Wednesday, 27 September 2017


A Marxist will return to the movies further on…

 

CRISIS? WHAT CRISIS?

 

          Although there is not a lot of competition, one must treat Jeremy Warner with respect as a Daily Telegraph financial commentator. He has both an authoritative portrait on display in the paper as well as years of experience in the defence of capitalism from within that mighty citadel. Nor does he gloss over unpalatable prospects, as in the headline for his Telegraph article of 20th September 2017: ‘Another financial crisis is certain. The only question is when and how.’ This is hardly likely to soothe potential investors.

          But is capitalism itself in crisis? That depends on your context. In one sense all of capitalism is in crisis all the time, not merely on the economic front but on all fronts of world society. In another sense it is not, so I believe, as a Marxist, in terminal economic crisis just now. Perhaps not until the expropriators get a move on. Meanwhile, let’s have a bit of Shock Doctrine (Naomi Klein, in the sense of a capitalist pick-me-up). As Warner says: ‘Like flowing water, finance finds a way around whatever obstructions may be put in place, and creating new hazards,’ suggesting that whatever the hazards, finance will find a way out of new ones as well. There have been many crises in finance and Warner enumerates them punctiliously:

  1. The breakdown of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange regime in 1973
  2. The UK secondary banking crisis of 1975
  3. The two oil price shocks of the 1970s
  4. The UK fiscal crisis of 1976, culminating in an IMF bailout
  5. Numerous emerging market defaults in the mid-1980s
  6. Mass failures in the US savings and loan sector, late 1980s/early 1990s
  7. Various Nordic  financial crises, late 1980s
  8. The bursting of the Japanese stock and property bubbles, 1990
  9. Various emerging market shocks/devaluations, 1992
  10. The Mexican tequila crisis, 1994
  11.           The Asian crisis, 1997
  12. The Russian and LTCM crisis, 1998
  13. The dot.com crash, 2000

‘Nor did it end with the Global Financial Crisis of 2008-09. This was quickly followed by the Eurozone sovereign debt and banking crisis. It is almost as if financial crisis is now the world’s more natural state.’ Warner has been drawing from ‘a new analysis by the markets team at Deutsche Bank…’ which received extensive coverage in the self-same Telegraph Business Section in the same week. Calling it ‘an old-fashioned view of the underlying causes of this rising tide of financial instability’, Warner indicates a scintilla of scepticism  over all this gloom-and-doom. But the list by itself makes fairly sobering or joyful reading depending on your point of view, and it does not seem that Warner is disputing the facts. Perhaps he is dissatisfied with it because absolutely none of these crises was the doing of workers, unions or Marxist organisations. They were capitalism feeding on itself.

          To a Marxist, Warner/Deutsche provides a convincing portrayal of an undead system in crisis that thrives on crisis. Derivatives, after all, make it possible to hedge against almost anything: the steeper the risk, the greater the profit. We can invest our way through crisis and out the other side becoming ever richer in the process – as seems to have been the case with the escalating fortunes of the ‘1%’ since 2008-09. The only problem may be when the lower-downs become fed up, but presumably they can be relied upon for internecine war amongst themselves (fascists-versus-reds, Blairites against Corbynistas, natives against migrants). These battles might even be able to get out of control if we can continue cutting down on police force numbers. A lawless state is a rich one. For some – think ‘oligarchs’, ‘drug barons’, the Koch brothers: the USA is making progress here.

          Deutsche is worried that spiralling debt levels, by being nourished through ‘stimulus’ ( quantitative easing and low interest rates encouraging borrowing) is putting off the ‘creative destruction’ – a term coined by the great Austrian Joseph Schumpeter – that purges the weaker capitals and cleanses the system by leaving only the stronger ones standing. And thus able to continue pursuing ‘destructive creation’ – I borrow here from Istvan Meszaros. Perhaps this is the ‘old-fashioned’ element Warner refers to: it is more fashionable to believe these days that massive crises of a destructive nature overall are a thing of the past.

          Warner, seeking an authority other than fuddy-duddy Deutsche, then cites the Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney (who could be more modern and sleek?) who refers to Brexit as an example of ‘de-globalisation’. Carney acknowledges that Brexit for its supporters is seen as ‘an opportunity to enhance trade with the rest of the world’. There are bound to be hiccups before we reach the sunlit uplands, and ‘for a while, Britain will become a somewhat more closed economy’. Thus, for Warner, Carney’s cautious words offer a new hope for Britain through Brexit (the Telegraph is, of course, a vigorous Brexit supporter).

          Now, Labour sees Brexit as an opportunity to introduce legislation, currently difficult under neoliberal EU law, to re-build the nation’s crumbling infrastructure and bring about something more like economic equality in a country presently weighed down by an ever-growing gap between the richest and the poorest. It is here that the sharp-eyed Warner sees the danger ahead: ‘In itself, the sort of Brexit-inspired deglobalisation Carney talks of would be very unlikely to trigger a financial crisis.’ (Three cheers for Brexit!) ‘But mix it with the hard left policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, and all the ingredients for a catastrophic loss of international confidence in the UK economy would be in place. Brexit and Corbyn together would be a particularly toxic combination.’

          In other words, Brexit will only work if worker exploitation is maintained, intensified and prolonged while social services, public health and the like go down the drain. Small prices to pay for profit!

          And finally, in Warner’s words, ‘All Labour governments are eventually destroyed by fiscal and financial crisis. With Mr Corbyn, it would at least be swift.’  (‘Fiscal and financial crisis’ are code-words for capital flight in the event of a Labour election victory. Recall Wilson’s complaints about ‘the gnomes of Zurich.’) So at last we can get a 'Marxist' thing into a discussion of financial crises!


          Never mind that Tony Blair’s New Labour (elected 1997, 2001 and 2005) did not fall through fiscal and financial crisis by being ‘hard left’. New Labour reached an accommodation with capital, convincing large sections in it that they would flourish better with ‘moderate’ New Labour than with the socially-divisive Conservatives. Latterly – when prime minister – Gordon Brown worked with some success on the international scene to contain the Great Crisis of 2008-09 – a crisis spawned by reckless lending on a grand scale that had nothing to do with Labour being in power at the time, since it originated within banking and other forms of finance in the USA. Unfortunately through the years when New Labour was courting the City it lost 5 million Labour voters (and Scotland in 2015). This is a more accurate picture of the last fall of Labour.

          This blog has previously stated that the plans of Corbyn and McDonnell are no ‘harder’ left than was Clement Attlee now frequently cited as the most effective prime minister after World War II. The NHS was created, along with new social services provisions, public housing and nationalisation, and the stars did not fall from the sky. All these, presumably, Mr Warner hates and loathes like the plague.

          Alas, however, Mr Warner is probably right. These days a British Brexit fatally compromised over the limitless expansion of world capital promises domestic hardship, though those now dependent on food banks and desperate for shelter (where they are not already spending two-thirds of their income on accommodation alone, as in London) won’t notice the difference. Those who will notice the difference are those presently coining it, but numerally more significantly, also those in the ‘squeezed’ middle classes who fear for their small businesses and mortgages in the likelihood of even gentle rises in prices, taxes and interest rates. Say that Jeremy Corbyn is as ‘moderate’ as Attlee: the world system is so steeped in crisis that even modest reforms are seen by such as Warner to be dangerous. These days David Lloyd George would be too radical to vote for. Did I not say that undead capitalism thrives on crisis? That is, by vanquishing opposition through fear?

          Only via expropriation will capital ever get a stake through its heart. Until then it can stagger on, spreading dread within everyone within reach.

          More and more people, however, are becoming politically radicalised, which makes things difficult. Crises for the 1% will become less fun. Brecht may have been right in saying that what those in power really need are a new people. Perhaps Mr Warner agrees.

 

         

         

         

No comments:

Post a Comment