[Marxism] (Re: "going through the experience" of Obama disillusionment

[Anthony Boynton]

I agree with all of Louis Projects observations about the differences
between today and the context of the 1930's, but would add a few things.



(Re: [Marxism] "going through the experience" of Obama disillusionment

* From: Louis Proyect <lnp3 at panix.com>    * Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:58:47
-0500)



Louis wrote,



"1. The level of economic suffering. My mom lived through the

Depression. She told me once that they ate no meat whatsoever, except

some chicken once or twice a month. My father joined the army in 1940

because he couldn't find regular work."



This is true, so far. Obama was elected at a point in the meltdown
corresponding more  to November 1929 than November 1932. The financial crash
had occurred three years before FDR was elected. The crash of the real
economy (which had begun before the stock market crash) did not hit bottom
until 1931-1933.



If today's crisis is as deep or deeper than that of the 1930's the bottom of
the crisis of the real economy will hit in 2009 or 2010.



You can expect that the level of economic suffering is going to get much
worse during the first year of Obama's administration, and maybe throughout
his first four years.



This is quite different from the FDR experience, since he took office at or
near the bottom of the cycle in 1933. The economy might have moved up some
no matter who was president, and no matter what they did after that.



This factor, will probably have a lot to do with how fast the
disillusionment with Obama takes place, and with its form.



Also, given the much greater degree of global economic integration, you can
expect the economic pain and suffering to be shifted as much as possible,
and as fast as possible outside the borders of the USA.



This means first of all Mexico, the unemployment figures by and large do not
count the undocumented who have gone south.



Second it means China and East Asia in general.



Louis wrote,



"2. The existence of a massive socialist movement. With the CP, you

had a presence in FDR's administration itself through open members

and fellow travelers."



This is a key difference. But its implications are not certain. Will the
right wing capitalize on the growing disillusionment with the emergence of
some sort of neo-neo-Palinesque fascist movement? Or will a radical left
movement rise with no clear ideology?  Both?



Something else?



The CP's roll in the 30's cut two ways, they organized radicalizing workers,
and kept them safely within the Democratic Party.



"3. Corresponding to this, you had a very dynamic trade union movement

that was willing to fight in the streets."



Good point.



"4. The trade union movement in turn reflected the expansion of

American industrial capitalism which persisted even in a time of

massive unemployment. There is nothing that corresponds today to

Flint, Michigan in 1938 when auto workers sat in at Ford and GM."



The first great radicalization of US workers in the 1930's occurred among
unorganized workers in transportation (West Coast docks and Minneapolis
Teamsters), Rubber (Akron) and to a lesser extent in some brutal CP led
strikes in the needle trades in New England. All of them were strikes
against the existing AFL union leaders opposition.



The upsurge in auto was part of the second great wave of worker
radicalization in the 1930's.



The capitalist economy of the US today is mostly unorganized, and it is
much, much bigger than the capitalist economy of the USA, despite the
proportional shift of basic production to other countries.



The raw potential for radical workers movements, in terms of the numbers of
unorganized workers, is vast.



What is lacking is the radical movement of workers that existed at the
beginning of the 1930's.



"5. Most importantly, the existence of the USSR which put tremendous

pressure on FDR to act as if he had workers' interest at heart."



Another double edged sword, as Stalin's purges and real living conditions in
the Soviet Union became know to communist workers in the USA.



The failure of the Soviet Union today is a gigantic obstacle to the
reemergence of Marxism among workers, which will probably mean that any new
radicalization will not call itself Marxist at the beginning, and may even
be hostile to Marxism.



This could be tricky.



I think that the differences between now and the 1930's are still greater.



The most important difference was that capitalism still had potential to
grow if



1)      It could destroy state imposed barriers to trade and investment.

2)      It could destroy unproductive older capital on a large scale.

3)      It could develop new more productive capital.

4)      It could destroy or tame the organizations of the working class.



World War II allowed capitalism to do all of these things, and to reorganize
itself under US dominance in the Cold War.



The defeat of the Soviet Union in the Cold War continued that momentum.



Now capitalism has no perceivable way out of the current crisis.



Where will it go? It doesn't look like its ready to colonize the Moon or
Mars?



So, if not up, down.



Anthony