1. A huge build up of Money Capital in the East, held in the form of western debt, western (primarily dollar) currency reserves.
This leads to an undervaluation of Eastern currencies (primarily RMB), and over valuation of western (primarily dollar) currencies. China needs to revalue, but any revaluation of the RMB would mean that its foreign currency holdings, and its holdings of foreign, primarily US, debt would immediately be devalued by that amount. Moreover, it might spark a run on the dollar, leading to its collapse, which would simultaneously destroy the value of China's holdings of debt and currency, and also cut off one of its major export markets.2. The usual clear out of inefficient Capital that occurs during a severe crisis was cut short in the West by the use of liquidity to stimulate an artificial “boom” from the late 80's through the 90's.
Although, the Rate of Profit rose in the West from the late 80's onwards due to the usual mechanism that brings this about from the bottom of a Long Wave cycle, that increase was lower than it should have been, and the Rate of Accumulation was lower than it would otherwise have been. That is why, stripping out the continued role of liquidity injections from the start of this decade, growth has been less than stellar in the West, whilst developing economies have leapt ahead by 10% p.a. and more.3. The same cause explains why Capital remained locked up in low profit (at best) industries and companies like GM, Ford, Chrysler etc. rather than having migrated to new, high, value, high profit industries such as in alternative energy, bio-technology, and so on.
The Capitalist State is now trying to drive this process, and using the recent crisis as the basis to forcibly restructure Capital in these old industries, and to direct it towards the new industries – a similar process occurred in Britain in the early 1960's, as part of Wilson's “White Heat of Technology”, the establishment of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation, and so on.4. The world economy is now also characterised increasingly by a global market for Labour Power, and, therefore, a single Value of Labour Power. In the past, global frictions, the problems for Capital simply migrating overseas to find new supplies of cheap labour were frustrated by the lack of a bourgeois state to protect its interests, by the lack of infrastructure to move inputs and outputs to and from markets, by the lack of educated or stable workforces, and so western workers could receive higher wages, because unit costs remained lower than in less developed economies. This is increasingly not the case. Even China now, is investing on a large scale in Africa, in order to make use of cheaper labour. Economies such as China now have all the same advantages of stability, infrastructure, educated workers, and the latest equipment that exist in the West. In terms of like for like production, workers in the West cannot compete on the basis of existing living standards. Either those living standards have to fall, or production in the West has to move to those higher value, higher profit areas described above.
5. The same conditions, which led to Big capital seeking a stable environment in which to make long term investment decisions, apply to the massive investments needed in these new industries. In the 1960's, Capitalist States, and even larger formations such as the EEC, acted to create the conditions under which industry would invest in Nuclear Power.
The size of investments required, the size of markets required, and the stability required for these investments require the intervention of large states, or economic blocs such as the EEC to act to provide the necessary climate. The same applies to industries such as aerospace, and space technology. Indeed, this is one reason that the EEC was established in order that the same kinds of conditions could be created for European Capital, as already existed for US capital.6. The logic of Imperialist development is the establishment of a single global economy, with a single currency, and single State. The contradictions that rack the social relation that is Imperialism, make the achievement of that unlikely, and it proceeds by violent contradictions continually being in the process of resolution. In so far as the logic of Imperialism drives towards that conclusion it is historically progressive.
We should not oppose that drive, but push forward the progressive elements of those contradictions, and at all times fight for the interests of the working-class within it. Imperialist War is a reflection of the fact that those contradictions have not been resolved, and that they have reached a point in which they can only be resolved by a crisis. 7. The development of larger structures than the Nation State, are themselves a reflection of the inability to resolve those contradictions, and the need to proceed by limited solutions, a process of Reformism. Just as Monopoly is a more mature form of Capitalist enterprise, and therefore, more progressive than small-scale free enterprise, but yet, still cannot resolve the contradictions of Capitalist production and competition, so the establishment of multi-state structures such as the EEC are more mature forms than the Nation State and therefore more progressive, and yet still cannot fully deal with the contradictions of global Capitalism, and global competition. In the same way that Marxists do not support small-scale free enterprise as opposed to Monopoly or State Capitalism, because it is backward looking and reactionary, so Marxists do not support the Nation State as opposed to the EEC or similar developments. We propose Socialism, and the immediate interests of workers to both. In place of Monopoly or State Capitalism we advocate Workers Ownership and Control. In place of the EEC we propose a Socialist United States of Europe. In the meantime, we advocate a defence of workers rights within the Monopolies and State Capitalism, and raise the demand for greater democracy where appropriate, whilst pointing out that such democracy can only be sham without workers ownership. Whether in the Nation State, or in the EEC, we defend Workers Interests against reactionary laws and Constitutions that restrict workers ability to defend themselves, and restrict their ability to develop self-activity and self-government. We demand at the very least a consistent bourgeois democracy in either the Nation State or the EEC, whilst pointing out that bourgeois democracy remains a sham so long as the levers of State Power, control of the media etc. remain in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
8. Capital is so racked by contradiction that it cannot push forward these solutions consistently. But, for now, the working class, which is the only force that is potentially capable of carrying through such solutions, is too weak to do so. It is weak politically because it is weak ideologically. It is weak ideologically because it is weak economically and socially, such that the reproduction of Capital as a social relation reproduces bourgeois ideas as overwhelmingly dominant. It is weak economically and socially because, it has remained trapped within that social relation, has limited itself to bargaining within the system, to Trade Union struggle, and parliamentary reform, rather than an attempt to develop its own Co-operative property, and to engage in its own self-government, as the basic requirement of its own self-activity.
In part, it has remained trapped within that social relation, within the realms of Economism, because of the misleadership of its movement, by “Marxists”, who have abandoned the teachings of Marx in favour of the teachings of Lassalle, and of Fabianism.9. Capital then seeks to resolve these contradictions, and to impose its own solutions within the confines of that same “Social-Democratic” ideology spelled out above. Where it can avoid open conflict it does so. Where it can proceed by consensus it will do so, particularly where this can be achieved within the confines and under the auspices of bourgeois democracy. Where it cannot achieve that it will attempt to bring about such resolution by bureaucratic, rather than democratic means. The development of the EEC has been a classic example of such a process. But, similar processes can be seen within the Nation State too, where decisions are made “behind closed doors” for which a popular mandate could not be achieved, or where winning such a mandate would itself require an open struggle against reactionary sections of society, which would in itself expose divisions within the ranks of the ruling class itself, and create those very conditions of instability it seeks to avoid.
10. Examples of this are most clearly seen in relation to “moral” and social questions. Most advanced states have abolished the Death Penalty. Yet, in most states, there is a popular majority in favour of Capital Punishment. The ruling elite have found that on many of these issues they can rely on acquiescence. In other areas, such as the attitude towards homosexuality, the removal of legal sanctions, has gone alongside the gradual transformation of attitudes. Yet, it is clear that this process has failed to deal with a continued legacy of homophobia that continues to lurk beneath the surface, and often above it. But, the repeated instances of homophobia within the Tory Party, demonstrates the problem for Capital, were it to launch a decisive campaign against it. The same is true of attitudes to Racism and Sexism. Although, for some sections of Capital, the continuance of such reactionary ideas assists in the division of the working class, overall, for Big Capital, they are probably counter-productive, and similar to those “low means of making money” referred to by Engels.
A free movement of labour is in the interests of Big capital, in order to ensure that sufficient labour is available when it wants it, and is one means of it dealing with the problem referred to earlier of the uncompetitiveness of western labour as against labour in China and other parts of the world.11. For so long as living standards continued to rise many of these problems could be accommodated. It is when continued increases in living standards are no longer secure that these contradictions manifest themselves.
Back To Part 4
Forward To Part 6
No comments:
Post a Comment