-Caveat Lector-
From
www.wsws.org
WSWS : News & Analysis : World Economy
Globalisation, Jospin and the political program of Attac
Part Two
By Nick Beams
11 September 2001
Back to screen version| Send this link by email | Email the author
The Tobin tax—the basis of Attac’s program—was first advanced in 1972 in
the aftermath of President Nixon’s removal of the gold backing from the US
dollar in August 1971 and the collapse of fixed currency exchange rates.
Tobin was a follower of the English economist John Maynard Keynes, one of
the architects of the Bretton Woods monetary system. During the post-war
period, Keynes’ theories of regulated capitalism were the guiding ideology of
capitalist governments. Tobin recognised that unless some mechanism
could be found to slow down the international movement of capital, then the
policies of national governments would be undermined whenever they
conflicted with the demands of international financial markets. Accordingly,
he proposed that a tax—rated at between 0.1 percent and 1 percent—be
charged on all international currency transactions. The tax would have little
impact on long-term investment because it would represent only a marginal
increase in the cost of capital for these purposes. However, in the case of
speculative movements of capital, taking place in many instances over a
matter of a few days, even a relatively small tax rate would represent a
significant impost. This would “throw sand in the gears of international
finance”, slow down the movement of hot money and allow national
governments more room to manoeuvre.
Since the tax was first proposed, the international financial market has
expanded exponentially. According to studies by the Bank for International
Settlements, the amount of money passing through international currency
markets has grown from around $18 billion per day in the 1970s to more than
$1,500 billion by the end of the 1990s.
The first point to note is that the imposition of a transaction tax would be
completely ineffective in the face of such global capital flows.
Notwithstanding the claims of its proponents, a Tobin tax could not have
prevented any of the major financial crises of the past decade—the collapse
of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1992, the crisis of the
Mexican peso in 1994-95 or the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98.
This is because even if the tax had been set at the relatively high rate of 1
percent, it would have been completely outweighed by the scope of
subsequent currency devaluations. Such was the disequilibrium in financial
markets that the banks, financial institutions and global investment funds
would still have found it profitable to move their funds.
In other words, even assuming that agreement were able to be reached
among the rival capitalist powers about the need for such a tax—and the
existence of conflicting interests virtually rules this out—it would only be able
to operate in periods of relative stability on international markets. In the face
of vast movements of capital it would be powerless—unable to halt the
eruption of the very crisis it had been introduced to prevent.
Aside from the fact that it cannot meet its stated aim, there is a more
fundamental flaw in the Tobin tax program. This derives from its attempt to
separate the operations of the financial markets and the monetary system
from the capitalist economy as a whole. Such a method has a long history.
More than 150 years ago, in his polemic against the petty-bourgeois
anarchist Proudhon, Marx exposed the latter’s attempt to divide the relations
and economic mechanisms of capitalist society into two parts—the “bad”
and the “good.” As Marx demonstrated, a program based on the removal of
the “bad,” while retaining the “good,” was fundamentally flawed because the
two were, in fact, inseparable.
Proudhon, Marx wrote, “does what all good bourgeois do. They all tell you
that in principle, that is, considered as abstract ideas, competition,
monopoly, etc., are the only basis of life, but that in practice they leave
much to be desired. They all want competition without the lethal effects of
competition. They all want the impossible, namely, the conditions of
bourgeois existence without the necessary consequences of those
conditions” [Marx, Letter to P. V. Annenkov in The Poverty of Philosophy,
page 190].
The proponents of the Tobin tax follow in Proudhon’s footsteps. They are not
for the overthrow of capitalist social relations, but only for the regulation of
the “bad” side of the capitalist system—speculative finance capital—allowing
the “good” side, productive capital, to flourish, thereby increasing the wealth
of all and restoring democracy.
However, an examination of the historical evolution of capitalism shows that
the emergence and dominance of finance capital is not some kind of
excrescence on an otherwise healthy body, but the expression of deep-
seated contradictions within the system as a whole.
When these contradictions erupt to the surface of economic and political life,
as they do today, they are invariably met with ferocious denunciations of
finance capital aimed at blocking any probing of the more fundamental
processes at work. The work of Keynes is a case in point. His analysis in
the 1930s was consciously directed to devising a program to save the
capitalist order, accompanied by declamations against the operations of high
finance.
“Speculators,” he wrote, “may do no harm as bubbles on a steady stream of
enterprise. But the position is serious when enterprise becomes the bubble
of a whirlwind of speculation. When the capital development of a country
becomes the by-product of a casino, the job is likely to be ill-done.”
Central to the mechanisms of the post-war economic order established at
the Bretton Woods conference of 1944 was the regulation of finance capital,
both nationally and, above all, internationally.
But the very expansion of the post-war capitalist economy, which the Bretton
Woods system helped to promote, led to the emergence of new
contradictions. By the time the major currencies of the world were made fully
convertible in 1958, considerable investment from the United States had
taken place in Europe. The growth of multinational enterprises underlay the
growth of the so-called Euro dollar market in the 1960s, increasingly outside
the control of the authorities in Britain and the US.
The growth of this financial market, in turn, undermined the system of
financial regulation, leading eventually to the scrapping of the Bretton Woods
system of fixed currency exchanges in August 1971.
There were calls at that time for the maintenance of the previous system that
had served capitalism so well during the previous three decades. But to
maintain the old order, it would have been necessary to cut back the growth
of international investment and impose severe deflationary policies in the
United States. In short, the system of national regulation could only have
been maintained through the imposition of what would have amounted to a
permanent global recession.
In the final analysis, the demise of the Bretton Woods system—bewailed by
the Keynesians and proponents of national regulation—was not the outcome
of “free market” ideology, but was rooted in the fact that the international
growth of the productive forces could no longer be constricted within the
framework of the nation-state system.
The collapse of the system of fixed currencies gave rise to new problems.
Fluctuations in currency values saw the creation of new financial
mechanisms. Faced with a situation where profits could be wiped out
virtually overnight due to changes in currency values, those corporations
engaged in import and export, as well as international investment, required
the development of a series of instruments to provide a hedge. Herein lies the
origin of derivatives, the financial instruments through which currencies can
be purchased at a fixed rate in the future.
But once the system of future contracts became established, it developed a
life of its own. Future contracts could be bought and sold and profits could be
made through arbitrage—trading to take account of different currency
valuations across the globe. Thus a system that began as a means to
service the needs of productive capital soon established itself as a vast new
market.
Attac and its supporters lose no opportunity in their publications to point to
the staggering growth of global financial markets and the accompanying
increase in speculation over the past two decades. But never do they probe
the reasons for this phenomenon, merely counterposing the “bad”—finance
capital and speculation—to the “good”—productive capital.
However, further examination reveals that one of the underlying reasons for
the growth of financial speculation has been the ever-present downward
pressure on profit rates over the past 20 years. Financial speculation has
assumed increasing importance under conditions where overcapacity has
emerged throughout the capitalist economy, meaning that capital finds it
increasingly difficult to accumulate profits through productive investment and
turns to other means.
One recent study of this process has noted that “an increasing proportion of
the total return on investments since the start of the 1980s has resulted from
capital gains (an appreciation in the market value of the securities
concerned) rather than earnings (dividends or interest plus reinvested profits),
with the former accounting for as much as 75 percent of total returns in the
USA and Britain—compared with well under 50 percent (on average) in the
1900-1979 period as a whole” [Harry Shutt, The Trouble with Capitalism,
page 124].
The pressure on the rate of profit is manifested not only in increased
speculation but in more fundamental processes as well. Under the pressure
of finance capital, demanding increasing returns on shareholder value, on
pain of being denied access to additional funds, productive capital directly
engaged in the extraction of surplus value from the working class has been
forced to carry out a vast re-organisation of the production process.
The globalisation of production, the merger movement not only within
countries but, above all, on a global scale, the continuous introduction of new
technologies, the relentless downsizing in major corporations and the
consequent increasing intensity of the labour process (both physical and
intellectual) are all expressions of this drive by finance capital for the
increased extraction of surplus value.
But it would be completely wrong to see this pressure as emanating from
finance capital as such. Rather, the dictates of the financial markets
represent the drive of capital as a whole to overcome the tendency of the rate
of profit to fall, a tendency, which as Marx demonstrated, is rooted in the
very foundations of the capitalist mode of production itself.
Throughout its history, the capitalist mode of production has continuously
revolutionised the processes of production, resulting in an increase in the
productivity of labour.
However, this affects the rate of profit—the essential determinant of the rate
of capital accumulation—in two contradictory ways. On the one hand, to the
extent that rising labour productivity reduces the proportion of living
labour—the ultimate source of all surplus value and profit—in the production
process, it tends to lower the rate of profit. On the other hand, to the extent
that increased labour productivity increases the surplus value extracted from
each worker, it tends to increase the rate of profit.
The history of postwar capitalism can only be grasped on the basis of these
two tendencies. The restablisation and expansion of capitalism in the
postwar period was based on the extension, to Europe and the rest of the
world, of the vastly more productive assembly-line methods of production
developed in the US in the 1920s and 1930s. This induced an increase in the
rate of profit as a whole, giving rise to a “golden age”—the period from 1945
to 1970—to which Attac and the other proponents of regulatory policies look
back so longingly.
But the postwar expansion did not do away with the contradictions of the
capitalist system. The pressure on the rate of profit began to reappear from
the late 1960s, and for the past 25 years capital has been engaged in a drive
to once again increase labour productivity.
This has not led to a return, however, of the conditions of the postwar
expansion. On the contrary, as a result of the entire antecedent development
in the productivity of labour, stretching back over 200 years, the point has
now been reached where further increases in the productivity of labour are
unable to counter the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. In fact, further
increases in labour productivity, which capitalist firms are compelled to try
and develop under the pressure of competition in the market, rather than
lessen the pressure on profit rates, tend to increase it.
This is what lies behind the frantic struggle by capital, not only to drive down
wages and conditions, but to claw back the social welfare and other
concessions it was forced to make in an earlier period, in a desperate bid to
increase the mass of surplus value available to it. Herein lies the source of
the relentless attack on the living standards and social conditions of working
people in the developed and poor countries alike. It is being led and
organised by finance capital, not in opposition to productive capital, but in
the interests of capital as a whole.
This analysis of the operations of finance capital, and its relationship to the
capitalist system as a whole, exposes the fallacies of the Attac program.
The re-regulation of finance capital, even if it were carried out, could not
return the conditions of the postwar boom, or anything approaching them,
because these conditions were shattered by the very development of
capitalist production itself.
The vast increases in labour productivity, arising from the technological
transformations in production processes during the past two decades, have
created a crisis for the global capitalist system. It cannot be resolved either
by the neo-liberal program of the “free market” or by the imposition of new
forms of regulation by the nation-state. This conclusion, arrived at from a
consideration of fundamental economic tendencies, has far-reaching political
implications.
The root of the crisis lies in the contradiction between the productive forces
created by capitalism, manifested in the rising productivity of labour, and the
social relations based on the private appropriation of profit and the nation-
state system.
But the very growth of labour productivity, which is at the heart of the global
crisis of capitalism, provides the material foundations for a higher social order.
Attac, and other proponents of the Tobin tax, point to the vast flows of
international finance and the accumulation of enormous wealth in the hands
of a tiny minority to correctly draw out that more than sufficient resources
exist to provide all the people of the world with decent and improving living
standards.
But their program does not aim to realise such a perspective. Rather, its
purpose is to prevent the anti-capitalist movement from developing a
conscious international socialist perspective and to turn it back, instead, into
the embrace of the nation-state. In other words, for all their denunciations of
the financial markets, Attac is not an opponent of the global capitalist order.
It seeks to provide the bourgeoisie with political defence mechanisms not
only against the protest movements but, even more importantly, against the
upsurge of the working class these movements presage. That is why Jospin
is taking up Attac’s policies.
In opposition to Attac and other such movements, the great political task
posed by the crisis of global capitalism is not the return to some mythical
golden age. It is the development of a political movement of the international
working class on the basis of a socialist program aimed at the overturn of
global capitalism and the reorganisation of the world economy in a
progressive fashion. Only in this way can the vast productive forces created
by generations of workers be used to meet human need. This is the
perspective fought for by the International Committee of the Fourth
International and the World Socialist Web Site.
Copyright 1998-2001
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Forwarded as information only; no endorsement to be presumed
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material
is distributed without charge or profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information
for non-profit research and educational purposes only.
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
The only real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking
new landscapes but in having new eyes. -Marcel Proust
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe
simply because it has been handed down for many generations. Do not
believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do
not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not
believe in anything merely on the authority of Teachers, elders or wise men.
Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it
agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all.
Then accept it and live up to it."
The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sutta
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A merely fallen enemy may rise again, but the reconciled
one is truly vanquished. -Johann Christoph Schiller,
German Writer (1759-1805)
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that
prevents us from living freely and nobly. -Bertrand Russell
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Everyone has the right...to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and regardless
of frontiers."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
"Always do sober what you said you'd do drunk. That will
teach you to keep your mouth shut."
--- Ernest Hemingway
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
