Wednesday, August 21, 2024

 

US politics today: Chaos, conflict and a creeping constitutional crisis

First published at Tempest.

Bourgeois electoral politics in the U.S. has entered an epoch of unprecedented instability exemplified by three signal events. First, President Joe Biden’s catastrophic debate and consequent collapse in polls seemed to doom the Democrats to certain defeat. Then, Donald Trump’s near assassination and, by his account, divine salvation followed by his triumphant Republican National Convention appeared to consolidate his lock on the presidency and perhaps the GOP’s capture of both houses of Congress.

Finally, in a desperate move to save their electoral fortunes, the Democrats’ capitalist donors and party bureaucrats intervened to dethrone Biden and coronate Vice President Kamala Harris as their new nominee. Now the election seems to be a dead heat whose outcome is, right now, unpredictable. It will be impacted by all sorts of surprises, domestic and international, between now and November. Whichever party wins, the U.S. will have a divided government, paralyzed and unable to implement the victor’s full program, and faced with intransigent political opposition that will accelerate what has already been a creeping constitutional crisis.

Global political instability

The electoral instability in the U.S. is, in fact, the norm throughout the world. There are few stable democratic or authoritarian regimes anywhere. Why? Because global capitalism’s multiple crises are undermining popular support for states almost without exception.

Just look at the heads of government that met at the most recent G7 summit. All of them, from Biden to Emmanuel Macron to the recently toppled Rishi Sunak, had record-low approval ratings. The same is true of capitalist autocracies, from Russia, where Vladimir Putin faced a coup last year, to China, whose population just a couple of years ago staged mass protests and strikes against Xi Jinping’s draconian Zero Covid policy of lockdowns of homes and workplaces.

Capitalism’s crises are thus undermining the capitalist establishment, driving political polarization to the right and the left, and intensifying external conflicts between states at every level of the imperialist hierarchy. Rivalries between established and rising powers, most obviously the U.S. and China, are growing, so are conflicts between them and regional powers, and these conflicts are often over control of oppressed nations like Palestine, Ukraine, and Taiwan.

Within nation-states, the establishment’s parties and regimes are unable to address the grievances of the classes beneath them. That has opened the door to their opponents, most commonly the far right and its parties. But if and when those forces come to power, they have been unable to impose stable regimes, because they can neither solve capitalism’s crises nor its growing inequality. Their policies, in fact, exacerbate them.

In the rare cases where leftist and reformist parties like Syriza in Greece have managed to win governmental power, they too find themselves constrained by the capitalist state and economy, unable to deliver and forced into compromises. Disappointment with their rule, in turn, has then re-opened the door to the capitalist establishment and far right to regain power.

The failure of governments to deliver any kind of solution has triggered revolts from below by both the working class and the oppressed as well as the deranged petty bourgeoisie. But the revolutionary Left is at this point too small and not implanted enough to galvanize mass struggles for reform and a challenge to the system, enabling the establishment and right to co-opt and channel movements into their electoral projects or simply repress them with the utmost brutality.

A socialist approach to electoral politics

In this epoch of political instability, socialists must develop a strategic approach to elections. We are not anarchists; we do not dismiss elections as irrelevant to the class struggle. Electoral politics are one of the battlefields of the class struggle.

We must contest our rulers on all fronts of the system from the economic to the social, ideological, and political. We cannot ignore or abstain from engaging in battle on any of those fronts. If we leave electoral politics to only the capitalist and far right forces that only empowers them to have more influence over the politics, ideology, and organizational priorities of workers and oppressed groups. We ignore elections at our peril.

That’s why Engels argued that workers everywhere must form a political party of their own to lead the struggle on all fronts of the class war, including contesting our rulers’ parties in elections. Elections are a means to win the political, ideological, and organizational independence of our class from our rulers and a way, if used properly, to agitate for struggle from below for radical reforms on the road to the revolutionary transformation of society.

In the U.S., we have an exceptional political system. Unlike most countries, we have no social democratic or labor party, but instead have two parties of the capitalist class, the Democrats and Republicans. Both are funded and controlled by the capitalist class and used to advance their interests, not ours.

However, the parties are not the same, and since the 1930s, they have operated in different fashions. The Republicans have been the main party of capital–its A-Team. The Democrats have been the B-Team, which has come off the bench when the A-Team has failed, to promise liberal reforms to preserve the system and head off the formation of an independent party of workers and the oppressed. They exist to co-opt the Left and neutralize class and social struggle.

The transformation of Washington’s two-party system

Up until the Great Recession, the two parties have shared a commitment to neoliberalism at home and imperial hegemony abroad, and differences between them have been of degree not of kind. But in today’s epoch of crisis, this political setup has been radically altered.

Trump, a lumpen capitalist outsider to the two parties, has transformed the GOP into a far-right party similar to that of Marine Le Pen’s National Rally in France. It has found an electoral base among small business owners and disorganized, impoverished, alienated sections of the working class, especially but not exclusively white workers hammered by deindustrialization and neoliberalism.

Today’s Trumpite Republican Party advocates authoritarian nationalist solutions to the real crises of capitalism. Their program is embodied in Project 2025. While disavowed by Trump, his brain trust designed it and his Vice Presidential nominee, the execrable “shillbilly” J. D. Vance, wrote the forward to the new book by Kevin Roberts of the Heritage Foundation, which commissioned it. And most of the ideas from the Project ended up as bullet points in the GOP’s platform emphasized in classic Trumpite style with bold headers and capital letters.

Project 2025 advocates an American-first nationalist foreign policy opposed to Washington’s multilateral alliances like NATO; massive increases in protectionist tariffs, radical deregulation and tax cuts for the rich; the dismantling of the so-called administrative state; and the declaration of a culture war on oppressed groups, especially people of color, women, queer people, and migrants. It reflects the interests of a narrow band of middling venture capitalists in the tech sector, especially in Crypto and AI, nationally-oriented corporations, and the resentful bigotry of small business owners and downwardly mobile professionals.

Under Biden, the Democratic Party has replaced the GOP as the main party of capital. It has the bulk of capitalist backing and has forged an electoral base in upper sections of the professional middle class and much of the unionized working class.

Biden developed a strategy of imperialist Keynesianism to accomplish several interrelated goals. He has sought to refurbish U.S. alliances against China and Russia, implement an industrial policy to rebuild U.S. manufacturing (especially in high tech to compete with China) and offer a program of liberal reforms to restore capitalist hegemony over the popular classes, head off the challenge from the far right GOP, and co-opt and neutralize social democrats like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez within the Democratic Party.

Biden’s program however has proved completely inadequate to address the growing grievances among the working classes and oppressed, who have been hammered by inflation. It has also failed to overcome the system’s metastasizing crises, especially climate change, which is causing catastrophe after catastrophe with insufferable heat waves, floods, wildfires, and storms wreaking havoc from California to Vermont.

Even worse, his project of reasserting U.S. imperial hegemony, in particular by supporting Israel in its genocidal war on Palestine, has driven Palestinians, Arabs, Muslims, Black people, and multiracial youth to oppose his administration. They all see him not as some liberal, or as Sanders persists in calling him “the most progressive president since FDR,” but as a war criminal rightly deserving the moniker, Genocide Joe.

Biden’s unrelenting support for Israel combined with the mass movement in solidarity with Palestine undermined his self-serving propaganda about Washington being a protector of a so-called international rules-based order. It also doomed his chances of reelection with hundreds of thousands in battleground states joining the “Uncommitted Movement” in the Democratic Party’s primaries, including the pivotal battleground state of Michigan.

His policies, his mental incapacity demonstrated in his catastrophic debate with Trump, and his war crimes drove down his approval ratings and depressed, alienated, and enraged the very electoral base he needed for reelection. That enabled Trump, the other widely-despised candidate, to stretch his lead over Biden and appear to be set to win the presidential election and even sweep the Republicans back into control of both houses of Congress.

Harris and the resurrection of the Democratic Party establishment

The Democratic coronation of Harris has transformed this election almost overnight. They replaced a faltering candidate with a competent one and are promoting her as a Black, South Asian Woman to re-galvanize capitalist donors, party activists, and what had been a demoralized electoral base.

There is real enthusiasm for her and a sense that she could now win. Her popularity is an echo of the appeal that Obama used to become the country’s first Black president. Capitalists and small donors have reopened their spigots of contributions, pouring $310 million into Harris’ campaign in July. She has hosted mass phone calls of party activists and staged rallies with large raucous crowds.

Harris has also benefited from the bumbling rollout of the Trump/Vance ticket after the GOP’s Convention. Trump clearly misses Biden as his former defenseless opponent and has been unable to come up with anything but racist and misogynist attacks against Harris, which may consolidate his right-wing base but will likely lose him support among suburban swing voters.

For his part, Vance has proved himself little better in stump speeches than the repugnant charisma vacuum Ron DeSantis. He’s been trapped trying to justify misogynist attacks against Democratic Party women as “childless cat ladies” and explain away his catalog of old denunciations of his boss, Donald Trump. No doubt, Trump regrets choosing this apprentice and could conceivably fire him in a fit of anger.

We should be clear, however, that Harris has only changed the atmospherics of the campaign, not the class nature of the Democratic party or its imperialist Keynesian program. As The New York Times notes, she has rejected the Left, embraced the establishment, and positioned herself as a competent defender of Biden’s record.

In a sign of just how far to the right she has moved, Harris now boasts about her career as a “tough on crime” prosecutor and, in an effort to fend off Republican attacks, promises to enact extreme border restrictions if elected. What crumbs she does offer workers and the oppressed are recycled from Biden’s Build Back Better that Congress torpedoed and would likely do so again in the future.

Even if enacted, however, those mild reforms will not address the deep grievances of the working class and oppressed. That includes her promise to fight for abortion rights. At best, the Democrats would restore the status quo ante, when Roe was the law of the land.

At worst, as they have done before, they will use their pro-choice position to galvanize electoral support, but when faced with intransigent Republican opposition, abandon their promise for national re-legalization. And of course, they will not fight to restore public funding of abortion.

Real change on that and every other demand must be fought for from below. Nowhere is this more clear than on Palestine. While she has voiced sympathy with Palestinians being massacred in Gaza and called for a ceasefire, she never opposed Biden’s unconditional support, funding, and arming of Israel to carry out the genocide.

In fact, she has supported it hook, line, and sinker. As Vice President, she has been an accomplice in the genocide. And, as the nominee in waiting, she has reiterated her support for Israel’s so-called right to self-defense (something an occupier does not have under international law) and condemned protests by solidarity activists.

The dead end of lesser-evilism

That said, we must be crystal clear: The two candidates and parties are not the same and it is an ultra-left mistake to characterize them that way. The greater evil is obviously Trump and the far right GOP. He, not Harris, is threatening the deportation of 13 million human beings and the criminalization of queer people.

Harris and the Democratic Party are lesser evils by comparison. But that does not exonerate them of being evil. Their support for Israel, record increases in fossil fuel production, and mass repression at the border prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Both candidates and parties are evil, but in different ways. Trump and the GOP are open enemies of unions and oppressed groups, despite their hosting turncoat Sean O’Brien, president of the Teamsters Union, and this-or-that speaker or influencer of color at their Convention.

Harris and the Democrats are a capitalist party that advances that class’s interests by co-opting and neutralizing the Left and class and social struggles. They channel those back into the confines of capitalist liberalism and tinkering with the system, a tinkering that is totally inadequate to meet the needs of the vast majority.

The so-called pragmatic Left contends that supporting the lesser evil is the only realistic way to stop the greater evil, gain breathing space for our side to build its forces, and over time build a political alternative. In fact, the last four years have decisively disproved each of these contentions.

Most obviously, supporting the lesser evil has not stopped the rise of the right in the US. Even after all the convictions for January 6, Trump and the GOP not only survived, but have expanded their forces and enlarged their base.

Because the Left, social movements, and unions abandoned opposition to Biden and the Democrats, and stopped, on the whole, fighting for our more radical demands, Trump and the GOP now pose as the only opposition. As a result, Trump at this point leads in national polls and in the electoral college’s battleground states.

The toll of the last four years on the Left, social movements, and unions has been extreme. Once our side threw support behind Biden and the Democrats in 2020, they, at best, implemented their program, not ours, and, at worst, adapted to the right.

As a result, four years later, the Left, social movements, and unions are in the main weaker, more disorganized, and less confident. The only exceptions to this norm are unions like the UAW that have organized and struck against their bosses and the Palestine solidarity movement, which galvanized popular opinion against Israel’s genocidal war, helped drive Biden to abandon his campaign, and secured important victories on campuses across the country.

The Left, social movements, and unions should draw the lessons from the last four years. Implacable agitation and struggle for our demands is what wins, not taking off our marching boots, putting away our picket signs, abandoning the battlefield, and supporting the lesser evil in the vain hope of stopping the greater one. That is the road to certain defeat in the short term and long term.

Socialists and the 2024 elections

Regardless of the outcome of this election, we are headed for political paralysis in D.C. and a looming constitutional crisis. Even with the sugar rush after Harris’s coronation as the Democrats’ nominee, the election is at best a dead heat with three months to go. The result will be determined, not by the popular vote, but by seven battleground states that will tip the undemocratic Electoral College to one of the two candidates.

It could go either way in the presidential contest, depending on twists and turns in the campaigns and unpredictable events in the country and world. In the congressional elections, the two parties will narrowly divide up the vote, ushering a weak one-party government or a divided one. Either way, the slim majorities and a weak mandate will most likely produce political paralysis.

If Trump wins, he will try to implement his program of authoritarian nationalism with the approval of the far-right majority in the Supreme Court. Democrats in Congress and in the states they control will oppose Trump’s most extreme measures like mass deportation or criminalization of queers, including refusing to obey his orders. That would open up a constitutional crisis.

If Harris wins, Trump will not accept the result, not only because he does not believe in democracy but also because he faces certain prosecution and likely conviction on several felony charges. Under threat of imprisonment, he will encourage his deranged, faithful base of far-right militants to stage protests including violent ones like we witnessed on January 6. Already neo-Nazis are marching in many cities like Nashville.

The GOP will follow him in opposing anything and everything Harris proposes both at the federal and state level, and the Supreme Court will support their efforts. Thus, even in the case of a Harris victory, we will be subject to political paralysis and a constitutional crisis.

Faced with this bleak scenario, what should the Left do? First of all, we should not argue with individuals about what they do at the ballot box. That is not the key question and debate to have. Instead, we must argue that activists, social movements, and unions should not spend our time, money, and energy campaigning for Harris as the lesser evil.

Those resources should be spent on building independent social and class struggles for our demands. Imagine what we could do with the $310 million Harris raised in July. Imagine what we could do with the thousands of volunteer hours spent on getting her elected. Imagine the organizations and unions that could be built, the strike funds bolstered, and the strikes and mass protests staged.

In making this strategic argument, we should not treat our siblings on the Left and in unions and movements who disagree with us as opponents to be denounced and dismissed. We should debate instead with them as our comrades in a common struggle. That is crucial because we will need to unite and fight together on the other side of this election against the right and the capitalist establishment.

And we should find points of agreement over the next three months, most importantly the demands that we support together. We should encourage them to join us in agitating for reforms like Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, Legalization for All, a Permanent Ceasefire to Israel’s genocidal war, and the immediate end to all U.S. aid to Israel, among many others.

In unions and movements, we should emphasize that we should not support Harris and the Democrats if they do not support our demands. This is especially true for the Palestine solidarity movement and our demand for an end to the war and all U.S. aid to Israel. As Noura Erakat, recently wrote about Harris, “Endorsing her without exacting this very basic concession is strategically short-sighted and self-defeating.”

Fundamentally, we have to argue for the political and organizational independence of our movements and unions from the Democratic Party. Our independent class and social struggles are the key to winning any immediate victories against the opposition of both parties, charting a way through their looming constitutional crisis, and building a new socialist party to lead the revolutionary transformation of the failing capitalist system.

Ashley Smith is a member of the Tempest Collective in Burlington, Vermont. He has written in numerous publications including SpectreTruthoutJacobinNew Politics, and many other online and print publications.

 

From Karl Marx to Eco-Marxism

First published at New Politics.

Reflection on Marx’s contribution to an ecological perspective has made considerable progress in recent decades. The somewhat caricatured image of a “Promethean” Marx, productivist and indifferent to environmental issues, conveyed by certain ecologists in a hurry to “replace the red paradigm with the green,” has lost much of its credibility. The pioneer in the rediscovery of the ecological dimension in Marx and Engels was undoubtedly John Bellamy Foster, with his book Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature (Monthly Review Press, 2000), which highlights Marx’s analysis of the “metabolic breakdown” (Riss des Stoffwechsels) between human societies and the natural environment, brought about by capitalism. Bellamy Foster transformed Monthly Review, one of the most important publications of the North American left, into an eco-Marxist journal, and gave rise to a whole school of Marxist thought around the theme of the metabolic rift. The school includes such important authors as Brett Clark, Ian Angus, Paul Burkett, Richard York, and many others. Bellamy Foster can be criticized for his reading of Marx as a committed ecologist, from his early writings to his later works, without taking into account texts or passages that follow a productivist logic; but the importance, novelty, and depth of his writings cannot be questioned. In reading Marx from an ecological perspective, there is a before and an after to Bellamy Foster.

Close to this school of thought — the young Japanese scholar Kohei Saito’s first book, Karl Marx’s Ecosocialism: Capital, Nature, and the Unfinished Critique of Political Economy (Monthly Review Press, 2017) distinguished himself with a more nuanced interpretation of Marx’s writings. In his latest book, Marx in the Anthropocene: Towards the Idea of Degrowth Communism (Cambridge University Press, 2023), Saito develops and extends his analysis of Marx’s writings, criticizing the productivism of the Grundrisse and Marx’s famous Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), writings often regarded as the definitive formulation of historical materialism. In the 1859 Preface, Marx sees the productive forces as the main driving force of history, which, thanks to revolution, would be freed from the “fetters” of capitalist relations of production. Saito shows how, from 1870 onwards, in his writings on Russia and in his ethnographic or naturalist notebooks, Marx moved away from this vision of history. According to Saito, in this “last Marx,” a new conception of historical materialism is emerging — albeit unfinished — in which the natural environment and pre-modern (or non-European) communities play an essential role. Saito also attempts to show, notably on the basis of the Notebooks recently published by the new Marx-Engels-Gesamtausgabe (MEGA), Marx’s adherence to the idea of degrowth, but this hypothesis does not find an effective foundation in these writings.

It seems to me that the question of Marx’s contribution to ecosocialism, or, if you like, to eco-Marxism, is not limited to his texts on the relationship with nature — which admittedly remain relatively marginal in his work: there is not a single book, or article, or chapter of a book, by Marx or Engels, dedicated to ecology, or to the ecological crisis. This is quite understandable, considering that capitalist destruction of the environment was only in its infancy and was not at all as serious as it is today. I think there are arguments in his writings that are not about nature, but are nevertheless essential contributions to an eco-Marxist reflection, provided they are rethought in the light of the ecological crisis of our time. Two elements need to be taken into account here: (1) Marx’s critique of capitalist hubris: unlimited accumulation/expansion; (2) communism as the “Kingdom of Freedom.”

1. Capitalism is a system that cannot exist without an unlimited expansive tendency. In the Grundrisse Marx observes:

Capital, in so far as it represents the universal form of wealth — money — is the tendency without limits or measure to exceed its own limit. Any limit can only be limited for it. Otherwise, it would cease to be capital: money in so far as it produces itself.[…] It is the perpetual movement that tends always to create more.1

This is an analysis that will be developed in the first volume of Capital. According to Marx, the capitalist is an individual who functions only as “personified capital.” As such, the capitalist is necessarily a “fanatical agent of accumulation,” who “forces men, without mercy or respite, to produce for the sake of producing.” This behavior is “the effect of a social mechanism of which he is only a cog.” So what is this “social mechanism” whose psychic expression in the capitalist is “the most sordid avarice and the most petty calculating spirit”? Here is its dynamic, according to Marx:

The development of capitalist production requires a continuous enlargement of the capital placed in an enterprise, and competition imposes the immanent laws of capitalist production as external coercive laws on each individual capitalist. It does not allow him to keep his capital without increasing it, and he cannot continue to increase it unless he accumulates it progressively.2

The unlimited accumulation of capital is therefore the inflexible rule of the capitalist social mechanism: “Accumulate, accumulate! That’s the law and the prophets![…] Accumulate in order to accumulate, produce in order to produce, that is the watchword of political economy, proclaiming the historical mission of the bourgeois period.”3

Accumulation for accumulation’s sake, production for production’s sake, without rest or mercy, without limits or measure, in a perpetual movement of growth, a continuous enlargement: this, according to Marx, is the implacable logic of capital, the social mechanism of which capitalists are nothing but “fanatical agents.” The imperative of accumulation becomes a kind of secular religion, a “fanatical” cult that replaces the “law and prophets” of Judeo-Christianity.

The significance of this diagnosis for the Anthropocene of the twenty-first century is obvious: this productivist logic of capitalism, this hubris that demands permanent expansion and refuses all limits, is responsible for the ecological crisis and the catastrophic process of climate change of our time. Marx’s analysis helps us to understand why “green capitalism” is nothing but an illusion: the system cannot exist without accumulation and growth, a growth “without limits or measure,” 80 percent of which depends on fossil fuels. This is why, despite the soothing declarations of governments and international climate meetings (the Conference of the Parties) on the “ecological transition,” greenhouse gas emissions have not stopped growing. Scientists are sounding the alarm and stressing the urgent need to halt all new exploitation of fossil fuels, pending a rapid reduction in the use of existing sources; yet the major oil monopolies are opening new wells every day, and their representative, OPEC, is publicly announcing that they will have to exploit these resources for a long time to come, “to satisfy growing demand.” The same applies to new coal mines, which are constantly being opened, from “green” Germany to “socialist” China.

The fact is that demand for energy is only growing, and so is the consumption of fossil fuels, with renewables simply adding to them rather than replacing them. “Green” capitalists who want to do things differently will be squeezed out of the market: for as Marx reminds us, “competition imposes the immanent laws of capitalist production as coercive laws external to each individual capitalist.”

In 2023, the average temperature of the planet became dangerously close to the limit of 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels — a limit beyond which an uncontrollable process of global warming is likely to be triggered, with increasingly intense feedback mechanisms. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change scientists stress the need for immediate emissions reductions, with the years between now and 2030 being the last chance to avoid catastrophe. Yet the European Union and other governments are solemnly announcing that they will be able to achieve “net zero” emissions…by 2050. This announcement is doubly mystifying, not only because it pretends to ignore the urgency of the crisis, but also because “zero net” is far from being identical with zero emissions: thanks to “offset mechanisms,” companies can continue to emit if they “offset” them by protecting a forest in Indonesia.

Modern industrial capitalism has been totally dependent on coal and oil for three centuries and shows no inclination to do without them. To do this, it would have been necessary to break with accumulation “without limits or measure,” and with productivism, by organizing a process of planned degrowth, with the elimination or reduction of entire sectors of the economy: an approach totally contradictory to the very foundations of capitalism. Greta Thunberg rightly points out that it is “mathematically impossible to solve the climate crisis within the framework of the existing economic system.” This impossibility is explained by Marx’s analysis in Capital of the inexorable mechanics of capitalist accumulation and expansion.

Many ecologists blame consumption for the environmental crisis. Admittedly, the consumption model of modern capitalism is clearly unsustainable. But the source of the problem lies in the production system. Productivism is the driving force behind consumerism. Marx had already observed this dynamic. In his Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859), he observed:

Hence production produces consumption: (1) by providing the material of consumption; (2) by determining the mode of consumption; (3) by creating in the consumer a need for the objects which it first presents as products. It therefore produces the object of consumption, the mode of consumption and the urge to consume. Similarly, consumption produces the predisposition of the producer by positing him as a purposive requirement.4

This is much truer in our time than it was in the nineteenth century. Capitalist producers create the “impulse to consume” by means of a vast, immense advertising apparatus that hammers home, day and night, on city walls, in newspapers, on radio or television, everywhere, “without truce or mercy,” the imperative need to consume this or that commodity. Commercial advertising takes over every area of life: sport, religion, politics, culture, information. Artificial needs are created, “fashions” manufactured, and the system induces a frenzy of consumption, “without limits or measure,” of products that are less and less useful, which allows production to expand, to extend to infinity. If, as Marx observed, it is production that produces consumption, then it is the productive system that needs to be transformed, rather than preaching abstinence to consumers. The pure and simple abolition of commercial advertising is the first step toward overcoming consumer alienation and enabling individuals to rediscover their true needs.

Another dimension of capitalist consumerism Marx criticized—a dimension with obvious current ecological implications—is the predominance of having over being, of the possession of goods, or money, or capital, over free human activity. This theme is developed in the 1844 Manuscripts. According to Marx, bourgeois society is dominated exclusively by “the sense of possession, of having.” In place of the life of human beings appears “the life of property” and “in place of all the physical and intellectual senses has appeared the simple alienation of all these senses, the sense of having.” Possession, having, is alienated life: “The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being.”5

This is another form of consumerism: the important thing here is not use, but the possession of a good, a commodity. Its most obvious manifestation is the conspicuous consumption of the privileged classes, which Thorstein Veblen studied in his classic, The Theory of the Leisure Class (1899). Today it has reached monumental proportions, fueling a vast industry of luxury goods: private jets, yachts, jewelry, works of art, perfumes. But the obsession with possessions is also spreading to other social classes, leading to the accumulation of goods as an end in themselves, regardless of their use value. Being, human activity as such, is sacrificed to having, the possession of goods, feeding productivism, the flooding of social life with a growing mass of products that are less and less useful. Of course, the resources needed to produce this mountain of commodities are still, and increasingly, coal and oil.…

2. Communism as the “Kingdom of Freedom” is founded on the priority of being over having, by reversing the alienated logic imposed by capitalism. Bourgeois political economy pushes this perverse logic to its ultimate consequences: “Self-denial, the renunciation of life and all human needs is its main thesis. The less you eat, drink, buy books, the less you go to the theatre, the ball, the cabaret, the less you think, love, theorize, the less you sing, talk, fence, etc., the more you save, the more you increase your treasure […] your capital […] all that the economist takes from you of life and humanity, he replaces with money and wealth.[…]”6

Marx included in what constitutes being—that is, human life and humanity—three constituent elements: (1) The satisfaction of essential needs (drinking, eating); (2) The satisfaction of cultural needs: going to the theater, cabaret, buying books. It should be noted that these two categories involve acts of vital consumption, but not the accumulation of goods (at most books!) and even less the accumulation of money. The inclusion of cultural needs is already an implicit protest against capitalism, which wants to limit the worker’s consumption to what is necessary for basic survival: food and drink. For Marx, the worker, like all human beings, needs to go to the theater and the cabaret, to read books, to educate himself, to amuse himself; (3) Human self-activity: thinking, loving, theorizing, singing, speaking, fencing, and so on. This list is fascinating for its diversity, its serious yet playful nature, and for the fact that it includes both the essentials—thinking, loving, speaking—and the “luxuries”: singing, theorizing, fencing, etc. What all these examples have in common is their active nature: the individual is no longer a consumer, but an actor. Of course, we could add many other examples of human self-activity, individual or collective, artistic or sporting, playful or political, erotic or cultural, but the examples Marx chose open a wide window on the “reign of freedom.” Of course, the distinction between these three moments is not absolute: eating and reading books are also activities. They are three manifestations of life — being — in the face of what lies at the heart of bourgeois society: having, property, and accumulation.

Choosing to be rather than to have is therefore a significant contribution by Marx to a socialist/ecological culture, to an ethic and an anthropology at odds with the fundamental data of modern capitalist civilization, where the absolute predominance of having, in its commodity form, is leading, with increasing frenzy, to the destruction of the planet’s ecological balance.

Important reflections — directly inspired by the 1844 Manuscripts — on the opposition between being and having can be found in the Freudo-Marxist writings of the philosopher and psychoanalyst Erich Fromm. A German Jewish anti-fascist who emigrated to the USA, Fromm published his book Avoir ou être (To Have or To Be) in 1976. A choice on which man’s future depends, which compares two opposing forms of social existence: the having mode and the being mode. In the first, my property constitutes my identity: both subject and object are reified (commodified). You feel yourself to be a commodity, and the “it” owns the “me.” Possessive greed is the dominant passion. But, Fromm insists, greed, unlike hunger, has no point of satiation; its satisfaction does not fill the inner void.…

So what is the mode of being? Fromm quotes a passage from Marx’s 1844 Manuscripts: “Let us start from the idea that the human being is a human being and that his relation to the world is a human relation. Love, then, can only be exchanged for love, trust only for trust.”

The being mode, Fromm explains, is an active mode, wherein human beings express their faculties, their talents, the richness of their gifts; to be active here means “to renew oneself, to develop oneself, to overflow, to love, to transcend the prison of the isolated self; it is to be interested, attentive; it is to give.” The mode of being is socialism, not in its social democratic or Soviet (Stalinist) version, reduced to an aspiration for maximum consumption, but according to Marx: human self-activity. In short, concludes Fromm, quoting Marx again in the third volume of Capital, socialism is the kingdom of freedom, whose goal is “the development of human power as an end in itself.”

Karl Marx rarely wrote about the emancipated society of the future. He took a close interest in utopias, but was wary of versions that were too prescriptive, too restrictive, in short, dogmatic; his objective was, as Miguel Abensour so aptly reminds us, the transcendence of utopia to critical communism. What does this consist of? In the third volume of Capital — an unfinished manuscript edited by Friedrich Engels — we find an essential passage, often quoted but rarely analyzed. The word “communism” does not appear, but it does refer to the classless society of the future, which Marx defines, and this is a highly significant choice, as the “Kingdom of Freedom” (Das Reich der Freiheit):

In fact, the realm of freedom actually begins only where labour which is determined by necessity and mundane considerations ceases; thus in the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of actual material production. Just as the savage must wrestle with Nature to satisfy his wants, to maintain and reproduce life, so must civilized man, and he must do so in all social formations and under all possible modes of production. With his development this realm of physical necessity expands as a result of his wants; but, at the same time, the forces of production which satisfy these wants also increase. Freedom in this field can only consist in socialized man, the associated producers, rationally regulating their interchange with Nature, bringing it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by the blind forces of Nature; and achieving this with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most favorable to, and worthy of, their human nature. But it nonetheless still remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human energy which is an end in itself, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can blossom forth only with this realm of necessity as its basis. The shortening of the working-day is its basic prerequisite.7

The context in which this passage appears is interesting. It concerns a discussion on the productivity of labor. The author of Capital suggests that increasing productivity not only makes it possible to increase the wealth produced, but above all to reduce working hours. This would seem to take precedence over an unlimited extension of the production of goods.

Marx thus distinguishes two areas of social life: the “reign of necessity” and the “reign of freedom,” each with its own form of freedom. Let’s start by taking a closer look at the first: the reign of necessity, which corresponds to the “sphere of material production” and therefore of labor “determined by need and external ends.” Freedom also exists in this sphere, but it is a limited freedom, within the constraints imposed by necessity: it is the democratic, collective control of “socialized” human beings over their material exchanges — their metabolism — with nature. In other words, what Marx is talking about here is democratic planning, in other words, the essential proposition of the socialist economic program: freedom here means emancipation from the blind power of economic forces — the capitalist market, the accumulation of capital, the fetishism of the commodity.

Let’s go back to the passage above from the third volume of Capital: it’s interesting to note that this text doesn’t talk about the “domination” of human society over nature, but about the collective control of exchanges with nature: this was to become, a century later, one of the founding principles of ecosocialism. Work remains an activity imposed by necessity, with a view to satisfying the material needs of society; but it will cease to be alienated work, unworthy of human nature.

The second form of freedom, the most radical, the most integral, the one that corresponds to the “Kingdom of Freedom,” lies beyond the sphere of material production and necessary work. However, there is an essential dialectical relationship between the two forms of freedom: it is through democratic planning of the economy as a whole that priority can be given to free time; conversely, the maximum extension of free time will enable workers to participate actively in political life and in self-management, not only of companies but of all economic and social activity, at the level of neighborhoods, towns, regions, and countries. Communism cannot exist without the participation of the whole population in the process of discussion and democratic decision-making, not, as today, by a vote every four or five years, but on a permanent basis—which does not prevent the delegation of powers. Thanks to free time, individuals will be able to take in hand the management of their collective life, which will no longer be left in the hands of professional politicians.

What Marx adds in the third volume of Capital to his 1844 argument is the fact that human self-activity — the third moment discussed in The Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts — requires, in order to flourish, free time, time obtained by reducing the hours of “necessary” work. This reduction is the key that opens the door to the “Kingdom of Freedom,” which is also the “Kingdom of Being.” Thanks to this time of freedom, human beings will be able to develop their intellectual, artistic, erotic, and playful potential. This is the opposite of the capitalist universe of the infinite accumulation of increasingly useless goods, of productivist and consumerist “expansion” without limits or measure.

Conclusion: beyond his writings that refer directly to nature and to its destruction by capitalist “progress,” Marx’s work contains reflections that have, at the deepest level, an ecological significance, through their critique of capitalist productivism and their imagination of a society in which free human activity is at the center of social life, and not the obsessive accumulation of “goods.” These are essential points of reference for the development of a twenty-first-century eco-Marxism.

Bangladesh: The ‘Global South’ debt crisis intensifies

First published at Michael Roberts’ blog.

The overthrow of the Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial government in Bangladesh by students and the populace last week is a startling outcome of the economic nightmare that many so-called developing economies are experiencing now: stagnant trade, rising debt interest costs and severe austerity being imposed by the IMF and private capital in return for ‘financial aid’.

Bangladesh was regarded as an economic success story up to the government’s fall – at least in the Western media and among mainstream economists. The IMF was forecasting that Bangladesh’s GDP would soon exceed that of (tiny) Denmark or Singapore. Its GDP per person was already bigger than neighbouring India’s. The country’s average GDP growth over the past decade, according to government statistics, was around 6.6%. As late as April this year, the World Bank reckoned that Bangladesh would grow by 5.6% this year, led by its highly successful garment industry, which relies on cheap labour sweat shops to gain market share globally. It accounts for more than 80% of the country’s exports. The government was forecasting that by 2025, Bangladeshi factories would produce 10% of the world’s apparel.

But beneath the surface, the rise of the economy was based on faltering profitability for Bangladesh capital. The relative recovery in profitability after the global Great Recession of 2008-9 began to reverse from 2013, leading up to the pandemic slump in 2020.

Bangladesh rate of profit on capital stock

The crisis came quickly this year. Within weeks of the World Bank’s’ optimistic April report, the reality emerged: the economy was deteriorating fast. Huge infrastructure projects were failing and eating into resources, riddled as they were by corruption. Rising interest costs on borrowing, higher inflation and falling export demand drove many companies into default with over $20bn in ‘non-performing loans’. The government handed out huge subsidies (billions) to private companies to ensure electricity coverage in the country. The rich shareholders prospered and took the opportunity to siphon their wealth out of the country; while remittances from Bangladeshis working abroad fell back.

Source: tradingeconomics.com

In contrast to the rich, the majority of the country’s 170m people suffered. Most Bangladeshi garment workers are women (50-80%), while the better-paid factory supervisors tend to be men. Most of the women earn just a minimum wage — 8,000 taka, or about $80 per month. With rising food prices, that’s nowhere near enough. “All daily goods like rice, eggs, vegetables — everything is getting more expensive,” said Taslima Akhter, president of Bangladesh Garment Workers Solidarity, a labour group. “Also the price of gas for cooking [at home] and electricity [in factories]. So this is a big problem for workers and the industry.”

A BBS survey conducted in the middle of 2023 revealed that around 37.7 million people experienced moderate to severe food insecurity in the country. More than a quarter of families were taking out loans to cover the cost of daily necessities, including food. A survey by the South Asia Network on Economic Modeling, a think tank, showed that 28% of households resorted to borrowing money to survive. The average amount of loans per household in the country nearly doubled between 2016 to 2022.

Bangladesh had been registering increases in life expectancy for decades. In 2020, it reached 72.8 years, the highest to date. But since then, the pattern of growth has been broken. In 2021, there was a decline to 72.3 years onwards. The mortality rate for children under five years of age, newborns, and children under one year has increased.

There has been a drop in students at the secondary-school level and an increase of NETT (not in employment, education, or training) among the youth population. According to the BSVS-2023, the share of children between five and twenty-four years not in educational institutions has risen since the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, at the onset of the pandemic, 28% were out of educational institutions; by 2023, the share reached 41%! Around 40% were neither in school nor in employment, up 10% pts in eight years. The student protests that brought down the government were triggered by the job quota system that reserved 30% of government jobs for families of 1971 war veterans (mainly government families). Protesters demanded the replacement of the quota with a merit-based system.

In June 2024, the IMF admitted that “stubbornly high international commodity prices and continued global financial tightening have amplified macroeconomic vulnerabilities” Foreign exchange reserves declined sharply due to interventions to prop up the Bangladesh currency , the taka. FX reserves plummeted from $46bn in 2021 to just $19bn.

Source: tradingeconomics.com

The taka fell over 20% against the US dollar, driving up the costs of servicing foreign debt. The external account went into deficit by up to 4% of GDP a year.

Source: tradingeconomics.com

The government was forced to turn to the IMF for ‘relief’. The IMF approved a small package of $3.3bn in early 2023. Then this year that was raised to $4.7bn designed to relieve pressure on the FX. And the IMF handed over $1.1 bn in June.

But now all is in flux. After a brutal attempt to suppress the protests with the army and police killing over 300 people, Hasina finally fled the country. A temporary government has been formed under Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Muhammad Yunus to lead an interim government. But don’t expect any improvement under his administration (read this: https://www.cadtm.org/Bangladesh-Who-is-Muhammad-Yunus-the-new-primer-minister). Yunus will again turn to the IMF for support in return for which the IMF will impose severe austerity measures.

The Bangladesh economic crisis is being repeated across the Global South – in Kenya where riots have ensued to reverse IMF-demanded tax risein Pakistan where the government has turned for the seventh time to the IMF for fundingin Egypt which is on the brink of default; and in Nigeria, where hunger rules. And of course, Argentina.

And the IMF surcharges any debtor that fails to pay on time, which only makes loan repayment harder. The number of countries paying surcharges annually has nearly tripled in 5 years, from 8 in 2019 to 23 in 2024. Over the past six years, the IMF charged $7 billion in surcharges.

Through 2033, CEPR estimates that the IMF will charge approximately $13 billion in surcharges. Argentina alone will owe an estimated $6 billion, followed by Ukraine, with a debt of nearly $3 billion. On average, surcharges will represent 26% of all charges and interest levied on surcharge-paying countries. For some borrowers, such as Costa Rica and Ecuador, surcharges will represent even more.

Countries currently paying surcharges
Source: CEPR

As a new report by the World Bank shows, the Global South is not just failing to ‘catch up’ with the Global North, but instead is falling further behind.