Economist Michael Hudson argues Donald Trump has no plans to deal with the problems that caused US deindustrialization. His tariffs are just a neoliberal program under another guise, to benefit the wealthy donor class.
This producerism malarky is where I find the limits of Hudson. “Return of the robber barron” (as if they ever went away) is a definite nod towards the attempted separation of industrial capital against financial capital (they are two sides of the same coin) and it is the path towards fascism (I’m not saying Hudson is a fascist but this where I find it really hard not to eye-roll).
Since the dawn of world capitalism, producerism has a long history that predates Marxism. For example, in the context of the United States, Andrew Jackson inspired a populist movement of what he considers to be “productive” classes of society (e.g. white farmers, artisans, slave owning planters, laborers, and “productive” capitalists) against unproductive classes (e.g. bankers, speculators, monopolists, and people of color). Moreover, in the 20th century, Producerism as an ideology was articulated by national socialists, Italian fascists, the Strasser brothers, and others.
Producerist rhetoric and aesthetics can appear as expressing authentic working class sentiments, indicating real revolutionary potential, to an inexperienced and naive socialist. However, producerism is in fact another instance of an ideology, in the Marxist sense, that conceals the true class character of the outlook with familiar terms, rhetoric, and aesthetics. Producerism as an outlook is a Manichean outlook that divides society between producers and non-producers and it laments that we live under a social order imposed by non-producers. Historically, according to this outlook, there are two types of non-producers…
I very much agree, Hudson likes to peddle this idea that industrial capitalism can naturally evolve into socialism. The reality is that unless there is a dictatorship of the proletariat in place, then it will evolve into financial capitalism and later into fascism.
I think the appeal of Hudson is found in the political economy illiteracy of comrades brought up in liberalism (myself included; I have got his book Super-imperialism for example) but you have to start somewhere out here in the west - it is very difficult to find literature for laymen from the anglosphere with busy working lives, and defacto censorship does not make it easy to find accessible material. As we progress through our ML education and develop our theoretical knowledge we can start discarding what is limiting but not everyone is at the same place in their journey; these windows into possibilities outside our bubbles are important to introduce and we should read broadly where possible.
Exactly, he’s got the basics right and he explains things in a digestible way. But as we develop more nuanced understanding we can start picking apart what he says more critically.
As always thanks for the post!
This producerism malarky is where I find the limits of Hudson. “Return of the robber barron” (as if they ever went away) is a definite nod towards the attempted separation of industrial capital against financial capital (they are two sides of the same coin) and it is the path towards fascism (I’m not saying Hudson is a fascist but this where I find it really hard not to eye-roll).
On producerism: https://socialistmag.us/2024/01/07/producerism-socialism-and-anti-imperialism-for-fools/
I very much agree, Hudson likes to peddle this idea that industrial capitalism can naturally evolve into socialism. The reality is that unless there is a dictatorship of the proletariat in place, then it will evolve into financial capitalism and later into fascism.
I think the appeal of Hudson is found in the political economy illiteracy of comrades brought up in liberalism (myself included; I have got his book Super-imperialism for example) but you have to start somewhere out here in the west - it is very difficult to find literature for laymen from the anglosphere with busy working lives, and defacto censorship does not make it easy to find accessible material. As we progress through our ML education and develop our theoretical knowledge we can start discarding what is limiting but not everyone is at the same place in their journey; these windows into possibilities outside our bubbles are important to introduce and we should read broadly where possible.
Exactly, he’s got the basics right and he explains things in a digestible way. But as we develop more nuanced understanding we can start picking apart what he says more critically.