There are plans afoot to establish structures for global regulation of high finance. Some of these plans were adumbrated recently at a G20 conference in Pittsburgh last week. What form these plans will be take and when is anyone’s guess; but the trend of the past few decades suggests that these globalization measures, over time, do accumulate deployable power, until eventually they become part of the structure of supra-national government.
Historians will likely record that the globalization of finance capital inevitably led to the globalization of government. The panic of 2008 acted as the shock that provided clarity: and now it is clear the features of finance capitalism were as much an instrument of state policy as they were a genuine example of free enterprise.
These huge conduits by which capital from all over the world was plowed into the American real estate market, and before that the tech bubble, can be seen in political science terms as a vital element of the consolidation of government on an ever larger scale, which is the distinct trend of modernity.
Structurally-mercantilist countries like China, Japan, Germany, oil rich Gulf states, etc., with their highly-productive manufacturing or commodity wealth, generated enormous piles of capital, which naturally sought after profitable fields of investment. Financiers speak in terms of “basis points” — hundredths of a percentage point — because when one operates in hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, even a difference that small means serious cash. So capital from around the world, some private, some public, some a kind of hybrid of the two, was chasing after higher yields. Its facilitators were a collection of institutions operating in arcane securities and instruments which, in time, became “the biggest U.S. export business of the 21st century,” as Bloomberg News put it.
This system of finance — encompassing traditional banks, private funds, industrial corporations with massive finance arms, and also government entities — wielded enormous political influence. Its power spanned the political spectrum and it was no respecter of party. Globalization flies on both wings, left and right; and the financiers cared little whether their interests were advanced by ostensibly socialist or capitalist factions. High finance was integral to globalization, and state policy shaped it and was shaped by it. Its power has often appeared on this account irresistible. Governments and private enterprise worked together toward a union of blessed global cooperation. Only anarchists and reactionaries opposed it.
It is possible to point to this story as the quintessential story of the post-Cold War era. It is possible, even, to point to this story as the culmination of the modern project itself. Certainly many moderns believed it to be. An entire decade and more of academic opinion was obsessed with the glories of this end of history, this culmination of all that was promised by classical liberalism.
The strongest philosophical critique of the classical school of political economy is that its great teachers and expounders simply presupposed a structure of order by which contracts and property could be secured against breach and theft. In other words, they looked upon a contingent and particular set of conditions (early modern England) and supposed those to be universal. They were insufficiently alert to how much the circumstances of their day and age became assumptions underlying their teaching.
It would be as if a philosopher writing today constructed his system upon the assumption that banking and high finance must be global in reach, and then worked his way to the conclusion that all government less extensive than the whole earth is perilously inadequate. The only tolerable kind of government, concludes our hypothetical philosopher, is World Government. He would be quite right on his own terms, but anyone who lived through the last few years can see that his assumption is open to dispute, and thus his conclusion dubious.
But we can argue until we're blue in the face that regulation of compensation by some panel of bureaucrats in Geneva (or wherever) is an offense to free enterprise, or that rescuing borrowers of every size and shape is moral hazard, or that allowing a securities firm (or gargantuan industrial corporation with a vast finance arm) to “borrow” the balance sheet of the FDIC in order to issue cheap debt, is reckless corporatism -- we can argue thusly and be perfectly right; and perfectly impotent. The die was cast decades ago. The first securitization contracts were inked in the mid-1980s. By 1997, when the hedge fund Long Term Capital Management failed, the securitization market was sufficiently huge and integral — and fragile — to bring all of world finance to its knees at the collapse of any one of its larger players. LTCM was rescued by private capital (facilitated by the Fed) but smart investors had already espied the lineaments of the doctrine of Too Big to Fail well enough: Off at the end, governments of the world would intervene to rescue high finance from its own excess.
Off at the end, in other words, the project of globalization would continue whether or not it was economically workable. How workable it was can perhaps be glimpsed in the astonishing character of some of the specific detonations of the collapse.
Iceland hosts a population of about 350,000 souls. Last year its banks were exposed as carrying balance sheets with assets in excess of $200 billion. All three major banks were nationalized. The town council of Wingecarribee, Australia, outside of Sydney (pop. 42,000), bought $20 million worth of securities from Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., the demise of which securities firm touched off the panic last year. Wingecarribee came out with pennies on its dollars. The crumbling of Lehman Brothers also touched off a run on money market funds so severe as to bankrupt the first and oldest money market fund and force the US Treasury and Federal Reserve to intervene in the commercial paper market. AIG, despite its collection of highly-profitable enterprises, was ruined by collateral calls on its derivative portfolio. General Electric nearly met a similar fate, from the other side of the derivative’s trade, last March. Here were two titans of American industry which, by exposure to high finance, were laid low and required rescue from the government.
These stories could be spun out at great length. The usury crisis of 2009 simply made explicit what had been implicit. High finance and globalization are interwoven. A union of commerce and state policy, developing over the course of a generation, produced a very peculiar system of hi-tech finance. This system facilitated the movement of extraordinary sums of capital, moment by moment, from around the world, into fields of speculative investment, above all American real estate. But far from enhancing stability as many promised, globalization of finance capital resulted in extreme fragility. Once broken by a crisis severe enough, the system’s fundament was disclosed to all: it rested, in the end, on the promise or expectation of government support.
In sum, it is idle to speak of the high finance we have known as if it were the authentic consequence of a free enterprise system. It would be better to say that it was an imposition by government. At any point of serious pressure, the withdrawal of government support would have resulted in ruinous collapse; the kind of collapse that no statesman could, in good conscience, forbear to move against. It is not too much to say, in other words, that central bankers and treasury secretaries were under a positive obligation to move, or resign their posts. To imagine a Federal Reserve Chairman approaching this disaster with a policy of studied neglect is to imagine a War Secretary who is a committed pacifist, or a Foreign Minister who has abjured all diplomacy.
But it would perhaps be best to follow Hilaire Belloc and say that the union of finance capital and state-globalization produced a third thing: a kind of postmodern Servile State, where all financing debts, in the end, fall upon the taxpayers, and decisions are made by a global government, plutocratic in character, mild but extensive in its despotism, obscure in its mechanisms, and unchallenged in its power.
Comments (29)
This "moment" in political history is a curious one, in which the nation-state, originally the incubator of the modern capitalist order, undergoes an inversion, and becomes the carapace of the capitalist order; where initially nation-states utilized capitalism, under various guises, as an instrument of state power, now, capital utilizes discrete nation-states as instruments of financial power and exploitation. The next turn of the dialectical wheel would seem to be global governance of some sort; but what if the wheel does not turn; what if the wheel sticks, and we drift, indefinitely, in this limbo of the economic subjugation of the political? One thing that can be said with certainty is that, so long as this arrangement endures, the predominant form of political economy will be, beneath the superficial welter of details, the extraction of ever-increasing, ever more arcane rents from the masses, to be funneled to the wielders of economic power: postmodern feudalism, delivered by way of liberal modernity, in which the state acts as the sheriff, ensuring that feudal dues are paid to the Lords of Usury, by means overt and occult.
Posted by Maximos | September 29, 2009 11:20 AM
Paul,
You say, "Structurally-mercantilist countries like China, Japan, Germany, oil rich Gulf states, etc., with their highly-productive manufacturing or commodity wealth, generated enormous piles of capital, which naturally sought after profitable fields of investment."
I'm not sure what you mean by "structurally-mercantilist, but it is also worth noting that the United States also possesses "highly-productive manufacturing" and our entrepreneurs and titans of industry are also searching for "profitable fields of investment".
Second, as Noah Millman has already pointed out, it is hard to tease out specific lessons from our recent financial crisis, as various countries all responded differently to the problems of "high-finance":
http://theamericanscene.com/2009/09/16/how-useful-are-explanations-financial-crisis-edition
I agree that high finance is in some sense a creation of government policy, but then as Maximos never tires of pointing out, this is true of all the goods and services produced by free-market systems -- capitalists will always respond to government policy in the way it influences the incentives capitalists face. Governments with weak contractual enforcement mechanisms will have flourishing underground economies, governments with high trade barriers will discourage imports, governments with agricultural subsidies will encourage certain crops to be grown at the expense of others, etc. What's not clear to me is the case you are trying to make that somehow today we face a unique problem of "global government" which is forcing the common man to pay his dues to the "Lords of Usury".
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 29, 2009 12:09 PM
By mercantilist I mean countries with high savings rates that are export-driven, and thus dependent on the mechanism of importing American demand, so to speak, in order to sell products. The high savings generates that capital which I spoke of as chasing around higher yields and ending up in US housing.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 29, 2009 12:41 PM
This is what the "Marxist" economic historian Karl Polanyi discussed in detail in "The Great Transformation."
"Capitalism" always breeds socialism or the servile state.
Posted by Anonymous | September 29, 2009 3:21 PM
Re this assertion:
I'm wondering if there's a name for this rhetorical device, i.e., referencing yet-unborn authorities to support your thesis? It's rather striking. And the "likely" is a nice touch, especially paired with the future historians' confident judgment of "inevitably".
Posted by Aaron | September 29, 2009 4:12 PM
The inevitability point is, of course, defended in the remainder of the post. So what's the problem?
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 29, 2009 4:17 PM
Anonymous asserts that "capitalism always breeds socialism or the servile state."
In fact, the trail goes in precisely the opposite direction: Because socialism's errors doom socialism to failure, in its wake markets start to thrive.
Or, to make the point from a different direction, the impending failure of Obama's Keynesian madness will result in the pendulum swinging back toward freer markets.
Posted by Michael Bauman | September 29, 2009 5:34 PM
Excellent outline and indictment of the nascent monstrosity darkening our future.
In an extremely thoughtful response to Caritas in Veritate, David Nirenberg points out the moral revolution that accompanied and fueled modern economics.
Unlike many American Catholic commentators too saturated in contemporary ideology, Nireberg gives Benedict a fair hearing as he ponders humane alternatives to the rough beast emerging from the womb;
http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/love-and-capitalism?page=0,0
Posted by Kevin | September 29, 2009 5:44 PM
Starting from Paul's insightful analysis (though I hold reservations about a point or two), one would come to the natural conclusion that whatever world government might be like if it were organized well, any world government in the offing at this time is NOT such, and would indeed be a force of despotism at the least.
Would it be too much to suggest, then, that at this time and with our current circumstances, a sound anthropology and humanism would say we should direct our energy against the establishment of the world government we see encroaching? Which then is the more realistic fight: to push back against the globalization of government as such (and de facto support the national states at least temporarily, until a Christian understanding of global finance becomes common), or instead to push for a modification of the coming global state into a more Christian-friendly form that does not harbor such financially grounded despotism?
Posted by Tony | September 29, 2009 9:01 PM
An international super-structure overseeing the world's financial architecture is a natural consequence of globalization and the project of its chief beneficiaries.
Given the trade agreements and economic policies of the past 30 years, the preferences of multinational banks and corporations for practices such as labor arbitrage, out-sourcing, tax havens, financial bubbles and massive, periodic Ponzi schemes, and open borders, one could forgive Americans if they failed to note any appreciable loss in their ability to influence public policy and forge their own economic destiny.
Pushing back against world government begins at home by taking on the main drivers behind it; our own elites, and few have the intellectual orientation to do so at this point.
For now, we will endure such spectacles as bailed out banks like Goldman Sachs paying out $10 billion in compensation and benefits including $42.9 million to its tin-cup wielding CEO, while paying just 14 million - a tax rate of 1 percent - to its host nation.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29127316/the_great_american_bubble_machine/print
Posted by Kevin | September 29, 2009 11:15 PM
**Anonymous asserts that "capitalism always breeds socialism or the servile state."
In fact, the trail goes in precisely the opposite direction: Because socialism's errors doom socialism to failure, in its wake markets start to thrive.**
Depends on what 'anonymous' means by capitalism. If he means the free market economy understood simply, he's incorrect. But if he means corporate capitalism, which necessarily requires state involvement of one sort or another, he is right. When Big Bizness and Big Gummint align themselves and work together, the result will be some permutation of socialism. Which is precisely what we're seeing today.
"Pushing back against world government begins at home by taking on the main drivers behind it; our own elites, and few have the intellectual orientation to do so at this point."
A great starting point would be for folks to read Paul Gottfried's "Liberalism trilogy" of books: 'After Liberalism,' 'Multiculturalism.' and 'The Strange Death of Marxism.'
Posted by Rob G | September 30, 2009 7:15 AM
Kevin,
What's funny about the Nirenberg review is that he basically uses the entire review of Caritas in Veritate to bemoan the fact that Benedict insists on linking charity with truth, and truth with the Gospel of Christ. Nirenberg wants his charity stripped of God, thank you very much.
He is also, of course, wrong about Adam Smith and the rest of us capitalists who advocate for self-interest to govern economic affairs -- self-interest as Smith, Riccardo, Keynes, Friedman, and thoughtful economists since the dawn of the industrial revolution is not the same as selfishness or self-love. One's interests are defined (or should be defined) by many considerations, including one's family, one's neighbors, etc. Man does not live on an island alone (apologies to Donne) and capitalism's critics who continue to parody smart capitalist economic thinkers when we speak of self-interested economic actors are just shameful.
And more thing -- if that article from "Rolling Stone" is correct (a big if, as I don't trust anything they write including articles about music) then I would agree it is outrageous that Sachs is not paying its fair share in taxes and something should be done. But I'd want a lot more knowledge about their situation before I sign up for demonizing a great American success story.
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 30, 2009 10:16 AM
"capitalism's critics who continue to parody smart capitalist economic thinkers when we speak of self-interested economic actors are just shameful"
If the self-interested economic actors are persons, that's one thing. If they're corporations, that's quite another. One step towards economic reform would be to do away with the idea that corporations are "persons."
Also, far too many market-worshippers (just like democracy-worshippers) have forgotten, or never learned, that a market economy, like democracy, requires a moral people. Neither the market nor democracy "create" that people, yet I've heard capitalists argue that such is the case.
Posted by Rob G | September 30, 2009 11:17 AM
Rob G,
You make two good points, although the legal fiction that treats a corporation as a person has pluses and minuses, which would need to be addressed in any reform proposal. As for whether or not the market can "create" a moral people, here is a case for the affirmative:
http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/articles/bv/cato.php
Her book "The Bourgeois Virtues" makes the case in much more detail, but suffice to say that contra G.K.C. who seemed to think a a people preoccupied with trade are somehow corrupt, McCloskey makes a strong case that what sustains trade (or as Maximos would say "truck and barter") is good for the soul.
Posted by Jeff Singer | September 30, 2009 11:52 AM
Of related interest...Patrick Deneen wonders about the inevitability of globalization:
http://www.thehoya.com/opinion/conventional-wisdom-checking-globalization/
Jeff, I'm familiar with the arguments for the moral influence of the market and I agree with many of them. I'd argue, however, that mass industrialism and corporatism change the game rather drastically; among other things it is those aspects of modern finance capitalism that GKC, Belloc, et al., were resisting.
Posted by Rob G | September 30, 2009 1:04 PM
That is a point I have considered as well. The globalists assume that "progress" is a given. It is more likely that over the next 20-40 years the world will collapse into another dark age similar to what happen to Europe in the wake of the Western Empire's collapse. The civilizations which are the driving force behind modernity are dying, and the policies that would reverse them all lead to marginalization or death.
Even in the best case scenario, the US and Europe will be fiscally devastated, demographically ruined for a generation and those that would take over from us in Asia are no far behind us.
Global government is not logistically possible if the leading civilizations that already drive the UN and other world bodies are hopelessly damaged demographically, financially and culturally.
Posted by Mike T | September 30, 2009 4:21 PM
***Not possible short of diabolical intervention. It is true that the devil could, at this very moment, call the nations of the world to unite under his control, regardless of the state of the economy or global civilization, if God did not oppose him.
Posted by Mike T | September 30, 2009 4:22 PM
Jeff,
Nirenberg read CV, grappled with a document he calls bold and breathtaking and wrote a very thoughtful response. Sure, he is a late Liberal pluralist and unsurprisingly wants a civilization of love sans the uncomfortable truth claims of Christianity. Sounds absurd, I know, but isn't that what capitalism proposes; a morally neutral system underwritten by self-interest that magically attains the Good?
Compare his piece to the incoherent reactions by Novak, Wiegel and others hopelessly locked into their failed philosophies, and you have to give Nirenberg much credit.
Do you mean Benedict or Nirenberg, as both agree on this point? And, nice rhetorical shift in going from Capitalism to capitalists. The fact that one can faithfully act within the Marketplace as a Christian witness, does not remotely imply that is the end to which the system is ordered. Also, the men you mention above hardly fit in as moral philosophers of orthodox Christianity. At best, you can argue Smith suffered from a divided outlook as typified by his Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations that led him to be unfairly interpreted by his modern day disciples.
Well, the public record is readily available, if of less interest than the small-time grifters running the Acorn scam.
Lloyd Blankfein, the CEO of Goldman, surrounded by Goldman alums in Treasury, the Fed and SEC, not only co-authored his firm's life-saving taxpayer-funded rescues in the TARP and AIG bailouts, but actually sat in on the Conference call that determined the fate of his rivals at Bear Sterns and Lehman. Sounds more like an episode out of the Sopranos. The incomprehensible transfer of wealth to 85 Broad Street has been astonishing, and as long as you and others, tout a firm that has been at the vortex of a series of mind-bending bubbles & public swindles, as an "American success story", then we will continue towards the globalized Servile State.
Posted by Kevin | September 30, 2009 8:30 PM
One step towards economic reform would be to do away with the idea that corporations are "persons."
I find that an interesting concept. First of all, even Canon Law recognizes non-humans entities (i.e. groups) as "juridical persons", so I would submit that the basic notion of a legal fiction of a person that in fact is a coordinated group is, well, authoritatively supported.
Secondly, if corporations are not recognized as legal entities, then they would, for example, cease to have tax burdens as well. So the horror that the Goldman tax bite is only 1% would go where?
Of course, the reality is that the tax burden would shift: probably, to the real persons who benefit from the corporate enterprise. But that is exactly what happens when Goldman pays someone 42M in salary: that 42M is subject to tax, and Goldman isn't.
Usually the real objection to the corporate concept is that under corporation law, nobody is liable for faults beyond the assets of the corporation. If the corp perpetrates a horrible (figurative) land-mine upon someone, they can be sued, but the suit cannot touch the personal assets of the corporation's officers, only the assets of the corporation.
I have no problem with suggesting that this is a facet of corporate law that is not determinative of corporation fundamentals. You could still have corporations as legal persons, without that particular feature.
The reason I have not had a lot of sympathy with the claim we must do away with corporate "persons" altogether is that it seems to defy human nature. Humans for sub-groups, all the time. Indeed, we have a right to associate with those whom we choose. Some of these associations will be economic in orientation. This too is entirely natural. It is natural to recognize groups in law, as well as outside of law. As Canon law does. If you refuse to recognize them in law, then what will happen is that contract law will end up contesting with other laws where those other laws ignore such associations.
Posted by Tony | September 30, 2009 10:39 PM
Kevin, great comment; but even granting all that, I would caution against denunciation that tends to radically denigrate the statesmanship of Paulson and Bernanke last year. The whole situation stunk to high heaven, and a thousand things were done wrong, but I am convinced that those men staved off ruin and misery on an unimaginable scale. Bad mistakes at critical moments could have easily result in, say, a couple weeks with essentially no private company checks clearing anywhere, or an utter collapse in interbank lending.
Posted by Paul J Cella | September 30, 2009 11:20 PM
"you can argue Smith suffered from a divided outlook as typified by his Theory of Moral Sentiments and The Wealth of Nations that led him to be unfairly interpreted by his modern day disciples."
I'd say that ToMS and WoN are complementary; they are two sides of a coin. Many of Smith's modern disciples, however, focus almost exclusively on one side of that coin at the expense of the other.
Posted by Rob G | October 1, 2009 6:03 AM
Paul, we are in full agreement; Paulson and Bernanke kept our country from going over the cliff and allowed us to live and fight another day. At the time of the TARP rescue, some openly speculated the funds would not be nearly enough. They were right. The Fed had to establish an array of obscure lending facilities with the purpose of pumping 9 plus trillion into the banking system to prevent a devastating crash.
The challenge for Bernanke appears to be whether he can pull back the funds in time to stave off hyperinflation, while managing rate increases that don't cripple the credit markets. We'll be naming entire communities after him, if he can thread the needle. For now, he deserves our gratitude for averting a terrifying collapse.
Posted by Kevin | October 1, 2009 7:16 AM
A totally useless comment, I know, but all of this discussion reminds me of the problems in Asimov's Foundation Series, especially towards the end of the series, when an individualized vs. collectivist society was being debated in Foundation's Edge.
The Chicken
Posted by The Masked Chicken | October 1, 2009 9:03 AM
Rob G: I agree about the complementary nature of Smith's two great works. If memory serves, the lineaments for his brilliant scheme for getting virtue out of unvirtuous action (to which he later applied the famous term invisible hand) are already sketched out in the Theory of Moral Sentiments.
But indeed, many of Smith's apostles have not sufficiently attended to the subtleties of his moral doctrine. Recall that morality, for him, derives from the subrational part of man. The invisible hand does not derive from reason but from passion, sympathy and imagination. If we (uninterested observers) see a man defrauded or injured, by our imagination we can participate in his passion of indignation. This sympathy is the ground of human sociality, and is, according to Smith, universal. So here he has produced a version of natural sociality and natural moral law that is independent of reason. A pretty impressive feat, that. Smith does not embrace an Aristotelian notion of "man the political animal," but his scheme definitely posits man as possessing a natural sociality or gregariousness, and thereby avoids many of the pitfalls into which social contractarian and primitive "state of nature" theorists plunged.
Many latter-day admirers of Smith are wont to neglect these intriguing aspects of Adam Smith the moral philosopher. Alas, this neglect can sometimes take the form of presenting him as an amoral philosopher, a defender of amorality in economics.
Posted by Paul J Cella | October 1, 2009 9:36 AM
I can't help but think that it would have been better for the Federal Government buyout or outright seize all of the shares of the failed institutions, back up their deposits with those funds, and then hold a public auction for buying the accounts, in which any solvent bank or credit union could have its pick to buy out the deposit accounts and mortgages that it wants.
Posted by Mike T | October 1, 2009 12:22 PM
The TARP was already a fundamental violation of market principles, so any subsequent violation of the "free market rights" of the executives, banks or their shareholders is beside the point. The people who were outraged over such things were curiously comfortable with the forced extraction of wealth from younger generations in the form of massive debt. So, as strange as it may be to hear a libertarian defend government seizing private businesses, I would have been far more comfortable with the government going all the way by seizing the failed institutions, backing their assets up and selling them back to the public/more responsible institutions.
Posted by Mike T | October 1, 2009 12:28 PM
Structurally-mercantilist countries like China, Japan, Germany, oil rich Gulf states, etc., with their highly-productive manufacturing or commodity wealth, generated enormous piles of capital, ...
And now they are getting ready to pounce on the world's largest debtor;
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/the-demise-of-the-dollar-1798175.htmlPosted by Kevin | October 5, 2009 7:36 PM
Capitalism Socialism and Communism are all parts of the same economic process. They are equal parts none is more equal than another.
Socialism and Communism are complelty impossible without the continued existance of some form of capitalism.
What we are seeing today is not so much a international socialist new world order thats being set up, what is being set up is a International new economic order based on capitalism. Before there can be a International Socialism there has to be a International capitalism.
Its important that when when we analyze history,to try and get a grip on current reality, we have to include all data sets of history that we can, we cannot purposly leave out entire data sets.
The situation we have today is that a entire data set has been left out
of 20th century American historical analysis. and that is all about the fabian socialist involvement and manipulation of the american one party system.
By specialization and efficiancy labor is limited by the marketplace... so it will be by the marketplace and investers interest that socialism (managed capitalism globally))and then self regulating classless capitalism (communism)will come.
Goverment is in buisness to collect and protect its obligation to investers.
What makes all the currency good is the goverments ability to collect taxes from its bond servents.
Goverment legalizes the short-selling of treasury securities creating a UNLIMITED DEMAND for them.
Implementing Free trade Free market American/British capitalism globally... removing impediments for the free flow of capital and investment globally, The process of war revolution and terror conditioning countrys economically. What we are witnessing today is
Capitalisms permanent revolution of creative destruction.
Im sorry but today the american people have not been properly educated to recognize socialism or communism...
People are concerned about economy? there are two...which one? The American economy? or the economy for the goverment to operate? many would ask.
Americans are concerned about the capitalist economy
Americans are concerned about losing our postion by a process of creative destruction.
Most people do their analysis of the current situation as:
1.what does a capitalist society have to do to preserve its institution
of course thats the wrong place to look for what needs fixing.
2.How capitalism destroys its old means of produciton with a new means produciton.
"If communism is as dead as lenin and trosky who will recognize it when it is being implemented on the west? answer: no -one"
Posted by tinman | October 8, 2009 11:50 AM
Given Up On Finding A Great Looking Woman Who Likes You? Follow My Guaranteed Step-By-Step System for Success with Women and I’ll GUARANTEE Your Success!
Posted by Marc Barn | March 26, 2010 5:57 PM