Keeping the pressure on: what now for the anti-bailout activists? by Ornaith O'Dowd, NYC

There is, I fear, a sense of bewilderment abroad among working people now that the bailout has passed and as the economic crisis deepens. What coherent counter-narratives are available for those who are beginning to lose faith in the standard ones provided by capitalist politicians and media? What possibilities exist for radical grass-roots economic justice movements in the current context? What, exactly, should we be demanding?
In my last essay, I argued that the best response to those who defended the bailout on the grounds that it was necessary to prevent disaster on Wall Street that would inevitably hit jobs, pensions, and so on was to broaden the question and ask why it is that we have a system that places so much power in the hands of investors. Why should we have pensions depend on the stock market, and why should the moods of investors have such significance?
If we are to find a just and rational way out of this crisis, or rather a way to recover from it, a thorough and profound debate about these questions is essential. Sadly, only a small minority of non-mainstream, that is non-corporate, media outlets have moved beyond reporting the dizzying swings of the Dow or FTSE and, on occasion, giving a superficial account of the controversy over the bailout.
It has been heartening to see so many working people take to the streets in protest at the bailout. Many of the protests have been organized by small, ad-hoc groups and have been publicized through grass-roots networks. I'm reminded of Hannah Arendt's claim that revolutions are carried out not by established "revolutionary" parties or organizations, but by spontaneously-constituted groups of people who, quite simply, have had enough of the system (note, not just the particular rulers) in place. I wonder, however, whether these protests will lose steam as the immediate, relatively concrete issue of the $700 billion bailout fades somewhat from the headlines and generalized economic crisis takes its place. The answer depends on the kinds of analysis available to the protesters and their supporters (and potential supporters).
One obvious thing to do in seeking the understand the prospects for such a movement is to look at the last economic crisis of this scale: the Great Depression. It was the spontaneous, grassroots-led, radical struggle of workers during that period that gave them their greatest gains and caused the greatest alarm in the capitalist class. The consolidation of the "mainstream" labor unions-- the AFL and CIO-- and their co-operation with the new National Labor Relations Board came as something of a relief to big business, since it offered the prospect of industrial "peace" and stability after the militant strikes of the 1930s. We should bear in mind, though, that these workers lived in a culture where worker struggles were always fresh in the community's memory, and where many writers and groups openly advocated various forms of socialism. They would have remembered Eugene Debs of the Socialist Party, who ran for President several times, finally in 1920, winning 900,000 votes. Debs himself had first been radicalized during the long Depression that followed the economic crisis of 1893. Radical movements-- of workers, the unemployed, veterans-- were brutally repressed time and time again and yet, their spirit survived and was taken up by new activists. System-saving reform and the outbreak of the Second World War blunted their edge, but it was really McCarthyism that did what mere beatings, killings, and imprisonments could not: it demonized them and made their own natural constituency hostile to them. (Needless to say, Stalinism's perversion of socialism/ communism helped this process greatly.) Even the tumult of the 1960s did not seriously revive this tradition.
What now, then? For the first time in many years, we can see the possibility of a great moment of clarity: the system's true nature and the interests of the different groups within it are becoming visible to a great many people for the first time. The bailout has shown that those in power in this system-- the capitalist class, including CEOs and Senators-- will do whatever it takes to save capitalists, and little or nothing to save anyone else, when there is trouble. It's not necessarily that the individual CEOs and Senators are cruel or greedy, although many are; it is not about personal qualities of individuals at all. It's about the dynamics of the system. It's simple: their interests are not your interests. If you're stranded on a New Orleans rooftop, bankrupted by medical costs, or facing foreclosure, you will not be bailed out; if you own an investment bank that has run into trouble, you will. That's just how it works. The appropriate demand, I think, is not just the rollback of the bailout and a New Deal re-enactment; the system-- capitalism-- that makes it "necessary" to bail out the bankers, not the workers, should itself be replaced by a system that organizes its priorities differently. As I suggested in my last post, this requires us to think about what economies are for: profit or people?
In short, the situation requires a radical anticapitalist movement with a radical anticapitalist analysis showing what is wrong with the system as a whole and how we can do better. For this reason, it is perhaps better that the anti-bailout and anti-eviction activism we are seeing is not led by "mainstream" groups such as the less radical unions. However, it is hard to create such movements and analyses in a vaccuum. Existing unions, political parties, and other organizations face a decision: will they step into the street or stay in their office suites?

Read More...

Summary only...

Change is in the Air by Matias Bulnes, NYC

The situation of the US seems to be as precarious as it has ever been: An unprecedented debt, a looming economic crisis of unbeknown consequences, an unmanageable war, the threat of terrorism lurking, China’s power increasing persistently and, let’s not forget, all this in the midst of a fierce struggle over interpretations of fundamental constitutional principles sparked by the Guantanamo Base prison and the wiretapping of citizens. And when one hits rock-bottom consolation comes from the realization that things can hardly go worse. But this is not to say that things are going to get better. For the US economy can go a long time before it recovers—as it happened after the Great Depression. And in fact, it may never totally recover, as some fear that China might relegate the US to a secondary role sooner rather than latter. The challenge of the day is to get out of the hole as fast as possible and, perhaps more importantly in the long-run, to get out of the course of events that led the country down this hole. The country needs change—and desperately so.

There can hardly be any doubt that the main responsible for the present state of affairs is the Republican Party in general, and the Bush administration in particular. Clinton handed the country to Bush with surplus after a decade of economic prosperity, no major military conflict, in fairly good terms with its European allies, and with the Israel-Palestine conflict having come as close to a solution as it has ever been. The Republican administration will likely return the country in the aforementioned deplorable conditions—may they not have another period to devastate it more.

Not even external, unforeseeable circumstances such as the terrorist attacks of 9/11 can account for the magnitude of the disaster. There are plenty of fingers one can point to decisions that straightforwardly explain much of the problems. Economists from within and without the country had been warning for years of the risks involved in such a ruthless deregulation of the US financial market. Or as many have observed, it is just naïve to believe that a housing market that always goes up might not turn out to be a bubble. Or in foreign policy, even now nobody understands why go into Iraq in order to hunt down someone who is hiding in Afghanistan and, moreover, in a way that undermines international institutions and threatens one’s allies. The list goes on and on.

All of this is familiar territory. But more significant than the usual declamations about Bush’s mistakes is the ideology that has driven him through such unfortunate decisions. For as one would have expected, all the mistakes hang together nicely in a way that reveals American conservativism in the background. The deregulation of the markets is the battle flag of the conservative right, while preemptive war has been advocated by the religious right and the neoconservatives. These two policies account for a good deal of the present distress, both of them courtesy of American conservativism.

The association between the present crisis and the conservative views that have dominated US politics over the last decades is clear in theory. The question is whether it’ll be as clear to the voter’s mind. And I think we can be optimistic about change in the political direction of the country to the same extent that we should be pessimistic about the current situation and the near future. For the American electorate has proved to be more sensitive to shock therapy than to ideological reasons, and crises, when severe, are felt by everyone around both sharply and helplessly. If the crisis is as bad as experts predict, voters will look around for people to put the blame on and eventually find conservatives and the Free-market gurus.

In fact, this path has been traveled before. The Great Depression, lately used to inspire fear of the present crisis, also marked a point of inflection in US politics. After decades of Republican domination the Great Depression ushered in more than 30 years of Democratic control of the White House only interrupted by Eisenhower. In fact, that was the last time Democrats won back to back elections. And then you have Marx all over again: if you want people to change prick them on their pocket.

Democrats brought Keynesian ideas to the table putting thus an end to that old-school Capitalism advocated by Republicans which had led the country to the economic crisis. A smoother form of Capitalism ruled the US for a few decades while Conservatives regrouped around Milton Friedman’s ideas. With the Cold War a new era of Conservative dominance kicked off. Arguably an era that goes on until today.

Neoliberals would probably want to view the historical progression in a different light. They would rather say that the American electorate always falls back to their ideology because in the long-run it pays off. That is, even with the crises the sparkling dynamism created by deregulated markets is the key to the US economic success and its political supremacy in the modern world. But this view does not seem historically accurate as the US has experienced enormous prosperity in times of Democratic presidencies. And more importantly, it is not clear that the electorate should place such a tremendous importance on growth at the expense of economic stability. In the light of the current distress, it may well turn out to be more rational to settle for a moderate though sustained growth while avoiding such traumatic episodes as economic crises.

The analogy with the Great Depression is no more than an imperfect comparison. But it is one that exemplifies the underlying forces that produce significant change in the political landscape. While crises are always regrettable due to their devastating human consequences, they also urge revision of political institution and policies. In short, crises oftentimes ensue reorganization and change. It is my hope that the American electorate will react to this wake-up call and will finally opt for a more friendly form of Capitalism.

Read More...

Summary only...

What's behind the bailout? by Ornaith O'Dowd, NYC

The passage of the bailout in Congress has, thus far, failed to calm the markets: the Dow fell below 10,000 today, and world markets followed a similar pattern, as investors worried that global recession was inevitable. The bailout, even if it works (whatever that means, since there are no clear criteria to measure its success), will not prevent the intensification of this economic crisis. What now?
I have heard comparisons between the bailout and the passage of the PATRIOT Act in the aftermath of 9/11, when sinister forces on the right used fear and panic to rush through a long list of extreme measures. The PATRIOT Act ushered in an era of Constitution-wrecking, torture, war, and repression. What era is being ushered in by the bailout?
As Naomi Klein has been pointing out recently, it is a mistake to think that the current upheavals signal any kind of collapse of capitalism. I do think that the contradictions, dangers, and injustices of the capitalist system have been laid bare in a remarkable way, but I share Klein's view that the (economic) right is preparing to profit-- in more than one way-- from the crisis.
First, the bailout will, as far as possible, protect the interests of the capitalist class, insulating them from the worst consequences of their ventures. As an indication of how the scheme will be run, note that Paulson has appointed another former Goldman Sachs executive, Neal Kashkari, to administer the $700 billion extravaganza. The bailout's provisions on executive pay are full of loopholes; in any case, it's largely a sideshow to distract the public's attention from the structural injustices of the system. They will weather the storm; working people, as usual, will pay.
Second, unless radical change occurs in Washington, for which I don't advise holding your breath, the bailout may have more sinister effects: it may be used to justify spending cuts that will hurt the poorest; it will do nothing to prevent, and may even encourage, the present consolidation in the banking system, leaving a handful of banks dominating the market; it may serve as a prelude to further anti-worker, pro-capitalist measures, all under the guise of meltdown prevention.
What will we be asked to agree to next, on pain of precipitating economic collapse? I want to say a little about this move, because I think it is enormously significant. Discussions about the bailout often run roughly as follows:
"I don't think working people should bail out these Wall Street fat cats who gambled and lost. Let them deal with it."
"But if you let them deal with it, the system will collapse, credit will freeze up completely-- with dire consequences for small-business owners and consumers as well as the fat cats, there will be a stock market collapse-- there goes your retirement, and there will be a disastrous depression."
There are two ways to respond here. The first is to posit alternative models of government intervention; for example, Sen. Bernie Sanders' proposal to fund the bailout by imposing extra taxes on the rich, or the various "trickle-up" proposals involving help for homeowners facing foreclosure, healthcare reform (which will help those struggling with medical debt, a major cause of inability to meet mortgage payments), and public works to provide employment and thus stimulate the (real) economy.
The second, much less discussed, is to look at underlying structures. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the dire threats described above are credible: must we acquiesce and admit the necessity of whatever the bankers and the markets demand? Well, only if we accept a system that allows their demands to determine so much. Why should people's retirement plans depend on a clique of speculators? Why should we need to borrow money to get an education or have a home? Why should the health of an economy be measured by stock market numbers and not by the meeting of human needs? If these sound like naive questions, we should ask why. Even in the midst of a deep crisis, few are pausing to look at the underlying ideas that have caused it. It's not just deregulation, it's capitalism itself; it's the conventional understanding of the concept of "economics" or "economies". What is economic activity for? What is economic success? The conventional wisdom is that such things involve measures such as GNP, stock market indexes, and corporate profits. But why accept this "wisdom" without question? It hasn't worked-- at least not for us, for working people. It tells us, when times are "good" (i.e. rising profits for corporations, rising costs for working people), that the country cannot afford to give us health care or decent public education, and it tells us, when times are bad, that the country cannot afford to give us health care or decent public education-- and by the way, can we give some of our money to the poor folks on Wall Street? Any system that dispenses such wisdom should be considered deeply suspect.
This is a time for urgent and deep reflection, for radicalism in the true sense of the word. If we are not ready with our arguments and analysis, the pro-capitalists will dominate the discussion at a time when, one might say, the mask is slipping and people are getting a real sense of the brutal unfairness of the system. Are we ready?

Read More...

Summary only...