Neoliberalism, the U.S. economic crisis, and the phases of capitalism
Neoliberal Globalization Is Not the Problem
By Rick Wolff. This article appeared in Radical Notes
Capitalism is. The leftists who target neoliberal globalization denounce privatization, free markets, unfettered mobility of capital, and government deregulations of industry. They propose instead that national or supra-national governments control and regulate market transactions and especially capital movements, increase taxes on profits and wealth, and even own and operate industry. “All in the interests of the people,” they say, democratically.
Yet Marx’s critique of capitalism never focused on government regulations, interventions, and state-owned industries. They were never his solutions for the costs, injustices, and wastes of capitalism. Instead, Marx targeted and stressed capitalism’s “class structure” of production. By this he meant how productive enterprises were internally organized: tiny groups of people (boards of directors) who appropriated a portion — the “surplus” — from what the laborers produced and the enterprise sold. Marx defined such surplus appropriation as “exploitation.” And, as Marx said, capitalist exploitation can exist whether those appropriators are corporate boards of directors (private capitalism) or state officials (state capitalism).
Marx opposed capitalism’s exploitative class structure of production on political, ethical, and economic grounds. He preferred a communist alternative where productive workers functioned as their own board of directors, collectively appropriating and distributing the surpluses they produced. Equality and democracy, he argued, required the abolition of exploitation as a necessary condition of their realization.
Capitalism as a system has always and everywhere gone through phases, repeated swings between two alternative forms. Private capitalism is the neoliberal, “laissez-faire” form: government intervention in economic affairs is minimized, and individuals and businesses interact largely through voluntary market exchanges. The other form is state-interventionist, “social democratic,” welfare-state capitalism: government manages the economy by regulating what the private capitalists can do or by sometimes even taking over their enterprises to turn business decisions into government decisions.
Every few decades, in every capitalist country, whichever of these two forms has been in place runs into serious economic difficulty. Workers lose jobs, incomes decline, enterprises fail, and so on. The cry arises that “something must be done.” Those feeling the least pain and making good money prefer to let the existing form of capitalism correct itself. Those hurting the most and losing money demand more drastic change. When this second group prevails politically, the existing form of capitalism is ended and the other installed. A few decades later the same drama is played out in reverse.
When a booming private capitalism in the US hit a stone wall in 1929, the country shifted over into welfare-state capitalism. When the 1960s and 1970s produced crises in that welfare-state capitalism, the country shifted over to private capitalism (neo-liberalism). Now, after thirty years of globalized private capitalism yield proliferating difficulties, too many leftists have joined the chorus that sees the only solution in yet another swing back to welfare-state capitalism. The legacy of Coolidge and Hoover was overthrown by FDR’s chorus. The legacy of the New Deal was overthrown by Ronald Reagan’s chorus. The Reagan-Bush legacy may now be overthrown by Clinton, Obama, et al. Such phased reversals between capitalism’s two forms occur nearly everywhere, varying only with each country’s particular conditions and history.
As forms, private and state capitalism are oscillating phases of the capitalist system. When one phase cannot solve its problems, the solution has been a shift to the other phase. Thus, crises of capitalism have so far avoided provoking the alternative solution of a transition out of capitalism. Yet that transition was precisely Marx’s goal. He aimed to persuade workers that oscillations between state and private capitalism were not the best solutions to capitalism’s failings, at least not for workers.
Many leftists today catalog the awful results of 25 years of neoliberal dominance: economic and social crises punctuating ever deeper inequalities of wealth, income, and power across and within most nations. They cite the burst investment bubbles, unsustainable debt explosions, collapsed credit markets, threats of recession, crumbling social services, unsafe commodity production, and so forth. They propose “solutions”: governments — national or maybe now supranational — must be recalled by a democratic upsurge to their proper role. Governments should limit, control, regulate, or replace private capitalist enterprises in the interests of the people.
This way of thinking repeats the left’s mistakes in the 1930s. Then, when private capitalism had imploded into the Great Depression, deteriorating conditions turned most Americans against the likes of Republican Herbert Hoover and toward Democratic FDR. A new era of government economic intervention took the name, Keynesian economics. However, New Deal Keynesianism always left in place the private boards of directors of the capitalist corporations that dominated the US economy. Those boards remained as the receivers of the surplus produced by their workers — the corporations’ “profits.” They used those profits to grow the corporations, to make still more profits, to pay higher salaries to top officers, to influence politics, and so on.
Welfare-state capitalism in the US imposed taxes, regulations, and limits on — and mass employment alternatives to — those private corporations. But by leaving their boards of directors in place as the receivers and dispensers of corporate profits, the welfare state signed its own death warrant. The boards of directors had the desire and the means to undo the welfare state. It took them a while to change public opinion and build a rich and powerful movement led by business to achieve their goals. In the Reagan administration and since, enabled by a crisis of the welfare state in the 1960s and 1970s, they succeeded in switching the US and beyond back to a phase of private capitalism we call “neoliberal globalization.”
Understandably, many people cannot see beyond capitalism’s two phases or the debates, struggles, and transitions between them. But leftists who see no further — who criticize neoliberal globalization and advocate a warmed-over welfare-state Keynesianism — have abandoned Marx’s critical anti-capitalist project. They have become just another chorus for yet another oscillation back to the welfare state form of capitalism.
The working classes need and deserve better than that, now more than ever.
Rick Wolff is Professor of Economics at University of Massachusetts at Amherst.
*******************************************************************************************
2008: The Demise of Neoliberal Globalization
By Immanuel Wallerstein, Monthly Review
The ideology of neoliberal globalization has been on a roll since the early 1980s. It was not in fact a new idea in the history of the modern world-system, although it claimed to be one. It was rather the very old idea that the governments of the world should get out of the way of large, efficient enterprises in their efforts to prevail in the world market. The first policy implication was that governments, all governments, should permit these corporations freely to cross every frontier with their goods and their capital. The second policy implication was that the governments, all governments, should renounce any role as owners themselves of these productive enterprises, privatizing whatever they own. And the third policy implication was that governments, all governments, should minimize, if not eliminate, any and all kinds of social welfare transfer payments to their populations. This old idea had always been cyclically in fashion.
In the 1980s, these ideas were proposed as a counterview to the equally old Keynesian and/or socialist views that had been prevailing in most countries around the world: that economies should be mixed (state plus private enterprises); that governments should protect their citizens from the depredations of foreign-owned quasi-monopolist corporations; and that governments should try to equalize life chances by transferring benefits to their less well-off residents (especially education, health, and lifetime guarantees of income levels), which required of course taxation of better-off residents and corporate enterprises.
The program of neoliberal globalization took advantage of the worldwide profit stagnation that began after a long period of unprecedented global expansion in the post-1945 period up to the beginning of the 1970s, which had encouraged the Keynesian and/or socialist views to dominate policy. The profit stagnation created balance-of-payments problems for a very large number of the world’s governments, especially in the global South and the so-called socialist bloc of nations. The neoliberal counteroffensive was led by the right-wing governments of the United States and Great Britain (Reagan and Thatcher) plus the two main intergovernmental financial agencies - the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, and these jointly created and enforced what came to be called the Washington Consensus. The slogan of this global joint policy was coined by Mrs. Thatcher: TINA, or There is No Alternative. The slogan was intended to convey to all governments that they had to fall in line with the policy recommendations, or they would be punished by slow growth and the refusal of international assistance in any difficulties they might face.
The Washington Consensus promised renewed economic growth to everyone and a way out of the global profit stagnation. Politically, the proponents of neoliberal globalization were highly successful. Government after government - in the global South, in the socialist bloc, and in the strong Western countries - privatized industries, opened their frontiers to trade and financial transactions, and cut back on the welfare state. Socialist ideas, even Keynesian ideas, were largely discredited in public opinion and renounced by political elites. The most dramatic visible consequence was the fall of the Communist regimes in east-central Europe and the former Soviet Union plus the adoption of a market-friendly policy by still-nominally socialist China.
The only problem with this great political success was that it was not matched by economic success. The profit stagnation in industrial enterprises worldwide continued. The surge upward of the stock markets everywhere was based not on productive profits but largely on speculative financial manipulations. The distribution of income worldwide and within countries became very skewed - a massive increase in the income of the top 10% and especially of the top 1% of the world’s populations, but a decline in real income of much of the rest of the world’s populations.
Disillusionment with the glories of an unrestrained “market” began to set in by the mid-1990s. This could be seen in many developments: the return to power of more social-welfare-oriented governments in many countries; the turn back to calling for government protectionist policies, especially by labor movements and organizations of rural workers; the worldwide growth of an alterglobalization movement whose slogan was “another world is possible.”
This political reaction grew slowly but steadily. Meanwhile, the proponents of neoliberal globalization not only persisted but increased their pressure with the regime of George W. Bush. Bush’s government pushed simultaneously more distorted income distribution (via very large tax cuts for the very well-off) and a foreign policy of unilateral macho militarism (the Iraq invasion). It financed this by a fantastic expansion of borrowing (indebtedness) via the sale of U.S. treasury bonds to the controllers of world energy supplies and low-cost production facilities.
It looked good on paper, if all one read were the figures on the stock markets. But it was a super-credit bubble that was bound to burst, and is now bursting. The Iraq invasion (plus Afghanistan plus Pakistan) are proving a great military and political fiasco. The economic solidity of the United States has been discredited, causing a radical fall in the dollar. And the stock markets of the world are trembling as they face the pricking of the bubble.
So what are the policy conclusions that governments and populations are drawing? There seem to be four in the offing. The first is the end of the role of the U.S. dollar as the reserve currency of the world, which renders impossible the continuance of the policy of super-indebtedness of both the government of the United States and its consumers. The second is the return to a high degree of protectionism, both in the global North and the global South. The third is the return of state acquisition of failing enterprises and the implementation of Keynesian measures. The last is the return of more social-welfare redistributive policies.
The political balance is swinging back. Neoliberal globalization will be written about ten years from now as a cyclical swing in the history of the capitalist world-economy. The real question is not whether this phase is over but whether the swing back will be able, as in the past, to restore a state of relative equilibrium in the world-system. Or has too much damage been done? And are we now in for more violent chaos in the world-economy and therefore in the world-system as a whole.
Immanuel Wallerstein is Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Sociology, State University of New York at Binghamton.
*************************************************************************************
Putting the U.S. Economic Crisis in Perspective
By Leo Panitch, Monthly Review
It is time to take stock. The centrality of the American economy to the capitalist world — which now literally does encompass the whole world — has spread the financial crisis that began in the U.S. housing market around the globe. And the economic recession which that financial crisis has triggered in the U.S. now threatens to spread globally as well.
Capitalism has had an incredible run — politically and culturally as well as economically — since the stagflation crisis of the 1970s. The resolution of that crisis required, as economists put it at the time, “reducing expectations” of the kind nurtured by the trade union militancy and welfare state gains of the 1960s. This was accomplished via the defeats suffered by trade unionism and the welfare state since the 1980s at the hands of what might properly be called capitalist militancy. This was accompanied by dramatic technological change, massive industrial restructuring, labor market flexibility and the overall discipline provided by “competitiveness.”
It was also accompanied, of course, by massive economic inequality. But this did not mean capitalism was no longer able to integrate the bulk of the population. On the contrary, this was now achieved through the private pension funds that mobilized workers savings, on the one hand, and through the mortgage and credit markets that loaned them the money to sustain high levels of consumer spending on the other. At the centre of this were the private banking institutions which, after their collapse in the Great Depression, had been nurtured back to health in the postwar decades and then unleashed the explosion of global financial innovation that has defined our era.
The question begged by the current crisis is whether capitalism’s capacity to integrate the mass of people through their incorporation in financial markets has run out of steam. That the fault line should have appeared in “sub-prime” mortgage loans to African-Americans is hardly surprising — this has always been the Achilles heel of working-class incorporation into the American capitalist dream. But an economic earthquake will actually only result if there is a devaluation of working-class assets in general through a collapse of housing prices and the stock and bonds in which their retirement savings are invested.
We are by no means there yet. The role being played to prevent just this by the Federal Reserve, very much acting as the world central bank in light of the global implications of a U.S. recession, should once and for all dispel the illusion that capitalist markets thrive without state intervention. It was through the types of policies that promoted free capital movements, international property rights, and labor market flexibility that the era of free trade and globalization was unleashed. And this era has been kept going as long as it has by the repeated coordinated interventions undertaken by central banks and finance ministries to contain the periodic crises to which such a volatile system of global finance inevitably gives rise.
The Fed has repeatedly poured liquidity into its financial system at the first sign of trouble. Yet the capacity of the system to go on integrating ordinary Americans through the expansion of investor and credit markets in this way may have reached its limit. This is indeed suggested by the Bush administration’s sudden (non-military) Keynesian turn with its recently announced $150 billion fiscal stimulus. The announcement at the same time of massive public expenditure cutbacks by the Schwarzenegger administration in California is a reminder, however, that fiscal stimulus at the federal level may be undone at the state level.
This is especially likely to be the case with municipal government cutbacks, given their massive dependence on property taxes. The recent evidence that the financial institutions that specialize in selling risk insurance on municipal bonds are enveloped in the credit crisis further compounds the problem. This indeed brings to mind the extent to which it was municipal governments that were on the front lines of the Great Depression. The kind of fiscal stimulus that is needed to boost the economy now probably entails public infrastructure spending, but the type of state intervention that brought us financial globalization is not well suited to this, as the collapsed levies of New Orleans and the collapsed bridges of Minneapolis prove.
To see this go unmentioned in the Democratic primary debate this week may be hardly surprising given the absence of even a trade union campaign around this, but it bespeaks an impoverishment of American politics that in fact goes all the way back to the New Deal. The issue of economic democracy that had been placed on the political agenda alongside the New Deal’s public infrastructure projects was set aside for the remainder of the century after the FDR’s administration’s self-described “grand truce with capital” in the late 1930s.
There should be no illusion that a recession, or even a depression, will necessarily bring the issue of economic democracy back onto the U.S. political agenda. It would require a transformation of American politics to do so — and that too would have global implications.
Leo Panitch is Canada Research Chair in Comparative Political Economy at York University.