Is this the end of the Reagan/Rove right?

[vimothy]

Not trying to be provocative, I'm seriously interested in your take on this...

Nowt wrong with being provocative.

I wish I had time to try to give this the answer it deserves, but I'm playing catch up this weekend with my Open University course.

Meantime, if you liked the inequality piece, maybe you'll like this -- "The party of Sam's Club", by Ross Douthat, editor of The Atlantic, and Reihan Salam, who blogs at The American Scene. Douthat and Salam start by examining some Pew Political Typology data and establishing the GOP's core constituency, mainly: wealthy, economically and socially conservative "Enterprisers"; and less wealthy Social Conservatives and Pro-government Conservatives, who are both anti-big business, desiring of more government intervention to off-set economic insecurity, hostile to free-trade, hostile to guest-worker proposals -- as they put it, "which is to say the Bush second term agenda". They go on to propose a sort of re-calibration of Republican strategy to appeal to their core vote. There's too much to go into here, but I thought the point about politicians having an anti-government philosophy yet being responsible for large public programmes being a bit ridiculous was well-made.

Personally, I don't agree with much of it, but I do think that the GOP in particular and US conservatives in general will need to undertake some kind of re-calibration. They're certainly not doing very well at that at the moment. Republican Party actions during the financial crisis have been shocking: irresponsible and economically illiterate populism. McCain looks at sea (some good advisers though) and Palin's opinions are probably no less interesting or relevant than those of any average five or six year old.

 

[IdleRich]

I wish Gek-Opel still posted so we could get his opinion about whether this is the financial collapse that he was hoping for or whether - perhaps more likely - it's something that is going to put the breaks on and prevent the over acceleration of capitalism that was supposed to lead to its end.

 

[nomadthethird]

I wish Gek-Opel still posted so we could get his opinion about whether this is the financial collapse that he was hoping for or whether - perhaps more likely - it's something that is going to put the breaks on and prevent the over acceleration of capitalism that was supposed to lead to its end.

I don't think he's optimistic about the current crisis doing anything but reifying neoliberalism and late-captalism...I'm slightly more optimistic than he is...

There's some blogging going on [kpunk, infinite thought, Steven Shaviro, kthismatics, jane dark's sugarhigh] about crisis capitalism. I was really impressed with this one comment on Shaviro's blog, especially because it fits in nicely with the reasons why I think "nostalgia for modernism" (a la hauntology) is an insufficient critical stance:

http://www.shaviro.com/Blog/?p=688#comments

"[...]The traditional "left" want industrialism, only run by and for the working classes (proletariat). The right have other notions as to who should get the biggest share of the fruits of surplus value. They are both predicating their social and political economies on fallacious assumptions. The resource situation is so precarious and the population showing no signs of abating its growth, that there will, by necessity, be a reckoning, and it will have to come at the expense of industrial culture itself.

Both Marx and Ricardo and Smith and Mills and Jevons presume a continuous availability of energy and resources for their models to work: these resources are intrinsic to capitalism and industrialism. As the energy decreases and resources retreat, industrialism itself will have to be rethought, and it is THERE that more "progressive" notions of social organisation can (and should) be advocated and implemented. When we literally *work* in a different way, and organise amd *live* our lives in a different way, then we can talk about actual transformations of society.

The failure of the soviet model was predestined: the way of industrial work is, by its nature, alienating. No amount of worker solidarity can change that.
The constant lurching from crisis to crisis is inherent to capitalism. Once the resources are not available for "recovery", the lurching will, be definition, stop. The "growth" economy will be replaced, again, by necessity, by the "steady state" economics. Ricardo and (IIRC) Mills both warned of the deleterious effects of a steady state economy, seeing it as stagnation and a framework for degradation.
It will be at that juncture - when industrialism itself begins to fail - that a true "post-capitalist" system can be brought into existence.

What comes after science? I shudder to think."

 

[nomadthethird]

Gek lately seems to agree with D&G--and I agree with them in general, although I personally think the current crisis *will* effectively shift the State's ideological underpinnings regardless of whether the revolution follows--in their belief that the State IS Capital's apparatus, the structural supports that keep capitalism from an inevitable, swift and total collapse. The bailout is just another intervention in a long line that has kept Capital alive in order to propogate the central lie--that only capitalism really "works"...

Guattari's The Three Ecologies is a good starting point for understanding Gek's POV. They think what's ultimately going to have to happen (and again I agree) is that the traditionally all-important Subject is going to have to undergo a radical transformation before we'll be ready to "replace" the apparatus as it were...

 

[nomadthethird]

Nowt wrong with being provocative.

I wish I had time to try to give this the answer it deserves, but I'm playing catch up this weekend with my Open University course.

Meantime, if you liked the inequality piece, maybe you'll like this -- "The party of Sam's Club", by Ross Douthat, editor of The Atlantic, and Reihan Salam, who blogs at The American Scene. Douthat and Salam start by examining some Pew Political Typology data and establishing the GOP's core constituency, mainly: wealthy, economically and socially conservative "Enterprisers"; and less wealthy Social Conservatives and Pro-government Conservatives, who are both anti-big business, desiring of more government intervention to off-set economic insecurity, hostile to free-trade, hostile to guest-worker proposals -- as they put it, "which is to say the Bush second term agenda". They go on to propose a sort of re-calibration of Republican strategy to appeal to their core vote. There's too much to go into here, but I thought the point about politicians having an anti-government philosophy yet being responsible for large public programmes being a bit ridiculous was well-made.

Personally, I don't agree with much of it, but I do think that the GOP in particular and US conservatives in general will need to undertake some kind of re-calibration. They're certainly not doing very well at that at the moment. Republican Party actions during the financial crisis have been shocking: irresponsible and economically illiterate populism. McCain looks at sea (some good advisers though) and Palin's opinions are probably no less interesting or relevant than those of any average five or six year old.

Thanks for the links...and thank christ I'm done with finals for the time being otherwise this crisis would have distracted me into an F average...

 

[vimothy]

Have to remember though that this crisis in an of itself is hardly a radical departure. Yes, it was a bubble of historic proportions (magnitude), but bubbles and financial crises are relatively common occurrences.

Here's a really good paper by Rogoff and Reinhart comparing the sub-prime crisis to other historical postwar examples: Is the 2007 U.S. Sub-Prime Financial Crisis So Different? An International Historical Comparison.

 

[vimothy]

I don't think he's optimistic about the current crisis doing anything but reifying neoliberalism and late-captalism...I'm slightly more optimistic than he is...

Don't think there's much chance that neoliberalism is going to emerge from this crisis in a strong position. Unless, you mean something slightly different to me when you say neoliberalism. Which is obviously possible. More than anything, I see the US electorate, political elite and international institutions moving away from anything you could characterise as neoliberalism towards the type of policies Dani Rodrik or (Obama's economic adviser) Austan Goolsbee proposes on the left, or on the right the sort of policies proposed by Douthat and Salam. I think we're going to see increasing support for market interventionist policies from both the right and the left. The top one perrcent aren't going to keep any party in power forever.

In terms of the Washington Consensus (which I think is something of a bugbear), not much has changed. The problems with the Washington Consensus are already understood and acknowledged at this stage.

 

[IdleRich]

"I don't think he's optimistic about the current crisis doing anything but reifying neoliberalism and late-captalism...I'm slightly more optimistic than he is..."

In what sense - you give more credence to the idea that the whole thing will go tits up than he does?

"The "growth" economy will be replaced, again, by necessity, by the "steady state" economics. Ricardo and (IIRC) Mills both warned of the deleterious effects of a steady state economy, seeing it as stagnation and a framework for degradation."

Yeah, I've never understood why growth is considered so vital. I mean, I'm sure people have explained it to me but never convincingly enough for it to stick.

The bailout is just another intervention in a long line that has kept Capital alive in order to propogate the central lie--that only capitalism really "works"...

Sounds a dumb question at this point but how do you (does one) define capitalism in this phrase and what exactly does it mean for it to work? Or more importantly what does it mean for it to fail? I guess what I'm getting at is the way that people on the right often say "Communism doesn't work, look at the Soviet Union" which is met by "that wasn't Communism" - if this sucker does go down will the right be arguing that we never had proper capitalism?

 

[nomadthethird]

Don't think there's much chance that neoliberalism is going to emerge from this crisis in a strong position. Unless, you mean something slightly different to me when you say neoliberalism. Which is obviously possible. More than anything, I see the US electorate, political elite and international institutions moving away from anything you could characterise as neoliberalism towards the type of policies Dani Rodrik or (Obama's economic adviser) Austan Goolsbee proposes on the left, or on the right the sort of policies proposed by Douthat and Salam. I think we're going to see increasing support for market interventionist policies from both the right and the left. The top one perrcent aren't going to keep any party in power forever.

In terms of the Washington Consensus (which I think is something of a bugbear), not much has changed. The problems with the Washington Consensus are already understood and acknowledged at this stage.

Hmmm...I hope you're right and yes it seems counterintuitive but I suppose that what I meant was that neoliberals would be forced to embrace certain regulations on the free market but that eventually there's a chance that (though the "center" has moved left) they will strengthen politically, thanks to abandoning just enough of their principles to keep capitalism chugging along.

The "Party of Sam's Club" article was very good. Maybe we're in for the largescale redrawing of party lines...would be interesting to watch at least...

 

[IdleRich]

"Hmmm...I hope you're right and yes it seems counterintuitive but I suppose that what I meant was that neoliberals would be forced to embrace certain regulations on the free market but that eventually there's a chance that (though the "center" has moved left) they will strengthen politically, thanks to abandoning just enough of their principles to keep capitalism chugging along."

No, that makes complete sense, at least in terms of what Gek-Opel used to say - he was surely hoping for capitalism going crazy and then destroying itself, capitalism having a few problems and being reined in is a step in the opposite direction from that.

 

[nomadthethird]

In what sense - you give more credence to the idea that the whole thing will go tits up than he does?

Well, what makes me a little more optimistic about the latent potential that this latest bubble burst (which, yes, is just one of many) may have to create the political space or opportunity where real ideological change can slip in under the radar, I think, is that I don't remember another time when Americans were as "plugged in" to politics-qua-ideology as they are right now. It's the timing of this latest burst that matters most. It's the first time so many issues (the failure of deregulation, the hypocrisy of social conservatism, income inequality, war machine and the State squaring off again, public distrust of the infotainment complex, etc.) have bottlenecked in America at once. Just seems like we *have* reached some sort of critical mass politically and there's no way the political map a few years from now will be drawn along the same lines it is now.

Sounds a dumb question at this point but how do you (does one) define capitalism in this phrase and what exactly does it mean for it to work? Or more importantly what does it mean for it to fail? I guess what I'm getting at is the way that people on the right often say "Communism doesn't work, look at the Soviet Union" which is met by "that wasn't Communism" - if this sucker does go down will the right be arguing that we never had proper capitalism?

As far as I'm concerned, I believe capitalism functions in the sense that it continues to operate despite its seemingly contradictory claims and internal mechanics, but I don't believe it "works" in the sense that it does not overcome the problem of labor and it endlessly replicates the economic illusion of private property. So capitalism never really "works", but in order for capitalism to fail in any politically/revolutionarily advantageous way it would have to cease functioning altogether. The State and its propensity for bailing out capitalism when bubbles burst have historically and recently prevented this from happening.

I actually think bubbles bursting are the symptoms of Capital the "disease"...capitalizing banks and such bailout measures are, in this metaphor, tantamount to a doctor putting a numbing agent on a puss-filled sore--it kills the pain for a while but it doesn't treat the infection.

Does this make sense? I'm talking in pretty general terms, I know...

 

[vimothy]

Yeah, there's something to the timing of all this...

 

[nomadthethird]

if this sucker does go down will the right be arguing that we never had proper capitalism?

And yes, I think this will certainly be happening--in fact, I think it already does! Even now, there are those who argue that the reason capitalism continues to run up against credit bubbles and such is because the markets have never been allowed to operate entirely freely and true laissez-faire capitalism hasn't yet existed.

 

[vimothy]

Yeah, I've never understood why growth is considered so vital. I mean, I'm sure people have explained it to me but never convincingly enough for it to stick.

Perhaps a good way to think of growth (even more so when people are talking about 'steady state economics') is that growth means you can do more with the same amount of stuff. After all, stuff is limited, but people can and should get better at using it.

 

[vimothy]

And yes, I think this will certainly be happening--in fact, I think it already does! Even now, there are those who argue that the reason capitalism continues to run up against credit bubbles and such is because the markets have never been allowed to operate entirely freely and true laissez-faire capitalism hasn't yet existed.

Compare with the Great Depression: classical economic theory wasn't good at explaining (or predicting!) it, hence Keynes. So in some sense you end up with activist government mitigating against market failures, justified by economic theory, perhaps even ideology. But another way to look at the Great Depression as in terms of institutional failure, in this case: the US banking system, and the market intervention is also restructuring the institutional framework. "The extent of the market" is the institutional framework and all markets need some basic rules (like private property, at a minimum) to function efficiently. There is always the basic necessary initial intervention that creates the market and holds it in place.

 

[nomadthethird]

Yeah, I've never understood why growth is considered so vital. I mean, I'm sure people have explained it to me but never convincingly enough for it to stick.

This emphasis on "growth" is also interesting vis-a-vis energy production and carbon emissions' affect on our environment, and in turn our economic and political stability--i.e., how much of what we call technological "progress" [industrialization] is actually the very instrument by which humanity is ostensibly obliterating itself and other species and ecologies?

 

[vimothy]

Re the possibility of this crisis being a critical historical juncture, maybe breaking into radically different mode of production, have a look at this graph. See if you can spot the Great Depression:

 

[nomadthethird]

I have to concede, you were all quite correct to hate Palin straight from the blocks. In the last couple of weeks, she's proved herself to be incapable of office as well as personally unbearable. McCain himself, also incapable, possibly senile. But not quite as awful as the Republican residue who have taken to booing him for not considering Barack a TERRORIST. You have your President Obama, I think, and good luck. I do hope he makes a great one, or at least a good President. From here, it looks like the US is, well, fucked.

Also, it seems to be the case that running Alaska can't be very hard. She's thick as shit!

Anna Quindlen on why the Palin nomination is so irritating:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/157543?from=rss

A pretty comprehensive rundown of Palin/McCain policies that will help set women's rights back by 50 years or so:
http://evilslutopia.com/2008/09/sarah-palin-not-feminist.html

[American] Men endorse feminists when they're pretty, dress sexy, defer to male entitlement and relinquish hard-earned rights their forebears worked so hard to win:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/us/politics/19palin.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

 

[IdleRich]

"As far as I'm concerned, I believe capitalism functions in the sense that it continues to operate despite its seemingly contradictory claims and internal mechanics, but I don't believe it "works" in the sense that it does not overcome the problem of labor and it endlessly replicates the economic illusion of private property. So capitalism never really "works", but in order for capitalism to fail in any politically/revolutionarily advantageous way it would have to cease functioning altogether. The State and its propensity for bailing out capitalism when bubbles burst have historically and recently prevented this from happening.
I actually think bubbles bursting are the symptoms of Capital the "disease"...capitalizing banks and such bailout measures are, in this metaphor, tantamount to a doctor putting a numbing agent on a puss-filled sore--it kills the pain for a while but it doesn't treat the infection.
Does this make sense? I'm talking in pretty general terms, I know..."

Makes sense but I'm asking at an even more basic level.
When you say the illusion of private property what exactly do you mean? Presumably capitalism cannot work without people owning stuff but does people owning stuff automatically imply capitalism? If so then you are basically defining capitalism as any system where people have property rights right? So capitalism could be judged to have failed only when there is no private property. Or am I neglecting the market there? Would it be enough to say that no-one bought and sold things at prices fixed by the invisible hand? Or that lots of people didn't? Or what really?

 

[Mr. Tea]

and the population showing no signs of abating its growth

That's not strictly true though, is it? I thought the global population curve had already reached its point of inflexion (meaning that it's still increasing, but the rate of increase is decreasing - a deceleration, in other words). I'm pretty sure the statistics show that the population isn't going to double again. Of course, if it levels off at ten billion or something that's still 3.5 billion higher than today, but it's a lot different from the Malthusian exponentiation the guy seems to be hinting at here.

What comes after science? I shudder to think.

Yeah, me too. The optimist in me wants to say 'better science', which is to say, science funded and directed primarily by responsible governments as opposed to corporations. Renewable energy, high-yield crops, all the usual utopian stuff...but that's only going to do any good in conjunction with effective population control, which is like pissing in the wind in societies where women aren't educated.