Class, the Economy, and the Presidential Elections
Posted August 19th, 2008 by stephen.healy
Introduction Towards the end of July a number of AESA members participated in an online conversation about what is at stake for leftists/Marxists in the upcoming election. There are two themes in this conversation. The first theme is whether or not a progressive coalition can form around a centrist candidate like Barack Obama in order to advance its own political agenda. Perhaps, part of what animates this question is Barack’s representation of himself as the “change” candidate. One could reasonably argue that this empty signifier could become the site of a hegemonic struggle to specify its content. What if “change” meant a commitment to rebuilding infrastructure and clean energy? This kind of “change” might provide opportunities for everything from renewed union-based class struggle within capitalist firms to the formation of worker-owned cooperative firms engaged in the production of a new energy and transportation infrastructure. From this perspective, it’s not so much whether or not we can take Barack Obama to be anything other than what he is—a pro-business centrist—but how the left might adopt a deliberate naiveté, à la Vaclav Havel, and “take him at his word” in order to advance its own agenda. I believe it is symptomatic that both Blair Sandler and Asatar Bair implicitly raise this as a possibility in their own commentaries but then seem to back away from it. The general consensus from this conversation is that prospects for pursuing this approach are fading fast both as Obama’s policies become more clearly defined while the candidate distances himself , increasingly, from the progressive base that endorsed him initially. The second theme, explores what is at stake for working people in America in the presidential election given larger macro-economic trends, particularly inflation. What was unique about this conversation was consideration of inflation from a Marxian class perspective. What our conversants seem to agree on is that rising commodity prices effectively lower the value of labor power (necessary labor paid for by US $ that are worth less). By default this means that workers are subject to increasing levels of exploitation. The tricky turn in the conversation appears to be how we define inflation. Inflationary pressure—as it is commonly understood in mainstream economic discourse— either results in, or precipitates, rising wages. Antonio Callari reasons that in the context of a flat economy and a weak labor movement it is far more likely that the working class will simply experience the rising costs of food, energy and transportation as a shocking decline in their standard of living. Thus in a sense, what we have is not inflation but stagflation. Enid Arvidson’s remarks at the end of the conversation seem to reiterate this diagnosis, while Blair and Bob Tanner seem to hold out hope that the current economic situation of rising commodity prices, the credit squeeze, etc. might create the conditions for a renewed class-based politics. What’s interesting about this brief exchange is that it seems to encapsulate two major concerns that preoccupy many people in the AESA community. What does it mean to advocate for class analysis or to engage in hegemonic political struggle in the context of a larger political community that is indifferent to or hostile towards this perspective? Second, if anti-essentialist Marxian theory insists that economic processes are not (politically, socially) determinative in the last instance, then how do we understand and gauge the myriad potential consequences of rising commodity prices in the context of a “flat” economy or the range of consequences of Federal Reserve policy in response to a set of economic conditions reminiscent of the late 1970s? Blair initiates conversation, July 18, 2008: I am hoping for some discussion about what the left OUGHT to do about the elections. I'm going to admit I was wrong. I thought that a genuinely progressive movement would arise around Obama and keep him from fading to the right. Alas! Right-wing centrism and anti-communism win again. In any case I was going to vote for Cynthia McKinney, but I admit that's an easy choice in California, where Obama is certain to win. | | Asatar responded, July 18, 2008 | | Like Blair, I hope that the progressive movement which has mobilized around Obama will continue to grow and wield influence, though I think it is unlikely that this movement will keep Obama from moving to the center-right. Rather, I think we will come to a growing realization that not even a great leader (which I believe Obama has the potential to be) will save us from the accumulation of problems we face. Our government, after all, was set up with limitations on what Presidents can do. * The real estate market will continue to trend downward, as a historic bubble reverts to the mean; Wall Street casualties will continue to emerge, as the high-leverage bets unwind; * The US economy will enter into a deepening recession, as the economy purges much of the excesses of the unproductive side of the economy, (including activities like finance, retail, real estate sales, and advertising) which have soaked up growing slices of the surplus over the last 40 years; consumer spending will fall as consumers, businesses, and the government struggle with their unprecedented levels of debt; * All signs point to increases in inflation, as the government engages in a last-ditch spending spree, financed by borrowed money, and the Fed begins to monetize the debt to shore up more Wall Street players; * At some point (perhaps soon) the dollar will lose its status as the world's reserve currency, and begin a more rapid depreciation. There is a risk of chaotic dislocation as the world finds a new standard of value, and there is a possibility that the world will move away from fiat currencies. In the process, it is likely that trade will be disrupted, just as it was at the fall of the last great reserve currency, the British pound, in the 1930s, when "beggar-thy-neighbor" trade policies proliferated. The nation will enter a phase of disappointment, and this will likely present an opportunity for new ways of thinking, which I could see being helpful to progressives. | | Antonio responds July 20, 2008 | | One question about Asatar's interesting outline of what the future holds in store: I am wondering about the prediction of inflation, which I have also seen elsewhere. I am finding myself skeptical of the idea that there will be a resurgence of inflation, even in the face of a FED monetization of debt/s. My skepticism rests on my sense that workers (most of them) will not be able to get increases in money wages (and, in fact, labor is so weak that it is unlikely that workers will even ask for higher wages)--U.S. workers will, I think, be absorbing the current and most-likely-permanent price increases (the result of both monetary/dollar-value-related and other forces) as a permanent reduction in their standard of living. I see no wage-price spiral to create an inflationary regime--just a one-time shock in prices (an increase in absolute surplus value, a reduction in the price of labor-power). I am not really sure what will happen to the "surplus" amounts of dollars in the world (and there is a surplus of that, even without the Fed doing any more monetizing, the result of the many years of the supremacy of the dollar as international currency); if these dollars had to be absorbed and circulate in the U.S., the simple logic of the quantity theory would lead to an expectation of inflation. I don't see the real conditions of inflation in place (in addition to the matter of wages I mentioned above, there is also the continued presence of a more competitive global price-regime, the loss of monopoly powers corporations began to experience in the 1970's/80's). So I wonder what will happen to these excess dollars, but I don't think they necessarily have to lead to inflation. | | Blair responds July 20, 2008 I'm basically inclined to agree with Antonio, but... he extrapolates from the current régime of labor weakness. There is a clear recognition on the part of many workers, and intense anger, about how much money their bosses make, how little they make themselves and how difficult their lives are. I don't think socialist revolution is on the near-term agenda, but I don't think it would necessarily take much to bring it to the surface. All it would take to set it off are another eco-Katrina, another spike in gasoline prices, an epidemic, a significant deterioration in Afghanistan or Iraq, or for that matter, if Obama does push for a new New Deal, say around green collar jobs, and workers get behind the effort. Significant uprisings of labor against the current distribution of income (electoral, street protests, cultural) could possibly lead to the increased wages Antonio thinks unlikely. I don't know how likely or unlikely this is. I just want to point out that there is a lot of instability in the global political economy, and extrapolations from the trend of a given régime always, necessarily and inevitably, miss the revolutionary destruction of one régime and the construction of a new one. KBR isn't building all those detention centers for Al Qaeda prisoners. | | Bob Tanner responds July 21, 2008 Some brief comments:
1”… I think it is unlikely that this movement (progressives) will keep Obama from moving to the center-right.”
Ya think?
2”… not even a great leader (which I believe Obama has the potential to be) will save us from the accumulation of problems we face.”
In context, this can only mean “great” for the capitalists. The last president I am aware of that effected a class change was Lincoln. And what happened to “We want no condescending saviors.”
3 “Our government, after all, was set up with limitations on what Presidents can do.”
Tell that to Bush and Cheney.
4 “The nation will enter a phase of disappointment, and this will likely present an opportunity for new ways of thinking, which I could see being helpful to progressives.”
Like organizing With a Marxian class point of view. | | Enid Arvidson responds July 31, 2008 An article recently posted on Alternet (http://www.alternet.org/story/92910/) relates to the discussion about inflation and the economic agenda of presidential candidates. It points to what could be called two-tiered inflation: as long as the working class shops at Wal-Mart, eats at McDonalds and buys Kaufman and Broad homes, they have been facing minimal inflation, but if they wanted to participate in the economy of the elites (eating at name-brand chef-operated restaurants, vacationing in second homes in resort areas, and shopping in boutique shops with European imports), their dollars are worth nothing.
|
