Be afraid, be very afraid

[Edric O]

No, I don't mean you. I mean them:

Bloomberg.com: Arming Goldman With Pistols Against Public

It warms my heart to hear that some bankers are seriously worried about their personal safety. Ah, if only we could give them a real reason to be afraid! But alas, the bankers seem to be more aware of the revolutionary potential of the workers than the workers themselves.

Anyway, I have a broader point to make here than just my satisfaction at the fact that the capitalists smell class struggle in the air. This news story reminded me of it, and I thought it could start a good discussion.

I believe that, in general, the more a ruling class fears its people, the more concessions they will make, and the better off most people will be. The only reason welfare states exist today is because, in the mid-20th century, capitalists seriously feared a communist revolution and were prepared to make compromises to save their skin. The steady erosion of welfare states and the massive shrinking of the public sector over the past 30 years in most Western countries was at least partially due to the lack of any credible revolutionary threat. The fact that Eastern Europe has pursued extreme free market policies since 1989 is also largely due to the lack of any credible threat to the capitalist regimes there. And as long as no such threat emerges, the workers of Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) will continue to suffer under a modern version of 19th century-style capitalism.

In short: Mixed economies, welfare states, and other kinds of compromises between capital and labour are unstable and short lived. They depend on the existence of a strong revolutionary tendency among workers, which is enough of a credible threat to scare the capitalists into coming to the negotiating table. Advocates of social democracy or other middle-ground ideologies are deluding themselves if they believe that they can provide a long-term alternative to laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other hand. There is no such alternative. In the end, we will always come back to the choice between Karl Marx or Milton Friedman.

Discuss.

[Dunenewt]

The thing about that article, is that it seems quite in favour of the bankers, and even praising their foresight, insofar as they have purchased these weapons to protect them against the "proles" as the article calls them.

[Edric O]

Well, I think there is quite a bit of sarcasm involved there.

[Dunenerd]

The Proles, Oh No!

Down With Big Brother!

It seems this article is drawing similarities to George Orwell's 1984 by saying the Bankers' guns are like Newspeak, if Newspeak is in place, there is no way for heretics to communicate, if the bankers have guns, there is no way for the citizens to overthrow them.

[Anathema]

It warms my heart to hear that some bankers are seriously worried about their personal safety. Ah, if only we could give them a real reason to be afraid! But alas, the bankers seem to be more aware of the revolutionary potential of the workers than the workers themselves.

Anyway, I have a broader point to make here than just my satisfaction at the fact that the capitalists smell class struggle in the air.

Someone who's pissed off at the financial system doesn't necessarily want a planned economy, you know.

I believe that, in general, the more a ruling class fears its people, the more concessions they will make, and the better off most people will be. The only reason welfare states exist today is because, in the mid-20th century, capitalists seriously feared a communist revolution and were prepared to make compromises to save their skin. The steady erosion of welfare states and the massive shrinking of the public sector over the past 30 years in most Western countries was at least partially due to the lack of any credible revolutionary threat. The fact that Eastern Europe has pursued extreme free market policies since 1989 is also largely due to the lack of any credible threat to the capitalist regimes there. And as long as no such threat emerges, the workers of Eastern Europe (and elsewhere) will continue to suffer under a modern version of 19th century-style capitalism.

Many western European countries, Italy and the Netherlands for example, had communist parties wich could operate freely. Long story short, their support was never particulary high and only deteriorated in the last couple of decades. Communist parties had to either merge with other leftist movements or be obliberated by the electorate who didn't want them anymore.

Also, the notion that the "public sector" has deteriorated also exists in the Netherlands - as a myth. Some stuff was privatised, notably mail and rail services, but social security programs were greatly expanded. The public sector as a whole is bigger than it was 2 decades ago, yet the Netherlands is somehow still considered an investor-friendly country.

In short: Mixed economies, welfare states, and other kinds of compromises between capital and labour are unstable and short lived. They depend on the existence of a strong revolutionary tendency among workers, which is enough of a credible threat to scare the capitalists into coming to the negotiating table. Advocates of social democracy or other middle-ground ideologies are deluding themselves if they believe that they can provide a long-term alternative to laissez-faire capitalism on the one hand and socialism on the other hand. There is no such alternative. In the end, we will always come back to the choice between Karl Marx or Milton Friedman.

Discuss.

You make it sound as if every social program ever put forward by a welfare state is a preemptive initiative of politicans and factory owners to appease illiterate workers. The reality is different.

In the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavia and probably most other "western" European countries there are binding standards for labour contracts wich are the result of collective bargaining between unions and employer's confederations. More generally, these organisations also lobby their respective governments to get their way when it comes to socio-economic legislation. In the Netherlands this lobbying process has even been institutionalised in the "Social-Economic Council".

"Revolutionary tendencies" are not so much supressed or appeased, it's just that practically nobody believes that a class war will improve conditions in either the short or long term.

I suppose that the notion that a communist revolution would only be truly possible when the entire system goes burns down holds some water because then, for the first time since the 19th century, workers would actually recognise themselves in communist rethoric.