Crisis cannot be offloaded
James Turley writes that we need an internationalist response to the capitalist crisis
When the present economic crisis first began to bite, the bourgeois press – and the left – used up a lot of ink discussing how deep it would turn out to be. Would it be as bad as the 1997 Asian financial collapse, the 1987 crash on Wall Street, the stagflation of the 1970s …?
Now, the list of options has been whittled down to one – the one the bourgeoisie did not even allow itself to think about two years ago. Every financial column in the western world is haunted, daily, by the spectre of the great depression of 1929-33. No other period bears witness to such precipitous collapses of hundred-billion-dollar financial institutions. Most worrying of all is the international dimension – the national and regional limitations of more recent bubbles, wobbles and recessions have been comprehensively broken by a crisis that has come close to sending entire countries to the wall.
In Britain, recent financial headlines have been dominated by Bank of England boss Mervyn King’s announcement of a £75 billion ‘quantitative easing’ package. This involves the bank buying certain assets – usually government bonds – from private financial institutions as a backhanded way of injecting cash into the banking sector. It has a useful side effect, in that buying up large numbers of government bonds in this way tends to increase their value. Because bank lending rates are partially linked to government bond yields, buying them up should help spur lending – as, of course, should handing over £75 billion. Encouragingly for the government and Bank of England, the Financial Times reports that government bond prices have indeed increased sharply, though it is early days yet for the quantitative easing programme (March 10).
This cash is, in this case, “central bank money” – a very bland way of saying that King and his subordinates have effectively willed it into existence (printing money, as it would be called in the days before electronic transfers). Unsurprisingly, this has been controversial – lurid tales abound of hyperinflation, of Britain reduced to the state of Germany in 1923. This is most likely misplaced – in the first instance, it is by no means certain that this money will do much of anything. It is certainly not the first multi-billion-pound package to be thrown at the banks, and it would not be the first to fail to stimulate lending.
Secondly, the story of the crisis so far has been a collapse in the market value of financial products. Over the last decade and before, the amount of ostensible monetary wealth in the economy has increased to an incredible degree – at its peak, the international derivatives trade was valued in the hundreds of trillions of US dollars. This capital is, in Marxist terms, fictitious – and it is the first, if certainly not the only, victim of the crisis. In the context of generalised collapse of asset values, a short, sharp increase is not likely to lead to a spike in inflation, let alone a catastrophic spiral motion in the manner of today’s Zimbabwe – not on its own, at any rate.
In any case, Gordon Brown and Mervyn King are running out of options. The government had already been forced into taking a majority stake in Royal Bank of Scotland in January, and finally did the same to Lloyds on Friday (though it faced more resistance from the latter’s board, according to the March 7 Financial Times). We stress the word ‘forced’ – Gordon Brown and his colleagues have been extraordinarily resistant to nationalising the banks outright, or making full use of their new stakeholding muscle to ensure a relaxation in the credit markets.
Partly this is an ideological matter – New Labour orthodoxy is virulently and unabashedly neoliberal, and Brown, along with his predecessor, Tony Blair, frequently boasted of Britain’s economic deregulation. The main factor, however, is an objective one. Nationalising the banks effectively commits Brown to carrying the can – it can only be a first step in a general reorganisation of British economic life most likely in the direction of protectionism. It would be very much a gamble.
A more attractive gamble, from Brown’s point of view, is on international action to combat the crisis. The G20 group of the 19 largest economies (plus the EU) meets in London on April 1. Brown is hopeful that some useful agreement can come out of it – on reining in tax havens, or curbing the much-maligned ‘bonus culture’. He is particularly concerned to argue for ‘free trade’, as Britain is not the only country to come under the temptation to protectionism in lean times. ‘Free trade’, however, most likely refers to the assemblage of mechanisms for enforcing unequal dependency relations between the imperialist powers and the third world, for which that phrase has become a particularly notorious euphemism.
Somehow making countries lower down the food chain pay for the crisis will be a concern of great interest to the G20, and particularly to the most politically powerful in that group. What could have turned out to be a substantial international recession in 1997, for example, was successfully dumped on particular states or regions – in that case, the ‘tiger’ economies of the east Asian Pacific rim.
It is possible, however, that this crisis is too deeply rooted in America and Britain, as well as other metropolitan states, to be offloaded in this way. The case of China is instructive here. How long ago it now seems that commentators – even among our comrades on the Marxist left – believed that China would ride in like a white night to save the world, however temporarily, from recession … yet it has been barely a year.
In that time, the bourgeoisie has gone from eyeing greedily the Stalinist regime’s substantial stocks of foreign currency to looking aghast at the state of the ‘real’ Chinese economy. In Britain the sudden loss of 2,331 jobs would cause shockwaves; but that is the number of shoe factories alone that closed in China in the first half of 2008.1 While the Chinese state still anticipates a growth rate of 8% this year, that is a fall from 26% last year and a two-decade low. Exports and imports have collapsed, as consumer demand in the west for Chinese products crumbles with the tightening of consumer credit.
Still, it is not the case that China is to be somehow sold up the river by the great powers. The decline in manufacturing in America and Britain particularly has obviously not diminished the latter countries’ need for manufactured goods. The net effect is that economic explosions in the far east are not contained within China, but reverberate back into the metropoles and generally sharpen contradictions throughout the world market.
And it is not only ‘purely’ financial contradictions that China is throwing up. USA Today reports on the mass protests at layoffs and closures rippling through the country. A Beijing academic is quoted assaying that the “recent mass incidents are the biggest political test the ruling party has faced since the 1989 incident” (February 2) – no prizes for guessing what that “1989 incident” was.
A serious political challenge to the ruling bureaucracy would have provoked the western capitalist class to salivation under other circumstances, suspicious as it still is of the pretensions to communism of China’s ruling party, and vexed as it is by China’s cultivation of trade blocs against the hegemony of the USA. A collapse of the Chinese government under current conditions, however, would not bode well for other countries, both in the region and throughout the world.
For these reasons, it is unlikely that the USA, Britain and other closely linked economies will be able to escape a long period of economic pain – it is simply not feasible to dump the ill effects on other economies, and to do so would carry enormous social risks for the ruling class. This is partially a symptom of the US’s accelerating decline as the world hegemon state, but also the epochal decline of capitalism as a functioning system.
By the same token, capitalism’s recovery – which will come, provided we are unable to get rid of the system in the interim – will take an international form, whether through conscious synchronisation of economic policy or through an ‘objective’ and uneven process (as was the case in the 1930s).
Proletarian responses to the crisis will have to be international as well – in this, if nothing else, we should be unabashed in learning lessons from Gordon Brown. The broader the scale of working class unity, the better – serious links between workers’ organisations in Britain and on the continent would be an important first step towards shaping events to our advantage, and pushing our demands.
It is necessary to make the case for a genuinely internationalist programme which combines economic demands with the crucial questions of democracy and state power – in a word, communism.
Note
1. www.einnews.com/pr-news/10317-china-factory-closures-shatter-decoupling-myth
There is no dispute between humans about our physical ability to produce all our basic needs, the dispute is about what is preventing us. This dispute is the basis of a perminant political division that dominates our society. For example, the left say the real problem is capitalism.
I do not see a problem with the overthrow of capitalism, if we had a clear coherant plan that the working class could see as achievable, the real problem would be uniting the working class so we strike as one rather than people striking as individuals or small groups.
Here lies the real problem, there is no clear understanding of the determining factor of the value of commodities. Without this understanding no clear plan can be developed.
There have been many revolutionary people throughout history. Had any of these people accepted the theories of their day as given they would not have been revolutionary. It is the theories that we accept as given that prevent us from gaining a clear understanding of value and thus developing a plan.
Value is a relationship between any particular part of the social division of labour in question and the rest of society.
For example if we say that a joiner’s labour power was valued at four pounds a day on average, why four and not ten? The joiner is not seen as skilled as say a plumber who is valued at five pounds a day, yet more skilled than a decorator who is valued at three pounds a day. The decorator is seen as more skilled than a cleaner who is valued at two pounds a day who in turn is more valued than a fruit picker who is seen as some one who does not have to be developed in any special way, not skilled. If we say that the minimum required to continue producing is one pound a day then that is what we pay the fruit picker. It appears to be handed down by tridition that unskilled labour is worth nothing more than the minimum, or as Marx calls it simple labour.
Simple labour requires food which requires farmers, builders and so, all of which are valued in this way. Once all these different parts of the social division of labour are reduced to what they exchange for, i,e the builder is worth four times that of the fruit picker the farmer is worth three times that of the fruit picker, we arrive at say four hours of labour to keep the fruit picker working, then that is what all the different parts of the social division of labour exchange for, who’s money name is one pound.
Capitalism will not be able to continue as it has. It requires stability, this stability that it requires creates instability through out the world. To restabilise it will support one country aganist another, only to change sides once this economic stability is threatened. However as it has reached 100% credit,ie every one who can buy a house for example has one and there is no room to increase the sell then the market will collapse. Those who buy a share at one pound must increase the value of their share. If we are going to sell less houses this year than last year then there is no room to increase the value of the share.
In the same way that a supermarket will bankrupt the small shop keeper and eventually arrive at a point where if one of these big supermarkets want to sell more they only can do so if the otherones sell less. The same applies to the big capitalist countries, the stability that Britian requires will come into contradition to that of an other.