Archived: Feb 11, 2008

> Editorial

$3.1 trillion budget proposal

Largest budget yet raises issues

By Nathan Johnson

Bureaucratic politicians deciding how to spend working class money is okay from the capitalist point of view, but if the working class suddenly had the power to meddle in the capitalist class’ stock portfolios that would be a different story.

Bush is proposing an enormous $3.1 trillion budget for 2009. The Pentagon is to receive 7.5 percent more funding while 47 programs are to be cut from the Education Department.

The motivation for these changes comes from the pressures of the onset of recession in the U.S. economy. While outfitting the Iraq War brought the United States out of the early 2000s recession, the arms economy is not an end-all solution to economic crises. Expanding arms production employs more workers, which reduces job competition, which raises the average wage, which objectively slows down the rate of profit.

Workers in the military and arms production receive wages, but the commodities they produce don’t appear on the market; rather, they become the property of the government. However, they take those wages and spend them on commodities on the market. When people take from the market without contributing to it inflation is the result.

Cutting funding to education places a greater burden on the working class and will ultimately result in a less-skilled workforce, which will only harm the economy more, as the United States is becoming more and more dependent on its service economy and technology industry.

Workers sell their labor power for a wage – a deferred wage that they receive separate of their paychecks, or social spending including Social Security, Medicare and public education. This social spending, in the hands of the capitalist state, can be used to diminish the progress of recession.

On the one hand, this spending can be cut, thus reducing net wages, which immediately raises the rate of profit. On the other hand, the welfare state can give unemployed people an income or transitional employment, and so prevent a drastic fall in consumer demand when workers are laid off.

This greater involvement by the state in the economy is a feature of post-war capitalism. By dampening economic crises, the working class benefits by not being thrown into another Great Depression, but at the same time the working class suffers a loss considering part of their wage, the deferred wage, is no longer in their immediate control. Bureaucratic politicians deciding how to spend working class money is OK from the capitalist point of view, but if the working class suddenly had the power to meddle in the capitalist class’ stock portfolios that would be a different story.

So even while the working class may benefit from anti-cyclical policies and certain governmental intervention into the economy, it is a coincidental outcome insofar as the first and foremost objective is to heal the economy, not to advance the status of the working class.

For example, universal suffrage is undoubtedly a real advance in the history of the working class. However, the rich white land-owners which originally formed the only class with the right to vote did not just extend the right to vote out of the kindness of their hearts.

With the right to vote came the right to be taxed. No representation without taxation.

History shows that the wealthiest class is not threatened by universal suffrage in and of itself. Instead, receiving a majority of votes gives the appearance that they came to power by virtue of their personal merit, and not their social status and net worth. Formal political democracy shrouds the fact that social inequality prevents authentic, participatory democracy.

This difference between formal votes for politicians and at the same time mass disapproval of their decisions shows that there are strong barriers in the way of true self-governing here in America. If the people were to collectively draft the U.S. budget, would it look the same as Bush’s proposal?

Conservatives are supposed to stand for small government, but the $3.1 trillion budget would only continue to prove that political ideology gives way before the concrete demands placed on politicians by the capitalist system.

The national debt is expected to reach $5.4 trillion by the end of this year, racing higher and higher as with the budget. This massive government spending is necessary to fund the permanent arms economy and otherwise play a corrective role in the economy. This massive debt also shows the insolvency of the market to meet the needs of society; $5.4 trillion in excess spending is anything but laissez-faire.

> Comments

Daniel Ginsbaerg-Jaeckle on Feb 12, 2008 at 09:22 AM:

Great editorial, Nate. I'm gonna read it again.

It's an obvious contradiction for Bush to pretend like he's for small government and fiscally conservativeness when he's also for waging war and occupying countries.

It's kind of like our white male student aristocracy who choose to support their own salaries and funding for sports while saving us pennies by slashing resources to the LGBT and Women's Resource Center.

Aaron Jeske on Feb 13, 2008 at 01:37 PM:

Why is it that every time you commies open your mouths you get things wrong?

First of all you should know that Dept. of Education does not equal teaching. Bush was cutting useless Bureaucracy that does nothing but wastes money. In fact cutting bureaucrats from any department that deals with civil services (transportation, agriculture, ect.) does American citizens a service by giving their money back and allowing them to make the choices.

And I am only going to say this once, we get no benefit other than security from the war on terror. I doubt if you can give me one clean-cut example of how we have benefited at Iraq or Afghanistan's expense.

As for the "white male student aristocracy", even a simpleton can understand that true diversity comes not from skin color or gender, but instead from personal experiences and individual opinions.

Nate on Feb 13, 2008 at 03:34 PM:

Aaron, you can't just dismiss racial inequality in a single sentence.

The money freed up by cutting back "bureacracy" in the Dept of Ed isn't going back to the people, it's going to the Pentagon.

"allowing them to make the choices." The working class doesn't draft the budget, but bureacrats such as Bush.

How can you even try and present Bush as anti-bureacratic given his history in big-oil?

In socialism democratic unions plan the economy- that is the only way to definitively end bureacracy.

"Let us finally imagine, for a change, an association of free men, working with the means of production held in common, and expending their many different forms of labor-power in full self-awareness as one single labor force." Karl Marx

Aaron Jeske on Feb 13, 2008 at 04:21 PM:

You know, using the standard "socialism is the answer" rhetoric really does nothing but give your opinions as much meaning as Lenin's Lifeless body.

First of all a dictionary will tell you easily that a bureaucrat is appointed to office. Since Bush was elected to his position by the people of the United States, he by definition can not be a bureaucrat.

Again and again you fail to grasp the concepts conservatives put forth. You did not present any proof that the money simply transfered from one side of the budjet to another. The reduced spending brought forth by cutting bureacrats goes right back to the people in the form of tax-cuts, which bush has continually advocated and sucessfully enacted throught his 2 terms. If you have been listening to the capitalist media in the recent month or so, you have been hearing about the "stimulus package" coming this year. Guess where that money is coming from?

It is up to the "working class" as you so cunningly label them to decide on what they want their money to be spent on. If they value education then they can make the choice to pay for schooling.

The big problem with big government, which i believe is nothing more than a convenient stepping stone towards socialism, which as we all know fails miserably in the long run.

And yes, I can dismiss Racial inequality in one sentence: Race does not exist.

Nate on Feb 14, 2008 at 08:35 PM:

Aaron, at the end of the day you are still defending a class society. Capitalist society is class society- and it always will be.

I for one am fighting for a classless society.

You are content to say "Race does not exist" which is scientifically true- but RACISM DOES EXIST. You're one sentence answer doesn't solve anything.

Ask any person on the street if they feel that their vote counts or that they have a say in the political process and the answer is no.

Capitalist society is a society of alienation.

In socialism no politicians can earn more than a living wage, a major step towards checking bureaucracy.

A president that earns 400,000 can only lead to bureacracy. The two-party system can only lead to bureaucracy. AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE WHO OWN ENOUGH CAPITAL DON'T HAVE TO WORK A DAY IN THEIR LIFE CAN ONLY LEAD TO BUREAUCRACY.

It's no surprise that the top governmental positions are held by capitalists and millionaires- bureaucrats.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 15, 2008 at 07:43 AM:

"I for one am fighting for a classless society."

I'm not sure that's possible Nathan. Even with your Trotskist approach to communism where the capital is controlled democraticially there will people who can do speciality labor and will insist on being paid more for it. Once you get a technical division of labor you will get a division of labor based on higher pay. Once you have that it will only take time for some of those people to purchase something that can be converted into capital, and once you have capital you have capitalism again.

Aaron Jeske on Feb 15, 2008 at 10:14 AM:

"You are content to say "Race does not exist" which is scientifically true- but RACISM DOES EXIST. You're one sentence answer doesn't solve anything."

I am not racist because I believe in the those magical 4 words you quoted from me. The problem is educating others to understand that as well.

Your thick head has prevented you from soaking in an entire century of history. Socialism failed horribly because people realized that free markets paired with democracy is the most efficient and just means of running a state. USSR is done for, Cuba is on the very same track, China is nothing more than an highly taxed capitalist state. Socialism died with the advent of the information age, an age where proletariat is no longer the basis of our economy.

James Lazar on Feb 15, 2008 at 07:54 PM:

"And yes, I can dismiss Racial inequality in one sentence: Race does not exist."

And I can prove you wrong with one sentence: Yes it does.

Nate on Feb 16, 2008 at 02:31 PM:

Aaron- then it must be PURELY COINCIDENTAL that people with a higher concentration of melanin in their skin only earn 2/3 as much as people with relatively less melanin.

Socialism isn't Stalinism.

Socialism eliminates classes because the means of production are social property, and not the property of individuals.

There's a difference between the social and technical division of labor- we've been over this Johanan.

Socialism doesn't eliminate classes instantly- socialism is an entire historical period that steadily eliminates the objective economic roots of classism.

Capitalism on the other hand intensifies the class nature of society with each turnover of capital.

If the proletariat is no longer the basis of "our" economy, how come worldwide the size of the proletariat is growing both relatively and absolutely? How come intellectual labor is becoming more and more commoditized? Society is more dependent than ever on wage labor.

Nate on Feb 16, 2008 at 02:51 PM:

I should add, profit is unpaid labor, capital is the command over unpaid labor.

When the means of production are social property there's no room for unpaid labor- the means of production lose their character as capital.

Socialism doesn't have capital Johanan, not in the proper sense of the word. There aren't multi-national corporations under socialism either, needless to say.

Aaron- if China is a capitalist state- then how come they do not have the business cycle, and how come their economy is planned? China is a bureaucratized workers state- I wrote an editorial about China that will be out in 2 weeks, which you could benefit from reading.

Johanan Raatz on Feb 17, 2008 at 03:42 PM:

"I should add, profit is unpaid labor, capital is the command over unpaid labor."

But it's not unless the capitalists are not paying their employees the amount they contracted for.

"When the means of production are social property there's no room for unpaid labor- the means of production lose their character as capital."

What I am trying to say is that even in the ideal setting, capital will not stay social property for long. Forms of labor that are more valuable than other forms of labor will lead to differing salaries which will then enable some individuals to use there private earning to privately purchase or construct capital. Once you have that you then have capitalism. As such a technical division of labor will inevitably lead to a social division of labor.

"Socialism doesn't have capital Johanan, not in the proper sense of the word. There aren't multi-national corporations under socialism either, needless to say."

But there are they're just not called that. China is an excellent example of this. Are they communist or are they capitalist? They started out communist but now have made a seemless transition to capitalism. This is because since the Chinese government owns the capital instead of the capitalists they have become the new capitalists. Therefore, the only way to destroy capitalism is to destroy capital, and we don't want to do that because then we wouldn't have factories to make anything with.

Now you can have democratically controlled capital in a capitalist society though. Look at Japan. The people elect the government who then control MITI which in turn controls the market. This is similar in some respects to your form of Trotskyism except that it allows for the profit motive.

Along with private property and the law of value the profit motive is something that is inherent to economic systems as well as human nature. The problem with many communist states is that they do not allow for the profit motive to drive anything, without the opportunity to make profit nothing drives the economy.

By contrast in Japan the entire state can be modeled in some respects as one giant corporation. Now the means of production are controlled at least in some respects democratically, yet at the same time the goal of Japan Inc. is to make profit. However, since Japan Inc. is owned by all the Japanese everyone is profiting, there is no class warfare (or it is at least greatly reduced) and economic growth is (or can be in the right conditions) quite strong. The gap between rich Japanese and poor Japanese doesn't really change over time because competition is directed along national lines. The goal is still to become rich but instead as with conventional capitalism it is to make the whole nation rich rather than just a few individuals. In some respects this also makes it superior to conventional capitalism as class collaboration allows for an even more powerful collective profit motive to drive the economy with then in the conventional mode.

"There's a difference between the social and technical division of labor- we've been over this Johanan."

Yes I know but first WILL lead to the second if the system is left in equilibrium for any period of time. To try to prevent this would literally be analogous to trying to balance a pencil on its point for any length of time. Capitalism is the equilibrium position even if you start with Trotskyism.