Review of Catalyst 7–1, Spring 2023
Catalyst’s Reformism reinforces its Class Reductionism and Vice Versa! Support specific demands against racism!
This review of Catalyst 7–1 argues that Catalyst continues its advocacy of class reductionism and reformism. Despite useful information and even some good analysis, its theory of social change is flawed.
The first article in this issue is:
The New Levers of State Power
“The weakness of this article is its reformism. It says that since industry depends on government for support, government can push industry toward progressive programs. This assumes that capitalists and the government are fundamentally separate entities with different interests.”
The New Levers of State Power explains how important government support is to U.S. scientific and manufacturing prowess. The debate over infrastructure funding and the CHIPS Act implied that whole sections of capital were not in favor of this support. Part of this may be pure partisan politics. In fact, even under Trump the core of government support continued to the tune of billions of dollars. Republican resistance is primarily over taxes. Capitalists want government support, but many don’t want to pay for it. Some sections of capital are committed enough to this support that they are willing to pay at least a bit more in taxes. The irony is that conservatives oppose deficit spending at least in theory, but they also don’t want to pay more taxes for industrial support programs that they benefit from. It would be interesting to see a rigorous break down of which corporations receive how much from which programs and how that affects their lobbying and overall political stance.
This article is quite interesting in detailing how much the U.S. has an industrial policy. Biden’s infrastructure ,Inflation Reduction and CHIPS Acts are more extensions of previous government support to industry than a new departure. The weakness of this article is its reformism. It says that since industry depends on government for support, government can push industry toward progressive programs. This assumes that capitalists and the government are fundamentally separate entities with different interests. It relies on the assumption that government is a neutral arbiter between classes that popular lobbying or mobilization can bend to its will. In fact, the government support of industry flows from the capitalist control of the government. It pushes policies that it feels support the prosperity of capitalism. There are of course debates among the capitalist class and its political representatives over which policies are most effective. However, the focus is on pro-capitalist policies. Even those that appear more progressive are fundamentally aligned to the benefit of the rich. We can win concessions by opposing capitalist priorities with mass movements but not by assuming government is a potential progressive partner against corporate interests. The reformist approach of this article is consistent in Catalyst and Jacobin.
Race and the Housing Question
“How can we unite the working class to overthrow the capitalist system? The latter question cannot be raised by Catalyst because it is opposed to socialist revolution. The only question it tries to answer is what is possible under capitalism”.
Race and the Housing Question attacks “The Color of Law” a book which details Federal policies reinforcing racial discrimination in housing in the 20th Century. The article makes the unexceptionable point that the real estate industry was a major source of racist policies. In doing so, it lets the government off the hook for these policies. This defense of the government is tied to its class reductionist “solution” to racism in housing. It says that only universal housing programs can reduce or eliminate racism in housing. It naively argues that such programs can be non-racist. It relies on new laws and rules to bring this about. It also opposes race centered solutions, arguing that these will only benefit middle and upper-class people of color.
This approach is wrong on two levels. Universal programs must contain a specific attack on special oppression or that oppression will continue. Secondly, the reduction of racism at all levels is in the interest of working class and poor people of color. Racism trickles down on workers and the poor when it doesn’t cascade down. Reduction of society-wide racism by allowing affluent people of color to integrate more affluent neighborhoods benefits all people of color. Having a race-centered approach to supplement universal programs is therefore vital.
One of the arguments between class reductionists and those who want to also focus on oppression is over immediate results. Which will be more effective at reducing racism in housing today? However, there is another more important question: How can we unite the working class to overthrow the capitalist system? The latter question cannot be raised by Catalyst because it is opposed to socialist revolution. The only question it tries to answer is what is possible under capitalism. This is why one of its key arguments is over political constituency for change. It states that whites cannot be won to fighting for the special demands of people of color in any significant numbers. Therefore, for Catalyst, the only politically feasible program is universal with no special demands for the oppressed.
For revolutionary Marxists on the other hand, a key question is how to achieve working class unity. We know that white workers can be won to directly fight against racism. It is in the economic social and political interests of white workers to oppose racism. In the Summer of 2020, many whites realized this. Millions joined the movement for justice for George Floyd. Marxists support programs against special oppression because it is only possible to win white workers away from racism by directly confronting it. Secondly it is necessary to win white workers away from racism if we are ever to achieve the unity necessary to overthrow capitalism. As Marx said, “A people that oppresses another cannot itself be free.”
Catalyst’s class reductionism and reformism fit well together and reinforce each other. The pessimism of reformism results in the belief that there is no way to change the consciousness of working-class whites. Reformism rejects the attempt to change consciousness on a mass scale because it rejects as unrealistic the attempt to transform the system. It likewise rejects the attempt to transform the system because it is pessimistic about the attempt to fundamentally change consciousness.
The articles on the recent banking crash Silicon Valley Bank and Financial Turmoil is a useful summary of the recent crisis and the dilemma of how to manage the finances of a corrupt and competitive system.
Robert McChesney’s article on How to Save Journalism is a good examination of the decline of the news industry. The solutions he puts forward are interesting. In some ways they echo proposals made by Lenin about how to organize public debate after a revolution. However, they seem unrealistic under capitalism.
Rescuing W.E.B. Dubois from Anti-Marxists
“The Catalyst author says that the overthrow of Reconstruction was a “class-motivated bourgeois counterrevolution — and not, Du Bois emphasizes, race conflict ..” (155) The overthrow of Reconstruction was not a race conflict? That would no doubt surprise virtually every historian of this period. In fact, the race conflict was the main element of the counterrevolution even if the ultimate motivation was concentration of wealth and power by the new and restored planter class.”
Finally, The Dilemma for “Du Boisian Sociology is a defense of W.E.B. Dubois against those who would deny his Marxism. The article explains well the Marxist basis of his later works, especially the classic Black Reconstruction. The article stresses the roots of racism in the capitalist system as Du Bois did. It also defends the Marxist tradition as an active opponent of racism both theoretically and practically. However, in defending Du Bois the author goes a little too far. The author says Du Bois “takes issue with those who view race as an independent force freed from social and economic moorings”. In fact, although institutional racism is rooted in capitalism, it can develop a dynamic of its own. It does not necessarily immediately and completely respond to changes in the economy.
The U.S. civil rights movement is a good example of this. Jim Crow no longer served the economic needs of the capitalist system by the 1950s. Yet it took a massive struggle to end it. It did not just passively respond to economic changes.
The main point of the article is to defend Du Bois’ Marxism, and it does that very well. However, in doing so, it downplays the dynamic of racial conflict. The Catalyst author says that the overthrow of Reconstruction was a “class-motivated bourgeois counterrevolution — and not, Du Bois emphasizes, race conflict ..” (155) The overthrow of Reconstruction was not a race conflict? That would no doubt surprise virtually every historian of this period. In fact, the race conflict was the main element of the counterrevolution even if the ultimate motivation was concentration of wealth and power by the new and restored planter class. The author’s statement is likely a misinterpretation of Du Bois. After all, Dubois named his book Black Reconstruction not poor people’s reconstruction or workers’ reconstruction.
This downplaying of racism and the need to directly oppose it accords with Catalyst’s overall class reductionism. Class reductionism and reformism fit well together and reinforce each other.
This edition of Catalyst has useful information and even some helpful analysis despite its reformism and class reductionism.
