I've become a nihilist in regards to political economy. On the one hand, we have the conservative/libertarian/Austrian "cut taxes" ideology (regardless of massive deficits). On the other hand, we have the modern liberal/Keynesian "spend public money" ideology (to jumpstart production again - do we really need to prop up unprofitable industries?). But there is this logjam where no real progress is made (no side is more convincing than the other) because there are NO AGREED UPON FACTS. If we can't agree on what is going on on the ground, there is no real debate in the discourse - it's just ideologies clashing and trying to gain power/influence. Neither party has the proper approach. How can these incommensurate ideologies co-exist? The crisis needs to get worse to tip the scales.
The real question for me is: would capitalism ACTUALLY COLLAPSE IF WE DID NOTHING? Would there be a real threat of revolution? Are modern liberals vindicating Marx? Or is it just Polanyi's double movement?
Do those on the left really want capitalism to survive, given the environmental destruction and social polarization? If we were serious about change, it seems like we could have done much more (i.e. climate change, relocalization). What would the Republicans have done if they were in power? Would they really have had the balls to "do nothing"? (i.e. in the face of the real risk of socialist revolution or otherwise)...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
This is something that I've been thinking a lot about lately, and I think that you make some great points. It seems so ironic that the actors wanting to maintain a hands off approach - potentially pushing capitalism towards the brink of collapse - are those very actors that sing its praises the loudest.
As you said, a lot of this is political maneuvering...the Republicans would never take this approach were they in control of Congress or the Presidency (doing nothing in this circumstance is tantamount to political suicide). And yet, from a Marxist perspective, this is just another iteration of of a 'managerial' liberalism - the state intervening in order to minimize another crisis created by the inherent contradictions in capitalism.
On one hand, I really value the pragmatic, consensual approach that Obama is trying to advance - at least in theory. Yet in practice, the approach isn't working in public policy (aside from three moderate senators, Republicans have refused to budge an inch) or in popular opinion (most people seem to view it as just another corporate bailout that robs the taxpayers of their hard-earned money). Overall, it leads me to wonder if Obama's efforts to minimize polarization (attempting to compromise, heal out partisan wounds, reach out to the right) is actually impractical when we are dealing with an opposition that views each and every issue in strongly ideological, black and white terms. Only time will tell which of these seemingly incommensurate approach will prevail...
Post a Comment