David Harvey’s New Thesis “Capitalism is too Big to Fail”: Is it?

David Harvey, a famed geographer, has written and spoken extensively on Marx. Up until now he was considered a leading Marxist, even while some on the left criticized some of his formulations as “reformist.” In a video lecture in his series “Anti-Capitalist Chronicles,” Harvey has just cautioned against the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism on grounds that such a strategy is outmoded. His central argument is that capitalism is “too big to fail.” Instead the system needs to be propped up by incremental reforms. Here is my take on Harvey’s new pronouncement; below it is the link to his lecture.

Harvey’s statement in my opinion falls short on several grounds.

First, he talks of contradictions in the system but only singles out inequality and environmental destruction. But these are just two, and thus he leaves the impression that maybe we can live with the contradictions and just try to soften their effects. But what about fiscalization, the humongous public, private and corporate debt, the huge chunk of the economy that produces junk or destructive goods and services? What about the fact that the 40 hour work week has become more like 55 or 60 hours for so many people, plus the massive incorporation of women into the work force, at a time when technological developments (computers, AI, etc.) should be reducing the work week at least by half? And above all he leaves imperialism completely out of the picture.

Second, he makes it seem as if we, the people, can act to avoid an economic catastrophe. But Marx demonstrated 150 years ago that the contradictions just get deeper and deeper, even while there is the appearance of greater prosperity. And he also posited the “anarchy of production” which means that no government, and no capitalist, can prevent the crises. And so why does Harvey think that the people of good will can prevent a collapse?   

Third, Very few people on the left, if any, are claiming that this is a revolutionary moment favorable for the seizure of power in the U.S. or other developed nations. So Harvey isn’t saying something we don’t already know. The key issue is whether reforms here and there are going to do the job and if not, what do you tell people. Do you tell people to relax and be satisfied with the crumbs? Or do you tell people that real change sooner or later is an historical imperative. Harvey appears to rule out the latter, at least for the short and medium term future.

Indeed, the problem with Harvey’s thesis is not one timing, of waiting for the right moment for systemic change. When he says “capitalism is too big to fail” it’s not a matter of timing, unless you think capitalism is going to get smaller in time and that the corporations are going to get broken up. Reformism is absolutely the issue. If you don’t think that the system can ever be changed, then what are you left with? I’m not one who despises reformists but I do think they are deceiving people. If the contradictions are just getting greater and greater than saying capitalism is too big to fail is ignoring reality. Does anyone believe that the debt of the private, public and corporate sectors is going to diminish in time? Everything to the contrary (3 trillion dollars more in just the last 2 months). Does anyone believe that under capitalism the work week is going to be reduced? (for many it’s increased) Does anyone believe that under capitalism we are going to be able to turn the environmental problem around? These are the issues that Harvey should have been dealing with.

And fourth, Harvey talks of how social movements over the last decade or two have come and gone. The implication being that there is no longer a true revolutionary subject. Seattle, the “indignados” the occupy movement, the gun violence movement of high school students, the Me-Too movement, etc. But first, these movements haven’t come and gone. For example, the slogan of 99% of the occupy movement has become very much a part of discourse and not just on the left. And second, the apparently ephemeral nature of these social movements demonstrates what is really lacking. It’s what Marxists refer to as the “subjective” factor. What is lacking is a leftist political party (or parties) that is able to connect the dots and unify different struggles, a key problem that Harvey fails to discuss. The FBI understands the danger of this well, which is why what they call the “messiah,” that is certain charismatic leftists (and even non-leftists, possibly in the case of JFK), end up becoming a target. The messiah is a leader with a capacity to unify the underclass, the working class and sectors of the middle class, unify across race and ethnic lines, etc. to bring about change rejected by the ruling class. I first heard of the term in an interview with a biographer of Fred Hampton who indicated that he was bumped off precisely because the FBI saw him as that type of leader. Martin Luther King and Malcom X were both assassinated precisely when they began reaching out to larger groups. But what is needed is not a leader who can somehow make the revolution happen. What is lacking is a political party that can unify between different movements, different demands, different slogans and different social, racial and ethnic groups.

To get back to Harvey, I am surprised that at this moment, when dire circumstances have generated a degree of hope, with the Black Lives Matter protests and such widespread disillusionment with the system, that Harvey comes up with this line of thinking. There was a time with the defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990 and then the collapse of the Soviet Union when some people on the left such as Marta Harnecker spoke of the end of the anti-imperialist cycle. But then Chávez came along and Marta, among others, revised her thinking. Doubt that we’ll see a similar rectification on the part of Harvey.

https://www.democracyatwork.info/acc_global_unrest

Trump Knocks Juan Guaidó off his Pedestal: What it Means for Venezuela

Trump and John Bolton have now knocked Juan Guaidó off his pedestal. This is a game changer. It will now be harder (though certainly not impossible) for countries like the U.S. and Great Britain to attempt to justify their freezing of Venezuelan assets and turning them over to “President” Guaidó. This article of mine emphasizes the importance of the consolidation and unification of a bloc of opposition moderates with Claudio Fermín as one of its leading spokesmen. No one can accuse Fermín of being corrupt or being a Chavista in disguise.

https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/25/trumps-second-thoughts-on-juan-guaido-are-not-enough/

On Marta Harnecker (1937-2019)

Published in Science & Society, July 2020

by Steve Ellner

On June 14 last year, Marta Harnecker died after a lengthy bout with cancer. She was survived by her husband, the economist and writer Michael A. Lebowitz, and her daughter, Cuban professor and writer Camila Piñeiro Harnecker.  Marta Harnecker played a major role in the formulation and, to a certain extent, the execution of strategies employed by the Latin American left since the 1970s. What is impressive about Harnecker’s trajectory was her willingness to critically examine her own thinking and that of much of the Latin American left and adapt to changing conditions in the continent and the world. During the time she lived in Venezuela, I personally observed her receptivity to new ideas and the interest and utmost care she displayed in evaluating them.

Harnecker’s initial political involvement was in the Christian movement in high school and then the Universidad Católica in her native Chile. She then undertook graduate study in the mid-1960s in Paris. There she developed an intimate intellectual relationship with Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, who she revered throughout her life. During her stay, Harnecker translated into Spanish two major works of Althusser (For Marx and Reading Capital [which he co-authored]), both published in Mexico by Siglo XXI. Years later Harnecker recalled that Althusser taught her that “the theoretical potential of [Marx’s] works had been underutilized” in contrast to “dogmatic interpretations” which considered them a “finished” product (Harnecker, 2018). Harnecker’s first book, the famous Los conceptos elementales del materialismo histórico, which included quotes from Mao, Stalin and Althusser, was influenced by the structuralism of Althusser, the May 1968 protests in Paris and the guerrilla movements in Latin America. The “Manual,” as it was widely referred to, became essential reading for Latin American leftists and students and subsequently went through numerous editions, which contained revisions reflecting the evolution in Harnecker’s thinking.  

Returning to Chile, Harnecker joined the Socialist Party and under the Allende government headed its commission of political formation. Although developing close relations with leaders of factions on the left end of the governing alliance, she supported Allende’s thesis that for the electoral road to socialism to be feasible “the majority of the population,” in her words “had to be on your side, and I’m not sure that the left [as a whole] understood this” (Harnecker, 2018).  

During this period, Harnecker met famed Cuban security chief Manuel Piñeiro and after the 1973 coup moved to Cuba where they got married. Piñeiro headed the Cuban Communist Party’s “Americas Department,” facilitating Harneckers close contact with leftist leaders throughout the continent. Harnecker published Cuba: dictadura o democracia in which she defended Cuba’s democratic qualities but called for a deepening process. Specifically, she advocated decentralization as a corrective to tasks proposed by the national leadership that are “not always within its reach,” such as the goal of the 10 million-ton sugar harvest in 1970 (Harnecker, 1979, 208).

Harnecker reacted to the electoral defeat of the Sandinistas in 1990 and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, as well as the unfriendly environment created by neoliberalism, by questioning the ability of the Latin American left to reach power during the current “ultraconservative” stage. Instead, she advocated prioritizing the local arena and pointed to leftist electoral inroads at that level in Brazil, Venezuela, Costa Rica and El Salvador. She criticized the opposing view of “the most radical sectors” on the left for writing off these efforts to, in their words, “‘administer capitalism’” (Harnecker, 1999, 291-92; 2005a, 150). In assuming these positions, Harnecker undertook a careful reading of subjective and objective conditions (Ellner, 2004, 21-23, 28-31) – what many on the left often stop short of doing. Ironically, it was Hugo Chávez – the standard bearer of “twenty-first century socialism” which was to heavily influence Harnecker’s thinking – who followed a bolder, alternative approach. Not only did he organize a military coup just weeks after the fall of the Soviet Union, but he adamantly opposed the local-based strategy advocated by Harnecker (Chávez, 1998, 309).

Several years after the tragic death of Piñeiro, Harnecker traveled to Venezuela with Lebowitz, where they lived for seven years. During this time, she frequently met with Chávez and provided advice to the Venezuelan president, whose ideas were constantly evolving. Her book-length interview with Chávez, conducted shortly after the abortive coup of April 2002, was released by Monthly Review Press, which also published her A World to Build: New Paths toward Twenty-First Century Socialism and her co-authored Planning from Below (Harnecker, 2005b; 2015; Harnecker and Bartolomé, 2019). In her works during these years, she emphasized the participatory aspects of “twenty-first century socialism,” which in her opinion was “far removed from the Soviet model” (Harnecker, 2012; 2015, 186), but not that of Cuba (her original enthusiasm for perestroika soured – Harnecker, 1987, 15-19; 1992, 64; 1999, 68-70). She argued that the essence of socialism was “human development,” consisting of the cultural enrichment of individuals, and in doing so made references to the works of Lebowitz on the subject (2010). Along these lines, she called “collectivism,” as defined by “that which suppresses the differences among each member of society in the name of the collective,” contrary to democratic socialism and a “flagrant deformation of Marxism” (Harnecker, 2010, 41; 2015, 57). Her Planning from Below is a practical guide for local planning in which, as in the case of Venezuela, the “more positive impacts have come…from people developing their own plan at the community level” (Harnecker and Bartolomé, 2019, 38).

Some on the left may criticize Harnecker for having abandoned a specific strategy to which they adhere. The real issue at stake is to what extent do revolutionaries – and Marxists in particular – stick to immutable principles and laws and to what extent do they make adjustments based on their reading of the times. The essential component of Marxism that cannot be subject to adjustment is support for ongoing struggle on the path to achieving revolutionary socialism – in contrast to social democratic thinking which minimizes the importance of class confrontation. In this sense, Marta Harnecker was a true Marxist whose theorizing emerged from her contact with, and immersion in, class and revolutionary struggles. Harnecker’s changes were in tandem with changes in the region and the world, but throughout her adult life she was consistent in her basic convictions and behavior and unwavering in her commitment.

REFERENCES

Chávez, Hugo. 1998. Habla el comandante. Caracas: UCV.

Ellner, Steve. 2004. “Leftist Goals and the Debate over Anti-Neoliberal Strategy in Latin America.” Science & Society, 68: 1 (Spring), 10-32.

Harnecker, Marta. 1979 [1975]. Cuba: Dictadura o democracia? Havana: n.p.

_________. 1987 Perestroika: La revolución de las esperanzas. http://www.rebelion.org/docs/90189.pdf

_________. 1992. “Democracy and Revolutionary Movement.” Social Justice, 19: 4 (Winter), 60-73.

_________. 1999. Haciendo Posible lo Imposible. La Izquierda en el Umbral del Siglo XX.  Mexico: Siglo XXI.

________. 2005a. “On Leftist Strategy.” Science & Society, 65: 2 (April), 142-152.

________. 2005b Understanding the Venezuelan Revolution: Hugo Chávez Talks of Marta Harnecker. New York: Monthly Review Press.

________. 2010. América Latina y el socialismo del siglo XXI. Santiago, Chile: Instituto de Estudios Estratégicos para el Desarrollo Humano. https://inedhdotcl.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/al-y-el-socialismo-del-siglo-xxi_marta-harnecker.pdf

_________. 2012. “Conquering a New Popular Hegemony.” Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. http://links.org.au/node/3038

_________. 2015. A World to Build: New Paths toward Twenty-First Century Socialism. New York: Monthly Review Press.  

_________. 2018 [interviewed by Rodrigo Ruiz]. “Marta Harnecker: Marxism, revolución y la izquierda.” Rebelión.org (November 28). http://www.rebelion.org/docs/249537.pdf

Harnecker, Marta and José Bartolomé. 2019. Planning from Below: A Decentralized Participatory Planning Proposal. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Lebowitz, Michael. 2010. The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Venezuela Supreme Tribunal of Justice Delivers Juan Guaidó Another Blow

Latin America Advisor published by the Inter-American Dialogue

June 23, 2020

by Steve Ellner

The decision of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice to name all five members of the National Electoral Commission opens the door for the holding of elections for the National Assembly (AN) in December. Juan Guaidó will undoubtedly be replaced as the AN's president, thus undermining the legitimacy of Washington's strategy to achieve regime change in Venezuela. In one sense, the elections will be a repeat of the presidential elections of May 2018 which the "radical" opposition boycotted, unlike the “moderate” opposition. In another sense, however, the nation's political climate has changed significantly as many Venezuelans opposed to the government have become disillusioned with Guaidó as a result of a string of fiascos beginning with his self-proclamation as president on January 23, 2019. A major blow for Guaidó has been the surprising emergence of Claudio Fermín of the Mesa de Diálogo Nacional (MDN) and his recognition of Nicolás Maduro as the nation's legitimate president. Fermín, who has long been a conservative on economic policy, hits particularly hard against the “radical” opposition, labelling the call for abstention in the 2018 elections a “fraud” and ruling out alliances with any group that supports U.S.-imposed sanctions against Venezuela. The "radical" opposition has attempted to discredit the MDN by accusing its president Luis Parra of corrupt dealings, while the Trump administration has imposed sanctions on him. But Fermín's credentials of personal honesty are impeccable dating back to his term as Caracas' first elected mayor in the early 1990s, and thus the MDN cannot be passed off as a shady fringe group. In short, the Supreme Tribunal’s selections, a decision which the MDN hailed, signals a shift in the Venezuelan political environment with far-reaching international ramifications.

So Much Talk About Sacred Private Property. The Bank of England is Retaining 1.2 Billion Dollars Worth of Venezuelan Reserves

Below is Michelle Ellner’s interview with Venezuelan Central Bank president Calixto Ortega. She points out that ex-National Security Advisor John Bolton explicitly states (in his book) that as part of a political strategy, he had contacted the British government to convince it not to allow the Venezuelan Central Bank to have access to its more than one billion dollars worth of gold in the hands of the Bank of England. But the Bank of England claims to be non-political and independent of the government. Slight contradiction.

Ortega says that the Guaidó appointed “Central Bank” heads contacted the Bank of England claiming that they are the only legitimate representatives of the Central Bank of Venezuela. Ortega calls for “fact checking reality.” While he works out of the president’s office of the Central Bank in downtown Caracas, the Guaidó Central Bank consists of nothing more than 4 or so Twitter accounts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCSM0g5pITQ

Does Trump Know What Voter Suppression Means?

Trump is demanding that CNN retract its recent poll that showed Biden 14 percentage points ahead of the president. In a tweet, he called the results “fake news.” The Trump re-election campaign called for “full, fair, and conspicuous retraction, apology, and clarification to correct its misleading conclusions." The statement goes on to claim that the poll is a “stunt and a phony poll to cause voter suppression.”

Voter Suppression! Voter suppression is what the Republicans did in Georgia to deprive Stacey Abrams the governorship and instead giving it to Brian Kemp, a veritable redneck who boasts that he hunts down immigrants. Voter suppression is the change of voter requirements pushed by Republicans in states throughout the country requiring unusual IDs for those lacking driver licenses, obviously designed to curb voting by members of the popular sectors, particularly African Americans. Just hop on a bus in any city and you’ll see that there is a disproportionate number of non-drivers who are African American.

Voter suppression is what Trump is now advocating when he opposes the use of absentee ballots in the context of the pandemic, thus favoring the rural population (heavily Republican) at the expense of the urban population (where the Republicans enjoy much less support).

The Republican strategy includes the recruitment of, in the words of the Washington Post, “up to 50,000 volunteers in 15 key states to monitor polling places and challenge ballots and voters deemed suspicious. That is part of a $20 million plan that also allots millions to challenge lawsuits by Democrats and voting-rights advocates seeking to loosen state restrictions on balloting.”

Indeed, according to an audio recording of a private event. one of Trump’s top re-election advisers told influential Republicans in Wisconsin that the party has “traditionally” relied on voter suppression to compete in battleground states, as reported by the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/dec/21/trump-adviser-republicans-voter-suppression

The “Lost Cause” Doctrine: Racism Thrives on Idealistic Visions of the Past that do not Correspond to Reality

In the decades following the Civil War and even up to the present, the narrative embraced by southern racists is that the war was not fought over slavery but rather the determination of southerners to maintain their way of life and to defend states' rights as embodied in the constitution. This line of thinking is known as the “lost cause.” Those who defend this thesis point out that North Carolina (which was not a heavy slave state for geographical reasons) was one of the last states to join the confederacy but their men fought the hardest and were motivated not by the defense of slavery but their regional identification with the south.

Robert E. Lee was an ideal symbol to promote the lost cause notion. In fact, I remember in high school history class learning that Lee at first was not sympathetic to succession since. After all he had graduated West Point, had fought in the Mexican War and was opposed to slavery per se, though his beliefs were belied by his actions. So following the Civil War, Lee became a darling of the “lost cause” doctrine. An implication of the “lost cause” notion is that the south’s defeat was inevitable because the north’s industrialization was bound to overpower the south’s rural-based institutions and way of life and that those who fought on the side of the south fought heroically. Thus Lee was not to blame for the south’s defeat. In contrast, General James Longstreet became a target of resentment on the part of the adherents to the lost cause doctrine. One general and a former friend of his actually blamed him for the defeat at Gettysburg (an accusation that couldn’t be farthest from the truth). First, Longstreet had opposed Lee’s tactics at Gettysburg and second after the Civil War he went on to join the Republican Party, he received good treatment from his friend President Grant, and  he rejected the notion that the Civil War was fought over anything other than slavery.

The lost cause notion continued into the twentieth century in the form of the building of statues of Confederate generals and to this very day is defended by those who oppose the removal of those statues on grounds that they represent not slavery but rather the southern “way of life” and its history.

Many if not most of those who defend the “lost cause” notion deny that they are racists. But the fact of the matter is that they are wrong about the causes of the civil war. Slavery was what the Civil War was all about (Trump’s statement that it could have been avoided notwithstanding). A Marxist analysis posits that the fundamental issues driving history (with exceptions of course) stem from the means of production and the conflicts they generate. Naturally, Marxists aren’t the only ones who attribute the Civil War to the institution of slavery.

Today the white supremacists fear that time is not on their side, because if they wait within a short time whites will be outnumbered in the United States. Thus they advocate violent actions in order to turn back the clock of time. This is another manifestation of the “lost cause” doctrine that yearns for an idealistic past without recognizing (or not wanting to recognize) that that past is based on social injustice for the vast majority of those who produce the goods for everyone to enjoy.