»Z Journal for Marxist Renewal”: “Multiple Crisis”: A contemporary potpourri

The term crisis is currently on everyone’s lips. It often doesn’t stop at just one: even the federal government – at least Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck – speaks of a “multiple crisis”, the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry also assumes the existence of a “multiple crisis” and the traditional magazine “Wirtschaftsdienst” headlined “multiple crisis situation”. Terms such as multiple crisis or polycrisis are also used again and again. Many analysts from a wide range of political camps agree: the situation is not “normal” – even if the current catastrophe caused by the traffic light government is ignored.

Germany, Europe and the world are in a multiple crisis. The »Z.« published in Frankfurt is also dedicated to this topic. “Marxist Renewal” magazine in the most recent December issue. It contains key contributions from the Marxist Study Week on the topic of “Multiple Crisis?” from August of last year as well as a conference report. Some of the conference contributions can also be found as video recordings on the website of the co-organizing Munich Institute for Social-Ecological Economic Research.

Many individual ones or one major crisis?

The term, as can be read in the current issue of “Z.”, arose in connection with the left-wing attempts to interpret the financial and economic crisis since 2007 and its combination with the crisis of the fossilist-capitalist way of production and way of life. In Dominik Feldmann’s opening contribution, this crisis is understood not just as a coincidental coincidence of various crises – including the climate and environmental crisis, crisis of reproduction, crisis of “Western” democracies, distribution relations, a crisis of world order and other crises – but rather as a single one “major,” “systemic” crisis. She may have what it takes to shake the current global hegemonic constellation. Of course, it is still unclear whether this only affects the neoliberal form of capitalism or whether more fundamental changes would be initiated.

In his article, the political scientist Frank Deppe says that the existing contradictions almost “cry out” for “socialist solutions,” and he puts the quotation marks himself. However, given the weakness of the left, there is currently an upswing in right-wing populist forces against the backdrop of the crisis experienced by wage earners and the widespread fear of social decline. These could pave the way for fascist and violent reactions to the worsening crisis. It cannot be ruled out that the tendencies towards chaos, war and violence will continue to increase. How justified this assessment is is shown by the election victories of the anarcho-capitalist Javier Milei in Argentina, the right-wing extremist Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, the AfD’s performance in the most recent election polls in Germany and Putin’s foreseeable election victory in Russia: all events that take place in the »Z.« contributions could not yet be taken into account.

Devastating government policies

The contributions on the topic of “multiple crises” not only include attempts to determine their nature, their consequences and political beneficiaries, but also the question of the origin of crises in capitalism in general and their “handling” by the ruling class and its organizations. Judith Dellheim, for example, identifies the Federation of German Industries (BDI) as the “catalyst of the multiple crisis”. His policy of intensifying exploitation leads “not least to the growth of liquid funds with which to speculate on the inflated international financial markets, which promotes financial crises. These in turn exacerbate economic, environmental and reproductive crises, generate new crises and distort the conditions for sustainably combating the consequences and causes of crises.

Michael Schwan’s contribution, which compares the crisis management by the current governments of the USA and Germany, is particularly interesting. It must be emphasized that in both countries these are “probably the most extensive interventions since the end of the Second World War.” This is not only a reaction to the severity and diversity of the crisis, but is also particularly due to a “geostrategic and security policy”-related transformation of the current mode of accumulation. The article “Save capitalism with subsidies?” written by the author of this article also fits this assessment.

Outside the main topic, the current “Z.” contains articles on Marx-Engels research, inflation and the current distribution struggles as well as a look back at the year 1923 and the attempt by communist forces at the time to initiate a “German October”. Reports on left-wing magazines, debates and conferences as well as a dozen book reviews complete the edition.

Lack of historical perspective

Although the current multiple crisis is historically classified as an “organic” or “major” crisis of capitalism, it would certainly have made sense in this thematic issue of “Z.” to address previous “major” crises and their respective consequences and coping strategies . The first such crisis, the Great Depression of 1873 to 1896, was associated with the emergence of monopolistic capitalism and the dominance of finance capital. The First World War, the emergence of system competition between socialism and capitalism and the global economic crisis of 1929/1933 prepared the ground for the merger of large, increasingly monopolized corporations with the bourgeois state. The economic crisis at the beginning of the 1970s and the ongoing process of globalization initiated the transition to the neoliberal version of capitalist economic policy.

All of these crises represented turning points in the development of capitalism, which signaled systemic weaknesses and constellations of upheaval, but ultimately always led to “relative stabilization” – a term from the 1920s. The term “general crisis,” which was also coined at that time in Marxism-Leninism, is a description of a situation in which… at Elements of the capitalist system are in crisis and that is precisely why a transition to socialism is possible and in some cases even reality, is not discussed in this “Z.” issue – whether rightly or wrongly remains to be seen here.

Are we in an interregnum?

It should be added that what Antonio Gramsci called “interregnum” in his prison notebook of 1930 certainly applies to the current crisis: “When the ruling class has lost consensus, that is, is no longer “leading,” but only “ruling,” Holder of pure coercive power, this precisely means that the great masses have moved away from traditional ideologies, no longer believe in what they previously believed, etc. The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new is not World can come: in this interregnum there will be a wide variety of crises.

Finally, I would like to return to Frank Deppe’s contribution: He not only notes a shift to the right, but also signs of a left-wing countermovement. A wave of theoretical and practical criticism of social conditions and their neoliberal treatment has emerged worldwide. After long years of decline, the unions experienced a new upswing, an increase in strike activity – which is also provided in the “Strike Monitor” contained in the magazine – can be observed, as can various one-point movements such as the climate, expropriation or peace movements . In this respect, Deppe’s contribution could also have been titled with the Gramsci phrase “pessimism of the mind – optimism of the will.”