Category: Lyndon LaRouche

  • Orientation

    Summary of Part I

    In Part I of this article, I contrasted the differences between rising Multipolarism with a declining Anglo-American empire. Taking the side of the multipolarists of the East, I  identified Lyndon LaRouche as someone who bridged the gap between East and West.

    His concept of “The American system” defends the Enlightenment as the movement to look to if the west is going to join the multipolar world. I also presented Matthew Ehret’s book The Clash of the Two Americas: Volume I The Unfinished Sympathy as a concrete example of the battle between the British System and American system in the 18th and 19thcenturies. At the end of Part I, I raise questions as to where to place these advocates of the American system on the political spectrum and ask who its enemies are.

    Are there times when centrism is unrealistic, ungrounded, and against common sense?

    Unlike the left-wing and right-wing of the political spectrum, centrism is presented as a golden mean against the extremes. It embodied common sense, as opposed to fanaticism, pragmatism in contrast, unrealistic idealism and non-violence against violence. Yet there are times when centrism doesn’t work; occasions when centrism is not common sense, circumstances when centrism is not pragmatic, when compromise between extremes comes up empty. Not only is centrism unrealistic but the entire linear political spectrum founded at the end of the 18th century is bankrupt.

    Strange bedfellows? Finance capitalists and the New Left

    By the end of World War II, the financial capitalists had two enemies – the liberalism of FDR and the world communist movement. Most of us know the historical differences between the Old Left and the New Left. The Old Left represented the world communist movement as well as the forces of the Enlightenment. Is it possible that the emergence of the New Left with very different values driven by Romanticism was shaped by the anti-communist finance capitalists?

    My claims in Part II

    1)The political philosophy of the Anglo-American Empire and finance capitalists empire is centrism and it must be opposed.

    2) The forces of Promethean City builders must dispense with the linear political spectrum create a new political spectrum which expresses its hopes.

    3) For the past 70 years, the anti-communist forces of the Anglo-American empire have shaped a fake opposition, the romantic New Left, to oppose the development of a communist movement.

    The first image at the top of this article includes arch anti-communists Arthur Koestler and Sidney Hook. The second image is the founder of Democratic Socialist of America, Michael Harrington, also an anti-communist.

    Poverty of Centrism

    As I wrote in my article: Are Socialists Going to Let Neoliberals Define Fascism?

    All over the world, centrist parties are losing elections. People are either not voting at all or they are voting for fascists. In some countries people are voting for Social Democrats. The traditional choices between liberals and conservatives do not speak to world problems today. Additionally, just as centrist parties are collapsing (as depicted in the image above) so is the linear political spectrum model that serves as its visual description.

    Today the fact that liberal and conservative parties are the same is far more significant than their differences. They have at least agreed on:

    • Support of finance and military capitalism as an economic system domestically
    • Never to discuss socioeconomic class in the way Marxists would
    • Suppressing third-party access into political debates.
    • Supporting imperialism around the world
    • Supporting the instillation of right-wing dictators
    • Supporting Israel elites despite 75 years of Zionist fundamentalism and their oppression of Palestinians
    • Opposition to state-centered socialism around the world

    What this means is that:

    • There are far more commonalties between liberals and conservatives than there are between liberals and socialists because capitalism divides them
    • There are far more commonalities between liberals and fascists than between liberals and socialists because both liberals and fascists support capitalism

    The linear political spectrum is too simple for today’s complex politics

    Examples include:

    • China forming alliances with non-socialist countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia
    • Social Democrats (socialists) forming alliances with imperialists (Germany, Norway, Sweden). This goes way back to Social Democrats voting for war in 1914
    • Right-wing governments like Modi’s of India supporting a socialist country (China)
    • The Recent elections in France in which Le Pen (supposed fascist) has social programs to the left of Macron (a neoliberal)
    • A neoliberal Democratic Party supporting fascist Ukrainian forces

    Centrism is bankrupt in extreme capitalist crises

    The linear political spectrum also makes it appear that the middle of the political spectrum is compromising, pragmatic, down-to-earth and can never be unrealistic. Supposedly, centrists are moderate and not hysterical like the fascists or communists. What this ignores is that when there are extreme economic, political or ecological conditions the center doesn’t hold. It caves in.  In certain periods of history being moderate is unrealistic. Gradualist trial and error won’t cut the mustard because a storm is so overpowering that it would overwhelm its centrist structures. Under the conditions of our time extremes are the only answer because of capitalism’s failure to address its contradictions. It has brought us to the point where neither liberal nor conservative solutions can nor will work. A new model of the political spectrum must be:

    • More inclusive of many more political ideologies
    • Economic as well as political
    • Able to account for qualitative leaps such as revolutions
    • Able to decenter the spectrum so that both moderate and extreme solutions would seem reasonable
    • Make room for alliances between the extremes on the political spectrum, not just among those next to each other

    How the left and some conservatives might work together is because both are industrializers whose goal is to expand the productive forces. They may fight about how the wealth gets distributed but they agree that real wealth should be produced. By contrast, neo-liberals, fascists, Greens, Social Democrats, and anarchists are de-industrializers who abhor the introduction of new wealth-creation, especially nuclear technologies and city building. They are Malthusians.

    We are now at the point where I can reintroduce the distinctions between the Enlightenment and Romanticism from Part I. I want to show how the Anglo-American empire, finance capitalists and the CIA shaped the New Left into embracing Romanticism.

    Below is a table I developed from my book Forging Promethean Psychology which compares what the Enlightenment stands for as opposed to Romanticism.

    Table A Enlightenment vs Romanticism Compared

    Enlightenment (1715-1815) Category of Comparison Romanticism

    (1750 – 1850)

    Political – rights of man Primary Identity Cultural artistic identity
    Against monarchist, aristocratic and religious
    authorities. Respectful of scientific authority
    Attitude Towards Authority Critical of all authorities
    Civilization brings out the best in humanity Relationship Between

    Civilization and Nature

    Rebellion against civilization

    Wants to “get back to nature”

    Value what is modern and adult Origins and development of culture and individuals Value what is primitive in cultures; the innocence of childhood
    Primitive superstitious stories before humans had science

    Myths were also seen as lies told by priests

    What is Myth? Mythic stories hold the key to what is most important to being human

    Grimm’s fairy tales

    Trade was an improvement compared to control of land by kings, aristocrats and the Church Attitudes Towards Capitalism Against crass utilitarian commercialism of capitalism
    Its predictability and lending itself to measurement What is Valuable in Nature? The wild, exotic and untamable
    Deist – God is an engineer or watchmaker Characteristics of Spiritual Presences Pantheist – god is everywhere in nature. Birth of Neopaganism
    Beauty – in symmetry with proportion

    No unusual or accidental elements in art

    Art Appreciation Sublime – value what is unique, striking, or new; the unusual or accidental features in art.
    In the eye of the spectator What is the Arena for Judging Art? In the creative process of the artist
    Progress

    Quantitative gradual change

    How does Change Occur? Revolutions

    Qualitative change through crisis

    Deliberation Planning vs Spontaneity Spontaneity
    Reason should guide emotions Place of Emotion and Reason Emotions are valuable in and of themselves and should guide reason
    Happiness, serenity, contentment Types of Emotional States Storm and stress

    Mania and depression as signs of real living

    Altered states, revelry

    Confessing inner depths is bad taste Self-revelations Confessing inner depths is a virtue

    Sincerity

    Republican reformist Politics Revolutionary, apolitical

    Conservative

    Cosmopolitan

    Exotic people became a laboratory for expanding theory of universal humanity

    Cross-cultural Expansion Parochial

    Exaggeration of the differences between cultures

    Holbach, La Mettrie

    Diderot, Voltaire

    Typical Theorists Rousseau. Vico, Herder, Burke

    The Politics of the Anglo-American Empire, The British System, Romanticism and the New left

    The Old Left

    As many of you know, soon after World War II capitalists in Mordor set out to destroy the Socialist and Communist parties. But the CIA also wanted to create a relatively harmless alternative to Communism by recruiting leftists who were critical of the Communist Party but did it in the name of socialist democracy. As many of you know, this began with the Congress of Cultural Freedom. Along the way, it helped to craft an ideology of the New Left that would render it harmless against capitalism while at the same time keep the Communist movement from growing back.

    The heart of the Old Left was the defense of countries that were at least part way towards socialism – Russia, China and Cuba. Its economic focus was on the inherent contradictions of capitalism whether it be the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, underconsumption or the profit squeeze. Very importantly, communists were committed to the belief that Communism had to be based on abundance, which meant “developing the productive forces”. If a communist society’s economy stagnated that would introduce the temptation to steal. By producing more than enough stealing would not be an issue. As different as anarchists are from Marxists, even anarchists before the 1960s understood that abundance was the foundation for socialism.

    The major social category for political organization was socio-economic class. It was only the working class that had the power to overthrow capitalism. Also, the only real democracy was economic democracy in which workers control what is produced, how much is produced and how it is distributed through centralized planning and workers’ control. In terms of political parties the Old Left advocated a Leninist vanguard party of dedicated revolutionaries.

    While claiming that the workers were internationalists, in practice the Old Left political organization operated at the nation-state level. Whatever tiny ecology or changes in the climate movement existed it was not on the radar of communists. For communists’ growth of the human population was taken as given since by the second half of the 19th century and into the 1950s it seemed human productivity could easily accommodate a rising population.

    When it came to the arts and psychology, the Old Left was fairly conservative. In the arts, socialist realist mural painting was predominant. In painting and music, the focus on working class life was its subject matter. In personal life, Communists usually did not drink and their appearance emulated working class clothes. Their personal life was relatively unimportant and their marriages were traditional. They were generally hostile to psychology, saw it as a bourgeois distraction from their main purpose was to work for the revolution. While most Communists were atheists, they understand that most workers were not, and they had to make relative peace with this “superstition” in order to organize workers. The CIA, and the Rockefellers set out to destroy the values of the Old left and replace  with a very different orientation to the world. Table B displays the values of the New Left, and what is equally important, how these values support and are beneficial to  the Anglo-American empire, finance capital, the Rockefellers, and the CIA.

    Table B How the Values of the New Left Benefit the Anglo-American

    Empire, Finance Capital the Rockefellers and the CIA

    New Left (beginning in Early 1950s) Category of Comparison Benefit to Anglo-American Empire, Finance capital and the Rockefellers
    Social Democrats, Anarchists

    Complaints against excessive State control

    Lack of worker participation

    Point on Political Spectrum All anti-communism for different reasons

    Against all communist countries, planned economy

    Rejection of Soviet Union, China, Cuba

     

    In favor of Sweden, Norway, Denmark

    Socialist Countries to Emulate Loss of international identity
    with large socialist countries

    Even socialist countries need capitalism

    No – capitalism can go on forever Does Capitalism have Inherent Limits? Throws push of politics onto voluntarism

    Demoralizing people by imagining capitalism is much more flexible than it is and capitalists are more competent than they are

    No – we already have too much

    Socialism is based on morals or sustainability: Malthusianism

    Does Socialism have to be Based on Abundance? Teaching socialists to learn to do with less

    Socialism based on “degrowth”

    Race and sexuality: identity politics

    Workers have proven to be too interested in material things to be revolutionary

    Social Category for Socialist organizing Race and sexuality don’t have the work location to organize

    Diffusion of focus

    Small is beautiful

    Anarchist decentralization or planetary society

    Rejection of nation-state

    Political Scale Rejection of the nation states which is the only political unit that can resist global capitalism
    Makes an issue of lack of political party choices under socialism

    Minimizes democratic gains under socialism in literacy, education and job security and health care

    Place of Political Democracy Diverts focus of socialists into focus on tiny political parties that are never strong enough to take power
    Pay attention to Mother Earth

    Go back to nature

    Attitude to Ecology The issue distracts from socialist organizing to overthrow capitalism Imagining ecological problems might be solved under capitalism
    Earth has limited carrying capacity

    Earth is overpopulated

    Growth in Population Rockefeller-inspired Club of Rome report

    Blaming the global south for having too many children

    Anti-science Attitude Towards Science Anti-science dampens down the possibility that alternative energy sources to oil will be found
    Solar and wind power

    Against nuclear power

    Natural Resources Big oil (also little oil) does not have to compete with nuclear power
    Reject working class culture for Beat poets, happenings, youth culture (white left) The Arts Modern art is anti-working class

    Drives the working-class away from art museums for inspiration

    Personal is political

    (radical feminism)

    Relationship Between the Political and the Personal Activists become bogged down in attempting to change romance, open marriages and can focus less on political activity
    Pot, LSD, peyote Alcohol – Drugs CIA flooded communities with LSD for distraction

     

    Expressive hippie clothing

    (white left)

     

    Clothing At the beginning this created divisions between middle class and working class: organizational turn-off
    Sympathetic to Freudian left – Fromm, Horney, Reich

    (White left)

    Attitude Towards Psychology Potential socialist organizers become psychotherapists
    Alienated from traditional Christianity

    Interest in Eastern mysticism, native religion

    Spirituality Threatens working class with religions they don’t understand – might consider it Satanic
    Romanticism Intellectual Movements Championing primitive and childlike to keep people hostile to science and technology
    Idealism

    Cultural, psychological: Frankfurt School

    Linguistic: postmodernism

    Epistemology Red herring – draws people away from economics and building a socialist party
    Global warming Climate Supports de-indoctrination
    New Left (began in the Early 50’s) Category of Comparison Benefit to Anglo-American empire, finance capital, Rockefellers and CIA

     Techniques Used by the Powers that be to Undermine Communism

    • If you examine all twenty categories, the purpose of the CIA and the Rockefellers was to divide and conquer:
    • Existing state socialism from the New Left
    • Class on the one hand, race and gender on the other
    • Personal life and political life
    • Clothing, physical appearance middle class hippies and the working class
    • Non-Christian religions and Christianity
    • Ecology movement and the working class

     Distracting people:

    • With sex and drugs and nihilistic or hedonistic rock music
    • With psychological preoccupations as at Esalen (The Human Potential Movement, social psychology of groups and therapy) rather than economics
    • With cultural or linguistic issues (Frankfurt School, postmodernism)
    • With romantic exoticism, primitivism, individualism

    Fragmentation by:

    • Decentralizing politics from the nation-state to local configurations
    • Championing infinite diversity to weaken commonality and unity of organization
    • Treating ecology as separate from a Socialist program
    • Making art psychological instead socially inspiring

    Demoralization

    • That capitalism had no inherent limits
    • Undermine belief in progress and that people should expect an abundant life
    • Pessimistic anti-science
    • There is no alternative to the Democratic Party

    Demonization:

    • Of nuclear energy
    • Of all state socialist societies
    • Any international leader who wants to set their own economic foreign policy

     Qualifications

    I am not suggesting that the New Left was simply a creature of the CIA and the Rockefellers. The New Left was a movement that came out of the middle class which was anti-war, anti-racist, mostly anti-capitalist and a rebellion against a conservative culture. Surely the “powers that be” did not encourage this. What I am saying is that the CIA and the Rockefellers either intervened directly as in the existence of COINTELPRO or threw money at New Left projects that suited their needs.

    Conclusion

    In Part II I argued that the political philosophy of the Anglo-American empire is centrism. I argued that political centrists are losing elections all over the world because centrism cannot speak to the extreme crisis that finance capital has created. Also, the linear political spectrum that houses centrism no longer works in depicting political change. I identify five characteristics a new political spectrum would need in order to be workable.

    Then I contrasted the multipolar values in the East and the Enlightenment in the West to the Romantic values in depth. The reason for this comparison that Romanticism is the foundation of the Anglo-American empire’s attempt to control the potential forces of Communism in the West by shaping a New Left.

    I close my article with a contrast between the Old and the New left. The Old Left of the Communist Party was a great threat to the Anglo-American empire, finance capital, the Rockefellers and the CIA. All these powers attempted to support the shaping of an anti-communist New Left. I begin with the values of the Old left. Then I identified 20 characteristics of the New Left and how each served directly or indirectly to support the powers that be against the rise of Communism. All twenty characteristics used a combination of five techniques: divide-and-conquer; distraction, fragmentation, demoralization and demonization.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Part I Who are Some Western Supporters of Multipolarists?

    Orientation

    Most of us realize there is a major tectonic shift in the world economy from West to East. The multipolar nations are basing their economies on investing in developing the productive forces of science and technology and to better human life. The Belt and Road Initiative is a good example. The West, on the other hand, has made its profits on finance capital and military capitalism. The US defense industry arms the whole world. This economy is in steep decline.

    In addition, politically in Mordor (The United States), there is no New Deal liberal party, let alone any significant socialist party. The political ideology of the Anglo-American Empire is centrism. If the forces of The Enlightenment are the West – New Deal liberals and socialists – and wanted to join the movement towards a multipolar world what would its guiding principles look like? Where on the political spectrum would it locate itself?

    Since Lyndon LaRouche is someone instrumental in developing an economic policy for multipolarists Russia and India, he might have something to teach the West. To become Western multipolarists, to become Promethean city builders, we must recognize that finance and military capitalists are our enemy. At the same time, we must realize that finance capitalists of the Anglo-American Empire combined with the CIA have shaped a fake opposition to itself in the New Left. Among other things, this article will expose the ways the New Left has served finance capital and the Rockefellers.

    My claims for this two-part article are that:

    1. In order to join with Multipolarists of the East, forces to the left of the Democratic Party must reorganize their worldview along the lines of The Enlightenment and become city-builders.
    2. Lyndon LaRouche and some of the sympathetic organizations such as Rising Tide Foundation are good representations of what a multipolar policy world would look like in the West
    3. The political philosophy of the Anglo-American Empire and finance capitalism is centrism and it must be opposed.
    4. The forces of Promethean City Builders must dispense with the linear political spectrum and create a new political spectrum which expresses its hopes.
    5. For the past 70 years, the anti-communist forces of the Anglo-American empire have shaped a fake opposition, the romantic New Left to oppose the continuation and development of the Enlightenment, the American system and a communist movement.

    Part I of this article deals with the first two claims and Part II addresses the last three.

    The Western World is Cracking Up

    Internationally

    If your analytical vision penetrates beyond the surface – the sanctions, the build-up of military bases and the vast financial profits made – the Anglo-American empire is fracturing. Its finance capitalists have nothing to offer the world that can compete with China’s Belt and Road Initiative. It promises the world nothing but weapons to fight wars. As China’s diplomats mediate between Iran and Saudi Arabia, Mordor’splans for dividing West Asia are fracturing. As more and more countries line up to join BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa’s the alternative to the IMF), and the World Bank, Mordor’s allies dwindle. Meanwhile its European “coalition of the willing”, vassals for 80 years, are starting to stir. While some rulers quietly accept the leadership of Mordor, other countries, formerly the heart of the almost defunct European Union, are poking their heads above ground – as in France’s Macron statement in Beijing – and making noises about European autonomy. However, these rulers are also being pushed by the anti-war and anti-NATO elements on both left and right to stop wasting their resources on Ukraine.

    Domestically

    As Yankeedom engages in several wars at once internationally, domestically it is falling apart. The federal state stands helpless as regions of the country face ecological disasters and extreme cold, heat and tornadoes. Its trains cannot stay on the tracks and its roads and bridges rot from neglect. In a recent survey released by the US army, recruiters say most eligible young men and women cannot pass the physical because they are either overweight or have drug problems. The public education system is so beleaguered that a high school degree is no longer required to teach high school. Rather than invest in the physical or human infrastructures, finance capitalists cannibalize those infrastructures while they make profits on derivatives and stock options which produce no real social goods. As many of you know, there is none better than political economist Michael Hudson at pointing this out. A recent survey indicated that half the American population thinks there will be a civil war and/or secession in two years.

    Tectonic Plates Shift Eastward

    Like tectonic shifts, the real-world economy is shifting eastward towards China, Russia, Iran and to a lesser extent, India. South American counties are lining up to join the multipolar world, including Argentina and Brazil. In Africa, leaders are trading with the Chinese who are building railroads. Recently Russia has forgiven billions of dollars in debt. Even Mexico, along with 30 other countries, right under the nose of Mordor has applied to BRICS. What are the differences between the Anglo -American empire and the multipolar world of the East? See my table below:

    Table A  The international World Divide

    Anglo-American Empire Category of Comparison Multipolar World: China, Russia, Iran
    Regional: European Union, NAFTA or Global Political Loyalties National: The Nation-State
    Dollarization of the Whole world Currencies De-dollarization

    Multiple currencies

    Finance capital, military capital Form of Wealth Industrial capital, technology
    Free trade International Economic Policies Protectionism
    Neocolonialism Relation to the Global

    South

    Anti-imperialism
    Win-Lose

    Zero sum game

    Economic Results of Trade Win-win

    New wealth created

    Oil, solar, wind Sources of Energy Nuclear power
    Malthusian population decline Population Policy Growth in population

     

    The Place of Lyndon LaRouche in the Multipolar World

    Tribute to LaRouche by Russian economist Sergei Glazyev

    In a recent article, the major Russian economist Sergei Glazyev sent a message of appreciation to the Schiller Institute on what would have been the 100th birthday of Lyndon LaRouche. LaRouche anticipated a disastrous end if finance capital policies continued. Further, he helped Russia to turn around after it was decimated by the neoliberal policies of Boris Yeltsin. I am emphasizing in the quotes below what I think is most important about Glazyev’s tribute:

    Already 30 years ago, and perhaps even earlier, Lyndon LaRouche drew attention to the fact that the inflation of financial bubbles, including derivatives bubbles, and the creation of financial pyramid schemes would inevitably bring about the collapse of the world financial system. And he proposed to adopt timely measures to avert that collapse.

    Back then he proposed that, instead of pumping up financial bubbles, the world reserve currency emitter-countries, together with their partners and other countries, should invest in building global infrastructure, which would reduce the cost of trade, increase the efficiency of international economic ties, and, overall, contribute to raising connectivity worldwide. [This is precisely China’s and Russia’s policy.] So, he viewed the process of globalization as a process of expanding cooperation among countries, rather than attempts by some countries to exploit others.

    As for the liberal globalization that today is leading to the collapse of the world financial system, LaRouche criticized it. He proposed a different model of globalization, based on the principles of physical economy in The Truth of Man and Nature. In particular, the famous project, which he and his wife, Helga Zepp-LaRouche, put forward for international discussion – the so-called Eurasian Land Bridge. This is a splendid and interesting project, which now, after many years, has begun to be implemented through the Chinese Belt and Road initiative, which we support through linking it with the Eurasian Economic Union.

    LaRouche’s voice was heard very well. We remember him. In practically all the major countries in the world today that are developing successfully – above all India and China – there are partisans of LaRouche. They have used his thoughts and ideas for creating economic miracles. It is the principles of Physical Economy championed by LaRouche that today underlie the Chinese economic miracles and are there in the foundations of India’s economic development policy. The supporters of LaRouche in those countries exist in a fruitful, very positive and constructive influence on economic policy-shaping in these leading nations of the new world economic paradigm.

    LaRouche is hard to pigeonhole politically (stopped 6-7-23)

    I have been around leftist movements for over 50 years. During that time, I have watched the socialist left call LaRouche a paranoid fascist and his organization a cult. It has never been easy to think or speak about him in a dialectical manner not only because the anticommunist left demonizes him, but because his followers are often uncritical of him, at least in public. Trying to find a biography of him that is objective is about as easy as looking for an objective biography of the occultist, Gurdjieff. The choices seem to be either as a cynic or true believer. Yet today some of those who have been influenced by LaRouche such as Rising Tide Foundation, have some valuable things to say. As I mentioned, LaRouche’s ideas connect nicely with the new international political configuration that is happening of creating a multipolar world. Lastly, his influence is felt in the left-right strategic alliances that are occurring in Germany and just beginning in the United States. (In the Antiwar rally 2/19/23 and in friendly debates among LaRoucheans, communists and right libertarians.)

    Shifts, turns and reversals

    Some of you know that LaRouche started out as a Marxist. Under the pen name of Lyn Marcus, he wrote an extraordinary book called Dialectical Economics, which I read twice and on which I took extensive notes. Since I was never an insider of the LaRouche movement, I am unable to track the changes in his political direction in depth in the early 1980s. I know he abandoned Marxism and developed what seemed to me an idealist theory of history, championing Plato. In the 1980s and 1990s he sometimes aligned himself with right-wing movements although it is difficult to see how his own economic system was, as is claimed by leftists, to be fascist.

    Defender of western civilization and the Enlightenment

    Why do the anarchists and social democrats hate LaRouche? First because he was an unapologetic defender of Western civilization while much of the left became skeptical of these values. Secondly, LaRouche believed that the pattern of social evolution can be claimed to have been progress at a time when the anarchists were championing hunter and gathering societies. Thirdly, the LaRouche movement stood for The Enlightenment against the Romanticism of the New left. He was opposed to most everything the New Left stood for – identity politics, experimental sex, rock music, zero growth and Malthusian population control. With some qualifications, I agree with his criticisms.

    Developing the productive forces and moving from necessity to freedom

    What LaRouche and his followers are for in at least one aspect is Marxism. They want to develop the productive forces. They strive for a life which shrinks the relationship between freedom and necessity. This means less necessary work and more time for creative thinking and implementation on the productive technologies, including nuclear power. For them, in Marxist terms, the productive forces are industrial capital. The enemy of industrial capitalism is finance capital or slave capitalism which is based on the premise of people learning to do with less (austerity).

    Defending the nation-state

    Today Laroucheans align themselves the forces of the nation-state building against the forces of globalization, which is supranationalism on the one hand and subnational regionalism on the other. Liberal globalism subordinates nation-states to the free trade dogma of the Anglo-American empire. Any nation-state that elects a leader who wants to develop an autonomous national economic policy will automatically be labelled a tyrannical strong man, and “abuser of human rights”, the new hobby-horse defamatory claim.

    Criticisms of LaRouche from a Marxist perspective

    Historical struggle is presented as a dualistic process

    When LaRouche talks about history, he refers to two forces, the British system and the American system. It seems that the British empire is painted as negative all the way down the line, including assassinations and horrible international machinations to control the world. It would be more dialectical if there were some productive activities the British did to show complexity. That doesn’t mean the British Empire is not guilty of atrocities. It’s also a matter of knowledge that all ruling classes are guilty of this, not just the British. On the other hand, those who support the American system are presented as having no faults. This kind of extreme dualism is one of the reasons I lost interest in LaRouche over the years.

    There doesn’t seem to be room for unintended consequences in history

    History is presented as if there are no untended consequences. I have not found instances where the clashes between of industrial and finance capital ever produces  any historical results which were not planned. History seems to be the result of the victory of either of these two forces. There is nothing left over or in between. There are no messes. I do not find any instances in which the clash of these two forces resulted in circumstances that were not planned by either. I don’t think either of the protagonists are so powerful that either’s victor simply imposed their will on history. Marx said  humans make history but not as they pleased.

    Where is the working class?

    LaRouche is very good at locating the class struggles within the ruling classes in both Britain and the United States. However, there have been well over two hundred years of working class struggles in the US between workers and capitalists in cities and farmers and bankers in rural areas. As a Marxist I believe the working class produces most of the wealth of society.  Not mentioning the working class leaves out the overwhelming majority of the population. LaRouche’s analysis would be much richer if the horizontal struggle between the major political actors at the top (American system and British system) were joined by a vertical depiction of the relationship between these elites and the working classes of each country.

    How does the existence of almost 200 years of the socialist movement fit into the evolution of the American system?

    By roughly the 1870s, socialism and its leaders were serious competitors against both the English supporters of the South and the industrial capitalists of the North. This movement involved thousands of people, yet there is no mention of them. There is no stance taken for or against Marx or Engels or any of their American followers. This is a glaring historical omission.

    Is there a capitalist system?

    It is very clear that LaRouche advocated for industrial capitalism which means the real economy over finance capitalism. But this contrast is not rooted in the history of capitalism. Marx described how capitalism evolved from barter to the first money forms to the famous emergence money being invested in commodities in order to make more money. LaRouche seems to be arguing for a reversal of the historical movement of capitalism from industrial to financial and then back to industrial. But how would that process be rooted in the already existing history of capitalism in social evolution?  A renaissance in the flowering of the real economy seems to be the result of volunteerism on the part of LaRouche and his followers. It is not grounded in the history of capitalism.

    Is there a crisis in capitalism?

    Furthermore, there doesn’t seem to be any theory of a capitalist crisis. On page 15 of Michael Roberts’ book The Long Depression, he identifies both Marxist and non-Marxist theories of crisis. On the Marxist side, there is everything from the tendency of the rate of profit to fall to Rosa Luxemburg’s and David Harvey’s theory of underconsumption. When LaRouche wrote his book Dialectical Economics in the late 1970s he had a theory of capitalist crisis somewhat like Rosa Luxemburg’s theory. But my understanding is that when LaRouche left Marxism, he left his theory buried in that book.

    Defense of Platonism and Christianity

    According to George Johnson in Architects of Fear from Wikipedia:

    According to George Johnson, LaRouche saw history as a battle between Platonists, who believe in absolute truth, and Aristotelians, who rely on empirical data. Johnson characterizes LaRouche’s views as follows: the Platonists include figures such as Beethoven, Mozart, Shakespeare, Leonardo da Vinci, and Leibniz. LaRouche believed that many of the world’s ills result from the dominance of Aristotelianism as embraced by the empirical philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, and Hume, leading to a culture that favors the empirical over the metaphysical, embraces moral relativism, and seeks to keep the general population uninformed, LaRouche argued, whereas the Aristotelians use psychotherapy, drugs, rock music, jazz, environmentalism, and quantum theory to bring about a new Dark Age in which the world will be ruled by oligarchs. what matters is the Platonic versus Aristotelian outlook.

    Lastly, LaRouche unapologetically accepts Platonic Christianity as an evolutionary advance from the polytheism and animism of pre-Christian times. He ignores the entire history of the misery Protestant and Catholic rulers have visited on their own populations with original sin, hatred of the body and fear of hell for starters. Neither does it seem to matter to LaRouche that both Protestants and Catholics persecuted thousands of pagans throughout history.

    From LaRouche to the Rising Tide Foundation and the American System

    Thanks to the Greanville Post I learned of the work of Matthew Ehret and Cynthia Chung and their Rising Tide Foundation. Influenced by LaRouche, they have excellent lectures, not only on geopolitics but also the arts and the history of science. Matthew Ehret has written a four-volume history of the United States and Cynthia Chung has written a great book called The Empire On Which the Black Sun Never Set. I’d like to share with you some highlights from Volume I of his book.

    Clash of the two America’s – the Unfinished Symphony

    History of industrial capitalism vs slave and finance capital in the United States

    In Volume I of the Unfinished Symphony, Matthew Ehret divides the ruling factions in the United States into two groups: those who supported the British Empire and those who sided with the American system. Contrary to what most of us think, the British Empire was never really kicked out of the United States after the Revolutionary War. The US South continued to be involved with the British slave trade and many resisted fighting in the Revolutionary War.

    The British Empire was dead-set against the United States becoming an industrial competitor to Great Britain. They wanted to maintain the US as a dependent country producing commercial agriculture (mostly cotton) for their textile mills. In their efforts to keep the United States under their thumb, the British were against the US establishing tariffs and protecting their industry to build canals and railroads. The British supported “free trade” and opposed Hamilton’s call for a national bank which invested in infrastructure projects. The British also supported the decentralization of banks. Doing the bidding of the British (whether consciously or not) Andrew Jackson cut out infrastructural projects and supported the spread of multiple species of currency which undermined longstanding economic projects.

    The leading Americans who stood up for industrialization were Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and in the 19th century, Abraham Lincoln. The forces of slave capital and finance capital supported the development of Wall Street, the City of London and later, the Bank of Manhattan. The British supported the South’s plea for states’ rights since that weakened the federal governments’ quest to centralize power which was necessary to build a strong nation-state.

    As might be expected, the major theoretician of the British system of laissez-faire (let the markets rule) capitalism was Adam Smith. The economists of the American system were Franz List and Harry C. Carey. Believe it or not, there were some Americans who did not look East to Europe for a political vision. Rather, they looked to Russia and China as civilizations worth emulating. They included Charles Sumner, William Seward, William Gilpin and Asa Whitney. They toyed with building a trans-Siberian railroad. Seward purchased Alaska in the hopes of linking it to Russia via a railroad while William Gilpin wanted to build a world land bridge uniting the whole world. He was influenced by the great Alexander von Humboldt. The British deep state forces were embedded in the US Canadian United Empire Loyalists; Eastern establishment families and in Virginian slave-owning aristocrats, including Albert Pike who later was involved with the Ku Klux Klan.

    In the case of Russia, the friendly outreach of Gilpin was rewarded. Most people do not know that during the Civil War, Czarist Russia came to the aid of forces of the Union when the British attempted to invade during the Civil War. The Russian Navy blocked the British land invasion on both the East and the West coasts of the United States.

    Table B summarizes the relation of the American system against the British empire.

                                 Table B American System vs the British Empire

    The American system Category of Comparison British Empire
    Franklin, Hamilton, Thomas Paine, John Jay Major Political Figures Aaron Burr, Jefferson,

    Andrew Jackson

    National Bank Type of Banks No – decentralized banks
    Invest in infrastructure What to do with profits? Hording in banks
    Protective tariffs International Trade Free trade
    Franz List

    Harry C. Carey

    Economists Adam Smith
    Expand into China Charles Sumner and William Seward, William Gilpin and Asa Whitney Relations with China Exploit China

    British opium wars

    Russian Navy intervenes in

    Civil War on side of North

    Relations with Russia Sets up Canada to block Americans joining with

    Russia

    Centralized state Political Scale States’ rights

     

    Why are we discussing Rising Tide Foundation? Because it provides a necessary correction to the leftist trashing of all the Founding Fathers and shows there was a very progressive side to some of them. It also describes an American system which is consistent with the multipolar vision of China, Russia and the countries with BRICS.

    Conclusion

    I began this article using a contrast between the declining Anglo-American empire of the West and the rising Multipolar world of the East. Secondly, I identified Lyndon LaRouche as someone instrumental in developing an economic policy for Russia and India. Yet LaRouche also championed Western values of the Enlightenment, the importance of developing the productive forces of society and defending the nation-state against globalization. LaRouche argued that his ideas about developing the productive forces in Russia and India were also alive and kicking in the United States in what he called “the American system”. I then offered six reservations to his orientation from a Marxist perspective.

    Finally, I brought in the work of the Rising Tide foundation and of Matthew Ehret in a book called The Clash of the Two Americas: Volume I: The Unfinished Sympathy. I presented how Matthew’s work demonstrated that there was a progressive tendency among the Founding Fathers and how the American system in the United States is connected to  a multipolar world in the East.

    But where do LaRouche and Rising Tide stand on the linear political spectrum? Leftists have called LaRouche a fascist. I commented briefly that this was a ridiculous characterization. Yet who are the allies of the so-called American system, and where are they on the political spectrum? Finally, what is the relationship between LaRouche and the New Left on the political spectrum? We will learn their values are diametrically opposed because the New Left itself was shaped by the arch enemies of LaRouche and Rising Tide – finance capitalists, the Rockefellers and the CIA. We will see in Part II that the linear political spectrum itself is the problem.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.

  • Orientation

    The golden age of left-wing economists

    In part because the 1960s was still a period of capitalist abundance, there were few socialists in Yankeedom who pointed to the economic contradictions of capitalism as a motivator for the coming revolution. “Western Marxists” ignored the economy, imagining capitalism could go on forever. As first anarcho-communist and then as Situationists, the group I was in never talked about any economic laws that would drive the economy into a crisis. But a couple of my comrades, one from France, had been closely studying a book by Lyn Marcus (later his public name became Lyndon LaRouche) called Dialectical Economics. Here was a wake-up call for all of us to get back to economics, especially since by the late 1970s the days of economic abundance were over.

    Throughout the next thirty years, good economic Marxists like Richard Wolff, David Harvey, Robert Brenner and John Bellamy Foster have carried the torch for political economy. However, it was not until The Great Recession of 2008 and the Occupy movement in 2011-2012 really brought economic crisis into the foreground of life in Mordor. Since then, more Marxist economists have emerged such as Michael Perelman, Michael Roberts, and Anwar Shaikh. They have all added depth and scope. Non-Marxist economics such as Michael Hudson, Steve Keen and Jack Rasmus have made acidic analyses of finance capital. The great value in all these economists is that they speak in natural language, not mathematical language. This makes it easier for the Yankee population to understand them.

    Varieties of capitalist crises theory and their rivals

    In his book The Long Depression Michael Roberts asks four key questions from which he derives eight possible answers about the nature of economic turmoil or even whether there is a crisis at all.

    • Is capitalism subject to economic crisis?

    Within the camp which says no, a second question is answered.

    1b) Do periodic fluctuations need fixing?

    If the answer is “yes” you are a Keynesian like Paul Krugman. If the answer is “no” you are a libertarian like Milton Friedman. For the libertarians capitalism only goes through “business cycles”.

    Within the camp that says “yes”, that capitalism is subject to crisis, a second question is asked:

    • Is the kernel of the crisis found in production?

    If the answer is “no” you are an underconsumptionist like Marxists David Harvey or Rosa Luxemburg.

    If the answer is “yes” about the kernel of the crisis found in production, there is another question:

    2b) Are crises more than struggle over wages and profit shares?

    If no, you are a profit-squeeze supporter. Economics associated with this are Baron and Sweezy and Richard Wolff.

    If the answer to the kernel of the crisis is found in production is “yes”, a further question should be:

    3a) Are crises integral to the accumulation crisis?

    If the answer is “yes” you follow Marx’s argument about the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. This is advocated by Michael Roberts, Anwar Shaikh and Robert Brenner.

    If the answer to the question is crisis integral to the accumulation process is “no” then a further question is asked.

    4a) Does extra-consumption come from outside the system?

    If the answer is “yes” you are a follower of Rosa Luxemburg or David Harvey and claim that capitalism has limited resources and needs imperialism to survive.

    If the answer is “no” to the question then there is second question.

    4b) Does extra consumption come from state intervention?

    If the answer is “yes” you are a post Keynesian such as Steve Keen.

    If the answer is “no” you are a Malthusian.

    In this article I will be drawing from David Harvey’s book The Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism. I picked this book, not because I agree with Harvey’s theory of crisis, but because he lays out the contradictions so exhaustively. I am not a political economist by training but I have studied hard to understand him. What is most important for my readers to understand is that there are a great number of reasons that capitalism is in very, very, very serious trouble.

    What is a contradiction?

    Harvey says a contradiction is when two seemingly opposing forces are simultaneously present within a particular situation, an entity, a process or an event. A contradiction can be produced either by innovations, disasters or slow decline.

    Contradiction 1 Exchange-value is More Important than Use Value Though Use-Value Matters More in Real Life

    The use value of a house is contained in the cost of its production. This includes all the materials that went into building the house as well as the cost of labor to complete the house. The use value of the house is its protection from bad weather conditions, prowlers, a place of comfort, privacy and social reproduction, including sex and taking care of children. The use value of a commodity is relatively stable.

    But the exchange value of housing is not fixed. It is interdependent on surrounding houses. Property values can go down on my house if my neighbors’ houses are not kept up, even if my house has been kept up. On the other hand, a house that is not kept up can sell for a high price if it is located in a gentrifying neighborhood. Harvey points out that there have been property market crashes in 1928, 1973, 1987 and 2008. The contradiction is that use-values are captive to exchange values and this constantly destabilizes the economy. Harvey says exchange value is always in the driver’s seat.

    Contradiction 2 Money is Valued Above the Social Value of Labor

    Harvey identifies four constructive functions that money provides:

    • It is the means or medium of circulation. Before money, with barter exchange was dependent on both parties having goods the other wanted. Money overcomes the incongruity in immediacy of goods and services that limits direct barter.
    • It provides a single measuring rod for economic values of all commodities.
    • It provides a way to store value.
    • It delays the need to buy a commodity immediately.

    But there is a gap between money and the labor that ultimately produces it. Money hides the social labor that went into its material form. The problem is that money, which is supposed to be used to measure value, itself become a kind of commodity— that is money capital. Its use value is that it can be used to produce more value profit or surplus value. Its exchange value is, for example, an interest payment.

    Commodity money such as gold and silver are rooted in tangible commodities with definite physical qualities like:

    • It is relatively scarce.
    • The supply is relatively inelastic so they maintain their relative value against all other commodities over time.
    • These metals do not oxidant and deteriorate.
    • The physical properties are known and their qualities can be assayed accurately so their measure can easily be figured out.

    The problem is these commodity moneys are awkward to use on a daily basis of coin tokens. Bits of paper and then electronic moneys became much more practical in the exchange of goods. They are good at storing value but not so good in circulating commodities.

    The problem is also the desire for finance capital as a means of social power becomes an end in itself. This distorts the concrete relation of the money that would be required simply to facilitate exchange. It also throws a monkey wrench into the supposed rationality of capitalist markets. Harvey writes that one of the most dangerous contradictions of capital is that of compounding growth so that with the abandonment of the metallic base, money could be printed infinitely by whoever was authorized to do so. This is exactly what is happening now with the Fed freely printing money without any foundation in gold or any real social wealth. Money out-of-control from material products is what leads to financial depression.

    Contradiction 3 Private Property and the State Often have Conflicting Interests

    Keeping refugees and immigrants out vs the need for cheap labor

    The kind of rationality the state typically imposes is illustrated by its urban and regional planning practices.The job of the nation-state is to protect their borders from unwanted refugees or immigrants. On the other hand, capitalists need migrants to work under-the-table for dirt cheap wages. Capitalists indirectly fight with the state over the status of migrant workers.

    Capitalists vs the matriarchal state

    Secondly, the state can be divided into its matriarchal and patriarchal functions. Matriarchal functions include unemployment insurance, pensions, welfare, road construction and repair. The patriarchal state functions include the military, the police and prisons. Capitalists are against the matriarchal functions of the state because they cut into profits. However, capitalists are more than willing to invest in the police to protect them, prisons to house the unemployed or the military to take the natural resources of other countries.

    Patriotism vs global trade

    Even within the patriarchal state there are contradictions. On one hand the military is very patriotic and expect that people will buy Yankee cars. Harvey says the state is interested in the accumulation of wealth and power on a territorial basis. On the other hand, capitalists will seek to make a profit anywhere in the world and will import foreign cars and many other goods. As many of you know, capitalist oil businesses were making profits from Germany during the Nazi era and the Yankee state had to force them to leave.

    Neocon war of all against all vs liberal laissez-faire trade policies

    Lastly, the patriarchal state often opposes capitalists in its international ambitions. For example, neocon foreign policy war mongers like Victoria Nuland wants war with Russia and China. Liberal capitalists on the other hand, want to trade with China. Capital is not the only agent involved in the pursuit of technological advantages in civil society. The state apparatus looks for superior weaponry, surveillance and other methods for policing the population.

    Contradiction 4 Capitalists Acting in Their Own Short-term Self-interest Undermine the Conditions of Their Own Reproduction

    If the use value of a product and the price of the commodity were the same, there would be no room for capitalist profit. One the one hand, the common wealth created by social labor comes in a great variety of use values from the most basic knives and forks, to the food we eat, to the cars we drive. to the houses we live in and the clothes we wear. The capitalist private appropriation of common wealth along with the expropriation of social labor is legally sanction under normal conditions of trade. But there is a dark unseen and illegal side of the market which Harvey includes such as robbery, thievery, swindling, corruption, usury, predation, violence which goes unaccounted for. In addition, there is market cornering, price fixing and Ponzi schemes. All these activities weaken the socio-production process. Harvey writes:

    It is stupid to seek to understand the world of capital without engaging with the drug cartels, traffickers in arms and the various mafias and other criminal forms of organization that play such a significant role in world trade. (53)

    All this swindling and double-dealing is labor expended in counter-production which weakens the amount of energy left for production. This production includes the amount of wages paid and products consumed by workers to get to the next day.

    Contradiction 5 The Class Struggle Over the Proportion of Wages given to Workers as Part of the Working Day

    Harvey states that one of the most outstanding aspects of the capitalist system is that it does not appear to rely on cheating. For Marxists, labor has two aspects. On one hand, labor as human species is activity which distinguishes us from the rest of the animals and produces all real social wealth. One the other hand, there is labor power which is a commodity the capitalist rents for roughly half the working day. This “fairness” of the wage rests on the assumption that laborers have an individualized private property right over the labor they are capable of furnishing. But in reality, workers have a social property right over their labor because the cooperative social labor of all the workers in factories and offices produces all the wealth.

    The commodification of labor power is the only way to solve a seemingly intractable contradiction within the circulation of capital. This contradiction is that in a fully functioning capitalist system, where coercion, cheating and robbery are supposedly ruled out, the exchanges should be based on the principle of equality – we exchange use values of products with each other and the value of those use values should be roughly the same. For all capitalists to realize a positive profit requires the existence of more value at the end of the day than there was at the beginning means an expansion of total output of social labor. Without that expansion there can be no capital. Zero growth defines a condition of crisis for capital. Here there is no room for profit. So where does the profit come from? As Harvey says, there must exist a commodity that has the capacity to create more value than it has itself. That commodity is labor power.  And this is what capital relies upon for its own reproduction. It’s the exploitation of the extra five or six hours of the workers’ pay that is pocketed by capitalists. In reaction to workers joining in unions for higher wages and better working conditions capitalists will:

    • lock workers out or close the businesses completely:
    • refuse to invest or reinvest in workers or infrastructure;
    • deliberately create unemployment and create an industrial reserve army; and
    • move jobs to peripheral world countries for their cheap land or labor.

    So there is a long-term, relentless struggle between capitalists and labor over the proportion of wages given to workers on a given day.

    Capitalist contradictions about education

    Another part of this conflict is over education. On one hand, capitalists want to keep workers as uneducated as possible so that they find out as little of the workings of capitalism as possible. But on the other hand, capitalists must make workers more creative in order to fix problems on the job. The problem for capitalists is they can’t control how the workers may use their creativity on the job to undermine capitalism one way or another.

    Contradiction 6 The Contradiction Between Fixed and Circulating Capital

    Capital investment takes three forms: as an investment in fixed capital – machinery, plants, land and investment and an investment in variable capital which is labor power. Labor power is remunerated afterproduction has occurred, whereas the means of production are usually paid for prior to production (fixed capital). But capital also invents the circulation of commodities. When the commodity is sold, then capital becomes liquid again. In the circulation of commodities, the speed of its circulation is also important. If one capitalist can circulate their commodities faster than another they have a certain competitive advantage. So they attempt to accelerate the turnover time of capital.

    Limitations of making a profit on fixed capital

    However, there are limits to the speed of circulation. To paraphrase Harvey, if I want to make steel, the iron ore and coal are still buried in the ground and it takes a lot of time to dig them out. There are not enough workers close by who are willing to sell their labor power. I need to build a blast furnace and that takes time. There are physical barriers to reducing this turn-around time to zero. Workers, furthermore, are not automatons. They may lay down their tools or slow down their labor process. (73-74)

    Once the steel is finished it has to be sold. The commodity can sit on the market for some time before the buyer shows up.  The capitalist has a vested interest in securing and accelerating the turnover time of consumption. One of the ways is to produce steel that rusts so fast it needs rapid replacement: planned obsolescence (73-74)

    These problems center on the category of long-term investments in fixed capital.

    In order for capital to circulate freely in space and time, physical infrastructures and built environments must be created that are fixed in space – anchored on the land in the form of roads, railways, communication towers and fiber-optics plants, airports and harbors, factory buildings offices, houses, schools, hospitals.  More mobile forms of fixed capital are ships, trucks, planes and railway engines. (75)

    Capital in danger of social sclerosis

    The part which is moveable capital cannot be replaced during the item’s lifetime without loss of value. As time goes by the sheer mass of this long-lived and often physically immobile capital for both production and consumption increaserelative to capital that is continuously flowing. Whole sites are abandoned and wasted as in the rust belts of Mordor. On one hand, in order for capital to circulate freely in space and time, physical infrastructures and built environments must be created that are fixed in space. Yet capital has to periodically break out of the constraints imposed by the world it has constructed. As Harvey says, it is always in mortal danger of becoming sclerotic. Why?

    Capital is forever in danger of becoming more sclerotic over time because of the increasing amount of fixed capital required. Fixed and circulating capital are in contradiction with each other but neither can exist without the other. The flow of that part of capital that facilitates circulation has to be slowed down. But the value of immobile fixed capital (like the container port terminal) can be realized only through its use. It is generally much slower.

    From physical goods to spectacles

    One solution for capitalists is to sell events rather than physical commodities. Harvey says there is a huge difference between, for example, the live transmission of a World Cup football match and lugging around bottled water, steel girders, furniture or perishable items like soft fruit, hot pork pies, milk and bread. Commodities are variably mobile depending upon their qualities and transportability. Production, with some exceptions, like transportation itself is the least mobile form of capital. It is usually locked down in place for a time. In shipbuilding it is considerable.

    Contradiction 7 The Contradictory Nature of Low Wages vs Capitalist Realization

    The goal of capitalism is to sell as many products as it can at the cheapest possible price. But in the process of making a profit the capitalist must:

    • exploit labor power (surplus value) so it can raise the price of a commodity;
    • realize the sale of the product in the market – which is far from easy

    The problem for capitalists is that if wages are kept low the aggregate demand of laborers won’t be enough to buy the products off the shelf. So if the cost of social reproducing of the laborers is being forced back into the household, then those laborers will be less likely to buy goods and services off the market. Lack of aggregate effective demand creates a serious barrier to the continuity of capital accumulation. Working class consumer power is a significant component of that effective demand. Yet if the capitalist insists on paying minimum wage how can the workers buy the products?

    Between 1945 and the mid-1970s, the problem for capitalist was in the production of enough surplus valuebecause of unions were strong and wages high. When unions became weaker, wages dropped beginning in the 1970s. Then the problem for capitalists was was not in the achievement of extracting surplus value but in cultivating conditions for its realization since workers had less money to buy commodities. This is why in the early 1970s capitalists began issuing credit cards to workers in order for capitalist profits to be realized.

    Contradiction 8 Contradiction and Alienation of Labor

    Harvey says there is an important distinction between the technical and social division of labor. By technical he means a separate task within a complex series of operations, that anyone can do. By social he means the specialized task that only a person with adequate training or social standing can do, like a doctor, or an architect. In the technological division labor, the unity of mental and manual aspects of laboring was broken.

    The meaning of the term “alienation” has psychological and sociological components. As a passive psychological term, it means to become isolated from connection to others whether at work or in leisure. As an active psychological state, it means being angry and hostile or feeling oppressed, deprived or disposed of. The person acts out that anger, lashing out without any clear definition. Teenage rebellion movies of years ago, The Wild One or Rebel Without a Cause, are examples.

    As beautifully laid out by Bertell Ollman, sociologically alienation means the worker is estranged from his or her product of labor as well as the process of work. He/she is also alienated from other workers, from nature and from their own creativity. As Marx said it is only outside of work that the worker has the possibility to achieve any personal fulfillment. Uneven geographical development in the divisions of labor and the parallel increase in social inequality in life choices, are exacerbating that sense of alienation. This creates a danger for capitalists in the form of labor unions, strikes, labor parties and agitation for socialism. On one hand, the accumulation of capital requires squeezing the life out of the worker. On the other hand, this repression creates militancy on the part of workers.

    Contradiction 9 Automation Might Shrink the Ratio of Necessity and Freedom vs Automation as the Driver od Unemployment

    One of the mythological stories told by capitalists is that technological innovation would lead to more leisure time for workers. Well, since about 1970 in Yankeedom, we have seen an increase in the amount of full-time work from 40 hours to at least 50 hours per week. This is because capitalist motivation is not to create more leisure for workers, but to replace workers, especially militant workers, with machines.

    On the other hand, automation and artificial intelligence now provide us with abundant means to achieve the Marxian dream of freedom beyond the realm of necessity. In other words, the population could have more leisure time to use their creativity for new inventions, new arts and new sciences. Full advantage could be taken of automation and artificial intelligence. But for the capitalists the more time that has been released from production, the more imperative it has become (for the capitalist) for the workers to absorb their leisure time in consumption. It has no room for authentically free time which neither produces nor consumes commercial wealth.

    Contradiction 10 Technological Innovation vs Monopoly Capitalism

    From competition to monopoly

    According to Harvey, the development of technology first became a focus for capitalists in the second half of the 19thcentury with the rise of the machine tool industry. Harnessing energy like the steam engine was applied to multiple industries. The classic Marxist argument is that through capitalist competition, the productive forces (technology) increase and outdistance the capitalist capacity to use this productive power. This overabundance of products creates the conditions for socialism. But what Marx didn’t anticipate is that capital demonstrates a trend towards monopoly rather than competition. This is a less favorable environment for innovation.

    Wealth of Nations is the founding myth of liberal economic theory. Capital is imagined as constructed by a plethora of molecular and competitive collisions of individual capitalists moving freely and searching for profitable opportunities within a chaotic sea of economic activity. But in fact by the end of the 19th century, corporations has overwhelmed Adam Smith’s competitive invisible hand. All this is news to market fundamentalist economists. Right-wing market libertarians present monopolies as an exception to the rule, rather than the predominant way of life under capitalism. Google, Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, Walmart and Apple are all examples of oligarchies tending towards monopolies. The tendencies in many sectors of the economy – pharmaceuticals, oil, airlines, agribusiness, banking software, media and social media – suggest strong tendencies towards oligopoly, if not monopoly. In fact, says Harvey, most capitalists, if given the choice prefer to be monopolists rather than competitors

    Lenin saw capital moving into a new phase of monopoly power associated with imperialism at the turn of the 20th century when the big industrial cartels combined with finance capital to dominate the leading national economies. This view re-emerged in the 1960’s with Paul Baran and Paul Sweezy’s book Monopoly Capitalism. The crisis of the 1970s – stagflation and inflation – was widely interpreted by Marxists as a typical crisis of monopoly capital.

    Why monopolies put the brakes on innovation

    Capitalism today limits the rate of technological innovation because:

    • The organization of cooperation and divisions of labor must be made in ways to maximize efficiency, profitability and accumulation. This means that innovations that will not be very profitable, such as long-lasting technologies, will be repressed.
    • The capitalist needs to facilitate the acceleration of capital circulation in all its phases, along with the need to annihilate space through time. What I mean is increasing speed of transport and communication reduces the friction and barrier of geographical distance. This requires minimizing capitalist occupation of space.
    • Capitalist must shorten the turnover time by shortening the lifetime of consumer products (planned obsolesce).
    • Capitalist can shorten the lifetime of products’ shift from the production of things that last to the production of spectacles which are ephemeral and contain faster turn-around time.
    • Capitalists technologies of knowledge are used to identify consumer preferences.
    • The speeding up and turnover time by the use of the technologies of finance. Beginning with invention checks and credit cards, the goal is faster turn-around time. The rise of cyber moneys, like bitcoin, is just the beginning of an inexorable descent of the monetary system into chaos.
    • Capitalists must not only speed up the realization and consumption process, but they must develop technologies that speed up the workers. This includes time motion studies, the Hawthorn experiments, and surveillance. This attempted control encompasses not only physical efficiency but also the rise of robotization. As Harvey writes, robots do not complain, answer back, sue, get sick, go slow, lose concentration, go on strike, demand more wages, want tea breaks or refuse to show up.

    All this means is that that the because the capitalist must speed up the production and consumption process, it is far from the ideal conditions of innovation. Scientific innovators are in no hurry and want their products to last. The contradiction is that capitalists want scientific innovation to create ever new processes and products. Yet in their efforts to shorten the turnover time of products, they undermine the innovative processes themselves. They will not be able to innovate at the pace that would develop the productive forces and would stagnate and shrink the rate of profit.

    Contradiction 11   Globalization of Capital: Promises and Perils

    The division of labor within capitalism is now taking place at a world-wide scale. Harvey writes that what is now in place is radically different from anything that existed prior to 1850.

    There are three sectional classifications of the division of labor between:

    • primary – agriculture, forestry, fishing and mining;
    • secondary – industry and manufacturing; and
    • tertiary – services, finance, insurance and real estate sectors.

    On one hand a world market in grains can forestall a local crop failure. At its best all capitalist countries have the technology to support each other during famines, extreme weather, floods, earthquakes and droughts. The fact that capitalist countries limit these interventions to countries that are their allies does not limit their potential to serve the whole world.

    One the other hand, as Harvey points out today the clothing factories in Bangladesh, the electronics factories of southern China, the maquiladora factories strung along the Mexican border or the chemical complexes in Indonesia are all interdependent.  Small disruptions in a supply chain can have very large consequences. A strike in a key car parts factory in one region of the world can bring the whole production system to a halt everywhere. Supply chain blockages thanks to Covid result in delays in both the process of production and the delays on the product.

    Contradiction 12 Uneven Geographical Developments: Super-Concentrations of Production  and Wastelands

    The capitalist division of labor has reached a world scale and this results in uneven pockets of production with high concentration of work in some areas and wastelands in other areas. Time is money for capitalism. Traversing space takes both time and money. As much as possible the near elimination of transport costs and times is a factor in location decision making. This permits capitalists to explore different profit opportunities in widely disparate places.

    Harvey writes that what arises is “agglomeration” economies where many different capitals cluster together. For example, car parts and tire industries locate close to car plants. Different firms and industries can share facilities and access labor skills, information and infrastructures. However other regions may become wastelands increasingly bereft of activities. They get caught in a downward spiral of depression and decay. The result is uneven regional concentrations of wealth, power and influence.  Affections and loyalties to particular places and cultural forms are destroyed and treated as anachronisms. Large blotches of the world become wastelands where nothing is grown and people can no longer live.

    Capital never has to address its systemic failings because it moves them around geographically. Since myopic capitalists treat these wastelands as “externalities” the problem grows worse. The heads of nation-states are enslaved to capitalists and are in no position to address the geographical mess capitalists have created. There are, however, limits to continuous centralization through agglomeration. It results in overcrowding and rising pollution. In addition, labor may become better organized in its struggles against exploitation because of its regional concentration.

    Contradiction 13 Finance Capital vs the Physical Economy

    There are two ways in which capitalist crises might be produced:

    1) chronic inequalities produce imbalances between production and realization; and

    2) financialization of profit means capitalists will not invest in their own infrastructure.

    In the case of financialization, what makes the current phase special is the phenomenal acceleration in the speed of circulation of finance capital and the reduction in financial transaction costs. If all capitalists seek to live off finance, insurance and real estate interests and are just speculating in asset value or living off capital gains the gap between finance capital and the real physical economy grows.

    The problem of compound interest

    Harvey points out that – Michael Hudson in the Bubble and Beyond is one of the only political economists who takes the issue of compound growth seriously. He says that most people do not understand very well the mathematics of compound interest.

    Nor do they understand the phenomenon of compounding growth and the potential dangers it can pose. Harvey writes that compound interest curve rises very slowly for quite a while and then starts to accelerate and by the end the curve becomes a singularity as it sails off into infinity. Harvey goes into much more detail on pages 223-228 of his book.

    There is one form that capital takes which permits accumulation without limit and that is the financial form. Today finance capital is now unchained from any physical limitations. In Mordor today the Fed issues fiat moneys that can be created without limit. Adding a few zeros to the quantity of money in the circulation is no problem for them. The danger is that the result will be a crisis of inflation. The contradiction is in disparities between accumulation process that is necessarily exponential and the conditions that might limit the capacity of exponential growth. These conditions are the requirements to invest in the physical aspects of the economy such as buildings, harnessing of energy and infrastructure.

    Fictious capital instruments

    Besides the printing of fiat money another financial instrument in the purchase of assets includes debt claims. Harvey writes an asset is simply a capitalized property title. This was paralleled by the creation of wholly new assets markets within the financial system itself such as currency futures, credit default swaps, and CDOs.

    This was fictitious capital feeding off and generating even more fictitious capital.

    Harvey writes there is a labyrinth of countervailing claims that were almost impossible to value except by way of some mix of future expectation, beliefs and outright crazy short-term betting in unregulated markets with no prospect of any long-term payoff.

    Contradiction 14 Capital’s Relation to Nature

    Liberal environmental politics has preferred to ignore entirely the fact that it is capitalism that produced the current ecological crisis. Harvey writes that they nibble away at issues on the periphery of the capitalist system while they never reach the core of the system that is producing the problem. “Deep ecologists” wrongly call Marxism “Promethean” which has a disregard for nature and claims that only human history matters. But John Bellamy Foster has dedicated the better part of his life arguing for the belief that Marx was ecologically sensitive and had a concept of capitalism as creating a “metabolic” rift with nature.

    In addition, by training David Harvey is a geographer and has written books on a Marxist criticism of what capitalism has done to the natural world. The change in climate and the frequency of severe weather events is increasing.  Catastrophic local events can be readily accommodated by capital since a predatory disaster capitalism is ready to go. But pollution problems do not get solved, only moved around in uneven benefits and losses. The capitalist system is not prepared for the slow, cancerous degradations. Harvey says that whereas the problems of in past were typically localized, they have now become more regionalized such as acid deposition, low level of ozone concentration, stratospheric ozone holes, habitat destruction, species extinction and loss of biodiversity.

    Conclusion

    Harvey points out that this one-at-a-time presentation of capitalist contradictions does not address that all these contradictions are feeding into each other forming an organic whole. Do capitalists understand these contradictions? For the most part, no. Most are enthralled with market fundamentalist theories. A minority have read Marx. But even so, their short-term material interests as capitalists blocks them from understanding the full ramifications of their system. So capitalists as a class do not understand their system. They blithely roll along accumulating finance capital and pay no attention to the fourteen fractures I’ve identified. What problems occur are dismissed as “business cycles”. As the fractures deepen we can count on capitalists to ramp up  their ideology and distract us with more extreme forms entertainment, including football games, escapist movies and increasing violence in movies coupled with special effects.

    The post Multiple Economic Fractures in Mordor first appeared on Dissident Voice.

    This post was originally published on Dissident Voice.