Do not annoy Jon Stewart (plus crisis analysis and Kropotkin)

 

Elsewhere, on the rabid right, I’ve seen mention that some see Obama’s election as the end of the world as they knew it — and are thinking of "dropping out" (aka, Ayn Rand’s John Galt. All I can say, is "great, we won’t miss you" — particularly as it was the actions of the "masters of the universe" who have got us into the current mess (and so now is not the best time to use the "we are the real wealth creators" line, when you are not, nor the "if you regulate or tax us we will leave" line either!). I’m not alone in this (for, for example, here, plus this similar blog post on raising income tax — remember, though, that inequality is soaring and unsurprisingly, social mobility has been falling). This must be part of the whole "Blame Obama for everything" meme which they are trying to punt (regardless of the stupidity of this).

No, I’m not being "soft" on Obama, just commenting on how mad the American right are. Obama is shaping up pretty much as I expected, a mainstream Democrat whose supporters injected a lot of hope into. I’ve repeatedly stressed that Obama will only act as his supporters want him to if they force him to by means of community and industrial direct action and solidarity from below. If they do not act, then Obama will be pressurised solely from the right, from Wall Street and business interests. And one of the key anarchist objections to electioneering is that it creates the illusion that change comes from above, the illusion that will act for us meaning we do not have to.

With crisis all around, we need to understand its roots. As part of AFAQ’s attempt to explain the business cycle. In section C.7 we tried to show that there was not just one way capitalism can go into crisis. We pointed to three main ones, class struggle, market dynamics and over-investment — and tried to sketch how all three can interact. We also discussed, in section C.8, a specific example of market dynamics in relation to credit credition (as part of a general critique of the "Austrian" analysis we discuss Minsky’s ideas on financial instability which are so relevant now).

So different crisises have different roots, something which is often forgotten by many (mainstream, right and left). Thus we have Marxists (like Paul Mattick, who is an important thinker so please do read him!) always pointing to over-investment as the root cause. Or the mainstream Keynesians, who were so ill-prepared during the 1970s with the rise of stagflation so allowing Milton Friedman‘s "natural rate of unemployment" explanation to become mainstream even though people like Joan Robinson had warned of rising inflation as a consequence of full employment back in the 1940s! Still, progress is being made — by the early years of the 21st century you can get a non-Nobel prize for putting into neo-classical jargon what critics of capitalism have considered commonsense since the 19th century!

Echoes of this can be seen on the media in America, with one right-wing "talking head" comparing this crisis to the one in the early 1980s. Paul Krugman has been explaining why it is unlikely that this crisis can be solved by doing the things Reagan did in the 1980s, but it is important to recognise the class basis of the difference. The crisis of Keynesianism of the 1970s was a product of class struggle (in the widest sense, including other struggles against hierarchy such as sexism and racism). It was, therefore, a crisis with its roots in working class strength and so the "solution" implemented by Reagan (and Thatcher) involved breaking that resistance, by means of increasing unemployment (opps, sorry, "fighting inflation" to use the official terminology). Aided by the nonsense which was Monetarism, this did the job — and the current neo-liberal era come to the west (after its bloody first implementation in Chile).

This crisis has its roots in capitalist strength, not weakness. Rising inequality, increasing finanical instability, over-investment and so on require different solutions, although the more backward elements of the ruling class are obviously not seeing this — and may I suggest that any class system is in danger when significant elements of its ruling elite believes its own rhetoric (and act on it!). It also means that for anarchists, we need to be aware that the response to this crisis by the ruling class will take different forms, perhaps even seeing "New Deal"-style reforms being raised and implemented in America (much to the ghashing of teeth by the right who will mutter darkly of "socialism" or, perhaps worse, "like Europe"). In Europe, this may take on different forms — with right trying to utilise it to drive through more neo-liberal policies (as New Labour has tried to do, incredibly enough!). Silly-Sarko may see this as his Thatcher, to point to an obvious possibility. As such, our response will need to take this into account — and that is a big subject…

On a different note I would like to point people to a good review of Stirner by a communist-anarchist associated with Emma Goldman I came across recently: "Stirner: "The Ego and His Own" by Max Baginski (Mother Earth, Vol. II, No. 3, May 1907, pp. 142-151). It concludes that "Individualism and Communism go hand in hand". I also note in my critique of a Leninist on Goldman that genuine communism is all about ensuring the full development of the individual and Leninist complaints that Goldman was "an individualist" showed their state capitalist nature…

I personally prefer the term individuality, as did Kropotkin:

 

"communism will become quite normal (it already is in a thousand ways), and as for knowing what will be the essence of individual development, I do not think it could be along individualist lines. Individual — yes, without doubt, but individualist — I have my doubts. That would mean: narrow egoism — regressive evolution and even that would be limited to a certain number" [quoted by Ruth Kinna, "Kropotkin’s theory of Mutual Aid in Historical Context", pp. 259-283, International Review of Social History, No. 40, p. 268]

 

And talking of Kropotkin, I’ve been listening to a lot of Stevie Wonder of late. It suddenly dawned on me that there was a strange parallel with Stevie and Kropotkin. Let me explain. Like Kropotkin, Stevie produced some classic material. For example, Higher Ground (from the Obama Concert):

Then, in the 1980s, he did I Just Called to Say I Love You. WFT? That must be one of the worse song ever (and I won’t mention that duet with a certain Paul McCartney, the least talented of the Beatles — rest assured, I’m not going to link to either of those songs). The obvious similarities with Kropotkin seem obvious (at least to me). A leading anarchist thinker, producer of many classics of anarchism (all of which essential reading for any radical, anarchist or not) for decades. Then, in 1914, he rejects all that and supports the Allies in World war I! Mad! I know, he was only one a few (unlike the massed ranks of Marxist parties) but Marxists constantly throw it in our faces.

 

But, like Stevie, I forgive Kropotkin’s moment of madness and prefer to concentrate on his earlier works. And as I said to the ICC member at Ghent who raised Kropotkin (and as I had discussed earlier with an ICCer on libcom) Kropotkin’s maddness was not a product of his politics (and, somewhat ironically given his assertions it flowed from Kropotkin’s politics, the libcom ICCer admitted never having read Kropotkin!). This can be seen from two facts. Firstly, the vast majority of communist-anarchists (including Malatesta, Berkman and Goldman) opposed Kropotkin and the war. Secondly, his friends and comrades were shocked by his actions, suggesting it came totally out of the blue. If his politics were to blame, neither of these things would have happened. Personally, I would say its roots were in Kropotkin personal biases, his love for France (as the beacon of liberty since 1789) and his anti-German prejudices got the better of him (and so allowed him to fall for the nonsense, as Malatesta exposed, of defending "liberty" against "Prussian Militarism").

I fail to see the point in ignoring Kropotkin’s contribution to anarchism (or revolutionary thought in general) because of the madness of 1914. It would be like dismissing Rousseau or Proudhon for his sexism, or Marx for his racist remarks against Slavs, Jews and Blacks. It would be like never listening to Stevie Wonder’s classics for that specific crime against all that is good in music (it not only won an Oscar but it was his biggest UK hit, his first solo UK number-one hit staying at the top for six weeks!). Kropotkin’s decision cannot be defended, but his contribution to our movement cannot be ignored because of it (and it is a shame that Bookchin did something similar, by his attacks on anarchism). Anyway, to end my case here is Superstition:

So, the question is, was it Stevie’s Kropotkin moment? Or was it Kropotkin’s Stevie moment? I suppose the former, as Kropotkin came first…

And on that somewhat tongue-in-cheek note, until I blog again! Be Seeing you!

P.S. Am I covering too many topics in my blog postings? What is better, multiple short ones on specific topics or more infrequent ones on many subjects (often related, although to me at least!)? Any thoughts?