[noemon]

The world's economic crises are entering a political stage – and the results could be dangerous
Historians found that the destruction of the middle classes was crucial to the rise of fascism, communism and militarism after the Great Depression. We must not allow history to repeat itself.

In nature, phase transitions describe changes in states of matter. Depending on temperature, H2O can exist as solid (ice), liquid (water) or gas (water vapour). Societal crises behave similarly. Today, our economic problems have morphed into their social and political phases.

The economic issues are well understood. Growth is flagging. Inflation is low. The attempt to boost economic activity using debt and financialisation has created a large debt overhang which is proving intractable. Productivity improvements have decreased. Growth in trade and capital flows, which underpinned rising prosperity, is slowing. Entitlement systems, which assumed strong growth and different demographics, are now compromised.

Following the economic crisis of 2008, government debt levels in many advanced economies rose as governments sought to rescue the financial system and boost demand. The cure – in the form of old-fashioned pump-priming, interest rate cuts and more unconventional monetary policies (QE and negative interest rates) – have not dealt with the underlying pathology of the problems. There are side effects, such as inflated asset values and financial system weaknesses.

The economic problems have exposed long-standing social issues. Concern about employment, especially the quality of jobs, and stagnant incomes has created a backlash against globalisation and trade. Retrenchment of social services has affected living standards.

Angela Merkel insists Article 50 must be triggered before Brexit talks
Housing affordability has declined due, in part, to inflated property values resulting from excess liquidity. Savings and retirement plans in many countries are threatened by low interest rates on safe investments. Inequality and concentration of wealth has risen.

The problems have now entered the political phase. Policy responses place a disproportionate share of the adjustment on the less affluent and the aged. High youth unemployment and rising education costs mean diminishing opportunities for the young. The inability of governments to deliver on promises to restore growth and prosperity in return for sacrifice has also become apparent.

The rise of populist movements, and the growth of nationalism and xenophobia in many countries, reflects this dissatisfaction. Brexit is symptomatic of these pressures.

In the coming months, these same forces will inform a number of key events. It will be the background to the US Presidential election, where the campaigns of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have channelled these concerns in different ways.

Italy is scheduled to hold a constitutional referendum in October 2016. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi, already under increasing pressure from the anti-EU Five Star party, has threatened to resign if his reforms are rejected. A long running banking crisis also imperils the government. The EU bank regime requires the write down of debt which would result in politically damaging losses to small investors. But, if the Italian government moves to support banks directly, it will come into direct conflict with the EU.

Spain has not had a government since December 2015, after two elections as a divided electorate has failed to deliver a clear mandate. Elections are scheduled for 2017 in Germany and France, where far-right parties have tapped into discontent to increase their support. A number of Eastern European nations plan plebiscites on immigration which will exacerbate the EU’s internal divisions.

Even if they are unlikely to gain power in their own right, far-right and left political parties or movements are reshaping agendas. Ukip (which, remember, has only one elected member in the House of Commons) was influential in the EU referendum. Facing a voter backlash, mainstream political parties are being forced to alter policies on public finance, trade, immigration, international coordination and national sovereignty.

The political reaction to Brexit is revealing. There are suggestions that legal and parliamentary stratagems should be used to negate the result of the UK plebiscite.

Politicians argue that a complex question had been reduced to absurd simplicity. A simple majority of those who voted was too low a bar. Important decisions should not be for voters but left to informed elected officials and experts to avoid bad choices. There are proposals that only people who meet some minimum standard should be permitted to vote. (For the record, 36 per cent of eligible voters voted for leaving – a level higher than the vote required in recent years to gain the most powerful political position on the planet: the US presidency.)

Repression to supress rising dissent is reckless. Politicians must tackle the deep seated problems in the economic and social system. They must deal with large portions of the population who fear for their own and their children’s future. They must address the concerns of angry citizens who feel humiliated, ignored and uncertain of their identity.

As Winston Churchill observed, democracy, while far from perfect, is the worst form of Government except all other alternatives that have been tried.

In nature, there is a fourth stage of matter – plasma – which occurs at very high temperatures. It can be unstable and deadly. Political crises, if not managed, can similarly become dangerous.

Examining the Great Depression, historians found that the destruction of the middle classes was crucial to the rise of fascism, communism and militarism. Disaffected ordinary people who had lost their jobs, savings and hope turned to populist demagogues for salvation.

Politicians and policy makers in advanced economies must be careful not to repeat this history.

[Paradigm]

Could just as easily read "Crises of capitalism lead to Communism and Fascism." Which is, of course, exactly what the left has been saying for a century now. The "middle class," like the welfare state, is a product of living off the surplus value of other parts of the world, such that capital can afford to be more lax with one's own workers. When those foreign sources of surplus value start to dry up, all bets are off, and the gutting of the economy can now commence.

[noemon]

Instead of going through what the communists, said or really said or what they really meant, are there specific actions that you would like to see to tame the spirit of neo-fascism?

All I see is that in the who are you going to vote for in the US thread, is that the self-ascribed marxists are indirectly voting for Trump. And that is a reality that they will have to live with.

[Paradigm]

Short-term, there are tweaks we can do here and there. We can point out the vacuousness and contradiction of the fascist message, and encourage people to resist fascism wherever it rears its ugly head. But what we ultimately need to do is create an economy that can serve everyone without requiring growth - in other words, a post-capitalist economy. How we achieve that is a matter of dispute among leftists, but my personal suspicion is that it will involve building up local autonomy at the municipal level and then forging political alliances and economic relations with other municipalities on an anti-capitalist basis. What we are unlikely to see, in my estimation, is a return to the kind of prosperity the West enjoyed prior to the current neoliberal era.

[noemon]

I see, but as a marxist you should realise that pointing things out to people has absolutely no effect, you need the [material] conditions, Trump's rhetoric would have no effect if people were not upset, if the Democrats were willing to speak and address issues that plague the American communities, if for example they were the ones to speak up against Ford and Apple, if they being one the left side of politics spoke of a simple thing, putting I don't know a special tax to all companies with profits above 1 billion to fund social projects, if they pledged to bring education fees to the levels of Europe. These are achievable targets with strong enough messages to rally people, things like that(affordable education for example) create waves of content that carry the nation forward for more than a generation and render other minor things irrelevant, things like that create material conditions and racist messages fall on deaf ears.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

More doom and gloom from the Independent.

It seems that the establishment (for lack of better word) just can't come to terms with the fact that a substantial portion of the population holds a different view on quite a few things. They have talked and written about this fact in many eloquent speeches and articles of course, but it doesn't look like they have actually really believed or understood it. Being now faced with the fact that what they've written about in the abstract in the past is actual reality, they are taken over by an end time feeling. And of course we are subjected to their speculation about the psychological issues - "fear", "uncertain of their identity" - of those who have the audacity to disagree with them. To me it rather seems it's they who are full of fear and are completely lost because their monopoly on "truth" and "facts" is being challenged. It's rather entertaining to watch them running around like headless chicken trying to make sense of it all.

What is going to happen at the most is an adjustment. Most likely the political landscape will move somewhat to the right, and only on a limited number of issues.

We truly live in the age of drama queens, and the more drama you produce the more seriously you are taken apparently.

[noemon]

Seems like you feel quite comfortable in assuming the role of drama queen, why did this sentence bother you so much:

Repression to supress rising dissent is reckless. Politicians must tackle the deep seated problems in the economic and social system. They must deal with large portions of the population who fear for their own and their children’s future. They must address the concerns of angry citizens who feel humiliated, ignored and uncertain of their identity.

You believe that the problems of the people and the rising insecurity should not be addressed?

[The Immortal Goon]

All I see is that in the who are you going to vote for in the US thread, is that the self-ascribed marxists are indirectly voting for Trump. And that is a reality that they will have to live with.

Since you're talking about me, I'll point out that I'm actually indirectly voting for Clinton because the United States uses the Electoral College in presidential elections, and Oregon is not going to go Trump.

It does not mean that I'd vote for the Democrats anyway; the right has been effective at turning everything to the right since their rightwing flank is willing to dump the GOP and move to another party, which has forced the GOP to the right. The Democrats followed to the center, while dumping the left.

The political focus has been shifting further and further to the right as a result.

I want the mass fulcrum to move to the left. To do that, the Democrats would still have to chase votes to the left and fear leftists not coming out or defecting. The Democrats are not a viable political solution, that should be clear. But popularly fighting the right's rise in society is going to be have to fought on all fronts—and the Democrats fearing the left would be a good step.

And I'm in a state where, even if I did want to vote Hillary (which I don't) then I'd be voting for Clinton anyway.

So why should I vote for Hillary?

[Paradigm]

I see, but as a marxist you should realise that pointing things out to people has absolutely no effect, you need the [material] conditions, Trump's rhetoric would have no effect if people were not upset, if the Democrats were willing to speak and address issues that plague the American communities, if for example they were the ones to speak up against Ford and Apple, if they being one the left side of politics spoke of a simple thing, putting I don't know a special tax to all companies with profits above 1 billion to fund social projects, if they pledged to bring education fees to the levels of Europe. These are achievable targets with strong enough messages to rally people, things like that(affordable education for example) create waves of content that carry the nation forward for more than a generation and render other minor things irrelevant, things like that create material conditions and racist messages fall on deaf ears.

I'm no Marxist. Marxian, perhaps, but not a Marxist. I do believe that words matter. Material conditions determine the type of discourse that can occur, but within those conditions, there is a great degree of wiggle room. I do believe there are certain gestures that liberals and social democrats can make toward the working class, which might persuade them for a time, but such gestures cannot ultimately change the long-term trajectory of neoliberal capitalism. That requires a more long-term strategy that cannot be achieved through reformist means.

[noemon]

I am talking about the both of you actually.

Voting for Hillary is a matter of priorities, if your priority is to stop Trump from assuming power then voting and campaigning for Hillary should be your primary concern right now.

Googling Oregon, Trump, Hillary, I came across polls that show Trump has a lead in Oregon.

[The Immortal Goon]

Voting for Hillary is a matter of priorities, if your priority is to stop Trump from assuming power then voting and campaigning for Hillary should be your primary concern right now.

My priority is the emancipation of the proletariat.

Googling Oregon, Trump, Hillary, I came across polls that show Trump has a lead in Oregon.

I'm presuming you're looking at results from around the primaries, like around May. Do remember that Oregon is a deep Sanders state and was at that time.

FOX News last night put Hillary ahead in Oregon by more than 11 points. The interactive graphs like this one from last month have Hillary at just short of ten points. And, remember, this was one of the most Bernie-Or-Bust states.

I haven't heard a single source seriously say that Oregon is going to be a fight, let alone swing Trump.

[Donna]

...are there specific actions that you would like to see to tame the spirit of neo-fascism?

Short-term, there are tweaks we can do here and there. We can point out the vacuousness and contradiction of the fascist message, and encourage people to resist fascism wherever it rears its ugly head.

The elephant in the room, of course, is immigration.

You can ignore the need for reform and border security and allow the far-right to radicalize further, or you can close the borders and take the wind out from under its wings.

The problem I think is that a lot of people (undoubtedly the most "infantile" sections of the political left) would confuse the latter with some kind kind of resurgent fascism, even though reform would be a bulwark against the real thing.

[layman]

The problem I think is that a lot of people (undoubtedly the most "infantile" sections of the political left) would confuse the latter with some kind kind of resurgent fascism, even though reform would be a bulwark against the real thing.

I always enjoyed reading your posts even before.

Since your transformation I find myself strongly agreeing as well.

[Atlantis]

The elephant in the room, of course, is immigration.

You can ignore the need for reform and border security and allow the far-right to radicalize further, or you can close the borders and take the wind out from under its wings.

The problem I think is that a lot of people (undoubtedly the most "infantile" sections of the political left) would confuse the latter with some kind kind of resurgent fascism, even though reform would be a bulwark against the real thing.

Experience shows that right wing populists or racists benefit most from anti-immigration policies.

Your project of appeasement of the racists isn't going to fight racism and fascism, quite on the contrary, it makes it acceptable to have racist opinions in the political center, which will swell the ranks of racist or fascist parties. That is the surest way of promoting fascism.

[Donna]

Experience shows that right wing populists or racists benefit most from anti-immigration policies.

Your project of appeasement of the racists isn't going to fight racism and fascism, quite on the contrary, it makes it acceptable to have racist opinions in the political center, which will swell the ranks of racist or fascist parties. That is the surest way of promoting fascism.

The United States did fine with the National Origins quotas between 1921 and 1965, which prevented disturbances in ethnic distribution, reduced unskilled labour, and allowed the families of existing immigrants to re-unite.

There is of course a difference between fascism and what the culture of critique calls racism or 'white privilege'. Racism can exist peacefully in open, liberal-democratic societies; fascism, for obvious reasons, cannot. The United States during the time of the National Origins Formula was arguably the most racist nation in the world, even more so than Germany, and guess what? It avoided falling into fascism and militant anti-Semitism and instead it got FDR and the New Deal.

What you seem to be arguing for is a kind of irresponsible accelerationism that idealistically seeks to eradicate racism from the very subconscious of human beings, which is dangerously Faustian and will undoubtedly end in blowback.

[Beren]

So why should I vote for Hillary?

Because she could make Sanders secretary of labor, for example. I wonder though if it matters to you at all.

[Atlantis]

The United States did fine with the National Origins quotas between 1921 and 1965, which prevented disturbances in ethnic distribution, reduced unskilled labour, and allowed the families of existing immigrants to re-unite.

There is of course a difference between fascism and what the culture of critique calls racism or 'white privilege'. Racism can exist peacefully in open, liberal-democratic societies; fascism, for obvious reasons, cannot. The United States during the time of the National Origins Formula was arguably the most racist nation in the world, even more so than Germany, and guess what? It avoided falling into fascism and militant anti-Semitism and instead it got FDR and the New Deal.

I won't argue with you about the situation in the States, which I'm not familiar with; however, I very much doubt that the situation in the first half of the 20th century US, which was still very much a destination for emigrants, can be compared to today's globalized world. Moreover, there are numerous factors, like the humiliation of WWI, that contributed to the rise of fascism in Germany, which were different in the US. So you are comparing apples with pears on both counts.

I think if we were to look at the matter in depth, we would probably come to the potential for expansion that kept the US from fascism at the time. With expanding markets, there was enough prosperity to filter through even to the underdogs. And that is exactly the problem today, the developed world, as the main beneficiary of globalization so far, has reached a stage, where we can't expect strong growth anymore. Ie., no more expansion, no more new world to discover. The developed world will have to live with low or zero growth, while the rest of the world is catching up.

It's no good telling people that they live at a time of unprecedented prosperity and that they belong to the privileged few, all they see is that there is no prospect for significant growth. The growth-based capitalist system has ground to a halt and discontent spreads. That is not the fault of the migrants.

What you seem to be arguing for is a kind of irresponsible accelerationism that idealistically seeks to eradicate racism from the very subconscious of human beings, which is dangerously Faustian and will undoubtedly end in blowback.

Talking of straw men ...

The point is that all humans carry the potential for racism and could become sociopath killers. The veneer of civilization is only skin-deep. Underneath there is an ocean of dog-eat-dog hell.

Now, I'm asking you Donald, is it the task of politicians to let the hell lose by playing to the tune of racism, or is it the duty of politician to work for strengthening the social fabric?

How we address the flow of refugees escaping from wars or how we channel the flow of economic migrants fleeing from poverty is a different issue. These global problems cannot be solved by the reductionist thinking of racists and populists.

For solving these problems, your straw man arguments and your reductionist thinking are about as useful as a hole in the knee.

[The Immortal Goon]

Because she could make Sanders secretary of labor, for example. I wonder though if it matters to you at all.

I wouldn't have voted Bernie either in the general election.

The Democrats are not saviours.

But if you're worried about Trump, don't worry. Again, my vote is going to go for Hillary no matter who I vote for because the Electoral College exists.

So I also have the privilege of being able to go hard left and force the mainstream political parties to chase after me, and thus legitimize (in the wider field) the left.

...And, again because ye seem to keep missing it, that will still be a vote for Hillary whether I want it to be or not.

If a user is having trouble, there's some reading that can be done about this.

[Beren]

But if you're worried about Trump, don't worry.

I'm worried about Trump, but it's not just that. I wonder how you prefer chasing leprechauns to making some real politics. I mean voting for totally irrelevant parties and waiting for a Lenin-like messiah in your whole life is like dedicating your whole earthly existence to chasing leprechauns, isn't it? Do you advocate others, as a teacher for example, to do the same?

[The Immortal Goon]

@Beren

"Real politics," being falling in line with the Democratic Party?

I have laid out how the Democrats have been pulling to the right, taking the moderates that the Republicans left behind when they pulled to the right; and they pulled to the right because dissident rightists were willing to jump ship and break away. Why should the left not do the same as the dissident rightists?

So far as "waiting for a Leninist Party," there are some, and I'll vote for one, but I know there's no chance. It, like I said, is pulling the political narrative by doing so.

In the meantime we organize. I've been on three attempts to unionize my fellow workers. Once was crushed at once; once was successful and we were absorbed by a Marxist union, though in time (after I left the job) the management had peeled everyone away from it; and this last time was a total and complete success.

I'll educate, vote strategically, study, learn to shoot, make propaganda, and go on. If you can think of something else to do, let me know.

But I'm not going to just accept the Democratic Party because it happens to be for. Nor, again, would I have to do so for fear of Trump as my electoral votes will go to them anyway.

I'm really mystified as to why this seems so offensive to you.