[Marxism] New Deal

S. Artesian sartesian at earthlink.net
Wed Dec 24 14:01:13 MST 2008

Well, OK, I don't know that Mark says we should embrace the New Deal.  But 
Abu does and that's more than a mistake, that's a capitulation to the myth 
of the market/state dichotomy; "progressive" state intervention, etc.

First, going back to the numbers.. regarding 10% GDP annual rates of 
growth-- to abbreviate BFD (for those who are not familiar with the US 
vernacular-- big  f---ing deal).

In 1929 GDP (in constant dollars measured) 87.2 billion, a figure that was 
just barely exceed in 1936-- so all that growth only got back to zero, 
without however, coincident improvements in living standards, etc.  In 1937 
NOT a recession year, GDP measured 91.9  billion, only to fall back in the 
recession year 1938 to 88.7 billion {figurese from the US Bureau of Economic 
Administration}. So from 1929 to 1938-- zero growth.  That's some recover 
program.  That's some recovery.

More significant however are the numbers for non-residential fixed assets- 
which were valued at 9.8 billion dollars in 1929 and did NOT exceed that 
amount until AFTER the start of  WW2.

Rather than regarding the New Deal as some sort of break, or breakthrough, 
with "market capitalism," we should situate it in its context-- the context 
of fascism in Italy and Germany, corporatism in Spain, and yes, Vargas' "new 
state" in Brazil-- all share a common feature and goal...

We could link all  to the general failure of private property to maintain a 
basis for the social reproduction of capital; we could say all project state 
intervention in various to project the program of capitalist refoundation 
while maintaining opposition, and suppression of, independent workers' 
actions.  We can say that all are designed to absorb, and transfer, the 
expenses of "development," i.e infrastructure, necessary for supporting 
market penetration for capital, from the bourgeoisie, and to V, wage labor; 
we can say, in sume, that all are intent on doing for capitalism what the 
bourgeoisie, so constrained, blinded, shackled by privagte property could no 
longer do for capitalism or themselves.  And we can say that all, or almost 
all, found that there efforts were successful to exactly the degree that 
they found the ultimate method of restoring the proper relation between the 
components of capital and wage-labor-- that being war.

Rather than embrace the New Deal, Marxists need to expose its failure and 
its success-- a success paid for in blood in WW2.  Abstracting the New Deal 
from what came before and what comes after is hardly that exposure.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "abu hartal" <abuhartal at hotmail.com>
To: <sartesian at earthlink.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2008 8:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism] New Deal

I agree with ML that we should embrace the New Dealinsofar as it represents 
a break with the economictheology of self-regulating markets; we should 
alsocriticize the maniacal belief that the New Deal interferedwith the 
natural recovery process. Still I think we have to be clear about why 
intervention that represents what is calledeconomic liberty is bound to fail 
unless there are otherexceptional circumstances

More information about the Marxism mailing list