Alan Greenspan, exploiter extraordinaire

By Aesopian quoting of snippets from the late 1990s, a number of Democratic and Republican pundits in the media have shown that they have seen my POLITICAL efforts against fascism and racism just prior to 9/11. I have stressed how lynching contributed to the Afghan and Iraq wars.

Yet, secret services and cross-racial rape accusations have been factors in wars since before capitalism started. The economic world led by Alan Greenspan at the time of 9/11 was more unique to capitalism and may prove to generate greater historical interest than 9/11 itself.

The left-wing of parasitism in the West was constantly advocating that activists bash their heads on a wall of concrete a mile thick, the labor aristocracy. Bush carried only the white vote in 2004 and McCain took the white high school grad vote by 58% in 2008, and still these pseudo-leftists did not get a clue. All these decades, the pseudo-left attacked capitalism at its strong point, the labor aristocracy and missed the weak spot, because the weak spot involved a blow to our egos here in the imperialist countries.

MIM’s repeated analyses showed that there was no exploitation of the white working class; hence, it was a petty-bourgeoisie. The ones sounding most similar to us concluded that was reason to lynch MIM and obtain support for a liberal Democratic minority that way.

Finally in 2008, the class struggle broke through against capitalism’s true weak spot, precisely identified by MIM and no thanks to the left-wing of parasitism. International exploitation reached a point where our Ponzi economy came tumbling down.

For this, Alan Greenspan has received the blame of allowing a housing bubble and a dollar that was too high. He correctly replied that within the rules of capitalism as they existed, the savings of the Third World came online and made low interest days inevitable. He was only wrong in crediting that factor while giving the technological boom of the Internet too much credit. The Internet was not the reason for the Clinton budget surplus or prosperity.

Greenspan could use his power at the Fed, but as he pointed out in The Age of Turbulence he would not be able to move the interest rate market around as much as people on the outside thought and even if he did, there was no guarantee that the critics would have been right about the consequences.

The innovation of Greenspan was to leave behind severe cycles of money tightening. He enjoyed good periods of apparently long economic growth in the United $tates. Greenspan seemed unlike most economists and prior central bankers to that degree.

Greenspan correctly understood the monetization struggle without calling it that. His policies seized for the United $tates and the West generally the most surplus-value from the Third World possible. This became apparent to finance ministers after the fact when they looked at how home equity loans could be used to purchase imports from the Third World. The asset bubble was not just a speculative bubble: it brought real goods into the United $tates.

It was only thanks to the ineptitude of the left-wing of parasitism and all the blocks thrown in the way of a MIM-type analysis that Greenspan succeeded too spectacularly. The United $tates gave the Third World (China, Mexico etc.) Wall Street traded stock in companies selling Third World produced goods. Simultaneously, Greenspan set about to make such assets worthless without knowing it.

The greater the monetization of U.$. housing and stock assets, the more Third World goods the United $tates could get for them. Along these lines, both federal and private sector deficits played their role.

In the wreckage we have now, the true defenders of the Democratic Party are Paul Krugman, Robert Reich and other Keynesians. MIM’s concerns must still as yet appear peripheral, because we have not developed the intellectual school of thought to replace the old ones. Peripheral is still a step up from invisible.

To keep us calm, and massage our “animal spirits,” Krugman and others tell us that Obama is a Republican-lite, who should be doing even more deficit spending to avoid a Japan-style “lost decade.” Yet the fact is that February federal spending set a record deficit of $221 billion,(1) a large number by any standard. MIM is told that Obama thinks just like us; yet, he set the record deficit. Meanwhile, we hear that Iran opposes all Marxism, but it recognizes dollar robbery when it sees it.

Clinton Labor Secretary Reich tells us that new jobs when they arrive will be at lower wages. The Keynesians are hoping China and others will step up consumption to stimulate global aggregate demand. It’s hard to see the “labor market clearing” any other way at the moment. Where we might intersect with some Keynesians sometimes is where we see new demand coming from. Ironically, labor unions concerned with U.$. workers on the bottom might also support us for our anti-dollar stand, if they ever put aside their mafia special interest thinking long enough.

MIM’s approach is different from the old thinking of unions and Keynesians. We wonder whether non-finance dominated economies of the world can arrange a new capitalist synthesis. I suspect that they can, even as the imperialist countries we call finance-dominated are out of gas. The question is whether the investor class can manage the financial struggles. Lately, the investors do seem able.

If the BRICS and other non-rich country economies cannot arrange a new synthesis for capitalism, two political factors might be internalized racism and intra-proletarian ethnic strife. Internalized racism will involve an attempt at going back to doing business with the United $tates as before the financial crisis. It will amount to Asian investors in particular coming to believe that they cannot do better elsewhere; hence, they will go back to loaning Amerikkka money to occupy Asian countries.

The top three foreign investors in U.S. treasuries abroad are China, Japan and the oil producers (Russia counted separately.) Hong Kong by itself sometimes holds more U.S. Treasuries than Britain, currently in fourth place.(2)

Intra-proletarian ethnic strife is another obstacle to the relaxed economic integration needed for a new capitalist synthesis apart from the West. Sum total it boils down to whether some aspects of business-related racism are higher in the rest of the world or in dealing with the United $tates. If the rest of the world is more internationalist than the United $tates, there will be a political basis for going beyond capitalism as it exists, within capitalism.

Whether the non-Western capitalist countries can integrate more closely is important to establishing socialism, not directly, but in understanding geopolitics and class struggle as they really exist. If the investment class cannot work business relations outside the United $tates in a less racist way, then the way is cleared to intensified contradictions of either socialism or barbarism, barbarism being an extension of the world the United $tates has already created where pornography consumption and war consumption continue to increase as distinctive features of the economy.

For us at MIM, it is unlikely that U.$. wages will reduce to the level where “labor markets clear,” if political anti-Amerikanism and a new capitalist synthesis are on the ascendant. The U.$. economy can only change directions 10 and 20 years from now, and that provided only there is a determined change in political direction now. Parasitism sometimes guised as political correctness is too deeply culturally entrenched in unproductive aspects.

Nonetheless, anti-Amerikanism and a new global capitalist division of labor provide the longest term chances of lengthening the survival of capitalism. This current movement is conditioned by the international proletariat but led by the national bourgeoisie of the oppressed nations.

Should that national bourgeoisie fail we hope to see that national bourgeoisie fail in such a way as to awaken the exploited. When the investor class returns to Ponzi schemes and U.$.-style militarism, the international proletariat must launch a variety of cultural movements bringing the emphasis back to the Third World. The reason this may in fact happen is that the national bourgeoisie must picture the U.$. labor aristocracy on the one hand and the exploited of their own countries on the other hand.

The small-minded small exploiters of the West have no end of fantasies of turning other countries into parking lots. Those petty exploiters will take a salary for teaching oppression in schools or videotaping their own sex acts if we let them.

The internalized racism of the international proletariat only goes so deep. Infatuations with Amerika can only be temporary as real conflicts of interest sharpen. Even as the national bourgeoisie protects its own rule, it should educate the exploited to its group interests against the petty Amerikan exploiters. Such a struggle occurs naturally as a cultural rejection of the lifestyle of the Western petty-bourgeoisie. Injecting the economic element into this cultural struggle guarantees its success.

In the end it is a question of erring to the side of the Western labor aristocracy or the side of the Third World exploited. When the investor class and national bourgeoisie decides this question, it decides its class alliances. If the national bourgeoisie fails in resisting Amerika, it should hope to fall to socialist revolution, not slavish subservience to Western culture.




%d bloggers like this: