Re: [Marxism] Externalities
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == This is also a problem I have been thinking about a lot since the downturn. I had expected a somewhat different policy reaction overall to the crisis, had half-believed some of Obama's green economy rhetoric (though was never a supporter), etc. I won't claim to have found any truly satisfactory answers to this but one thing that I am becoming convinced of is that this is bound up with the processes of globalization and financialization that have occurred over the past 30+ years. I think they have in some ways changed the nature of the game. To what extent does the US ruling class view itself as a specifically US national ruling class and to what extent does it think of itself as a global ruling class? The privileged white layers of 'middle class' workers in the US used to be able to count on a commonality of 'national' interest and this is simply less true now and this erosion is one of the factors behind the tea party phenomena. I think the top layers of the ruling class are simply not that interested in maintaining specifically national interests though they are concerned about interests globally. I guess what I am saying is that their interests appear very irrational when viewed in a national context (So that one might be tempted to dump Marx for some variation of Freudo-Marx and think that the ruling classes were simply crazy or decadent) but less irrational when viewed in a global context. Personally this means I tend to give some credit to people like William Robinson. I am a long way from agreeing with all his formulations but I think he is on to something important as well. A shift in the interests in the top layers of the ruling class from national to global driven by the growth of multinational production chains and the creation of vast global financial markets would potentially explain some of the apparent irrationality we are seeing. I think we have also seen a shift in the nature of inter-imperialist competition, from old style 'our capitalists versus yours' to one based on state competition over becoming better investment vehicles for transnational capital, bond markets, etc. This is a reason why taxing the rich and/or corporation is off the table. If ruling class interests were national some degree of shared sacrifice for the sake of long term inter-state competitive advantage would be expected but if it is now primarily global and competition is focused on attracting and retaining investment then raising taxes on the rich or corporations could put you at a serious disadvantage. One of the things that keeps coming up in these discussions of austerity why there -must- be cuts, the threat of public insurrection be damned, is this fear of the bond markets. Is it real or an excuse? The simpler explanation is that it is that it is real and that global financial markets are in fact playing an important independent role in disciplining national economies, even the largest like the US. >From a global perspective how much sense does it make to maintain large, inclusive 'middle classes' in the core countries? Maybe not too much. Could be drag on becoming a better global investment vehicle. Also could the globalization thesis account for some of the trend toward authoritarianism, what Robinson calls '21st century fascism'? A shift towards more authoritarian governance mechanisms could be a natural consequence of a ruling class no longer closely tied to national interests and dependent on national legitimation for its authority. '21st century fascism' could be a bad term in that it makes an analogy with twentieth century fascism when it is really a very different beast though perhaps just as serious in its own way. There is a broad right-wing authoritarian trend in the core countries that has accelerated in this crisis instead of moderating. It isn't explained by classical theories of fascism so what explains it? How do we think about it? Another aspect may be that the ruling class is aware that there is no way that capitalism will ever productively assimilate billions of surplus workers (the 'planet of slums') and that portions of humanity have to be walled off from each other in a sort of global police-state/gated-community, the damned and the saved, so to speak. I can't help thinking that Israel/Palestine has been the test bed for this new form of capitalist governance. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Louis Proyect wrote: > == > Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. > == > > As you might recall, I have pondered long and hard the question of why the > bourgeoisie is "threatening the lives of their grandchildren."
Re: [Marxism] Externalities
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Louis has hit on a crucial question and cited one very important factor which is part of the answer. The bourgeois academics -- economists, but not just them -- of course love to assume everyone is an atomized decisionmaker with only the narrowest time frame. Even in sociology, thinkers like Mancur Olson obsess over an alleged "free rider effect" in which collective action is theoretically impossible because everyone will wait for someone else to pay their dues (literally and figuratively speaking), i.e. they "externalize" to the maximum extent possible, so the only way collective action can happen is through coercion. This stands in stark contrast to the mantra in most strikes: "I'm doing this for my grandkids!" And the academic assumption that people can't think, and thus act, for the long run is so obviously false. BUT As Louis points out, people -- of any class -- need a motivation to act on their long-term interests and desires. Furthermore, they need an ideology and an organization to express and shape those interests and desires; and they need reason to believe they (or their heirs) can be successful. I'm in the middle of re-reading Trotsky's "History", and it's full of wonderful vignettes describing the success or lack thereof of individuals seeking to pursue their long-term interests -- and what stood in their way. On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: > > Something else is going on that I can't quite put my finger on, but it has > something to do with the decline of America as an industrial power. > Investments in infrastructure and education are usually connected with a > belief that your own country has a future as an economic power. Just look at > China's investment in green technology. > > Perhaps the "shortsightedness" of the American bourgeoisie reflects a sense > that it has no future as a hegemon? > > > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu > Set your options at: > http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/acpollack2%40gmail.com > Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
Re: [Marxism] Externalities
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == On 5/11/11 1:52 PM, Louis Proyect wrote: Perhaps the "shortsightedness" of the American bourgeoisie reflects a sense that it has no future as a hegemon? it seems like an awful lot of the richest ones are investing in manned space flight. Les Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
[Marxism] Externalities
== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. == Les Schaffer just sent me a link to an article by Chomsky that contains the following: Public attitudes are a little hard to judge. There are a lot of polls, and they have what look like varying results, depending on exactly how you interpret the questions and the answers. But a very substantial part of the population, maybe a big majority, is inclined to dismiss this as just kind of a liberal hoax. What's particularly interesting is the role of the corporate sector, which pretty much runs the country and the political system. They're very explicit. The big business lobbies, like the Chamber of Commerce, American Petroleum Institute, and others, have been very clear and explicit. A couple of years ago they said they are going to carry out -- they since have been carrying out -- a major publicity campaign to convince people that it's not real, that it's a liberal hoax. Judging by polls, that's had an effect. It's particularly interesting to take a look at the people who are running these campaigns, say, the CEOs of big corporations. They know as well as you and I do that it's very real and that the threats are very dire, and that they're threatening the lives of their grandchildren. In fact, they're threatening what they own, they own the world, and they're threatening its survival. Which seems irrational, and it is, from a certain perspective. But from another perspective it's highly rational. They're acting within the structure of the institutions of which they are a part. They are functioning within something like market systems -- not quite, but partially -- market systems. To the extent that you participate in a market system, you disregard necessarily what economists call "externalities," the effect of a transaction upon others. So, for example, if one of you sells me a car, we may try to make a good deal for ourselves, but we don't take into account in that transaction the effect of the transaction on others. Of course, there is an effect. It may feel like a small effect, but if it multiplies over a lot of people, it's a huge effect: pollution, congestion, wasting time in traffic jams, all sorts of things. Those you don't take into account -- necessarily. That's part of the market system. full: http://chomsky.info/talks/20100930.htm As you might recall, I have pondered long and hard the question of why the bourgeoisie is "threatening the lives of their grandchildren." I think I understand Chomsky's argument but it still does not satisfy me. We do know that the bourgeoisie has been able to transcend externalities in the past. Theodore Roosevelt's ambitious conservation program was evidence of that (so much so that Lenin sought to emulate it in the USSR), as was the creation of a public school system that was second to none in the world. Something else is going on that I can't quite put my finger on, but it has something to do with the decline of America as an industrial power. Investments in infrastructure and education are usually connected with a belief that your own country has a future as an economic power. Just look at China's investment in green technology. Perhaps the "shortsightedness" of the American bourgeoisie reflects a sense that it has no future as a hegemon? Send list submissions to: Marxism@greenhouse.economics.utah.edu Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
