Archive for October, 2008

Life Off the Blog-Circuit

OK, I know. It’s been a hell of a long time since I’ve posted anything here. Things at work have become pretty busy lately, and it’s been hard to find the time to sit down and get anything out worth writing.

So, a life update in a few short sentences will have to suffice.

At home, having fun with Mica and preparing for Hallowe’en. Thinking, too, about her birthday and Christmas, which are beginning to loom ominously-near. Mica and Megan getting along awesomely, and Mica seeming to really settle into having Meg a regular part of her life. She’s talking to her mom about Meg now, which is a great sign, and indicates that she’s seeing all this as pretty normalized. Woo hoo!

In work, many transitions, with one colleague on leave and likely not returning, and a new Executive Director coming on board in a few weeks to take the job I walked away from. That’s an odd thing, and will certainly take some adjustment on my part. But from all indications so far, he’s a good guy and has a style and manner that will fit well with us, so I am hopeful.

Also in work, I’m sitting on the bargaining team for our first collective agreement as union staff, which is certainly an interesting experience. Switching gears from very close teamwork to sitting at opposite sides of the bargaining table takes some doing, but it’s a role I am certainly comfortable with and quite liking, actually. There are so many weird politics around doing the union staff thing, so many compromises, so many times to swallow your tongue, it’s nice to be back as a member of a union and operating in member-volunteer capacity.

Also getting back into some other political stuff. Connected with the Vancouver Association for Survivors of Torture, and helping them get an organized staffing plan as things have been pretty ad hoc for a number of years. A bloody mess from an organizational perspective, and frustrating much of the time. But it is certainly one of the organizations doing good, progressive, important work, and it’s nice to be back around that in some way.

Thinking of doing some volunteer work with Pivot Legal, too, as I’d like to get back the connection to what’s happening in the downtown eastside since I’ve moved to a very different neighbourhood. Nothing concrete as of yet, but I’ve made contact and am waiting to see where that takes me. On the possible-engagement front as well, I’m hoping to get a bit more involved with the anti-Olympics thing, too, which seems to me holds potential to draw together a wide range of protest and resistance from a wide range of sectors and political strategies.

Physically, the exercise regimen continues, and I’ve hit that place where I look forward to the workout and find it one of my favourite parts of the day. Huh – that’s a change! And a welcome one. Eating better, sleeping better, and generally happier and less stressed. Who knew?

Creatively, Meg again is inspiring, as her discipline in working on creative writing is starting to catch. With an academic article coming out this fall, writing is back on the brain these days, so I’ve been toying around with ideas, pulling out and reviewing old pieces, and occasionally even writing new ones. This clearly is an area I need to give some more time and thought to, as it too easily becomes the thing that falls off the plate. But it’s there, boring away at my little brain, so the next item on my to-do-list is make some real effort at getting words on paper.

Reading – picked up the new John Le Carre book, A Most Wanted Man. Still reading this, about a young Muslim man in Germany caught in the sights of the war-on-terror machine. Love Le Carre, and this so far looks to be a good tale all round, though I must confess there’s a few points at which something in the writing isn’t quite working for me. Usually his characters are real and full, but there’s one guy here I really don’t buy yet. Something missing in motivation and his own psychology. Ah well, we’ll see.

Also reading Ward Churchill’s Pacifism as Pathology. Though I confess reading in this case means skimming. The book is bugging me. I agree with the central thrust  – pacifism as fundamental principle is problematic for a host of reasons; and I agree, too, with some of the specific arguments being put forward. But it is way-simplistic, the logical connections aren’t really there, and there are substantial alternative explanations for much of what he’s doing here. Seems like a good idea that was not fleshed out enough and doesn’t have a whole lot of analytic depth to it. Actually, what I find in reading it is that I want to re-write the book, make the argument a larger and more complex one. Likely a blog post of its own in days or weeks to come.

What else? Really, hugely missing playing music. This was something I so enjoyed in the spring when Meg and I were making regular time for it. Finding that a real loss these days, and hoping to get back to it. Seems, though, that we just keep adding thing after thing – so much to get excited about, so much we want to write and sing and play and cook and travel and do activism and on and on and on, all while maintaining solid family time, busy work lives, friendships and family relationships, and good, quality parenting. Hm. We shall see.

And that, in a nutshell, is where it’s at. Yeah – perhaps it’s not so surprising I’m not getting to the blog as often, after all!


Read Full Post »

The Blahs

Sometimes you just plain feel shitty.

For the most part lately I’ve been in really good spirits – happy with life, loving my girl, less stressed at work, excited about the possibilities the future holds.

And then, out of the blue, meltdown and self-loathing and that little piece of the brain that won’t let go of what it knows is the best way to fuck with you.

That’s me today, and I’m trying to turn it off, to occupy myself with other things and other thoughts. Mostly, though, I’m just stumbling around quite unhappy about the fact that I have to look at and listen to other people.

And I know, intellectually, that there’s no reason for me to be in this state. I can send myself countless messages to counter the constantly-needling negativity, but somehow those counter-messages just ain’t getting any traction. And the fact that I can’t get my head into a different space then itself becomes a new source of anxiety, as I worry that forever and forever this is going to bother me, to sit and stew and grow and eventually explode.

Silly, really. Cause I know I’ve had moments like this before. We all do. We all have those days of self-hate, and we all believe, on those days, that the state is permanent. And mostly we get over it, mostly it dissipates and we carry on. But in the middle of it, in the moment, that’s a really fucking hard thing to remember, and once remembered it remains a hard thing to believe.

Was out for dinner the other night with Meg and a friend who was visiting for the weekend, and we spoke about struggle and strife in relationships and what tips the balance between something sustainable and something that implodes. In the current lingo, it’s a pretty simple one-word answer – positivity. If you’ve got more positivitity that negativity, you can get through those patches that are difficult and stressful. If not, those patches will take you down.

Now, there is absolutely no question in my mind that I’ve got positivity with Meg – we’re absolutely dripping positivity, in fact. And that’s brought increased positivity to the rest of my life, too, something that I have really noticed this past year, so on some level I also know that soon all this will be over and I’ll just be back to feeling good and confident and capable again.

I’m telling this to myself over and over. And I do really know it all to be true. But today, I’m stuck, listening to a tape play over and over in my head that I don’t want to hear. And not entirely sure how to just turn the fucking thing off.

To the gym with me. Sweat and metal for a while before the next set of meetings. Hoping that might help some, and knowing at very least that it can’t hurt.

Read Full Post »

Well, what a fascinating debate last night between the two contenders for the US presidency. Both start the evening with the rhetoric of the evil large corporation while both are explicitly articulating strategies to strengthen capital. This much not surprising. But what we did see last night was an open argument about exactly what kind of capitalist strategy ought to be followed – Obama referrring repeatedly to the Great Depression and setting himself up as the neo-Keynesian, McCain spouting the market-market-market line and hinting that his opponent is a communist in disguise.

Fascinating. McCain started fairly early with this tack, indicating Obama’s plan is to ‘take your money so he can spread it around’ – a theme he kept up, in just those terms, throughout the debate. But more, he suggested, “the whole premise of Senator Obama’s plans is class warfare“.

Wow! Now I’m interested! I’ll look up from the Monopoly game (yes, ironic, isn’t it?) I’m playing with Mica to jot this down and turn up the voume so I can take notes as this progresses.

And so goes McCain throughout the debate, suggesting that the fundamental problem with the economy remains that government spending is too high, that the market is not given enough free rein – in short, that the solution to the crisis is more market freedom and less oversight. OK, so this is pretty typical neoconservative stuff. But he’s not even smart about it. Talk about missing the point – as folks are getting thrown out of their homes because the real estate market and the rest of the economy is so driven by speculation and imaginary dollars, McCain actually says that as individual mortgages are sorted out the crisis will be over, not because anything is altered but because, “if homes go up in value, then we’ll be creating wealth”. In other words, imaginary dollars and speculation is the answer to the crisis of imaginary dollars and speculation! Wow – couldn’t make this stuff up! Someone needs to take Economics 101.

OK, so McCain is sticking to traditional laissez-faire with a substantial dose of just-plain-stupidity, and Obama is the great danger because he proposes something smacking of Keynianism – which, though it saved capitalism’s ass in the past, remains to the free-marketeers Marxism through and through. So the focus of the rest of the debate, from McCain’s side, is the radicalism of Barack Obama – his similarities with ‘radical environmentalists’ and the ‘extreme wing of the pro-abortion lobby; his connection to former Weather Undergrounder Bill Ayres, his support of low-income-voter-registration outfit ACORN, and his dubious foreign policy plans. On this front, it’s no longer about Iraq or Afghanistan, but Latin America. Obama, he sputters, won’t support free trade with Colombia, “our best ally in the region, but wants to sit down with Hugo Chavez”. Yup. I’m with armed thugs and partners in the drug-war/ counter-insurgency plan, Obama’s with the new leftism of Latin America. (Oh, and on this, by the way, Obama’s actually pretty good, noting that Colombia kills trade union leaders with impunity and so, no, he won’t enter into a trade agreement with them.)

OK, so McCain’s nuts, we know. But this is interesting because it really is gloves-off on what strategy is best for capital at the present time. And Obama, in response to all of these, doesn’t bother with defending himself anymore, but instead largely accepts the charges against him and simply argues that laissez-faire failed and capital needs a new plan along the lines of the New Deal. Countless times he refers to the Depression, the crisis that brought Keynesianism around in the first place. Countless times he says, yes, the way to rebuild capitalism is to spend, to invest in social and physical infrastructure. In fact, he goes so far as to say that his bottom line is “we need to raise wages”. It is Keynes reincarnated. Speculation don’t work in the long run. You don’t make money from nothing. Get money into workers hands, make sure they’re earning enough to keep the market afloat, and that’s your best way to restore some sustainability to capitalism.

Hmm. A week ago, these guys were talking in code, dancing around questions of the crisis by sticking largely to the specifics of the government bail-out. Now, however, it’s a new game. Now, it’s capital’s right versus capital’s left, laissez-faire vs Keynes, market market market versus a dangerous new socialism. Gettin’ more and more interesting by the day. Especially when you toss in the international side of things, and the latest news that a special summit of the EU is leading to calls for, in the words of the French Prez, “a new form of capitalism“.

Like the politicos across the water, Obama’s no commie, obviously and regrettably. However, he is clearly is a new kind of Keynesian, and though it seems he was afraid to be too open about that up to this point, seems to be he’s getting the sense that the US might just be ready for another New Deal, and he might just be able to survive the red-baiting that comes with the territory. McCain, for his part, obviously thinks the old ‘reds-under-your-beds’ nightmare still gives people the shivers – a notion that so far appears entirely misguided, as he’s getting no traction whatsoever from any of this.

But fascinating. Capitalism is as intriguing a beast as it is brutal, and it’s not often its internal strategic debates get fought out on TV. But that’s what the confluence of election and meltdown has given us, and I increasingly can’t turn away.

Read Full Post »

Yes, it is the day after the election. No, I am not going to comment on it. Rather, reflections on an article I read recently that I didn’t particularly agree with but which has had me thinking.

An interesting take on the financial crisis follows below my comments. This comes from a couple of folks who are active with the Midnight Notes Collective – a group of anarchist/ Marxist/ post-structuralist types who publish an occassional magazine and the odd book out of the Boston area. I’m a big fan of Midnight Notes generally, and found this an intriguing read, though I must confess it’s got some major gaps in it, and I’m feeling pretty disappointed.

Basically, here’s the argument. The financial crisis should not be seen as some kind of accident – it is better understood as a strategic move, an attempt by capital to re-assert its control over US workers. Basically, we see here a US-based equivalent of the petro-dollar deal that led into to the Third World Debt Crisis and justified the imposition of structural adjustment and related austerity programs. Extend too much credit, watch the system collapse, as it can be expected to do, transfer public money to the private sector to bail-out the system and use the crisis and the now-public debt as an excuse to cut government expenditures.

OK, a fun little analysis, but one that seems to me lacking any foundation. A few problems. One, if this were a coordinated strategy, it would have to be solving a problem, and the problem would have to be a lack of market discipline among workers – i.e. too many workers doing too little to be productive, and too many workers finding too many ways to resist capital. This clearly has not been a political reality in the US in recent years, and the authors know it. So they surmise that, among other things, it is workers playing the investment game that is the problem. Workers try to make money by speculation rather than by working more, and capital wants them working more. But hang on…Two things here. One, workers are not being successful on the market, as is plain to everyone. By and large working people lose money playing this game, so there is no successful strategy that needs to be countered here. Secondly, the investment game is one of the fundamental ways capital extends the reach of the market, so even if the worker-investment thing were true this would hardly be a ‘problem’ for capitalism, but rather would be an indication of increasing trust in the market.

Next major problem I have with this analysis is that it smacks way-too much of conspiracy theory for my tastes. Now, don’t get me wrong – I like a good conspiracy theory as much as the next guy, and I am certainly clear that there are some really vicious bastards out there driving the system. However,  the beauty of capital – and the reason it has been so fucking hard to dis-lodge – is that it doesn’t require this kind of manipulation. It is driven by real people, by a logic which unfolds almost-invisibly, by the celebration of greed, by day to day relationships of work. Crises do not need to be manufactured to be useful to the system. Take the example the authors use – the debt crisis. The debt crisis certainly did lead to all the things they note, and was pivotal in preparing the ground for the neoliberal onslaught. However, I am not convinced that the credit issues leading to that crisis and the flooding of the market with petro-dollars were part some nefarious plan – rather, those things flowed from capital’s logic, the crisis followed, and a bunch of economists and politcal strategists recognized the class dynamics at work and put together a new strategy for capital. So, yes, petro-dollars make way for debt crisis makes way for neoliberalism. Yes, evil evil men pounce on the opportunity to crush workers’ resistance and siphon public money into the market. But planned out from the earliest moments? No. Don’t buy it. The strategy was a response to the crisis, not its genesis. as far as I can tell.

And this time? Definitely class dynamics here we need to unpack. But not, I don’t think, the ones identified below. Workers playing the market? Clearly not. The global expansion of “illegal” migration, poaching, and squatting on public lands by which millions of workers simply remove themselves from the economy altogether? OPK, that part is interesting and I think worth exploring in more depth. But entirely absent in this analysis, and pretty central I’d suggest, are questions about global resistance to US empire, and how these have stretched the system beyond sustainable levels. The trillions being spent to quell revolt in Iraq and Afghanistan; the growing strength of a new left alternative across Latin America; the complete collapse of so many parts of Africa after a century and a half of pillage and plunder. These are the places we see capital forced to use its resources to quell dissent; these are struggles that have forced resources to be moved from the market to counter-insurgency. These are the battles that have stretched the empire’s reach too thin to be sustainable. These are the things I’d suggest we look to if we want to put together a working class read of the crisis, and if we want to really understand where capital is weakest and where resistance is best targetted.

Anyway, here I am now far beyond the brief introduction I intended to write. Point is, this is an argument full of some pretty damn substantial holes.

Nonetheless, I’m posting it because I think it does help to alert us to the possibilities of what may follow. Capital will seek a new strategy to deal with this. And that strategy will involve bail-outs and the massive transfer of funds from the public sector to the private. Not overnight, but over time, we can expect this to take place, unless we can generate a substantial movement in the opposite direction, for more public good, more commons.

So, I recommend reading this through. I question a good deal of the premise, and I think there are some real leaps here that cannot be supported. But I’m glad that the Midnight Notes folks are talking about strategy here, and are recognizing that these political-economic moments have class meanings and involve class struggles, and are at least opening up the debate. Cause if we are to avoid this becoming a transition to yet a new austerity plan, we need to start by considering where capital might try to go, and putting together ideas and actions to not only resist but to leverage this crisis to move in an entirely different direction.

Enough ranting. The piece follows.


by Silvia Frederici and George Caffentzis

it is important, first, that we realize that the so-called Wall Street “meltdown” is certainly the end, but also the completion of the neoliberal program. Let us be clear about it. To think otherwise is to ignore the lesson taught to us by the event that opened the present capitalist era: the 1973 coup again the Chilean working class experiment with socialism, that led to the victory of strong state backed market economy. Karl Polanyi’s theory that the single most important cause of the rise of fascism and Nazism in Europe was the inability to control the financial market after the 1929 crash also resonates here. In other words, we should not read the restructuring taking place as a turn to socialism/Keynesianism, to the extent at least that Keynesianism was an intervention by the state into the economy aimed at increasing the state’s investment in social reproduction, starting with the reproduction of the working class, in exchange for an increase in the social productivity of labor. Despite the adoption of regulatory mechanisms, the operation presently conducted by the US government bears little resemblance to the Keynesian program launched with the New Deal.

Behind the $700 billion bail-out and the many others that will follow–some already in the pipeline– is a massive transfer of funds from the US working class to capital, inevitably leading to an assault on the last remaining entitlements (like Medicare, Social Security) and a general program of austerity the like of which we have not seen yet in a long time. The fact that there is no organized response to this assault makes us fear the worst. For things would never have reached this point if over the last decade the US workers had responded to the repeated thefts of their money and benefits, through the Enron scandal and the many other “crises” that have followed it. That despite the “instability” of the market, despite its usage as a means to expropriate thousands of small/working class investors, US workers continued to trust their livelihoods and future to it is certainly a key factor in what we are presently witnessing and Washington/Wall Street confidence in launching the new austerity program. It is our argument that in the same way as September 11 served the US government to shed the last remains of  “democracy” and move to a model of government where militarization is always around the corner (apparently Representatives were threatened with the proclamation of martial law if they did not pass the bailout bill), so the Wall Street crash will serve to shed the last remaining elements of working class “socialism” in the US political economy, starting with Social Security, Medicare, a thorn in capital’s flesh, but so far demonstrating a great resilience, the last shore for working class struggle in the nation.2. Lessons from the Debt Crisis.
There is a important parallel here, not sufficiently noted, between the present crash and bail-out and the “debt crisis” of the 1980s, which engulfed most Third World nations (except for China) and was the start of the globalization process. Both have been engineered in the same fashion.

The  “debt crisis” was the outcome a financial campaign conducted by Washington and Wall Street, to practically force Third World nations to take cheap development loans –liberally dished out at the lowest interest rates– at a time when capital was refusing to invest in Europe and North America in the face of the most successful working class attack to its profit-rate since the 1920s, and a new generation of Africans, Asians etc. were organizing to d emand a global redistribution of wealth and a program of reparations, that is, in the language of the Bucharest Conference of 1974 : A NEW WORLD ORDER.

Through the lending mechanism, the massive flow of petrodollars that had been amassed in the aftermath of the 1974 embargo (the first attack on US wages, organized through a stiff inflationary wave) was redirected to the coffers of Third World nations, which, attracted by the bait of cheap loans, were soon hooked to the global economy, all dreams of an independent path to development foregone.

In other words, loans at the lowest interest rates were key to the creation of a global debt and the process of primitive accumulation (through structural adjustment) that was imposed on most of the workers of the world.

As we know, within less than a decade, the rise of the interest rates in the US, turned manageable debts into a long-term process of economic and political subordination. Debt became the hook for a massive restructuring of Africa’s, Asia’s Latin America’s political economies, re-establishing a colonial dependency that for three decades has served to promote a massive transfer of funds from the Third to the First World and defeat the organizational efforts of TW nation for an independent road to development.

Under the guise of the “debt crisis,” portrayed as a case of “mismanagement” by backward countries, requiring First World-style fin ancial responsibility, countries across the world were forced to open their books to Washington–via the IMF and World Bank–accept any terms of repayment imposed on them. They were forced to freeze wages, terminate all social spending, open their markets to foreign investors and products, devaluate their currencies and so forth. The consequences of these policies are well known. While Washington and NY built forests of skyscrapers, sucking on the blood of Africans, Asians, Latin Americans, Caribbean people, such levels of impoverishment and expropriation were imposed on the people of the world that millions took the road out of their countries, unable to survive in them, while those remaining witnessed epidemics, elimination of schools, famines, wars, the loss of ancestral lands, waters and forests, brutal wars of privatization, all directly related to the debt.This is history now, though the politics of SAP have set back for decades the project initiated by the anti-colonial struggle, reformulated and reasserted, as I mentioned, at the Bucharest Conference of 1974, where TW nations emboldened by the defeat of the US in Vietnam, demanded a NEW WORLD ORDER, i.e. the redistribution, return of the wealth that Europe and the US have robbed from the colonial world.
With the debt crisis, international capital obtained three major objectives.
i) It disciplined the working class in Europe and the US, by dismantling its manufacturing structure and refusing for years to enga ge in any serious investment in these regions [remember “zero growth”?]

ii) It destroyed the attempt of the former colonial world to escape a dependent/subordinate position, as demanded by the new generation of Africans, Asians, etc., who, infused of the spirit of Fanon, were keen on import substitution schemes, were pressing for REPARATIONS, and pushing for some form of socialism (in Angola and Mozambique).(iii). In addition to defeating revolution in First and Third World, the “debt crisis” built the infrastructure for the new global economy. It forged the mechanisms by which industries and offices could be relocated, companies could run around the globe, the work process could be computerized and streamlined and the working class thereby could be flexibilized and re-divided.

Against this background, we must note some basic similarities between the engineering of the debt crisis and the engineering of the Wall Street crash and must assume these similarities will extend to the social consequences of the crash. The housing bubble was the result of loans made at very low though adjustable credit rates, redirecting the influx of capital coming from abroad (China and other countries) toward the US market.
Is it possible that investment banks, credit rating agencies, the head of the Federal Reserve all FAILED to realize what would be the inevitable result of an “easy credit,” lending policy that reversed decades of reg ulatory principles and rules? Unless we want to revel in the nonsensical tale of a blinding surge in human greed, the answer must be a negative one. Thus, we must stop using the concept of “failure” to describe the absence of regulations and the reasons for the crash. We must rule out that the architects of the housing/mortgage crisis did not know it would end in a financial disaster and cascade of foreclosures for the home owners, in the same way as banks are partly responsible for the debt of the US working class ($45.000 on average per capita).

Continuing with the parallel, we have to conclude that with this 700 billion dollar “bail-out,” coming straight out of our pockets and hides, the “structural adjustment” that since the 1980s has been imposed on countries across the world, is going to be extended to the US territory and the US working class. This time (after many beginnings and many deferrals) we too are being “adjusted.” I will discuss later what adjustment will mean at this time for us. For the moment we only want to stress that we are witnessing not only a financial meltdown, but also a great robbery, a macro-process of expropriation, an immense transfer of labor, this time siphoning funds to the US banking system not only from the Third World, as in the Debt Crisis of the 1980s, but from our households, through the classic maneuver of increasing the national debt. What we are witnessing is a capitalist coup, an exa mple of capital’s historic readiness to destroy itself in order to regain the initiative and defeat resistance to its discipline.3. Where does this resistance come from? How is the collapse of the financial systems a response to it?

We cannot understand the Wall Street crisis unless we read it in class term as a means to negotiate a different class deal and response to class struggle and resistance. However, in dealing with these questions, I also want to distinguish this approach and the growing tendency to view every development in capitalist planning as a realization of working class struggle and demands, the Negrian perspective on capital’s response to class movements.
This perspective is dangerous, because besides turning even defeat into a victory, (such as: we wanted globalization, we wanted flexibilization, etc), it ignores the fact that a capitalist response must use working class demands against themselves, use them to drive part of the working class out of the struggle, turn it against or away from the other half, use them in such a way as to spark off forms of development that decompose the class.Let us look now at the crisis as a disciplinary tools and strategy. There are at least three areas of resistance to the neoliberal accumulation project that the Wall Street collapse has to respond to. I will list them without an attempt to establish an order.

We cannot understand the Wall Street crisis unless we read it in class term as a means to negotiate a different class deal and response to class struggle and resistance. However, in dealing with these questions, I also want to distinguish this approach and the growing tendency to view every development in capitalist planning as a realization of working class struggle and demands, the Negrian perspective on capital’s response to class movements.
This perspective is dangerous, because besides turning even defeat into a victory, (such as: we wanted globalization, we wanted flexibilization, etc), it ignores the fact that a capitalist response must use working class demands against themselves, use them to drive part of the working class out of the struggle, turn it against or away from the other half, use them in such a way as to spark off forms of development that decompose the class.Let us look now at the crisis as a disciplinary tools and strategy. There are at least three areas of resistance to the neoliberal accumulation project that the Wall Street collapse has to respond to. I will list them without an attempt to establish an order.

First, the crash and the bail-out must defeat the attempt of the US working class to circumvent class discipline by using financial markets, rather than struggle, sweat and labor, to increase their wages. While strikes and struggles have died out over the last two decades, workers have tried to increase their income in three ways: investing in the stock market, buying on credit, now even for everyday expenses, getting equity money through housing, and defaulting student loans. These tactics have clearly failed and now millions of workers are now to pay twice for them, in terms of their individual losses and in terms of the losses that will be inflicted on the US proletariat as a class through the bailouts. If successful, these bail-outs will in fact be conducive to a new regime of low wages and zero entitlements the like of which we have not seen since the last part of the 19th century.
The new regime will not be the end of market fundamentalism. It will be a revitalization of market investment through the injection of our social security money, and it will be a revitalization of some parts of American industry now presumably taking advantage of the fact that workers are desperate enough to accept any conditions just to have a job and a roof over their heads. A large part of capital has for a long time been lusting to bring back America to the situation before the New Deal, when employers had the upper hand. The “crisis” is giving them a chance to return to that era.
That this time Social Security is at stake is due to various factors. First, Social Security is the last pot of money available to re-launch the US market, in a context in which workers have no savings and monetary flows from the outside are drying out. It is also the last ‘scandal” on the list of US capitalists who have relentlessly for years now told us it must go. Most important of all, Social Security affects primarily the old, the retired, and it is therefore an easier target than entitlements affecting the whole working class.

So far workers in the US have resisted the privatization of Social Security despite many governmental attempts. But cuts in pensions have already gone a long way in the private sector, where employers have given stocks of their companies to workers, or stopped putting any money in their pension funds. The present crisis will extend that to government backed pensions. And the road to it has been cleared by years of false statements to the effect that Social Security is unsustainable. Though it is a colossal lie, younger generations have, however, accepted it. By cutting Social Security, capital undoubtedly hopes to pit the young against the old, who (as in Africa today) are being pictured as a crew of selfish gerontocrats sucking up the funds the young need to build their future.

The second target of the attack is the global resistance to capital’s appropriation of natural resources beginning with oil and gas extraction. The defeat in Iraq is the peak of it. To this day, despite an immense expenditure in war funding, the US has not been able to put its hands on Iraqi oil. Resistance to international capital control over global energy resources has also come from Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. Many more countries are also refusing the neoliberal packet, especially in Latin America. These refusals, not peak oil, are the true limits to capital’s energy plans.

There have also been bottlenecks in the exploitation of forests, waters, minerals, and lands which structural adjustment was to remove. A new “rurban” peasant movement has been growing that is fighting independently of unions, parties, ”civil society” and NGOs, using direct action tactics, to re-appropriate the lands and resources of which it has been robbed —poaching, harvesting timber or produce in commercial plantations, mining diamonds and gold “illegally,” or farming in the very lands from which they have been “legally” excluded. When they move to the cities they squat on urban land and take over land not used, private or public to farm it for their needs. It is a vast re-appropriation movement that is redefining the fundamentals of social reproduction globally. It has put globalizers and adjusters out of government, it has forced the nationalization of local resources, and has redistributed wealth and political power, putting the World Bank and IMF almost=2 0out of business in Latin America. It has defeated the attempt to completely liberalize the economies of the TW through the rule of the World Trade organization. Though not sitting at the table, the specter of the rural/urban peasants of the world has guided the refusal of TW representative to comply.Third, global migration has developed in ways that make it difficult for governments to use it as a regulatory mechanism for the labor market. Far from being an easy device for driving wages down, migration is now an autonomous uncontrollable phenomenon, with a logic of its own that is not reducible to the needs of the labor market. It is important however to stress (against the idealization of the migrant and of Exit, Exodus, Flight as a the highest form of struggle) that the struggle of the migrants is not superior to the struggle of those who remain. In fact, migration can lead to the dissolution of local organizations, it can create new divisions among the locals, separating those benefiting from remittances and those deprived of them, it can boost the cost of living in the area of origin by the influx of new money and hook local economies more strongly to the international monetary system, fostering the expansion of monetary relations. These, of course, are not inevitable results. Actually, migrants have been able to use the wage against the wage, to refuse impoverishment, to create transnational networks, to move from country to country seeking a better deal and nullifying national boundaries and borders.

The attacks on immigrants of recent months, which have seen the most massive factory raids and deportations ever in the US, are response to this autonomy. They are part of the attempt to create a population of rightless workers, to function as a safety valve for the labor market. Only if they have no rights can immigrants function as regulatory mechanism for the labor market (in the same way as mass incarceration and expansion of unpaid labor do). The redefinition of immigrant workers as outlaws and the criminalization of working class–historically a key strategy to devalue labor power–will continue to be a tool of the world order we will see emerging from the crisis. But the crash will intensify the divisions between “natives” and migrants, attack the organizational strength of migrant organizations, unless there is strong opposition to this strategy.The Politics of the Financial Crisis and Our Response.

Crises are always a threat and an opportunity as they break down business as usual, and reveal something of the inner workings and nastiness of capitalism. This one is not an exception and we can be sure that what will come out of it will be greatly a result of what people do in response to it. If the Great Depression is an indication, it took more than ten years for capital to organize a different social order. Much can happen in such a period.
The problem for us today is that workers are only organized around electoral politics at best. And many still place more hope in a racist and imperialist stance than in working class solidarity. We certainly don’t have a communist or an anarchist movement organizing rallies of the unemployed, fight against evictions, or organize “penny auctions” of farms as they did during the Great Depression. Nor do we have an anti-capitalist alternative as the Soviet Union was in the eyes of many. We also do not have the kind of solidarity that in the Great Depression led to invention of new commons, like the hobo movement and the creation of “jungle cities.”
Where to start then?  This is what we need to work on in the coming months and years. There is no clear path to this kind of mobilization.  But we need to start somewhere. On two things we can get people to agree with us: First, we better find alternatives, because, as things stand presently, we are so incestually connected with capitalism that its demise threats our own existence. Second, unless we organize to resist government planning, what lies ahead for us, after a cut of more than a trillion dollars of our “entitlements,” looks much more like some variant of fascism than socialism.

With warm greetings,
Silvia and George

Read Full Post »


Well, I’ve done it. Voted. Dropped my little card into the slot and participated in this grand myth we call representative democracy.

I’m in Vancouver-Kingsway this time, so the big decision facing me was:

vote NDP as a strategic move to keep the seat from going to the Liberals;

vote for some incarnation of the communists, just cause its worth encouraging smaller parties to continue to show up and it’s worth reminding the NDP that some of us find their social-democracy too much to stomach;

spoil the ballot, cause without a Work Less Party candidate I can’t really vote for anyone and feel good about it.

So, I walked in with Mica at my side, I showed my ID and voting card, I took my little scrap of paper, I reviewed all the candidates and the process with Mica and talked about the need to mark with a clear X and nothing more, and I cast my vote.

Don Davies, New Democrats? Sorry. Can’t do it. Many reasons I don’t care for the NDP, but this year top of my list is the bullshit positions on Israel they’ve taken. Sorry – equivocating on Israel is like equivocating on apartheid in my book, and I want no fucking part of it.

Spoilt ballot? Yeah, I’ve done this before. But ultimately I would prefer to have my vote actually counted.

So, two communist-types on the list. The Marxist-Leninists and the old CP. Now, I don’t particularly care for any stripe of party-centred commie, prefering my Marx with a healthy dose of anarchist politics. But the CP candidate here is Kimball Cariou, and he’s certainly been active a long time, engaged with the community, working like hell on anti-war stuff, and alot better than most other Marxist party types at working with the broader activist community. So, Kimball, you get my my vote. 162 votes for ya last round, I figure I can do my part to help that go up this time. 

And it’s done. Any internal debates about how to handle this election are now in my past, and I can just sit back and watch the train-wreck that is election night.

God, to think that next month I’ll be back in that booth again for the civic round. But at least when that comes around I’ll have a few names I don’t mind marking down. The Work Less Party will be on the ballot, and COPE candidates will get my vote just because they’re not Vision. But still, the whole game, the whole experience of this alienated democracy really is starting to get old.

Bigger cages, longer chains! as the chant goes…

Read Full Post »

Watching CNN

Ain’t no doubt about it, capital is in a serious global crisis. And are we surprised? There’s only so long you can make money without labour.

But what I’m finding most interesting right now is that the cheerleading is just plain over, full stop. No more hope for markets to rally, for this all to turn around, for folks just to stop panicking and it’ll all be fine, for anyone at all to pretend that the market will work itself out.

I rarely watch TV anymore, but the last couple of days I have been spending some time with CNN, to see how they are talking about all of this. And it’s really quite fascinating.

Anderson Cooper, big-time political commentator, is saying that state and capital have thrown everything they can at this and getting zero traction – nothing is working this time. And Suze Ormon, star financial expert responds to questions of faith in the market like so:

‘We may start seeing breadlines. It is that bad, and we’d better get used to it cause it’s here for a good long while. If you have credit card debt, if banks are foreclosing on your home, if you work in manufacturing or any industry that could see job loss — you’re in trouble. People are moving into their cars.’

And that ain’t the half of it. Suicide rates are up, with unemployed workers and investment bankers alike driven into despair. Yup. The dream is over. The myth has exploded. And the general consensus is that things ain’t getting better any time soon.

Now, of course, there is no structural explanation for this in the general media. Instead, everyone looks around for who’s to blame, the prime target at the moment being AIG – the largest private insurance company n the US – who took an $85 billion dollar bailout, then came back for another $37.8 billion, and yet just blew half a million on a spa weekend for its top agents. But, even without an anti-capitalist analysis, even in a country in which anti-market rhetoric is so anathema, folks know where this all started, and the fingers are pointed squarely upon capital’s greatest, upon the financiers and speculators, upon the state that nurtured them, and upon the idea that war and patriotism are enough to live on.

The death-knell of capitalism? Perhaps not. But the last few years have looked a whole lot like the pre-Depression era. President Calvin Coolidge’s famous pronouncement, “The business of America is business.” The orgy of speculation leading to a massive over-extension of credit, such that by 1924 newspapers were already imagining what was to actually occur five years later – that the mountain of debt would come tumbling down and the system would be thrown into serious crisis.

So this isn’t the first time, by any means, and, yes, capital has weathered such storms before. But rarely has it survived anything this bad without a major overhaul, and without injecting a serious dose of regulation. So at least as far as varieties of capitalist rule are concerned, after watching the neoliberal juggernaut spit and stall at least since the mid 1990s – clearly at the end of its days despite hype to the contrary – that there ain’t much question that it’s ready for the scrap-heap.

Yup, a crisis of capital.

And what that really means is a crisis of capital’s ability to command labour effectively. A crisis in the drive to to extend the power of the market into new spheres of life. And that certainly creates a whole lot of uncertainty and a whole lot of instability and raises a bunch of questions we can’t begin to answer. What comes next? Does this take us even further down the road to barbarism or might some alternative – and I don’t mean Obama – begin to seize the public imagination? No doubt we’ll see a little of both.

There is no doubt human tragedy here. There is no question that for a whole lot of working people, this will translate into personal crisis. And there is no question that a political response is necessary – a housing response, an anti-poverty response.  But in terms of the financial crisis itself? This is a big moment, a paradigm-shifting moment, and a hugely profound crisis not only for the neoconservatives but for the market and for American Empire. And that ain’t something I’m crying over.

Read Full Post »

Y’know, doing the union thing can be mighty strange, particularly when you come to it as a radical. The way various emotions are triggered, the competing and conflicting ideas and analyses and reactions you feel – it involves living with and in multiple identities. And I don’t mean putting on a game-face or playing a role, though there’s certainly lots of that. No, this is something else. You really do become different kinds of person in the process. Responsible and reasonable negotiator. Expert advisor. Enforcer of the law. Radical troublemaker. Pissed-off worker. Hurt employee genuinely wanting to be valued for your contribution. All of these come into play, often simultaneously. And that can be not only hard to manage, but hard to live with emotionally. It can throw you into some real turmoil.

Being a radical in the trade union movement ain’t easy, and it takes its toll. It is a constant struggle to hold onto one’s values, one’s critique, one’s politics while working in an environment and for a labour-relations regime whose very premise is the sell-out, whose foundation is opportunism and self-serving justification, and whose daily work involves the search for what is overwhelmingly a fiction – common ground with the boss.

But there’s another challenge as well, which has a more personal dimension. We remain workers, and though we may critique and rail against notions like ‘productivity’ and ‘value’, somehow still we carry those within us. Much as we know these concepts and the culture they arise from belong entirely to the boss, we somehow still feel pride in our work, and want our contributions to be recognized. We can scoff at this stuff on a collective or abstract level. But individually, it still matters. Alot.

I wrote here last Spring about a moment in which I faced all this in my own working life – in a conversation with my employer about my job, a dispute between us, my decision to quit that particular work, and the emotional toll it took on me. Well, last night it was the girl I love dealing with these kinds of feelings, that mix of rage and hurt, of fight-back and defeat, of seeing the boss act exactly as we know bosses do and yet still being floored by it, by that personal hurt that comes when one’s work isn’t valued, one’s dignity doesn’t matter, one’s contributions are not deemed worthy of any real attention. It hurts.

Cause though capital’s shit about values and teamwork and contribution is just so much garbage, the struggle of us as workers does indeed start from our labour, and the desire to re-define ‘value’ and ‘worth’ in new ways, collective ways, life-giving ways.


Read Full Post »

Older Posts »