我译自CWI的大爆炸

www.chinaworker.tk

08年9月26日
世界经济

大爆炸
资本主义金融体系接近崩溃

社论，当今社会主义， 2008年10月
最近几年，我们常常被人指责为“劫数难逃论者” 。这是因为我们预测由高利润，高风险金融资本主义所主导下的债务驱动的泡沫经济将在某个时刻崩溃，继而导致世界经济严重的衰退。回顾一下我们的文章，我们从来没有在任何之处宣布过一项'大灾难'，只是对发展的每一阶段作出认真的，均衡的分析。而目前的情势正在充分证明我们的分析的正确性。


不幸的是，左翼的一些人接受了如下观点，即在加速推进的全球经济一体化和超自由市场政策基础上，世界资本主义的繁荣可能会无限期地继续下去。美国房地产泡沫崩溃和次优抵押贷款危机产生严重后果之后的最近几个星期的事件完全改变了面貌。现在在严肃的资本主义新闻媒体的大字标题上显示出来的也是'劫数难逃论' 。金融时报（ 9月20日）的标题是“混乱的资本主义”。


政府资助解救并接管贝尔斯登，房利美、房地美以及美国保险集团等等后，约翰普伦德写道，布什试图用数十亿的美元来拯救金融系统是“以严重损害美国模式的自由市场资本主义为代价的” （金融时报， 9月20日）。这对于把金融机构“社会化”或“国有化”的诉求而言是老生常谈。在现实中，金融资本主义之具有掠夺性的和不计后果的巨大的债务正落在工人阶级的肩上。


当美国财政部长汉克·保尔森宣布他的7,000亿美元资产困境救援方案时，评论员保罗·克鲁格曼（自由民主党）评论说： “保尔森同志占领了制高点” 。作为一个自由市场论者的金融交易商比尔·帕金斯在纽约时报上做了一个广告，说布什、保尔森和美国联邦储备委员会主席伯南克是“新的共产党人，他们在‘私营企业'和‘资本主义'的坟墓前举起美国国旗。帕金斯认为经营失败的银行就应允许其倒闭，不能让纳税人来承受负担来使其出离困境。他说：“我认为这是一种社会主义或共产主义的滴入式版本” “你们比委内瑞拉国有化了更多的机构” （9月25日卫报）。


然而几天里布什，保尔森和伯南克正在面临的前景是新的1929年型崩溃的金融体系。如果他们象美联储和当时的政府于1929年做的那样允许这种情况发生，这将威胁到资本主义制度的生存。从资本主义的角度来看，他们别无选择，只能进行干预，以试图稳定金融体系。保尔森的整套方案能否成功，仍有待观察。一连串的危机还远远没有结束。


然而，救援的国有资金的累积和事实上的国有化，再加上现在的7,000亿美元拯救计划，这些都毁了美国资本主义和自由市场思想的声誉。


当然布什政府的国有化并不意味着真正的'社会主义' 。其目的是利用国家的资源，包括大量增加公共债务，以稳定资本主义以及为在以后的日子里的恢复作好基础性的准备。贡献给美国政府最大份额税款的工人阶级将为该救援计划买单。此外，数以百万计的工人阶级的家庭已被诱骗人的金融公司骗入抵押贷款陷阱，许多人现在正在失去家园。由于金融危机把美国经济推入更深地衰退，数百万人将面临失业和贫乏的工资。


真正的社会主义将意味着由工人阶级的政府接管金融部门和经济的制高点，并在创造财富的人的控制下民主地运行这些部门和经济。民主计划将取代市场的无政府状态。生产将用来满足社会的需要而不是为了少数人的利润。然而，正如马克思和恩格斯指出的那样，甚至资本主义国家为自己的目的而采取的国有化措施展现出了私人所有制的多余和具有替代性的更先进的经济体系的可能性。


金融资本的支配


许多人现在指责当前的危机是由金融市场上的银行家、对冲基金经理，交易商等等的'贪婪'和'恐惧'导致的。这些人无疑发挥了掠夺的和寄生的作用。他们的投机活动使得财富和利润集中到一小撮超级富裕的少数人手里。举例来说，去年，金融部门的首席执行官平均获得的收入是一个普通工人的275倍。然而，他们自私的动机只是该制度的一种症状而不是发展的原因。


在过去30年里，美国，英国和其他地方的资产阶级远离于生产活动的投资，既多数人所需要的商品和服务的生产。他们无论是在发达资本主义国家还是在中国和其他发展中经济体的金融部门寻求更高的盈利性。随着苏联和东欧斯大林主义的崩溃，20世纪80年代工人阶级的失败使得资产阶级得以加强剥削工人阶级，特别是在不发达世界的新殖民主义国家。资本主义制度作为一个整体变得越来越具有寄生性。


这是寄生的金融资本主义占支配地位的基础。这是全球化和超自由市场（新自由主义）的政策所允许的自由的范围。但是随着世界范围内工人阶级分配到的财富份额的减少，极端不平等的增长越来越限制资本主义的市场。资产阶级，特别是那些以盎格鲁-美国模式运作的资产阶级，在债务史无前例的增长的基础上维持着相对较高的增长水平。在1980年，全球债务大约相当于全球国内生产总值。但是，自此以后，全球债务已经膨胀到超过全球产量的3.5倍。与此同时，作为为利润而进行的债务交易的渠道的金融资本主义获得了资本主义利润的大约三分之一。


我们已经多次指出这种趋势是不可持续的。整个大厦倒塌只是一个时间问题。这就是现在正在发生的事。影子银行系统(shadow banking system)，不受管制的投资银行、对冲基金和银行自身帐外融资的网络已经爆炸。影子网络是为了绕开受管制的商业银行而发展出来的。但是，仍然构成金融体系的核心的各大银行都没有逃脱这场流动性和资本的可获得性的危机。如果不消除风险，衍生出来的一系列奇特的金融工具理所当然要蔓延，正如守旧的金融家巴菲特所警告的，这些衍生物已被证明是“具有大规模杀伤性的金融工具” 。


在美国和国际上，对资本主义危机和针对腐朽的金融资本的救援活动将产生深刻的反应。除了经济矛盾，这场危机无疑将产生一个比以前的安然丑闻更大规模的巨大的腐败行径如诈骗和盗窃的丑闻。工人将被迫组织起来并回击资本主义危机的影响。这些事件将创造出肥沃的土壤使得对真正的社会主义和马克思主义感兴趣的人大量的增加。


崩溃倒计时


9月里发生的这些事件标志着这场全球金融体系的危机进入一个新的关键阶段。世界被带到1929年型崩溃的边缘。

9月7日，美国财政部不得不进入并接管以直接经营两个巨大的政府赞助的抵押贷款提供商房利美、房地美。紧随着7月时的政府干预以担保它们的5万亿美元抵押贷款，得到的回报是获得这些机构的股份-实际上是部分国有化。即使如此也没有成功使这些巨头稳定下来。保尔森的“火箭炮”已被证明不能足够地使外国投资恢复信心，特别是亚洲各国的中央银行，它们已经售出了房利美和房地美的债券。政府的完全接管和有效地国有化这些机构，是唯一剩下的措施了。


然后（ 9月14日至15号）五大华尔街投资银行之二的雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券面临破产。在没有得到政府担保雷曼兄弟和美林不良资产的情况下，其他华尔街银行拒绝介入。保尔森和伯南克拒绝担保。他们已受到巨大的政治压力以避免把更多的纳税人的美元拿出来。此外，自由市场论者要求他们避免造成进一步的“道德风险” ，即发出自己的愚蠢的盲目投机将保证得到政府挽救的另一个信号。通过拒绝支持政府救援雷曼兄弟和美林证券，保尔森和伯南克希望发出一个信息，既除了贝尔斯登获得政府担保外，不会有更多的经营失败的银行会得到政府担保。雷曼兄弟公司申请破产，巴克莱国际和其他贪婪者开始逐食潜在的有利可图的雷曼兄弟的资产。另一方面，美林证券急忙把自己买给带有更大的资本储备的作为存款银行的美国银行（Bank of America）。


然而保尔森和伯南克犯了巨大的错误。他们以为他们可以划清界限，但他们拒绝支持拯救雷曼兄弟或美林引发了银行股的普遍不景气。这暗示大批银行要步雷曼兄弟和美林的后尘。其中受到最大威胁的是剩下的两个投资银行，摩根士丹利和高盛。整个“影子银行系统” ，不受管制的债务融资的高投机性的投资银行和对冲基金网络正在爆炸。由于它们和大银行的多重联系，这些银行也操作资产负债表外的投资工具，投资银行可能击到许多其他机构。如果保尔森和伯南克支持救援雷曼兄弟和美林，这不会停止它们的腐烂（正如其后的华盛顿互惠[Washington Mutual]银行的破产所昭示的） ，但站他们在雷曼兄弟和美林的沉没旁边不管不问却加快了银行业的危机。


在英国，作为一个主要的银行和抵押贷款供应商的HBOS（苏格兰的哈利法克斯银行）面临破产。在英格兰银行的推动下，它只是通过迅速地和劳埃德TSB的联姻而得到挽救。


经营失败的雷曼兄弟和美林对短期货币市场产生了直接的连锁效应。银行用来拆借的货币市场基金通常被视为几乎和现金一样安全。信贷紧缩的一个关键方面是由于银行囤积现金以避免给其他银行的任何潜在的风险贷款而导致的短期货币市场的失灵。尽管美国联邦储备大幅度削减利率，银行间拆借利率，通常是略微高于美联储的利率，已经上升到一个前所未有的水平。在雷曼和美林破产的影响下，严重的信贷紧缩转变成至关重要的货币市场的完全瘫痪。


美国联邦储备委员会被迫与其他主要央行合作注入全球银行系统1800亿美元（在此之际，货币掉期，美元对欧元，英镑等）。在随后的几天里，他们注入系统额外的1000亿美元，英国和日本的中央银行以及欧洲的中央银行也注入额外的流动资金。此外，美联储和其他中央银行同意接受更广泛的证券作为贷款的担保品，包括股票，公司债券等，换句话说，比他们曾坚持的政府债券具有更多的风险的资产。（自那时以来，中央银行注入以短期贷款形式存在的更多的流动资金。 ）


保尔森允许雷曼兄弟和美林证券的崩溃，但面临着大保险公司美国保险集团公司（ AIG ）的可能的崩溃，政府被迫介入.美国国际集团危机的起因是评级机构降低其安全状态。这可能触发抛售AIG的股票，从而进一步消耗其资本储备。这个问题和美国国际集团在美国，欧洲和亚洲的大规模保险业务无关。这场危机源于其通过其全球信贷违约掉期的业务参与影子银行系统，信贷违约掉期是用来担保广泛的证券（住房抵押贷款证券，公司债券，市政债券等）投资等级地位的保险的一种形式。美国国际集团发出了4470亿美元的这种保险（包括发向欧洲机构的3000亿美元）。


AIG的信用状况的下降自动意味着由AIG发行的信贷违约掉期担保的证券的降级。反过来这将造成任何用AIG金融保险证券作为担保品为自己贷款筹资购房的问题。换句话说，美国国际集团的崩溃将意味着全球金融体系里不良债务的大量的增加。损失将是绝对惊人的（有人估计对全球金融部门来说，这将意味着至少1800亿美元） 。与此同时，美国国际集团的崩溃也将意味着全球保险业的崩溃。为了避免灾难性垮台，保尔森不得不介入，用850亿美元来担保美国国际集团的资产以换取该保险公司的优先股。


在9月15-19日的关键的一周，世界证券交易所暴跌。政府挽救美国国际集团未能稳定股票市场。与此同时，最近几周已趋于下降的石油价格开始上升-可能因恐慌性购买石油期货。保尔森和伯南克显然意识到他们面临着一个严峻的1929年的情况。如果他们站在一旁，无疑将是全球金融体系的崩溃，这反过来会促使世界资本主义经济大萧条。在吸取了1929年崩溃的教训后，当时美联储和美国政府站在一旁，并允许金融多米诺骨牌的倒塌，保尔森和伯南克决定，他们别无选择只能介入挽救资本主义制度。


9月19日，保尔森宣布他的困境资产救济方案(Tarp) ，一个7,000亿美元的计划，在正在崩溃的金融机构下筑好基底和重新稳定美国和全球的金融体系。保尔森的声明至少在一段时间里避免了一场全球性崩溃。但是，这的确是治标不治本的措施，本身不能克服银行系统的信贷紧缩和瘫痪。


当我们把目光投向报刊，可以看到华盛顿互惠破产的消息，美国历史上最大的银行倒闭。 华盛顿互惠银行（WaMu）被管制者没收（ 9月25日） 并出售给摩根大通。


欧洲银行遭受了其不良抵押贷款证券带来的巨大损失的打击。受影响最严重的是瑞士银行，瑞银华宝（UBS）总减记约500亿美元（超过美林） 。金融时报评论说，许多欧洲银行现在不仅'太大而不能失败' ，而且“太大而无法挽救” 。 “举例来说，德意志银行负债总额（融资率超过50 ！ ）共约€ 2000亿欧元（超过房利美）或超过德国国内生产总值的80 ％。这对央行（Bundesbank）甚至德国整个国家来说简直是太多了... “ （苟延残喘的欧洲银行，金融时报， 9月24日）


保尔森的一揽子方案


雷曼兄弟公司和美林证券危机爆发和短期货币市场失灵（尽管由联邦储备委员会和其他中央银行持续，大规模注入流动资金）后，保尔森被迫宣布（ 9月18日）一揽子拯救计划，既TARP。没有提供任何细节，保尔森建议花费7,000亿美元纳税人的钱建立一个仍然在金融机构名册上的卖不掉的不良证券垃圾箱。


据报道5000亿美元的损失已被注销，但有人估计来自住房市场的剩余证券更多达1万亿美元。随着保尔森的声明，全球股市交易立即恢复。然而，国会领导人，无论民主党和共和党几乎立即开始抗议保尔森的救援计划之清场的性质和他作为一个财政部长的特别权力。


保尔森建议应给予财政部长（最初为两年）根据他的判断力以任何价格从任何人那里购买证券的无限的权力。此外，他还要求免受法院或政府行政机构的任何形式的起诉。起初，他提议只购买美国银行的证券，但很快扩大到包括外国银行的美国子公司。


如果美国国会接受这个建议，保尔森将是美国历史上最强大的财政部长。新闻周刊（Newsweek）的封面上称他为“国王亨利”。实际上，财政部长将成为美国资本主义的没有监督（仅仅是每年向国会报告两次）的经济主管人员，可以和总统本身的权力相匹敌。


如同布什9 / 11事件后一样，在伯南克支持下，保尔森正试图以全球金融崩溃的威胁来促使国会在没有彻底讨论其内容的情况下迅速批准他的建议。举例来说保尔森要求这一揽子方案应该是“干净利落”的，也就是说它不应该受制于任何建议，如政府获得股份以换取购买不良债务，或限制银行家的薪酬，或屋主免于面对丧失抵押品赎回权。热衷于挽救破产的银行家，保尔森残酷地拒绝购房人士的合法权益。


保尔森提议支付大约接近不良证券的票面价值，以美元计超过60美分，而不是其20或30美分的当前市场价值。此外，不同的银行，金融公司和其他公司正在游说以便扩大救援的范围。举例来说，要求把市政债券，信用卡债务和汽车购买债务包括进来。华尔街的公司已经期待从执行保尔森方案的业务中收费。


那么，金融公司的负责人对保尔森的建议很热心就不足为奇了。然而，一些自由市场主义的共和党强烈谴责该计划为“债务社会化”。 来自肯塔基州的共和党参议员吉姆·邦宁（Jim Bunning）宣称： “在美国，适合于所有意图和目的的自由市场死了。”他说，保尔森的计划将“把华尔街的痛苦带给纳税人...它是金融社会主义，它是非美国式的” 。


另一方面，民主党领袖要求采取措施帮助哀伤的业主。保尔森拒绝了这一要求，其理由是这批不良证券过于复杂以至于不能减少个体业主的付款额。 “银行和证券业... 正极其所能地和变化战斗，正如他们提出住房法案（7月份通过的）时所做的” （9月24日国际先驱论坛报）。


保尔森目前的建议完全不同于20世纪90年代初挽救储蓄和贷款银行（thrifts[储蓄]）时采取的措施。当时，美国政府有效地国有化了经营失败的thrifts[储蓄]，并在把thrifts[储蓄] 返回为私人所有之前的一段时期里出售了其剩余资产。1994年后强劲的经济增长恢复了抵押资产的价值，并使得政府可以收回部分救援的成本。


在1991-92年房地产泡沫破裂后瑞典政府采取了类似的措施。政府国有化了瑞典银行部门的一大部分，削减了这些经营失败的机构的股东，随后再次出售了所有可以售出的资产，后来，银行回到了私营部门。可是，救援成本约达瑞典的国内生产总值（虽然随着时间的推移捞回来了一些成本）的4 ％ 。毫无疑问美国资产阶级将坚决抵制大规模国有化美国银行业。


目前保尔森的救援建议，耗资约7,000亿美元，相当于GDP的5 ％ 。然而，保尔森无意接管经营失败的美国银行，只是通过全买他们的不良债务使他们脱困，从而使它们能够补充其资本和像往常一样运行下去。保尔森甚至不能要求获得银行股份以换取购买其坏帐。


保尔森的一揽子方案会得到国会的批准吗？鉴于国会反对的力量，有可能会有一些拖延以及保尔森可能会被迫接受一些修改，特别是他所主张的超常的不受制止的权力。但是，面临着金融市场进一步下跌的威胁和新的社会动乱的可能性，看来国会将在因11月的选举而分崩离析前以这种或那种的形式接受这一揽子方案。


社会主义替代


保尔森声称，人们不在乎谁拥有银行。但数以百万计的房主会在乎政府使用纳税人的金钱来使已把不良抵押贷款出售和证券化的银行摆脱困境，而数百万人面临违约利率和丧失抵押品赎回权的威胁。事实上，数以百万计的美国人已经被保尔森的计划激怒了。


社会团体，工会，以及所有那些捍卫劳动人民利益的人士应该要求国有化银行和金融机构（保险公司，对冲基金等）并在工人的控制和管理下以民主计划的方式运行，而不是国有化金融资本的不良资产和坏账。只在必要的基础上补偿小股东和存款人。


银行部门的运行应促进能提供大部分人口所需要的商品和服务的行业的利益，而不是为少数超级富裕的金融资本家的投机活动提供资金。银行应提供廉价的抵押贷款以供个人购房（有一个排除富人的豪宅的上限） 。它们还应向小企业和小农户提供廉价信贷以便他们能为当地社区的需要服务。


当然这些措施将令许多人面临对更广泛的经济部门的所有权和控制权的问题，并需要用民主的计划来取代市场的无政府状态和赤裸裸的惟利是图。例如，美国政府目前正在考虑给大汽车公司福特、克莱斯勒和通用汽车公司一揽子国家担保贷款。这些公司处在严重的危机中，应该把它们置于工人的民主控制和管理下来运行以便满足社会的需要。


工会和社会团体应完全反对所有丧失抵押品赎回权。应该取消凡通过欺诈行为或欺骗手段已售出的抵押贷款。没有能力按揭还款的购房者应有权以负担得起的社会的租金租借房屋。通过丧失抵押品赎回权和建设者和房地产公司的破产，产生了一些空房，州和市的政府应接管无人居住的房屋并且以负担得起的租金出租出去。关于抵押贷款违约，丧失抵押品赎回权和房屋所有者的权利的决定，一般不应由政府官员或破产法院来作出，而应由全民选举出来的将维护劳动人民的权利的委员会来作出。


一个新的时期


如果国会通过可能带有一些修改的保尔森的一揽子方案，金融崩溃或可避免。在付诸实施的具体措施上仍然会有严重的争吵。然而，营救计划本身不会恢复金融部门。美国住房危机，信贷紧缩之根本，还远远没有结束。即使政府接管不良资产，金融部门的巨额亏损意味着信贷紧缩将持续多年。


金融部门的拯救将不会使美国经济避免衰退，美国经济正在放缓。此外，美国经济放缓加上在许多其他经济体的金融危机正把世界推向经济衰退。现在欧洲的经济有一个急剧的衰退。日本，近年来开始有些微弱的恢复，但再次陷入零增长。中国，仍然被视为世界经济的动力，预计将放慢，从11-12 ％的增长降到2008年的约8 ％ 。虽然8 ％的比例相对较高，但是这将在中国产生严重的经济上和政治上的影响。


20世纪80年代以来通过在美国和其他国家助长债务为基础的消费开支（驱使在中国和其他低成本经济体生产廉价商品）的一系列的金融泡沫，资本主义生产和盈利能力的潜在的危机已被推迟数次 。但是，现在得到清算的时候了。极度的债务之山的崩溃几乎肯定意味着长时间的世界资本主义经济增长疲软。毫无疑问，仍然有一个经济周期，但很可能不会返回到2001-07之间经历的那种全球繁荣了。

加速全球化和不受约束的新自由主义政策的最近阶段即将结束并且将打开一个全新的发展时期。针对金融部门的大规模的国家干预对贸易，国际货币流通和产业政策将具有广泛的影响。主要资本主义势力之间的关系将更紧张。长期的停滞、断断续续的微弱复苏和再次的衰退将引起社会危机和激烈的政治斗争。资本主义的经济危机同时也是意识形态和政治的危机，这不可避免地会重新把马克思主义提到政治议程上来。
World Economy
pdf version

The great implosion
Capitalist finance system nears meltdown

Editorial, Socialism Today, October 2008
Over recent years, we have often been accused of being ‘catastrophists’. This is because we predicted that the debt-driven bubble economy, dominated by high-profit, high-risk finance capitalism, would at a certain point collapse, resulting in a serious downturn in the world economy. As a review of our articles will show (see box), we have never proclaimed a ‘catastrophe’ at every point, but have presented a careful, balanced analysis of each stage of development. And our analysis is now being amply borne out.

Unfortunately, some on the left succumbed to the idea that the world capitalist boom, based on accelerated globalisation and ultra-free-market policies, could continue indefinitely. The events of recent weeks, following the collapse of the US housing bubble and the severe repercussions of the subprime mortgage crisis, have completely changed the picture. Now the headlines in the serious capitalist press are ‘catastrophist’. “Capitalism in convulsion”, read a headline in the Financial Times (20 September).

George Bush’s attempted multi-billion dollar rescue of the financial system, wrote John Plender, is “at the cost of inflicting severe damage on the US model of free-market capitalism”. (Financial Times, 20 September) After the government-financed bail-outs and takeovers of Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, American Insurance Group, etc, it has become commonplace to refer to the ‘socialisation’ or ‘nationalisation’ of financial institutions. In reality, the colossal debts of reckless, predatory finance capitalism are being offloaded onto the shoulders of the working class.

When US treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, announced his $700 billion Troubled Asset Rescue Programme, the commentator, Paul Krugman (a liberal Democrat), commented: “Comrade Paulson is taking over the commanding heights”. One financial trader, Bill Perkins, a free-marketeer, placed an advert in the New York Times. It shows Bush, Paulson and Federal Reserve chairman, Ben Bernanke, the ‘new communists’, raising an American flag on the grave of ‘private enterprise’ and ‘capitalism’. Perkins believes that failed banks should be allowed to collapse, and not be bailed out at the taxpayers’ expense. “I think it’s a kind of trickle down version of socialism or communism”, he said. “You have the government nationalising more institutions than Venezuela”. (Guardian, 25 September)

For a few days, however, Bush, Paulson and Bernanke were facing the prospect of a new 1929-type crash of the financial system. If they allowed it to happen, as the Federal Reserve and the government did in 1929, it would threaten the survival of the capitalist system. From a capitalist standpoint, they had no choice but to intervene to try to stabilise the financial system. Whether Paulson’s package succeeds remains to be seen. There is a chain of crisis that is far from played out.

Nevertheless, the accumulation of state-finance bail-outs and de facto nationalisation, and now the $700 billion rescue plan, is a shattering blow to the prestige of US capitalism and the ideology of the free market.

Nationalisation by the Bush regime, of course, does not mean real ‘socialism’. Their aim is to use the state’s resources, including a massive increase in public debt, to stabilise capitalism and prepare the ground for a recovery at a later date. The bill for the bail-outs will be handed to the working class, who contribute the biggest share of taxes to the US government. Moreover, millions of working-class families have been ensnared by crooked finance companies into the subprime mortgage trap, and many are now losing their homes. Millions will face unemployment and poverty wages as the financial crisis pushes the US economy deeper into recession.

Real socialism would mean the taking over of the finance sector and the commanding heights of the economy by a government of the working class, to be run democratically under the control of those who produce the wealth. Democratic planning would replace the anarchy of the market. Production would be to meet the needs of society, not the profits of the few. Nevertheless, as Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels pointed out, even nationalisation measures carried out by the capitalist state for its own ends demonstrate the redundancy of private ownership and the possibility of an alternative, more advanced economic system.

Domination of finance capital
Many are now blaming the current crisis on the ‘greed’ and ‘fear’ of bankers, hedge fund managers, traders on financial markets, and so on. These people have undoubtedly played a predatory, parasitic role. Their speculative activities have concentrated wealth and profits into the hands of a tiny, super-rich minority. Last year, for instance, the average chief executive in the finance sector gained an income 275 times that of an average worker. Their egotistical motives, however, are a symptom of the system, not the cause of developments.

Over the last 30 years, the capitalist class in the US, Britain and elsewhere moved away from investing in productive activity, the production of goods and services required by the majority of people. They sought higher levels of profitability in the finance sector, both in the advanced capitalist countries and in China and other developing economies. The defeats of the working class in the 1980s, followed by the collapse of Stalinism in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, allowed the capitalist class to intensify the exploitation of the working class, especially in the neo-colonial countries of the underdeveloped world. The capitalist system as a whole became increasingly parasitic.

That was the basis on which the parasitic finance capitalism became dominant. It was allowed free scope by globalisation and ultra-free-market (neo-liberal) policies. But the growth of grotesque inequality, with the worldwide reduction in the share of wealth taken by the working class, increasingly restricted the market for capitalism. The capitalist class, especially those operating on the Anglo-US model, have sustained relatively high levels of growth on the basis of ever growing volumes of debt. In 1980, global debt was approximately equal to global GDP. Since then, however, global debt has ballooned to over 3.5 times global output. At the same time, finance capitalism, the channel through which this debt is traded for profit, took around a third of capitalist profits.

This trend, as we have pointed out many times, was unsustainable. It was only a matter of time before the whole edifice collapsed. That is what is happening now. The shadow banking system, the network of unregulated investment banks, hedge funds, and the banks’ own off-balance sheet vehicles, has imploded. The shadow network was developed to bypass the regulated commercial banks. But the major banks, which still form the core of the finance system, have not escaped the crisis of liquidity and capital availability. Derivatives, a whole array of exotic financial instruments that were supposed to spread if not abolish risk, have indeed turned out to be “financial instruments of mass destruction”, as the old-fashioned financier, Warren Buffett, warned.

There will be a profound reaction in the US and internationally to the capitalist crisis and the state bail-out of rotten finance capital. Apart from the economic contradictions, the crisis will undoubtedly produce a monumental scandal of corrupt practices, fraud and theft on an even bigger scale than the earlier Enron scandals. Workers will be forced to organise and fight against the effects of capitalist crisis. These events will create fertile ground for the growth of interest in genuine socialism and Marxism.

Countdown to meltdown
Events in September marked a new, critical stage of the crisis in the global finance system. The world was brought to the brink of a 1929-type collapse.

On 7 September, the US treasury was forced to step in and take over the direct running of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two giant government-sponsored mortgage providers. This followed the government intervention in July, when it guaranteed their $5 trillion mortgage debt in return for shares in these institutions – in effect, a partial nationalisation. Even that failed to stabilise these giants. Paulson’s ‘bazooka’ had not proved enough to reassure foreign investors, particularly Asian central banks, which have been selling off Fannie and Freddie bonds. A complete takeover by the government, effectively nationalising the institutions, was the only measure left.

Then (14-15 September) Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, two of the five giant Wall Street investment banks, faced bankruptcy. Other Wall Street banks refused to intervene without a government undertaking to guarantee Lehman and Merrill toxic assets. Paulson and Bernanke refused. They had come under tremendous political pressure to avoid handing out any more taxpayers’ dollars. Moreover, free marketers were demanding that they avoid creating further ‘moral hazard’, that is, sending out another signal that reckless speculators would be protected from their own folly by the assurance of a government bail-out. By refusing to back a government rescue of Lehman and Merrill, Paulson and Bernanke hoped to send a message that there would be no more Bear Stearns-type government-sponsored bail-outs for failing banks. Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy, and Barclays International and other vultures began to cherry-pick the potentially profitable Lehman assets. Merrill Lynch, on the other hand, rushed to sell itself to the Bank of America, a deposit bank with much greater capital reserves.

Paulson and Bernanke, however, made a monumental miscalculation. They thought they could draw a line, but their refusal to back a rescue of Lehman or Merrill triggered a general slump in bank shares. This signalled that a whole swathe of banks were about to follow Lehman and Merrill into the dust. Among the most threatened were the two remaining investment banks, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The whole ‘shadow banking system’, the unregulated, debt-financed, highly speculative network of investment banks and hedge funds, was imploding. Because of their multiple links with the major banks, which also operated off-balance sheet investment vehicles, the investment banks threatened to bring down many other institutions. If Paulson and Bernanke had backed a rescue of Lehman and Merrill, it would not have stopped the rot (as the subsequent bankruptcy of Washington Mutual shows), but by standing back as Lehman and Merrill sank, they accelerated the pace of the banking crisis.

In Britain, HBOS (Halifax-Bank of Scotland), a major bank and mortgage provider, faced bankruptcy. It was only saved by a rapid marriage of convenience, pushed by the Bank of England, with Lloyds TSB.

The failure of Lehman and Merrill had an immediate knock-on effect on the short-term money market. Money market funds, used by the banks to finance their short-term borrowing, have usually been regarded as almost as safe as cash. A key aspect of the credit crunch was the seizing up of this short-term money market, as banks hoarded cash and avoided making any potentially risky loans to other banks. Despite the Federal Reserve’s drastic interest rates cuts, the inter-bank lending rate, usually fractionally higher than the Fed’s rate, has soared to an unprecedented level. Reeling under the impact of the Lehman and Merrill bankruptcies, the severe credit crunch turned into a complete paralysis of this vital money market.

The Federal Reserve, cooperating with other major central banks, was forced to pump $180 billion into the global banking system (on this occasion, currency swaps, dollars for euros, pounds, etc). In the following few days, they pumped in another $100 billion into the system, and the central banks of Britain and Japan, and the European Central Bank also pumped in additional liquidity. Moreover, the Fed and other central banks agreed to accept a wider range of securities as collateral for the loans, including shares, company bonds, etc, in other words, much more risky assets than the government bonds they had previously insisted on. (Since then, more liquidity in the form of short-term loans have been pumped in by central banks.)

Paulson had allowed Lehman and Merrill to collapse, but faced with the possible collapse of a giant insurance company, American Insurance Group (AIG), the government was forced to step in. The AIG crisis was triggered by the downgrading of its security status by a rating agency. This threatened to trigger a run on AIG’s shares, thus further depleting its capital reserves. The problem was not with AIG’s massive insurance business in the US, Europe and Asia. The crisis arose from its involvement in the shadow banking system through its worldwide business in credit default swaps, a form of insurance used to guarantee the investment grade status of a wide range of securities (mortgage-backed securities, company bonds, municipal bonds, etc). AIG had issued $447 billion of such insurance (including $300bn to European institutions).

The downgrading of AIG’s credit status automatically meant a downgrading of securities insured by AIG-issued credit default swaps. This would, in turn, create problems for any finance house using AIG-insured securities as collateral for their own borrowing. In other words, a collapse of AIG would mean a huge increase in the quantity of toxic debt in the global finance system. The losses would be absolutely staggering (one estimate is that it would mean at least $180bn for the global financial sector). At the same time, AIG’s collapse would also mean the collapse of its worldwide insurance business. To avoid a catastrophic crash, Paulson was forced to step in by guaranteeing $85 billion of AIG assets in return for preference shares in the insurance company.

During the critical week, 15-19 September, world stock exchanges plunged. The government bail-out of AIG failed to stabilise share markets. At the same time, the price of oil, which had been tending to fall over recent weeks, began to rise – probably due to a panicky buying of oil futures. Paulson and Bernanke evidently realised that they were faced with a stark 1929 situation. If they stood aside, there would undoubtedly be a collapse of the global finance system which, in turn, would provoke a major slump in the world capitalist economy. Having learned the lessons of the 1929 crash, when the Federal Reserve and the US government stood aside and allowed the financial dominoes to collapse, Paulson and Bernanke decided that they had no choice but to step in to save the capitalist system.

On 19 September, Paulson announced his Troubled Asset Relief Programme (Tarp), a $700 billion ‘plan’ to place a floor under collapsing financial institutions and re-stabilise the US and world banking system. Paulson’s announcement averted a global crash, at least for the time being. But it is really a palliative measure that will not in itself overcome the credit crunch and the paralysis of the banking system.

As we go to press, there is news of the bankruptcy of Washington Mutual, the biggest bank failure in US history. WaMu was seized by the regulator (25 September) and sold to JP Morgan Chase.

European banks have also been hammered by their huge losses from toxic subprime mortgage securities. The hardest hit is the Swiss bank, UBS, which has made total write-downs of around $50 billion (more than Merrill Lynch). The Financial Times has commented that many European banks are now not only ‘too big to fail’, but “too big to save”. “For example, the total liabilities of Deutsche Bank (leverage ratio over 50!) amount to about €2000 billion (more than Fannie Mae) or more than 80% of the gross domestic product of Germany. This is simply too much for the Bundesbank or even the German state…” (European Banking Lives on Borrowed Time, Financial Times, 24 September)

Paulson’s package
After the crisis with Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch, and the seizing up of the short-term money market (despite continuing, massive injections of liquidity by the Federal Reserve and other central banks) Paulson was forced to announce (18 September) a rescue package, the Tarp. Without giving any details, Paulson proposed to spend $700 billion of taxpayers’ money to establish a toxic waste dump for the unsellable securities still on the books of financial institutions.

A reported $500 billion of losses have already been written off, but some estimates put remaining securities from the housing market at a further $1,000 billion. Global stock exchanges immediately revived following Paulson’s announcement. Almost immediately, however, congressional leaders, both Democrat and Republican, began to protest at the sweeping character of Paulson’s rescue plan and the extraordinary powers that he was claiming as treasury secretary.

Paulson proposed that the treasury secretary should be given (initially for two years) unlimited powers to buy securities from anyone at any price according to his discretion. Moreover, he was claiming immunity from any kind of action by courts or administrative agencies of the government. Initially, he proposed buying the securities from US banks only, but soon widened this to include the US subsidiaries of foreign banks.

If this were accepted by Congress, Paulson would be the most powerful treasury secretary in US history. On its cover, Newsweek dubbed him ‘King Henry’. In effect, the treasury secretary would become the economic executive of US capitalism, with no oversight (merely reporting to Congress twice a year), a rival source of power to the presidency itself.

Like Bush after 9/11, Paulson, backed by Bernanke, is attempting to use the threat of global financial collapse to get rapid congressional approval of his proposals without a thorough discussion of their content. Paulson, for instance, is demanding the package should be ‘clean’, meaning that it should not be encumbered by any proposals such as the government acquisition of shares in exchange for buying toxic debt, or limits on the remuneration of bankers, or relief to homeowners facing foreclosure. Keen to bail out bankrupt bankers, Paulson brutally rejects the legitimate claims of home-buyers.

Paulson is proposing to pay something near the face value of toxic securities, over 60 cents in the dollar, as opposed to their current market value of 20 or 30 cents. Moreover, a variety of banks, finance houses and other companies are lobbying to widen the scope of the rescue. For instance, there are demands for municipal bonds, credit card debt and car-purchase debt to be included. Wall Street firms are already looking forward to the fees they hope to collect from being drawn in to administer the operations of Paulson’s programme.

It is hardly surprising, then, that the heads of finance companies are enthusiastic about Paulson’s proposals. However, some free-market Republicans have vehemently denounced the plan as the ‘socialisation of debt’. Senator Jim Bunning, a Republican from Kentucky, proclaimed: “The free market for all intents and purposes is dead in America”. He said that Paulson’s plan would “take Wall Street’s pain and spread it to the taxpayers… It’s financial socialism, and it’s un-American”.

Democrat leaders, on the other hand, are demanding measures to help distressed homeowners. Paulson has rejected this demand on the grounds that the bundles of toxic securities are too complex to allow the reduction of individual homeowners’ payments. “The banking and securities industries… are fighting the change with all their might, as they did when it came up with the housing bill that was adopted in July”. (International Herald Tribune, 24 September)

Paulson’s current proposal is completely different from the measure used to rescue the savings and loans banks (thrifts) in the early 1990s. At that time, the US government effectively nationalised the failing thrifts, and sold off their remaining assets over a period, before returning the thrifts to private ownership. The robust growth of the economy after 1994 restored the value of mortgaged property and allowed the government to recover part of the cost of the rescue.

A similar measure was taken by the Swedish government after the collapse of the housing bubble in 1991-92. The government nationalised a large section of the Swedish banking sector, cutting out the shareholders of these failed institutions and, subsequently again, any sellable assets were sold off and the banks were later returned to the private sector. The rescue, however, cost about 4% of Sweden’s gross domestic product (though some of this was recovered over time). The US capitalist class, however, would undoubtedly strongly resist full-scale nationalisation of the US banking sector.

The current Paulson rescue proposal, costing around $700 billion, is the equivalent of about 5% of GDP. However, Paulson has no intention of taking over the failed US banks, merely bailing them out by buying up their toxic debts, thus allowing them to replenish their capital and carry on as usual. Paulson is not even demanding shares in the banks in return for buying their bad debt.

Will Paulson get congressional approval for his package? Given the strength of congressional opposition, there is likely to be some delay, and Paulson may be forced to accept some modifications, particularly to the extraordinary, unchecked powers he is claiming. However, faced with the threat of further falls in financial markets and the possibility of new convulsions, it seems likely that Congress will accept the package in one form or another before dispersing for the November elections.

A socialist alternative
Paulson claims that people do not care who owns the banks. Millions of homeowners, however, will care that the government is using taxpayers’ money to bail out the banks which have sold and securitised toxic mortgages while millions are facing penal interest rates and the threat of foreclosure. In fact, millions of Americans are already incensed at Paulson’s plan.

Community organisations, unions, and all those who defend the interests of working people should demand that, instead of the nationalisation of finance capital’s toxic assets and bad debts, the banks and financial institutions (insurance companies, hedge funds, etc) should be nationalised and run in a democratically planned way under workers’ control and management. Compensation for small shareholders and depositors should be on the basis of need only.

The banking sector should be run to promote the interests of industries providing goods and services needed by the majority of the population, not funding the speculative activities of a hyper-rich minority of financiers. The banks should provide cheap mortgages for personal home buyers (with a ceiling to exclude luxury houses for the wealthy). They should also provide cheap credit to small businesses and small farmers serving the needs of local communities.

Such measures, of course, would for many raise the question of ownership and control of wider sectors of the economy, and the need for democratic planning to replace the anarchy of the market and the naked pursuit of personal profit. The US government, for instance, is currently considering a package of state-guaranteed loans to the big auto companies, Ford, Chrysler and GM. These corporations are in deep crisis and should also be taken over and run under democratic workers’ control and management to meet the needs of society.

Unions and community groups should totally oppose all foreclosures. Where dodgy mortgages have been sold through fraud or deception, they should be cancelled. Home buyers who cannot meet their mortgage repayments should have the right to rent the property at an affordable, social rent. Where, through foreclosures and the bankruptcy of builders and property companies, there are empty houses, state and municipal government should take over unoccupied homes and rent them out at affordable rents. Decisions regarding mortgage defaults, foreclosures, and home owners’ rights in general, should be taken not by government officials or bankruptcy courts, but by popular, elected committees which will safeguard the rights of working people.

A new period
If passed by Congress, Paulson’s package, probably with some modifications, may avert a financial crash. There will still be serious wrangles over the detailed measures to be implemented. However, the rescue plan will not in itself revive the finance sector. The US housing crisis, the root of the credit crunch, is far from over. Huge losses in the financial sector mean that the credit crunch will continue for years, even if the toxic waste is taken over by the government.

The rescue of the finance sector will not avert a recession in the US economy, which is already gathering pace. Moreover, the US slowdown, combined with financial crisis in many other economies, is pushing the world towards an economic downturn. There is now a sharp recession in the European economies. Japan, after a weak recovery in recent years, has once again lapsed into zero growth. China, still seen as a dynamo of the world economy, is expected to slow down from 11-12% growth to around 8% during 2008. Though 8% is relatively high, this would have serious effects within China, economically and politically.

The underlying crisis of capitalist production and profitability has been postponed several times since the 1980s through a series of financial bubbles that have fuelled debt-based consumer spending in the US and elsewhere (driving the production of cheap goods in China and other low-cost economies). But now is the time of reckoning. The collapse of the extreme debt mountain almost certainly means a prolonged period of weak growth in the world capitalist economy. Undoubtedly, there will still be an economic cycle, but it is not likely that there will be a return to the kind of global boom that was experienced between 2001-07.

The recent phase of accelerated globalisation and unfettered neo-liberal policies is drawing to a close and an entirely new period of developments is opening. Massive state intervention in the finance sector has wider implications for trade, international currency flows and industrial policy. There will be even deeper tensions between the major capitalist powers. Prolonged stagnation, punctuated by weak recoveries and renewed recession, will provoke social crisis and mighty political struggles. The economic crisis of capitalism is also an ideological and political crisis, and this unavoidably places Marxism back on the political agenda.