Sunday, September 21, 2008
NZ Dairy giant Fonterra, NZ's biggest exporter, is implicated in the scandal over milk contaminated by melamine in China. This scandal is a metaphor for global finance capitalism in which companies privatise their profits but socialise their costs. Fonterra is a private corporation owned by dairy farmer shareholders in New Zealand. It has expanded internationally in recent years, into the US, Latin America and in 2005, China, when it bought a 43% share in Sanlu. The deal involved NZ production technology but no real control by Fonterra of the Sanlu operation. Fonterra therefore entered a partnership where it gained profits from the joint venture, but had little oversight and control of production.
Why would a company based on a farmers cooperative ownership which has a long history of advances in technology and quality control, risk its reputation and its future by gambling on such a risky venture? The answer is that to compete internationally against the other Dairy Giants, Fonterra went for high profits and passed on its risks and costs to the Chinese workers and consumers. At the same time it socialised its risks as the Chinese government and to the NZ Government will have to pay for the damage done to the families and to both economies.
Of course this makes a mockery of the ideology of the free market that argues that bad investment decisions should be punished by bankruptcy. Fonterra's fiasco in China then, is no different from all the corporations that depend heavily upon 'externalising' their costs onto the public sector.It is no different to Lehman Bros, and the AIG who have been rescued by the US Federal Bank. Or Air NZ and the Bank of NZ that have been nationalised several times by NZ governments. While the ideologues of the market complain that these corporates should be allowed to go bankrupt as punishment for their bad investments, corporate owners, central bankers and politicians know better. To allow the crisis to spread across the whole world economy will cause a major depression, a massive destruction of their wealth, and risk a popular challenge to the survival of the "system".
In a crisis then, neo-conservatives and liberals agree that the state must come to the rescue to prevent the collapse of the "system". They argue only over who will pay. The neo-cons like John McCain want tax cuts for the rich so that the tax burden of the central bank bailouts will fall on the poor. Obama wants more taxes on the rich so that they and not the poor will carry the cost of the bailouts. But the liberals are only quibbling about who will bear the costs. It is clear that the rich will benefit most from the rescues as the biggest and strongest banks and corporations backed by the state banks will survive. On the other hand, all those workers who lost their homes and their savings and equity are basically bankrupted.
And in the case of Fonterra you can be sure that it is not the families of the children who have died or got permanent kidney damage that will win. The Chinese and NZ states will cooperate to rescue their Free Trade Agreement by paying part of the health costs of these children. Sanlu managers may be shot and the company will struggle to survive, but Fonterra will escape real damage because it will be bailed out by the liberal NZ Government against any claims for compensation as it is the biggest NZ exporter and the backbone of the NZ economy.
Radical socialists object to this fraud. For them the power and wealth of the elite should not go unpunished. In particular radicals see finance capital as parasitic on productive capital, and should be nationalised and put under public control. Hence the sub-prime crisis would not have happened had Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac (that were formed to provide workers housing in the 1930s depression) not been privatised and allowed to fund a huge speculative wave of gambling on housing. They are now saying "we told you so" and for every 'nationalisation' of a private bank or finance house, they say "more nationalisation" and "no privatisation"!
In the case of Fonterra radical socialists argue that the cooperative ownership should mean cooperative control. Farmers should throw out the management that is trying to privatise the company and investing in production offshore where profits are put ahead of people. If the producers were in control and not the financiers then Fonterra would be a responsible and sustainable company. Radical Greens would develop this argument in the direction of a partnership between the producer cooperative and the state in investing in sustainable technology to reduce carbon emissions and protect the ecology, and to ensure that these standards apply in its international operations.
For Marxists there is more going on here than meets the eye. First, nothing new is happening. It’s happened before over long historical cycles or waves of booms and depressions. Depressions are caused by overproduction of capital that cannot return a profit and they usually lead to the bankruptcies and buyouts by viable capital. In depressions (or to stop depressions) the public sector has increasingly intervened to subsidise losses to allow capital to recover its profitability and restore its growth. Big private corporations are nationalized to preserve them and prepare them again for re-privatization. With each cycle capitalist firms get bigger and more multinational in their operation.
Since at least the opening of the last century, big monopoly banks and corporations have fused as finance capital. Banking capital continues to operate closely with industrial or productive capital and both are intimately bound to the state. In fact in the 1950s US president Eisenhower coined the term “Industrial- Military Complex” to indicate how far this complex was embedded. And just as liberal generals recognized this fusion of capital and state, social democrats welcomed it as an opportunity for the tail to wag the dog. Post-war Keynesian economics fueled the boom by heavy state intervention. The return of neo-conservative monetary fundamentalism came only when profits began to fall in the 1960s and neo-liberal ideologues pulled their copies of Adam Smith and von Hayek off the library shelves.
We conclude that the subprime crisis is but a symptom of a crisis of overproduction of capital. It is not an aberration or novelty. The state monopoly capital “complex” shows that the state does not intervene in the market but rather frames it. ‘Nationalisation’ therefore is not a qualitative paradigm shift from market to state. Rather it is a quantitative intervention of the state on behalf of all capitalists posing as the ‘national interest’. Since crises are inherent in capitalist production, neoliberal, liberal and radical socialist solutions that involve various forms of state intervention can only resolve crises at the expense of workers and the ruined middle class.
In the case of Fonterra this can be seen clearly insofar as Fonterra has become a Dairy Giant at the expense of both its workers and its cooperative owners. Dairy production has become increasingly concentrated in a large scale corporate employing wage labor and ownership is shifting from small family farming cooperatives towards a fully privatized corporation listed on the share market. It fits the model of a state monopoly corporation that privatizes its profits and socialists its losses. The only solution to state monopoly capitalism and its inherent crises is the socialization of the means of production, distribution and exchange and the building of a socialist economy and society.
Monday, September 15, 2008
As the election campaign hots up an all out shitfight between the Labour Party and the National Party is blowing up. It is clear that the ruling class is tired of Labour’s Blairite compromises and wants a National government to finish off the more-market agenda and eliminate any remaining controls over foreign investment and the deregulation of the labour market. We argue that despite Labour’s attacks on workers, most workers will vote Labour because they think of it as the ‘lesser evil’. For that reason we argue for a tactical vote for Labour and against those whose vote for a ‘left’ alternative or ‘non-vote’ as a vote for National.
National has promised to get back onto the more market road but first it has to get support for what are still unpopular market reforms. Its not-so-hidden agenda is to win power on a centrist or Blairite program and then work to shift the electorate back to the free-market right. To do this it needs to get rid of MMP and proportional representation which since 1993 has forced National into coalitions that moderated its free-market agenda, and since 1999 has allowed Labour to stay in power.
Meanwhile, on the fringes of this shitfight the anarchists are calling for “no vote”, and sundry other left fragments are calling on workers to vote for them rather than Labour. We argue here that the main task at this time is to get Labour re-elected, and that non-voting, or splitting the Labour vote, is a vote for National.
Class Struggle has many times explained why critical support for the Labour Party is a tactic to get Labour elected and exposed before those workers who still have illusions in it. To reject this tactic as the Workers Party does, is to take an ultraleft position that workers illusions in Labour have been broken already (not true); or can be broken by voting other worker MPs into parliament (unlikely right now even under MMP), or as the anarchists argue, that not voting, and organizing for direct action instead, will bring about a rejection not only of Labour, but of parliament itself.
First, let’s take the argument that workers have already broken from Labour, and only vote for them because there is no other party to the left that can win office and meet the needs of workers. Those who argue this think that Labour is no longer a bourgeois workers party and workers only vote as a ‘lesser evil’. Thus all it needs is for a true workers’ party to give workers a ‘greater good’ choice.
This is wrong. The reason no workers party exists to the left of Labour is that there is no great support for such a party among those workers who are most organized in unions and who still retain the belief that Labour is a workers’ party. This is because social democracy functions as a wing of the labour aristocracy and bureaucracy with strong ties to organized labour. It is a statist party with its set of bureaucratic class institutions that continues to control the working class. Before a new workers party can arise to replace Labour, organized labor has to throw out the labour bureaucracy and rebuild the unions on a militant, democratic, rank and file basis.
Second, let’s examine the chances of a new workers party entering parliament under MMP, to pull Labour to the left. History shows that new parties that try to replace social democratic parties with reformist programs, (Socialist Alliance in Australia, Left Party in Germany, Alliance in NZ) never got more than a small minority of voters. Where they got MPs elected under proportional representation MMP (MMP as in Germany and NZ) they had very little impact in pulling social democracy to the left. The reason is that to push further left would bring down the government and with it the opportunity of the left to influence its policies. The fate of the Alliance in NZ is particularly telling. Had the New Labour Party stayed inside the Labour Party, or returned to it in 1993, Labour would have won in 1993 and probably 1996. (See Class Struggle 78 Review of No Right Turn). Thus even when left alternatives do get elected they adapt toe social democracy and prolong the death agony of social democracy, rather than the quick execution Lenin had envisaged.
Again, we come back to the fact that until the labour movement has broken from the labour bureaucracy no real workers party will emerge to challenge social democracy’s hold over the labour movement. To repeat, Labour Parties are the parliamentary wing of the labour bureaucracy and the labour aristocracy. They will only be challenged by the emergence of a radical, militant, democratic rank-and-file based labour movement.
Third, anarchists are syndicalists and do not think that workers should contest the bosses in parliament as it is part of the bosses’ state. Syndicalists mistake the real economic power that workers have in the workplace and the direct action that mobilizes this power, for the armed concentrated political state power of the ruling class. In NZ the syndicalist Red Fed was defeated in the general strike of 1913 by the bosses’ state force, which included “Massey’s Cossacks”, the farmers who were sworn in as armed special constables.
While it is true that the bosses’ state must be smashed, anarchists overlook the fact that in order to mobilize a militant majority capable of doing that, it is necessary to utilize the democratic institutions that have been won by past generations of workers’ struggles with much blood spilled. Capitalism presents itself as a society of equal opportunity in the market and equal citizenship rights in parliament. This ideology is reproduced by the labour process itself as commodity fetishism. Since it is imbibed with ‘mothers’ milk’ it can only be destroyed by class consciousness arising out of class struggle. This means contesting the bosses’ rule in parliament and proving that so-called ‘workers parties’ serve the bosses by deceiving the masses. This will only happen by voting such parties into power to expose them and destroy the bourgeois ideology of equal rights and citizenship.
Sadly, by ignoring the need to expose the parliamentary fraud in struggle, anarchists have historically ended up joining bosses governments, or building their own bourgeois states. For instance, in Russia during the revolution the anarchists formed a state in the Ukraine based on the peasantry and opposed to the Soviet state. In Spain in the 1930s the anarchists joined the bosses’ government in Catalonia. Despite much talk of rejecting the state as universally repressive, anarchists end up forming states, usually in opposition to workers states.
We can see that parliament is a fetishised form of capitalist rule which cannot be jumped over to form an alternative socialist or anarchist society without breaking with the ideology that underpins it. Capitalist rule rests heavily on reformist ideology, and the majority of workers will not be broken from it until parliamentary rule is thoroughly exposed and opposed by a class conscious revolutionary vanguard. Social democracy will retain its hold over the majority of workers until its attacks can be opposed and defeated by a revolutionised labour movement led by a revolutionary Marxist party. Bourgeois parliament has to be smashed and replaced by workers democracy – that is, a workers state. Meanwhile, that revolutionary labour movement has to be built by taking this fight to the masses with illusions in labourism and parliamentarism.