[Debate] (Fwd) Capitalism in crisis defended by Financial Times, badly (Michael Roberts)

[Patrick Bond]

http://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2012/01/13/capitalism-in-crisis-the-apologia/


    Capitalism in crisis -- the apologia

The /Financial Times/ recently launched a series of articles on 
"Capitalism in Crisis".  As we enter the fourth year of the global 
banking collapse and the long depression in real output for the major 
capitalist economies, the strategists of capital are trying to 
understand what went wrong with capitalism and what to do about it. They 
realise that confidence in the capitalist mode of production has 
plummeted, whether that is expressed in the global "we are the 99% 
campaign" or in the opposition of many Greeks to the austerity packages 
of the IMF -- according to a recent poll, around one in three Greeks 
asked now want a social revolution.

So the FT decided to kick off a campaign to defend the capitalist system 
with articles by various apologists.  It started with Lawrence Summers 
(FT,8 January). Summers, is a former employee of Goldman Sachs and was 
US Treasury Secretary under Clinton before he became a university 
professor at Harvard.  Summers tells us that disillusionment with 
capitalism had reached highs even in the bastion of the 'free market': 
America.  A recent poll, he tells us, found that 40% of Americans asked 
no longer felt positive about capitalism and there was majority against 
capitalism among young people, ethnic minorities and the poor.  Summers 
asked the question: are these negative attitudes justified?  His answer 
was that it depends on whether the current crisis is due to the nature 
of capitalism and on whether there are any solutions within the 
capitalist system.  For Summers, the answer to the first question is no 
and to the  second, yes.  Surprise!

Summers admitted that the Great Recession has created such a level of 
unemployment that the hope of getting everybody who has lost a job or 
seeks one back into work over the next five years is low as /"the 
economies of US or Europe are likely to be constrained for a long 
time"/.   But nevertheless, having admitted that we are in a long 
depression, he argues that this slump is not due to an /"inherent flaw 
in capitalism"/.  It is due to what Keynes called a /"magneto problem",/ 
like a failure of a car part that can be fixed and then the car will 
spring back into life.  Just give the current economic policies more 
time and all our concerns wil soon fade.  It is unclear what these 
policies are that will work: is it fiscal stimulus or austerity?; 
printing money and bailing out the banks or not?

Summers knows that one in six Americans aged between 25 and 54 years are 
out of work while the top 0.1%  have been living the good life.   And, 
/"unlike cyclical concerns (ie the recession), there is no obvious 
solution at hand"/.  But apparently, this is nothing to do with the 
failure of capitalist mode of production but due to problems /"deep 
within the evolution of technology"/.  You see, agriculture gave way to 
industry in the 19th century and as it did so, people lost their 
livelihoods in the transition and inequality rose.  Then in 20th 
century, industry gave way to services and the same thing happened.  Now 
in the 21st century, all the jobs and incomes are to be found in the 
sectors raising the quality of human capital, namely health, education 
(where Summers now plies his trade) and housing and not in goods or 
other low-value services.   The problem is, says Summers, is that these 
jobs are found mainly in the public sector and are not subject to the 
profit motive.  Thus /"in many of these new areas, the traditional case 
for market capitalism is weaker"/.  His conclusion is that we need to 
/"shrink or at least slow the growth of the public sector"/ to allow the 
provision of these services for profit.  Summers implies that 
profitability is no longer good enough in the existing private sector 
and so, to save capitalism, we must destroy public services and 
marketise them.  It's not a good advert for the capitalist mode.

John Plender is a regular columnist in the FT (FT, 8 January).  He is 
worried about the growing inequality of wealth and incomes over the last 
three decades in the major OECD economies.  We have documented the 
evidence for this in many posts in this blog (see /Inequality, poverty 
and riots/, 6 December 2011 and /Inequality in Britain/, 28 January 
2010).  But Plender cites a new book by Stewart Lansley (/The cost of 
inequality/) that reveals the fast track rise for the super-rich and the 
stalled track for everyone else.  Led by the financial sector, 
capitalism has become /"a cash cow for a global super elite"./  Plender 
points out that this development is nothing new -- indeed capitalism has 
an inherent tendency to increase inequality (see my post, /1% versus 
99%/, 21 Octovber 2011).  But Plender is optimistic -- at least in this 
current slump, we don't have soup queues and degradation as we did in 
the 1930s.  Unemployment in the US may be near 9% officially or even 15% 
on fairer measures, but it is nowhere near 25% as in the Great 
Depression.  There's thanks for small mercies!

What's wrong with capitalism is not the capitalist mode of production 
for profit, says Plender, but the particular form it has taken with the 
dominance of the banking sector.  The bankers have become pirates or 
profiteers stealing from the decent capitalists.  Thus we hear the usual 
argument of the Keynesians that it is the finance sector that is the 
problem, not capitalism.  This idea of robber barons has been taken up 
opportunistically by the Republican rivals to Mitt Romney, the favourite 
for the US presidential nomination.  Romney is accused by the likes of 
Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry of being such a 'profiteer' because he ran 
one of the largest private equity companies in America.  Bain Capital 
was engaged in buying out companies, stripping their assets, sacking 
much of the workforce  and then selling them on.  Apparently 22 out of 
the 77 companies that Romney bought were put out of business.  And yet 
what Bain Capital did is nothing more than capitalism at work: the 
strong win and the weak fail.  It is an illusion perpetuated by Keynes, 
echoed by Plender, that there is a capitalism that can operate without 
speculation and without 'profiteering' and thus deliver economic growth, 
jobs and incomes without inequality or slumps.

Plender argues that the problem with capitalism is that shareholders 
have lost power to the management of companies.  This is called the 
"agency problem", which means that managers enrich themselves at the 
expense of employees and shareholders alike and productive investment.  
The answer is to restore the power of the shareholders.  Unfortunately, 
even if this were true, Plender does not offer us any way of doing 
this.  He recognises that regulating the banking system has failed and 
the role of 'entrepreneurs' as opposed to 'get-rich quick' managers has 
not been restored.  But anyway, this is a myth.  Even back in the days 
of 19th century capitalism, when shareholders were supposedly in full 
charge, economic crises were just as rife and so were banking crises.   
Plender ends up with an argument in favour of capitalism that is often 
trotted out; reformulating Winston Churchill's aphorism on 
democracy,/"capitalism is the worst form of economic management except 
for all those other forms that have been tried"/.  Or as Margaret 
Thatcher once said, /"there is no alternative"/.

John Kay (FT, 10 January) is an Oxford economist who regularly writes 
for the FT.  He points out that Marx never used the word 'capitalism' 
and what Marx attacked as a mode of production in the 19th century has 
disappeared or metamorphosed into something else.  And here we go 
again.  The owners of the means of production (now pension funds, 
insurance companies, banks etc) no longer control their companies or 
hire or fire people.  That's left up to the managers now. Ownership and 
control are now /"divorced"/.  So business leaders are /"no longer 
capitalist"/ in the sense that Marx described them.   So the answer to 
the current crisis is not to end the private ownership of the means of 
production, as the Marxists say, but to find ways of making control of 
companies more democratic.

This is pretty much the same argument as Plender.  What is wrong with 
capitalism is that there is not enough of it.  If the owners of capital 
took more control, things would be better.  Apart from the fact that 
there is no evidence in the past that this was the case, for what 
purpose would owners do this but to boost profits and in particular 
dividends?  How would that help growth and jobs, unless you reckon that 
in some way owners would invest more than the managerial elite?   And 
anyway, that does not explain why there a regular cycles of boom and 
slump, whether companies are 'controlled' by their shareholders or not, 
whether they are multinational or not, or whether executives are 
overpaid or not.  The private ownership of the means of production 
matters because, in the last analysis, the owners decide investment, 
employment and incomes paid to the top and the bottom.  No top manager 
survives if he or she cannot deliver an increased dividend (or higher 
share price) to the shareholders and that means making higher profits.  
That is literally the bottom line.

Samuel Brittan is a long-time FT columnist and closet Keynesian (FT, 13 
January).  Brittan tells us that market capitalism fails to reward on 
/"personal merit"/ i.e. you don't get paid a lot of money or have a lot 
of wealth under capitalism because you are clever or work hard.  
However, capitalism is the best system because /"it promotes personal 
and political freedom"/ as the /"individual is free to use his abilities 
in line with his own choices"./   Really!  Tell that to the majority of 
people toiling away in a very modestly paid jobs in an office or shop, 
working long hours, with limited holidays and a poor pension. Would they 
agree that they have plenty of life choices as a result?  What would the 
poor of Africa, Asia and elsewhere make of the idea that they are free 
to make their own choices?

Yet Brittan tells us that, under capitalism, we can choose whether to 
spend our incomes in /"personal pleasure or social service at home or 
the relief of poverty abroad"/ as we wish.  The individual makes the 
decision, not the government.  Brittan quotes the liberal apologist for 
capitalism of the mid-19th century, John Stuart Mill, who argued that if 
everything was in state hands, there would be no personal freedoms. Thus 
Brittan invokes the alternative to capitalism with its 'free personal 
choices' against the model of stalinism and state authoritarianism.  
There  are no other models, according to him. Yes, a few cooperatives 
might be more democratic, but that's it.

To end his piece, Brittan tells us that he is shocked at the role of the 
financial sector and how its /"activities could undermine the capitalist 
order". / Yet again, there is nothing wrong with the capitalist mode of 
production in its production sphere; it's the monetary or financial 
sector that is flawed and causes instability and inequality.  As if 
economic cycles of boom and slump and inequality did not exist before 
the financial sector became a hegemonic force in modern capitalism.  So 
the answer, for Brittan, is international regulation of the financial 
sector and /"the retention for quite a long time in public ownership of 
the banks and other institutions that have had to be rescued by 
government"/.  Thus the financial sector must remain under the 
'authoritarian' grip of the dreaded state sector, but not the rest of 
'productive' capitalism.

To sum up, Marx was wrong.  Capitalism is the best of alternative 
systems of human organisation; and it has changed significantly since 
Marx criticised it.  Unfortunately, some of those changes are for the 
worse (managers stealing profits; the finance sector undermining 
stability).  Apparently, we can correct those flaws either by going back 
to 19th century capitalism where owners not managers ruled (Plender and 
Kay); or by having state control of the financial sector (Brittan); or 
by increasing the role of private sector in running public services for 
a profit (Summers).   Not very convincing, is it?



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fahamu.org/pipermail/debate-list/attachments/20120115/4d9beb24/attachment-0001.htm