The economic crisis has brought renewed interest in Karl Marx. Global sales of 'Capital' took off (in 2008, only one German publisher has sold thousands of copies, compared with hundreds sold the year before), which is a measure of the crisis is so massive in scale and destruction, that he led global capitalism - and its priests -- in the ideological 'corkscrew'.
And yet, although the belief in the neo-liberal tradition has failed, why resurrect Marx? To begin with, Marx strongly ahead of its time, predicting the success of capitalist globalization of recent decades. He accurately predicted many of the fateful factors that have led to today's global economic crisis: what he called 'contradictions' inherent in the world, consisting of competitive markets, goods and financial speculation.
Composing his most famous work at a time when French and American revolutions are not yet a hundred years, Marx had a premonition of events that led the AIG and Bear Sterns thrill and a half centuries later. He was unusually aware of that, he says, 'the most revolutionary role' played in human history, the bourgeoisie, the former predecessor of today's bankers on Wall Street and corporate management. As Marx wrote in his' Communist Manifesto ':' The bourgeoisie can not exist without constantly coups in the instruments of production, not revolutionizing, consequently, the relations of production, and consequently, the whole relations of society: In short, it creates a world after its own image and likeness. "
Читать дальше...
But Marx was not an ardent supporter of capitalist globalization, nor in time nor in ours. Instead, he realized that 'the need of a constantly expanding market for its products chases the bourgeoisie over the entire globe', predicting that the development of capitalism inevitably 'for more extensive and more devastating crises. " Marx pointed out how destructive speculation may cause and exacerbate the crises in the economy. And he saw through the political illusions of those who argued that such crises can be prevented forever with additional reforms.
Like any revolutionary, Marx wanted the old order was overthrown during his lifetime. But capitalism was tenacious, and Marx could only catch a glimpse of mistakes and wrong turns that will make future generations. Those of us who now opens Marx, will find in his work a lot of information that is relevant today. At least, this is true for those who want to 'restore the spirit of the revolution', and not simply 're-launch her ghost'.
If he watched the current recession, Marx would certainly posmakoval opportunity to point out how the inherent shortcomings of capitalism led to the current crisis. He would see how the latest changes in finance, such as securitization and derivatives that allowed markets to share the risks of global economic integration. Without these innovations, capital accumulation over the past decades has been a much slower pace. Similarly, the volume of capital accumulation would be lower if the finances are not infiltrated deeper and deeper into society. The result was that in recent years, consumer demand (and thus welfare) are more and more dependent on credit cards and mortgage loans at the same time, as the weakened power of unions and reduce the social benefits made people more vulnerable to market shocks .
This casual global financial system, the current through external borrowing over the past decade has made a substantial contribution to overall economic growth. But she also gave birth to a number of unavoidable financial bubbles, the most dangerous of which appeared in the housing market in the United States. The ensuing explosion bubble has had so profound effect throughout the world, its central position in which he supported and the American consumer demand and international financial markets. No doubt Marx would have pointed to the crisis as the perfect moment when capitalism appears as a "sorcerer, more unable to control the forces of the netherworld, caused by his spells."
Despite the extent of our present difficulties, Marx would not have had any illusions about the fact that the economic disaster in itself can lead to changes. He knew very well that by its very nature, capitalism creates and promotes social isolation. He wrote that such a system 'does not leave between people of any other connection, except naked self-interest, than callous "cash payment"'. Indeed, capitalism drowns society 'in the icy water of egotistical calculation. " The resulting social isolation leads to passivity in the face of personal crises, from layoffs to the deprivation of human pledged to use the house. This same isolation prevents the unification of communities of active, informed citizens to search for radical alternatives to capitalism.
First, Marx would have asked how to defeat this overwhelming social passivity. He believed that trade unions and the party workers, who began to appear during his lifetime, was a step forward. Therefore, the 'capital', he wrote that 'immediate aim' is' the organization of the proletariat in the class', whose 'first task' would 'win the battle for democracy. Today, he would encourage a new collective identity, as well as associations and institutions within which people could resist the capitalist status quo and begin to decide how best to meet their needs.
Until now, the crisis has not led to the emergence of such ambitious plans for change, and it is this vacuum of ideas would be most alarmed by Marx. In the United States some of the recent proposals that attracted attention were ridiculed as 'socialist', but they only seem to be radical because it goes beyond the ideas that are ready to defend the left wing of the Democratic Party. Dean Baker (Dean Baker), co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (Center for Economic and Policy Research), proposed, for example, a limit of $ 2 million to pay for Wall Street and a tax on financial transactions, which would add a surcharge on sale or transfer of shares, bonds and other financial assets. Marx considered this proposal would be an excellent example of stereotypical thinking, because it clearly supports (even limited to) the very fact that the popular consensus is defined as a problem: the culture of risk is separate from the effects. Marx also ridiculed those who thought that the nationalization of banks - like those that occurred in Sweden and Japan during their financial crises in 90 years - will lead to some effective changes.
Ironically, one of the more radical proposals being discussed today, it was Willem Byuterom (Willem Buiter), an economist from the London School of Economics and a former member of the Committee on Monetary Policy Bank of England, and certainly not a Marxist. Byuter proposed to turn the entire financial sector in utilities. He argues that, because in today's world, banks can not exist without deposit insurance and without central banks, which play the role of lender of last resort, there is no reason for their continued existence as a privately owned, eager to profit agencies. Instead, they should be owned by the public and should be managed as enterprises providing public services. This proposal echoes the requirement of 'centralization of credit in the hands of the state through a national bank', made by Marx in the 'Manifesto'. For him, the revision of the financial system was supposed to reinforce the importance of the victory of the working class in the struggle for democracy ', radically transforming the state of the body imposed by society, the body responsible [requests] society.
'From' ofinansivaniya 'economy to the socialization of finance, - wrote Byuter - is a small step for lawyers and a huge step for mankind. " Obviously, there is no need to be a Marxist to have a radical commitment. Nevertheless, one must be a little Marxist to understand that even during such as ours, when the capitalist class demoralized and placed in a dead end, radical changes are unlikely to start in the form of 'a small step for lawyers' (presumably, after all' stakeholders' gather in one room to sign a couple of documents). Marx would have told you that without the development of the popular forces with the new radical movements and parties, the socialization of finance will not be successful. In particular, during the economic crisis of 1970, radical forces in many European social democratic parties have made similar proposals, but failed to convince the leaders of their parties to support these proposals, which they ridiculed as old-fashioned.
In the next few decades, attempts to talk seriously about the need to democratize our economy is so radical ways were pushed aside all the political parties aside, and we're still paying the price for ignoring those ideas. Irrationality built into the basic logic of capitalist markets - and so deftly analyzed by Marx - again becoming evident. Trying not to drown, every factory and the firm lays off workers and trying to pay less than those who remained. Undermining job security reduces the demand on the entire economy. As Marx knew mikroratsionalnoe behavior leads to the worst macroeconomic outcomes. Now we see where the resulting neglect of Marx along with the full confidence in the 'invisible hand' of Adam Smith.
The current financial crisis also demonstrates the irrationality and outside of finance. One such example is the call for U.S. President Barack Obama to trade carbon credits, which in his opinion, is the solution to global warming. According to this allegedly progressive proposal, a corporation, the relevant emission standards that sell credits to those who do not fit into these frameworks. The Kyoto Protocol offered a similar emissions trading system among nations. However, both schemes is critically dependent on the same whimsical options market, which are inherently open to manipulation and loan disaster. Marx would say that in order to find solutions to global problems like global warming, we need to move away from the logic of capitalist markets, instead of using state institutions to enforce them. Likewise, he would have called for international economic solidarity instead of competition between states. As he wrote in his' Manifesto ',' the concerted effort, at least in civilized countries, is one of the first conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat. "
Yet work on creating new institutions and movements for change should begin at home. Although he did call for 'workers of the world, unite!', Marx still claimed that the workers in each country should 'first do away with its own bourgeoisie'. The measures necessary for the transformation of existing economic, political and legal institutions, will "of course, vary in different countries." But in each case, Marx would have insisted, [only] way to implement the radical reforms is beginning to get people to think ambitiously again.
It is likely that this will happen? Even when the financial crisis bleed white huge layers of the world's population, when the collective anxiety shakes every age, religious or racial group, and when, as often happens, deprivation and commitments often fall ordinary working people, the prognosis is not uncontested. If he were alive today, Marx would not try to guess exactly when or how to end the current crisis. Rather, he would have noticed that these crises are an integral part of the continuing existence of a dynamic capitalism. Politicians reformers who think that they can overcome inherent in the capitalist society of class inequality and recurrent crises are the true romantics our day, clinging to the naive utopian vision of a world that could be. If the current crisis and has shown us anything, so this is what Marx was a great realist.
Leo Panich is the head of research at the Department of Comparative politekonomiki and professor emeritus of political science at York University in Toronto. He is also co-editor of the annual publication "The socialist journal" (Socialist Register)
