I agree that Mike L.s questions (below) are crucial questions at the
present crucial time.
In an attempt to push the discussion forward, what do list comrades
think of the following, which falls somewhere in between capitalist
restructuring and social restructuring, or rather could be either,
depending the outcome of the class struggle?
It seems to me that the Left should be focusing right now on the
nationalization of banks, and of finance in general. This is because
capitalists themselves are being forced, very much against their
ideological preferences, to nationalize banks in order to save them.
Therefore, this issue is very much on the table; it is not something
that will take years of struggle to put on the table.
The ongoing partial nationalizations raise the following important questions:
1. What will be the rate of return on the governments shares? I have
not seen any specific information on this question. Buffet has been
getting 10% on his preferred equity injections into banks.
The Left should emphasize: why should the government get any less?
2. How much control over the banks will the government have?
Paulsons latest plan is that the government equity will be
non-voting shares. In other words, the government would be giving
money to the banks, without getting any control in return.
The Left should insist on full voting rights of its shares and perhaps
even control of the banks.
3. Will the government ownership be temporary or permanent?
Capitalists of course emphasize in unison that it will be temporary,
and that the shares will be privatized as soon as the crisis is over.
The Left should argue that the nationalization should be permanent, and
that the government should continue to play an important role in the
provision and allocation of credit in the economy.
The most obvious and most possible candidates for full and permanent
nationalization are Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which are already
almost fully nationalized. The Left should insist that this
nationalization be permanent. This would give the government control
over housing finance, which is important in itself and also could be a
first step toward more general control of finance.
I know that the nationalization of finance is a long way from the
socialist reconstruction of production. We should not lose sight of
that ultimate goal, and we should keep working on that front as much as
possible. There will be lots of bankruptcies of non-financial
companies in the months ahead, and lots of opportunities to struggle on
that front as well. But the main thing on the agenda right now is the
nationalization of banks, and the Left should be struggling to push
that as far to the Left as possible, so that the capital injections are
not just a bailout of the banks, but is the beginning of the public
control of credit.
What do you think? Comments and criticisms would be greatly appreciated.
Comradely,
Fred
Mike L.'s questions and comments:
I have three short questions to introduce into our discussion which
have been provoked by the presentations we've just heard. These
questions are based on two assumptions: (one) capitalism does not
collapse by itself and (two) in the absence of agents, subjects,
popular forces, capital will sooner or later exit the crisis
restructured.
My first question is how exactly can capitalism restructure itself
successfully? I stress here that I'm not asking you to act as advisors
for the capitalist system. Rather, I think it is important to
understand the strength of the capitalist system; in other words, it's
important to respect the enemy tactically.
My second question is how can agents and subjects act to prevent a
capitalist restructuring? And who are those agents?
My third question is can capitalist states prevent capitalist
restructuring or do they serve as agents of capitalist restructuring?
Now, those are the questions that Julio wanted me to post.
Unfortunately, he has returned to New York and I didn't get a chance to
talk with him about why he wanted these posted. However, since my voice
recognition program seems to be working well, let me add an excerpt
from some comments that I made the following day (in the same vein):
I think the distinction that we have to make is to recognize that there
are two paths.
The first is a capitalist path, the restructuring of capitalism. The
second is a socialist path, one which creates conditions for building
socialism; and one of the most significant of those conditions is
creating conditions in which there is mobilization of subjective
forces, masses, the accumulation of popular forces.
The first path relies upon the capitalist state and reproduces
illusions in capitalism; it reinforces the idea of capitalism as
practical. The second path creates consciousness of the nature of
capitalism; it recognizes that crisis is an opportunity, an opportunity
to intensify the battle of ideas.
The first path, the capitalist path, is the path of Mercosur and a Bank
of the South that reproduces the character of existing international
agencies. The second path is the path of Alba and of a Bank of the
South based on new relations building upon solidarity.
The question we have before us is what path will be taken? We need to
focus on these two paths in our discussions and to put this distinction
at the center of our final statement. Not to point to the path for
social transformation is to default upon our responsibilities.
[something that may not be clear to people who were not there is that
the the punchline in both cases related to the question of capitalist
states, Mercosur and some ideas about the character of the bank of the
South; in other words, in these discussions in terms of Latin American
responses to the crisis, where do Brazil and Argentina fit?]
okay, one more long day of the conference (where we will work on the
final statement and presumably talk to Chávez about this) and then
Monday another one starts -- one organized by samir amin for the social
forum on alternatives--and goes on for a week.
Cheers,
Michael
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 01:02:33PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Michael, would you please send me Michael L's post original post
last Friday on "comments at conference"? I would like to respond to
it, and deleted it by mistake.
Thanks, Fred
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu
michaelperelman.wordpress.com
----- End forwarded message -----
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
