almost 70 years since WW2 when the American ruling class held so much productive capacity in its hands that it sought to rule the world and there was the threat of the Soviet Union. Now there is China, comparatively not as strong as the Soviet Union was, but at the same time the USA is not as strong as it was, with its industrial capacity off-shore it has no ability to wage a major war and its financial resources rely on its position as the leading military power, a position that is threatened by its industrial decline.
The Economy
Robinson then goes on to talk about the 'permanent war economy' which is a little piece of absurdity. Wars put stress on the social relations in the countries fighting the wars. Basic imperial wars against small weak nations don't cause as much trouble as inter-imperialist wars, but they do put stress on social relations, and use up a bunch of the country's resources that would otherwise be spent on pacifying and co-opting a layer of the working class. The bourgeoisie may be collectively stupid, but it does have a rudimentary class memory and is able to see issues like this. This doesn't even get into how war hurts the day-to-day opperations of capital itself.
He then talks about the 'raiding and sacking of public budgets', which he fails to remember was one of the earliest means of subordinating the state to itself: Get the government to spend lots, forcing (or allowing) it to get loans from the big banks and pay them off. Then he talks about speculation. The only new speculation going on is in the myriad forms of derivatives. But all this is is a continuation of finance capital trying to gouge out the profits from industrial capitalists and competing finance capitalists on the one hand, and a more sophisticated means of engaging in directly financial exploitation of the neo-colonies. It isn't anything that is really new.
Robinson then has the gall to say that "this is not a cyclical crisis, but a structural crisis" as if there is any meaningful difference between the two, as if the cyclical crises of capital aren't caused by the fundamental structural problems of national economies trying to become international, and as if the subordinate strucures of how capital is organised among what industries are not merely fads and results of the 'business cycle'.
Neo-Fascism
Apparrently 'Neo-Fascism' can be traced back several decades, to the response in the US to the social struggles in the 60's and 70's. Fascism, he says, is not a word that he uses lightly. Except this is utterly wrong. Under the cover of a very definite description of fascism, Robinson drags in everything on the right. This is wrong. Fascism is a bonapartist form of government where the capitalist state is administered without democracy for the capitalists and in many cases against the interests of most capitalists as individuals, forcing a reconciliation at gunpoint of the importers and exporters, for example, who have opposed interests in the realm of state trade and economic policy. It relies on state terror through the mobilisation of the petty bourgeoisie to destroy the political and economic organs of the working class, and the revolutionary and even reformist tradition of the working class. Even groups that are useful to capitalism, such as the social democrats, are wiped out.
Robinson's hatred of the working class is evident in his race-baiting, saying that white workers serve as a stable recruiting ground for fascism. In saying that everything right-wing is fascist, he then lumps the backward mass of the working class in with the fascists, at least potentially. Hir closing comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reformism
While not the focus of the article, Robinson does bring up the question of reformism, thoough obliquely. He cites Gramsci and talks about a 'slow revolution' where the ruling class makes concessions in order to blunt social struggle, co-opting the leader of the various social movements. This is nothing other than the basis of reformism: The idea that the state can slowly be reformed in the interests of the working class and oppressed to result in a wonderful democratic socialist paradise ten thousand years in the future. We gotta take baby steps, donchaknow!
His treatment of reformism in that paragraph is hostile to reformism, condemning it silently, but the context implies it. And we find again at the end of the article, in the closing remarks some few words that could be taken as further indictment of reformism and an exaltation fo militant proletarian struggle. But there he stops. 'The only real solution', he says, 'is a massive resdistribution of wealth and power' to the oppressed. But what does that even mean? It means fighting (through 'mass transnational struggle from below'!) for a bunch of reforms so that the capitalists will give us more money and more democratic rights. It means nothing.
Through all of this there is not a word about socialism, about ending capitalism, despite all the pseudo-Marxist mentions of 'accumulation'. There is no programme, no useful explanation of the world. This is an empty critique of capitalism, just another lament from a liberal professor.
Imperialism
The basis of this article, as I expected from the quotes chosen by Phillip Gioan in his responses, is the Kautskyan theory of 'ultra-imperialism', where the imperialists gather together for the common exploitation of the colonial world. Though of course in this article it is dressed up in the form of 'trans-national capitalist class'. Nevertheless it amounts to the same thing. This is evidenced by the frequent jockeying for position of France and Germany in the EU for the domination and exploitation of the skilled but cheap workers in eastern Europe. Germany is economically dominant, but can't cash in on it because France has the nukes.
Some may say that these small conflicts between the imperialist powers don't imply a deeper and more fundamental conflict, but that is wrong. Such a position was only possible in the period before the stabilisation of imperialism, when the whole world hadn't yet been carved up--a brief space of 40 years--and in the almost 70 years since WW2 when the American ruling class held so much productive capacity in its hands that it sought to rule the world and there was the threat of the Soviet Union. Now there is China, comparatively not as strong as the Soviet Union was, but at the same time the USA is not as strong as it was, with its industrial capacity off-shore it has no ability to wage a major war and its financial resources rely on its position as the leading military power, a position that is threatened by its industrial decline.
The Economy
Robinson then goes on to talk about the 'permanent war economy' which is a little piece of absurdity. Wars put stress on the social relations in the countries fighting the wars. Basic imperial wars against small weak nations don't cause as much trouble as inter-imperialist wars, but they do put stress on social relations, and use up a bunch of the country's resources that would otherwise be spent on pacifying and co-opting a layer of the working class. The bourgeoisie may be collectively stupid, but it does have a rudimentary class memory and is able to see issues like this. This doesn't even get into how war hurts the day-to-day opperations of capital itself.
He then talks about the 'raiding and sacking of public budgets', which he fails to remember was one of the earliest means of subordinating the state to itself: Get the government to spend lots, forcing (or allowing) it to get loans from the big banks and pay them off. Then he talks about speculation. The only new speculation going on is in the myriad forms of derivatives. But all this is is a continuation of finance capital trying to gouge out the profits from industrial capitalists and competing finance capitalists on the one hand, and a more sophisticated means of engaging in directly financial exploitation of the neo-colonies. It isn't anything that is really new.
Robinson then has the gall to say that "this is not a cyclical crisis, but a structural crisis" as if there is any meaningful difference between the two, as if the cyclical crises of capital aren't caused by the fundamental structural problems of national economies trying to become international, and as if the subordinate strucures of how capital is organised among what industries are not merely fads and results of the 'business cycle'.
Neo-Fascism
Apparrently 'Neo-Fascism' can be traced back several decades, to the response in the US to the social struggles in the 60's and 70's. Fascism, he says, is not a word that he uses lightly. Except this is utterly wrong. Under the cover of a very definite description of fascism, Robinson drags in everything on the right. This is wrong. Fascism is a bonapartist form of government where the capitalist state is administered without democracy for the capitalists and in many cases against the interests of most capitalists as individuals, forcing a reconciliation at gunpoint of the importers and exporters, for example, who have opposed interests in the realm of state trade and economic policy. It relies on state terror through the mobilisation of the petty bourgeoisie to destroy the political and economic organs of the working class, and the revolutionary and even reformist tradition of the working class. Even groups that are useful to capitalism, such as the social democrats, are wiped out.
Robinson's hatred of the working class is evident in his race-baiting, saying that white workers serve as a stable recruiting ground for fascism. In saying that everything right-wing is fascist, he then lumps the backward mass of the working class in with the fascists, at least potentially. Hir closing comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Reformism
While not the focus of the article, Robinson does bring up the question of reformism, thoough obliquely. He cites Gramsci and talks about a 'slow revolution' where the ruling class makes concessions in order to blunt social struggle, co-opting the leader of the various social movements. This is nothing other than the basis of reformism: The idea that the state can slowly be reformed in the interests of the working class and oppressed to result in a wonderful democratic socialist paradise ten thousand years in the future. We gotta take baby steps, donchaknow!
His treatment of reformism in that paragraph is hostile to reformism, condemning it silently, but the context implies it. And we find again at the end of the article, in the closing remarks some few words that could be taken as further indictment of reformism and an exaltation fo militant proletarian struggle. But there he stops. 'The only real solution', he says, 'is a massive resdistribution of wealth and power' to the oppressed. But what does that even mean? It means fighting (through 'mass transnational struggle from below'!) for a bunch of reforms so that the capitalists will give us more money and more democratic rights. It means nothing.
Through all of this there is not a word about socialism, about ending capitalism, despite all the pseudo-Marxist mentions of 'accumulation'. There is no programme, no useful explanation of the world. This is an empty critique of capitalism, just another lament from a liberal professor.
No comments:
Post a Comment