The New Age of Catastrophe, Alex Callinicos, Polity 2023
Callinicos has written an excellent overview of the crises facing capitalism and humanity. He discusses climate, war, oppression and economics/poverty. His main thesis is that the New Age of Catastrophe succeeds the previous age of catastrophe from 1914 -45 which included 2 world wars, the Great Depression and Stalinism and Fascism. It is an interesting framing and seems accurate. In discussing the new age of catastrophe, he is very clear that all aspects of the crisis interact with each other and influence each other.
The book is based on a Marxist analysis of the crises facing capitalism. It calls for revolution to get rid of the current system. Paradoxically considering his position as leader of the British Socialist Workers Party (SWP), he does not develop the theme of the need for a revolutionary party.
Callinicos is widely read and does much name dropping. Some of this is a humble recognition of where ideas come from. Some of it is unnecessary and seems to favor academic authors with poor politics like Althusser. On page 175 he seems to be trying to appeal to Democratic Socialists by saying:
“Opposing imperialism and racism is so important today; it confronts the barriers that must be overcome in order to forge a new workers’ movement. Thus, it is most regrettable that in the United States the Squad — a group of Progressive Democratic Congresswomen — has largely gone along with Biden’s policy of military aid to Ukraine, leaving it to the libertarian Republican Rand Paul and his like to lead the opposition.”
A Softness on Reformism?
“Callinicos implies that the state under capitalism is a neutral body subject to the influence of different classes.”
This is fine as a general sentiment — -the Left must lead opposition to imperialism or the Right will make hay out of it. However, it leaves out the Squad’s other anti-working class positions such as breaking the potential rail strike , voting for the U.S. military budget including aid to Israel and money for immigrant deportation etc. He implies that the Squad is somehow part of the process of building a new workers movement. This sentiment assumes that the Squad as members of an imperialist party could do something better politically. In fact, they are reformist pro-capitalist misleaders of the working class. They need to be exposed as such, not regretted over. Revolutionaries fight for reform but are opponents of reformism, especially major reformist misleaders.
This softness may come from the SWP’s long critical support to the reformist Labor Party. They are used to being “with and against” ( SWP founder Tony Cliff) the Labor Party. It would be good to do an in-depth critique of that relationship which is beyond the scope of this review.
Callinicos follows up this softness on reformism with softness on the nature of the bourgeois state. On page 3 and page 75, he approvingly quotes David Harvey that neoliberalism was the “restoration of class power” to the ruling class. This is fundamentally wrong. It implies that the ruling class was somehow out of power from the 1930s until the onset of neoliberalism. In fact, the capitalist ruling class has ruled the U.S. since the Civil War. (Previous iterations of the ruling class, merchant capitalists and slave owners ruled before that).
In fact, neoliberalism was a change in strategy by the already dominant ruling class. Due to competitive pressure from other capitalist states, it felt compelled to put the boot in. The decline of labor and other mass movements allowed them to intensify class warfare. The Harvey analysis here supported by Callinicos implies that the state under capitalism is a neutral body subject to the influence of different classes.
He also makes the extraordinary statement that “It is too simple to call the contemporary U.S. a case of “white supremacy”” (134)!!! He directly contradicts this on page 158.
With these caveats, most of Callinicos’ analysis is quite good.
Analyzing Fascism
“He disagrees with Trotsky’s analysis of Fascism saying that “his insight into the dynamics of fascism stopped with the seizure of power.”
On Fascism — The author notes Robert Paxton’s description of it as relying on “community decline, humiliation and victimhood with cults of unity, energy and purity, uneasy collaboration with traditional elites. (20)
He disagrees with Trotsky’s analysis of Fascism saying that “his insight into the dynamics of fascism stopped with the seizure of power”. Callinicos bases this on the fact that the Nazis purged some elements of the state apparatus, including some generals. Trotsky said that Fascism in power jettisons its petit bourgeois base and becomes an open dictatorship of big capital. On this key point Trotsky was right . He argued that the petit bourgeoisie could not become the ruling class in a modern capitalist state. This was proven correct. Trotsky called Fascism a form of Bonapartism — -i.e., the bourgeoisie did not rule directly politically but continued to gain economically. The Nazis ruled politically in the interests of the bourgeoisie. The close relationship of the Nazis to big business shows this. Callinicos instead refers to the relationship as a “conflictual partnership”. It is unsure why he wants to differentiate this from Bonapartism. (21)
Callinicos says Fascism is a form of Gramsci’s Passive Revolution which attempts to “defend the existing capitalist mode … by incorporating some of the pressures to socialize the productive forces.” (25) . The degree of state intervention and direction of the economy is one difference between classic Fascism and potential Fascism today in the era of neoliberalism.
He doesn’t see Trump as a Fascist but as an adventurer backed only by sections of capital (135) — -the lumpen bourgeoisie. He thinks that the goal of reshoring manufacturing to the U.S. clashes with the needs of multinational capital. Both Trump and Biden pushed this in their own way. This plan actually is in line with the need of the bourgeoisie to have a strong U.S. state. He sees correctly that January 6 showed a rupture between Trump and much of big capital (141). He makes the useful distinction of the “Gamers” vs the “Breakers”. The former use right wing sentiments and movements to get their way within the current system. The others (petit bourgeois with some big capital backing) want to break the system. (142) There is an authoritarian hardening of bourgeois democracies. This does not constitute going all the way to fascism. (143)
Ecology, Economy, Geopolitical Antagonism
“Callinicos sees China as capitalist and imperialist …. Economics is not the only basis of imperialism but geopolitical intervention must be considered as well.”
On Nature — -Callinicos quotes Malm’s argument that fossil fuels replaced water power in England from the mid-1820s on even though water power was cheaper than steam because fossil fuels were more mobile. Capitalists could exploit the large potential proletariat in the cities with coal power. The fossil fuel stamp on capitalism continued from this point (34). A green transition even to keep temperatures below 2 degrees C over pre-industrial temperatures would cost 1.4 trillion in fixed capital.
“The divisions of the global capitalist class into competing firms and states impeded a rational and coordinated response in the case of the pandemic, just as it has done for decades to climate change” (47)
The major difference between the response of states to climate and health crises and a rational democratic response is the following:
“The treatment of populations as objects to be managed rather than citizens capable of autonomous initiatives especially collectively.” (56)
Acute poverty rose by 77 million people from 2019 to 2022 while 3 in 5 workers saw drops in real income. (58)
Economic Crisis — -Callinicos seems to have backed off from the earlier SWP position that there was no neoliberal boom and all has been downhill in the economy since the 60s. Financialization and the increase in the rate of exploitation, as well as the state taking on private debt is what pulled the economy out of the Great Recession. By the end of 2020 corporate world debt was 83 trillion, 98% of global GDP. (69) Neoliberalism is taking away power from the “democratic” state and turning it over to pro-market technocrats. (78) He asks the question of whether neoliberalism is at an end but does not answer it.
Geopolitical Antagonism — — USSR’s reliance on oil exports turned it into a “resource-exporting peripheral dependency” (89) 9/11 ended the unipolar moment. Callinicos sees China as capitalist and imperialist and criticizes Marxist economist Michael Roberts on this point. Economics is not the only basis of imperialism but geopolitical intervention must be considered as well. China wants to push the U.S. out of the Indo-Pacific region. (92–3) China’s economic success is based on a very high rate of exploitation. (97) Callinicos opposes U.S. military aid to Ukraine (110)
Revolt and Reaction
“He calls for no support to liberal politicians as this would only taint the left.”
Revolt and Reaction — There were 3 cycles of revolt since 1990–1) Zapatistas and other anti-neoliberal revolts in the Global South. 2) Arab Spring 3) 2019 and on (118). The Far Right lacks a distinctive economic program. (129). In part this is because of increased internationalization of the economy. It is harder for states to direct their economies than in the 1920s and 30s. Fascism then was based on already existing collapse of world trade (130). There has been stagnation of the wealth of the bottom 50% in the U.S. (132)
At the end, he calls for no support to liberal politicians as this would only taint the left. This is very important for all Marxists to keep in mind. Political independence of the working class has always been a cardinal Marxist principle. It is unfortunate that Callinicos doesn’t stick to this position when discussing the Squad! The other main weakness is his failure to explain the need for a revolutionary workers party.
With these criticisms in mind, this book is a useful contribution to a Marxist analysis of the current period and is well worth reading.
