Global Financial Crisis and Marxist Renaissance
US And Global Financial Crisis
Pakistan, China, and the Global Financial Crisis
International Financial Crisis and Syria
Financial Crisis or Economic Crisis?
US-China Relations and Global Economic Crisis
Our world today is wailing about the global financial crisis that is triggering downsizing and necessitating a cut in mass production – the very thing that feeds its existence. The important question, which did not get enough consideration among the eggheads and popular media, is why this huge crisis was not foreseen or foretold by anyone. Historian and expert on International Affairs Harold James, in his article The Marx Renaissance, points to the matter and adds that two British comedians did give a clear anticipation of the crisis in a TV show more than a year ago. Professor James explores the connection between a broken financial system of modern capitalism and the complexity of investment through bank loans that lie at its core; both sparking a renewed interest in the Marxist system of socialist economy.
The point of immense attraction in Professor James’ article, as it appeals to me, is the causal connection between the decentralization of capital and the intricacy of investing through loans for profit that ultimately renders the capitalist economic system a failure. More than that, the labeling of hard-core socialism as autocracy has only been a stratagem of the capitalist block to parry the public appeal characteristic of the communist manifesto. It turns out that the government, even though elected by the people, is not ‘for’ the people, or even impartially for organizations and other groups that do not side with its agenda. In the near past, capitalist states have been pressing on banks to give credit to certain business. Is this really a decentralized system? Or has the center been ‘concealed’ from obvious attention?
The need for centralization, as filtering through Professor James’ article, has always been there; only that in capitalist states, the property and assets have not been centralized to the extent practiced in socialist regimes. Yet, the forces that determine where the assets go, to be used, are essentially exerted by the same central authority. In an important sense, all systems working under a ‘state’ are essentially socialist systems. The difference that marks the boundary between capitalist and socialist states lies in the degree to which they centralize property, assets, and administration. If we turn to history to decide which of these two kinds of states fares well, we will most probably end up in indecision; both have failed to meet their big challenges, albeit from the partial influence of the conflict for power.
Marxist renaissance may be a sign of hope, previously missed by many a nation, during the existing financial crisis. But if the attitude of thinking in extremes may somehow be harnessed, we shall be able to appreciate the socio-economic policies of nations that have blended the approaches of capitalist and socialist schools of thought. The Scandinavian countries remain a good example. Democratic socialism may be the right answer to unruly investments and uncertain profits. And it does not thwart the renewed interest in Marxism – the great human appeal of the Marxist philosophy is still dominant in a hybrid economy that is state-controlled but stable and does not transgress the individuality of its people.
