The Eighteenth Brumaire of Donald T

In the “developed world”, the neo-liberal bourgeoisie ruled without much opposition from the late 1970s to the financial crash a dozen years ago. That rule was possible because strong economic growth – largely due to the digital revolution – allowed enough trickle down of wealth to content the working classes. And it was assisted by electronic propaganda swamping people’s minds. A new mass medium has a stunning effect (see Marshal McLuhan), and that was the case with video images, especially when they achieved credible colour and definition at about that time. The fantasy of ever more wealth for everyone wavered at the turn of the century, and barely avoided total collapse in 2008/9. Since then it has been proven a downright lie, with wage stagnation/regression and huge accumulation for the richest minority out there for all to see. The banking crash of 2008/9 should have been a golden opportunity for the opposition to impose a redistribution of wealth. But all that came out of it was a middle-of-the-road sham wholly preoccupied by the rescue of his big money friends/donators. Meanwhile millions of people were losing their jobs, their homes and often everything they owned.

Tyranny creeps in when the opposition fails in its task of bringing equal opportunity and the free choice that goes with it. Time and again they have wasted occasions, when the system was cracking everywhere and, instead of giving it a final kick, they did all they could to bolster it up until a strong man came along and blew them all away. It is the opposition’s incapacity to fulfil the popular demand for more equality and freedom, or even to recognise those demands, that makes the people place their hopes on the crudest, loudest demagogue on offer. They are tired of intellectual trickeries and of promises not held, and end up falling for the bluff of the highest bidder. By this time next year, the world will know if it was already too late to turn back the steamroller of oppression. After all, Louis Bonaparte was elected before staging his coup. And there are hundreds of thousands of combat troops that have been training to fight civilians for quite a while, alongside foreign and local mercenaries. They may finally be brought home as promised, in a sort of blowback. It seems as though 2020 will be a crucial year in the annals, and not just because of its slick numbers.

The 18^th Brumaire corresponds to November the 9^th

Can voting bring change?

As America looms over the world with its financial and military might, it is difficult to ignore the coming elections in that peculiar system, where a majority of the votes cast do not necessarily elect someone, and where just over half a million inhabitants (Wyoming) weigh as much in the Senate as just under forty million (California). And two parties that alternate in power with very little to distinguish them. The American Republic is governed by an oligarchy of politics and wealth, with Republicans and Democrats representing the interests of agriculture, real estate, industry, commerce and finance, whereas the people are just a labour force to be exploited. That labour force is called on to choose one of two preselected candidates, every two years for their representatives, every four for their president and every six for their senators. “Though all power is derived from the people, they possess it only on the day of their elections. After this it is the property of their rulers.”(Benjamin Rush). But even at that decisive moment they only have two choices, red or blue. The most rudimentary of choices, fit for a world in black and white or the digital 0, 1, not for the infinite variations of colour and life. With the two parties playing the roles of good cop, bad cop, of evil and lesser evil, whilst unconditionally supporting the same accumulation of unlimited wealth. On the subject of corruption Hannah Arendt wrote that, “Prior to the modern age and the rise of society, this danger, inherent to republican government, used to arise from the public realm, from the tendency of public power to expand and to trespass upon private interests. The age-old remedy against this danger was respect for private property, that is, the framing of a system of laws through which the rights of privacy were publically guaranteed and the dividing line between public and private legally protected. […] However, under conditions, not of prosperity as such, but of rapid and constant economic growth, that is, of a constantly increasing expansion of the private realm – and these were of course the conditions of the modern age – the danger of corruption and perversion were much more likely to arise from private interests than from public power”. The Washington “swamp” is the result of corporate lobbying, not of an overbearing government. America is governed by the private interests of a few. And it is extremely unlikely that an election, even of Bernie Sanders, can clean up that corrupt system, considering that both parties are totally compromised.

The polling in November could rid Americans and the planet of Donald T, but it will not loosen the grip of Wall Street and its interwoven ideological threads of profit, a business model that pervades societies everywhere. Only a mass movement of rejection can break that hold. The common good must override private interests in a general reversal of priorities. This radical rethinking can only start at the roots by everyone feeling concerned. It has happened before. In fact most revolutions have started under the impulsion of such movements, councils, communes, soviets or whatever. Time and again common people have shown they are able to organise spontaneously. The tricky bit is the passage from local government to the government of a nation-state. This is usually where the party system takes back control. The process of discussing, forming an opinion, deciding and acting has to be delegated at the national level. And those delegates are incorporated into a one, two or multi-party structure. The transfer of power from the base to the summit transforms the decision making. It is no longer an assembly of people deciding for themselves. It becomes an assembly of delegates deciding for the people.

America is governed by one of two parties. Other contenders are marginalised, and have neither the organisation nor the funds to compete in the electoral circus. Since Franklin Roosevelt, the Democrats are supposed to be liberals on the side of labour. Since Ronald Reagan, the Republicans are supposed to be conservatives on the side of capital. But the divide is blurred because Republicans need a popular base to get elected, and Democrats need donators to fund their campaigns. However, to exist they must be different, at least in their discourse and promises, while chasing the same money and votes. The American electorate, only half of which actually bothers to vote, has to choose one of two candidates. Voters may hope for change but they perpetuate more of the same. By voting, they legitimise the power structure and the rule of capital. For the second time, Bernie Sanders is campaigning to be the Democrats’ candidate for president. Four years ago, though he had strong popular support and funding, the party apparatus rejected him. At present this support seems stronger than ever, and the party seems just as obstructive. If he surmounts that first hurdle he can probably beat Donald T, but what will he do next year once he is in the White House? He has threatened Wall Street and its wealthy clique, as well as the pharmacy monopolies, and he may end up threatening the military-industrial complex. He might get the support of the House of Representatives but not the Senate, and the Supreme Court will not be on his side. He could find himself unable to do anything significant.

With the exception of the military, think Chavez, Sanders is on a confrontation course with the powers that dominate America and a large part of the planet. His only chance of success is an overwhelming active support from all social forces, and the cooperation or neutrality of defence and security forces. That is, America being America, if he does not get shot dead. His is a formidable undertaking. But, nearing eighty, he has nothing to lose and can aspire to the immortality of memory and history. And there is the slimmest of probabilities that a massive popular movement can unite behind him and give him the power to fulfil his promises. This imaginary outcome could also greatly facilitate saving what can still be saved of planet Earth. However, should he be elected, Sanders may simply adapt to the imperial garments as have all previous Commanders-in-Chief.

The quotes are from Hannah Arendt’s book with the link below, pages 236, 252 for the online version, and pages 239, 255/6 in the Compass Books edition, 1965. By wilfully setting aside the subject of African and Native Americans, she builds a fundamental flaw in her reasoning. For a proper comparison of the American and French Revolutions, slaves would have to have been emancipated on one side, or feudal servitudes maintained on the other. The last chapter is interesting.

https://archive.org/stream/OnRevolution/ArendtOn-revolution_djvu.txt

Capital unchained

In Europe, the Middle Ages were very religious. A lot of time was spent praying, chanting, following processions, having feast days and going on pilgrimages. There were also numerous professionals who studied and practiced religion full-time in monasteries, and begging monks wandered around as permanent pilgrims. The Protestant Reformation put a stop to all that, with one full day dedicated to worship and six full days to labouring, and no more monks, friars and nuns. It was an austerity aimed at productivity that left no room for fun and games, and very little for the communion of faith. It laid the foundations for Saturday night binge drinking and for intensified working conditions. It set the stage for capital to extract its surplus value as a regular predictable flow, though there were other factors at work. In England, common lands began to be fenced off to graze sheep during the 18^th century. And in Scotland whole communities were forcefully driven from their ancestral homes to make room for wild game and hunting for sport. This concentrated people in city slums, where they were in no position to bargain over their working conditions and pay. Then came steam engines, spinning jennies, factories, and gas lighting that prolonged the working day beyond the daylight hours. All was in place for perpetual technological transformations motivated by capital’s relentless expropriation of profit for accumulation and interest.

From its onset, technology has determined the paths of production and warfare. And for most of history it seems to have favoured the soldier more than the ploughman and the artisan. This was rebalanced when the mass production of standard goods spread from supplying an army to supplying civilians, from denim blue tents to jeans. But research and development by the military-industrial complex is still preponderant, and it has frequently adopted primarily civilian corporations. In its quest for profits, capitalism has pushed technology in military and civilian production, with numerous crossovers between the two. New ways of living and killing were constantly sought after, as long as they were profitable. The weapons’ department and its sub-contractors have the government as a captive client and benefit from government’s prodigality in military spending. Their profits are generally insured before actually delivering a new murder machine. Making a profit from civilian consumption is not so simple. People have to be convinced by advertising that they need whatever is on offer, and they must have the means to pay. As profit is the monetary value taken out of the market without having been put in, governments and households must spend more than their incomes to provide those profits. This means borrowing. And though reputedly governments can borrow as much as they like in their own currencies without going bust, that is not the case for most households. The source of profits for military goods and services has no limits because governments are perpetual and can perpetuate their renewed debts, whereas people are mortal and are supposed settle their debts before dying. This limits their borrowing capacity and therefore the profit to be made on civilian consumption. Corporations have long lives and practice long-term renewed borrowing, but they can go bankrupt because, unlike governments, they are not allowed to print money for their convenience. This puts limits on the debts they can accumulate, though in the present circumstances of free credit those limits have expanded and debt levels have risen considerably.

Capital needs profits to accumulate and for interest. So the profit motive has guided its every step. In the past merchants and bankers have made profits and taken interest, but the linkup between science, technology and production in the late 18^th century set off the constant expansion of the surplus value that could be extracted from labour. Physics, chemistry and mechanics introduced mass production, which made ancient skills redundant and required an ever expanding market. During the first century of its existence, capitalism set about conquering the world’s markets and imposing the rule of profit. Having done so, the imperial nations tried to modify the world’s division by going to war. A first one led to a second, after which the world’s nations split into two opposing camps. One was based on the private ownership of the means of production, the other on state or government ownership. Both systems extracted surplus value from labour’s added value, to accumulate capital and for the upkeep of a privileged class. But the “West” was backed by America’s undamaged wealth and industry, and continued plundering the global south for its produce and its native labour. The “East” was not as fortunate. Russia had suffered huge human losses and part of its territory was devastated. Its post-war recapitalisation and the nuclear/ballistic arms race relied on minimum mass consumption and convict labour. China was even more destitute.

Capital accumulates by extracting surplus value from labour. This surplus value is in kind and must be exchanged for an investment. This is easier if it is itself an investment than if it is consumption. When capital is privately owned, money is the measure of every value, and all exchanges are for money. Surplus value must be monetised before it can be invested. As it has not been paid for there is no equivalent demand and it must rely on credit to fill the gap. Those who produce investments grant each other credit and everyone ends up with more investments. Those who produce consumption grant credit to consumers, and use that to increase their capital. And the whole process is in the hands of banks that take their percentage share of it all. When capital is owned by government, the distribution of surplus value follows a centralised plan. This naturally favours the production of investments as they accumulate capital, whereas consumption is just consumed. And, as all production is ultimately consumed, the military may have precedence over civilians. These two systems confronted one another during the Cold War, but a centrally planned economy leaves little or no room for initiatives and inventiveness, and it was slowly left behind by its private ownership opponents. And this technological lag became increasingly obvious when the digital revolution began to accelerate production.

The extraction of surplus value to accumulate capital became the norm everywhere, and private ownership proved to be the most effective. It in turn became the norm, but extracting surplus value from labour means extracting surplus value from the market. The profit in kind must find a buyer. It must be exchanged for money before it can be accumulated as capital. This is especially problematic for consumption. The classic solution has been to exchange surplus consumption for investments outside the system (arms for oil or shoes for factories). But, as the system becomes universal, there is less and less space where this can be done and more and more wanting to do it. The only other solution is spending future incomes by generalising credit and debt. Having extracted surplus value from labour, capital must then extract a profit from the market. It must take more value out than it has put in. To do this it grants credit and encourages borrowing. All these promises of future incomes must be renewed at term to avoid a drop in demand. And new debts must be constantly incurred to cover new profits. This growing pile of debt is relatively reduced by inflation that devalues its denomination and by increasing incomes that lower its proportion. However, over the past few decades inflation has been very low, and rising incomes have only benefited the wealthiest ten or twenty per cent. So the vast majority have increased their borrowing. Governments have contributed generously to the pile after reducing their incomes by cutting taxes on profits and wealth. As have corporations by borrowing to cover their losses or to buy back their shares and thereby increase their apparent profitability. Both have taken advantage of central bank policies that have reduced interest rates to next to nothing. But there has been no trickledown to consumers who are still charged 15% or more for an overdraft. Only mortgages, backed by property, have seen a slight drop in interest rates. Capital accumulates profits while labour and government accumulate debts, and no one seems to know how far it can go before toppling over.

Nations have a territory, a population and a government, and they trade with one another. This can entail exchanging consumption for investments, but it generally includes all sorts of goods and services, consumption and investments. The value of these exchanges is supposed to balance out. When it does not, there is a trade deficit on one side and a surplus on the other. A nation is indebted to another. As they have different currencies, this debt can only be paid with a universal currency. It used to be gold bullion but, since 1971, it has been replaced by the US dollar, which was a huge advantage for the emitter of that currency. The US could pay its foreign debts with its own banknotes. At the time – this was before shale extraction, and off-shore drilling was in its infancy – the US imported large quantities of crude oil, mostly from Saudi Arabia and Iran. This flow of dollars from America – as well as Western Europe and Japan, as only dollars were accepted by the oil producers – could have played havoc on the stock market. But it was made clear from the start that petro-dollars could only be invested in Treasury bonds. And so it was that the US was able to pay its trade deficits with its budget deficits, not only to Saudi Arabia but also Japan, Germany and finally China, as well as some other smaller trading partners. So far the US dollar’s supremacy has not been seriously contested. The Euro had hopes that failed, and the Yuan briefly fancied it might, but the dollar’s dominion remains as absolute as ever, and world finance is the vassal of Wall Street.

After 1950, world produce grew at about 4% per year, doubling every twenty years. That growth slowed down after the recession ten years ago, and has not really picked up since. But then, it is difficult to imagine a world in 2040 with twice as much of everything as there is today. Twice as many cars, trucks, planes, ships, trains, houses, factories, offices, mines, oil wells, etc., just does not seem possible, the planet is already asphyxiating. So, whether it transits from fossil fuels to renewables or not, capitalism is condemned to very slow growth, and probably to contraction. But capitalism needs growth to function. Always more is its dogma and its obligatory path. If it stops, like a cyclist it falls. When growth slows, the larger players can maintain some impetus by buying up or putting out of business their smaller competitors. Instead of spreading, capital concentrates. And this concentration centralises decisions and restrains initiatives and inventiveness. The mega-corporation has the same failings as government ownership, and being too big to fail it can count on a government bailout. In its monopolistic stage, privately owned capital is as dysfunctional as government owned capital. And monopolies sign the end of a technological growth cycle. Vast conglomerates that wield power in all domains, but can only conceive more of the same.

The capitalism of endless growth is close to its limits, or may have passed them and is treading on thin air. These are the limits of the planet’s capacity to absorb its garbage, and the limits of debt’s capacity to pay its profits. But, even with the best will in the world, its momentum is so gigantic that it can only change course very slowly and would have to stop to turn around. As it is obviously too late for incremental modifications, the whole system must come to a standstill before it can start off in a different direction. The nervousness was palpable at Davos, central bankers are visibly stressed and stock markets are extremely jittery. These are people who should know how fragile the capitalist structures are, frail enough to be able to fall apart quite suddenly. They may be beginning to realise that all their props are cracking and there are no new ones on hand. Australia is burning and China is in quarantine, and the scale of these two ongoing events is phenomenal. They could mark the tipping point into financial and environmental chaos. The creaking struts may start breaking one after the other. Having enveloped the world, capital has nowhere left to go and is playing its final scene, the one where it scrambles around, trying desperately to keep control. And desperation is not the best state of mind for reasoned and humane problem solving. But then, those preoccupations have never been a priority for capital, and it has crushed people in a care-free way for at least the past two centuries. It will probably cling on to the end, until land, sea and air pollution and worthless debts finally terminate its tyranny.