Sunday, June 28, 2020

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

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home