At the end of a political economy piece I published in September 2023, I noted that the long legacy of under-investment caused by neoliberalism seemed to be ending due to the Covid Crisis and a new tendency of state-led investment. If this tendency of higher investment persisted, I predicted it could lead to a new profitability crisis. But instead, it seems that this investment push has highlighted an even deeper crisis in the American economy, and one which is at the root of the current attack on the Federal Government by the high bourgeoisie. This crisis is precisely the sort experienced by the late Soviet Union, an inability to actually utilize the resources marshalled by investment, and therefore a breakdown in the production of use values. Unlike the Soviet Union, where the state socialist system had limited access to world markets and goods were rationed broadly, this breakdown in production of use values is not experienced as shortages but higher prices and loss of market share.
Contrast this to China where universities are tightly integrated into massive industrial parks, and where co/byproduction in chemicals, minerals and manufacturing is the norm, coordinated by local governments and state enterprises.
I was a process scientist at the legacy Upjohn (now Pfizer) API manufacturing facility in Kalamazoo MI. Out labs were right on site. I could leave my office and be on the plant floor in 2 minutes. When I and any of the other scientists had a process we were developing/transferring in from another site we would have the equipment we planned to run it in mind as we developed since we were all familiar with the plant. The result was we never turned anything down and got everything to work and that kept Pfizer from closing us down, even though they did not like the way we did things--having all the R&D support right at the plant, responsive to the plant's needs--rather than in a central location supporting multiple smaller plants in their network.
What is the 'real contraction'? To me what is going on looks like a split within the capitalist class as capitalists operating on the national market are out-competed by global operators. The neo-liberal framework was put in place to benefit the globalists. The nationalists now struggle to pull this framework down even if they do not have any clear concept of what is to follow.
Elon Musk is a global capitalist! That's important, and so we're seeing things emerge where the problems identified, as much as possible, are ones common both to the high bourgeoisie (including the global sort) and petty bourgeoisie
Hey man great text! Whats the Althusser text you are referring to? The observations you describe in reference to that are completely congruent with my experience of the elections here in Germany. Our new chancellor's economic policy is basically neo-liberal "common sense": reduce bureaucracy, reduce taxes for businesses, enforce fiscal discipline - and somehow that will get us out of a recession. These measures are either not effective enough (reduce bureaucracy), completely ineffective (reduce taxes) or disastrous (fiscal discipline). But they really are identical with the economic "common sense" of the german bourgeoisie which is deeply anchored in both the ideological narratives of post-war germany and the real experiences of their day to day lives. This is of course tragic because Germany does not suffer from some of the problems you describe here (we have a good industrial knowledge base, good schools for applied sciences etc.) but it seems like our conservative elite will never be able to force itself to make necessary investments. The last government was barred from doing so by its coalition with the marginal neoliberal party.
Now the problem is (as we see in America) that this "common sense" conservative bourgeoisie is bound to radicalize. Because they are unable to understand certain developments (state regulation, increasing government debt etc.) as somewhat rational reactions of a functional elite to social, political, economical and ecological developments. And therefore they necessarily must see them as immoral (they kind of have their own moral economy) and stupid mistakes by evil technocrats. And if their economic common sense reforms fail they will have to see this too as the fault of their boogeymen - and thus they will spiral and spiral.
Yeah this is I think a quite common phenomena, which is only escaped by a strongly intellectual ruling class, and even then specific leaders can sometimes throw a wrench into it. The book I was thinking of was Reading Capital, which as I say in the piece is more focused on the left than the right. But it's also worth reading his Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses as it also applies to this problem, of state ideology.
"a market driven approach wouldn’t necessarily lead to generally lower prices unless capitalists are actively making big mistakes in underwriting."
can you explain why this would be the case? are you basically saying that mortgage borrowers would need to be defaulting at a higher rate than expected in order for housing prices to drop?
I can sort of see that argument, but I would like to see further data or modelling to prove it.
Contrast this to China where universities are tightly integrated into massive industrial parks, and where co/byproduction in chemicals, minerals and manufacturing is the norm, coordinated by local governments and state enterprises.
I was a process scientist at the legacy Upjohn (now Pfizer) API manufacturing facility in Kalamazoo MI. Out labs were right on site. I could leave my office and be on the plant floor in 2 minutes. When I and any of the other scientists had a process we were developing/transferring in from another site we would have the equipment we planned to run it in mind as we developed since we were all familiar with the plant. The result was we never turned anything down and got everything to work and that kept Pfizer from closing us down, even though they did not like the way we did things--having all the R&D support right at the plant, responsive to the plant's needs--rather than in a central location supporting multiple smaller plants in their network.
That the Chinese do it our way makes sense.
What is the 'real contraction'? To me what is going on looks like a split within the capitalist class as capitalists operating on the national market are out-competed by global operators. The neo-liberal framework was put in place to benefit the globalists. The nationalists now struggle to pull this framework down even if they do not have any clear concept of what is to follow.
Elon Musk is a global capitalist! That's important, and so we're seeing things emerge where the problems identified, as much as possible, are ones common both to the high bourgeoisie (including the global sort) and petty bourgeoisie
Hey man great text! Whats the Althusser text you are referring to? The observations you describe in reference to that are completely congruent with my experience of the elections here in Germany. Our new chancellor's economic policy is basically neo-liberal "common sense": reduce bureaucracy, reduce taxes for businesses, enforce fiscal discipline - and somehow that will get us out of a recession. These measures are either not effective enough (reduce bureaucracy), completely ineffective (reduce taxes) or disastrous (fiscal discipline). But they really are identical with the economic "common sense" of the german bourgeoisie which is deeply anchored in both the ideological narratives of post-war germany and the real experiences of their day to day lives. This is of course tragic because Germany does not suffer from some of the problems you describe here (we have a good industrial knowledge base, good schools for applied sciences etc.) but it seems like our conservative elite will never be able to force itself to make necessary investments. The last government was barred from doing so by its coalition with the marginal neoliberal party.
Now the problem is (as we see in America) that this "common sense" conservative bourgeoisie is bound to radicalize. Because they are unable to understand certain developments (state regulation, increasing government debt etc.) as somewhat rational reactions of a functional elite to social, political, economical and ecological developments. And therefore they necessarily must see them as immoral (they kind of have their own moral economy) and stupid mistakes by evil technocrats. And if their economic common sense reforms fail they will have to see this too as the fault of their boogeymen - and thus they will spiral and spiral.
Yeah this is I think a quite common phenomena, which is only escaped by a strongly intellectual ruling class, and even then specific leaders can sometimes throw a wrench into it. The book I was thinking of was Reading Capital, which as I say in the piece is more focused on the left than the right. But it's also worth reading his Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses as it also applies to this problem, of state ideology.
Great reprieve from all the abundance finger wagging.
"a market driven approach wouldn’t necessarily lead to generally lower prices unless capitalists are actively making big mistakes in underwriting."
can you explain why this would be the case? are you basically saying that mortgage borrowers would need to be defaulting at a higher rate than expected in order for housing prices to drop?
I can sort of see that argument, but I would like to see further data or modelling to prove it.
I have a cultural take on neoliberalism
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/what-is-neoliberalism-an-empirical
It is, what we might term, a collapse in the productivity of capital. That is, at least, one interpretation of events.
Wow, that is how I characterized what I call the capitalist crisis
https://mikealexander.substack.com/p/the-capitalist-crisis